Anyone here that thinks Obama won the debate?

[Nova78]

Anyone here that thinks Obama won the debate?

Yep, I do! See my thread on the Election Forums board: Obama Won!

Koolaid drinker !

 

[Clementine]

You know its bad when only 27% think that someone won the debate. In most debates it doesn't really matters what each candidate said, both Repubs and Dems think that their side won the debate, and usually whatever candidate the polls are leaning to is the "winner" of the debate. When only 27% (which I think the president had like 55% of support before the debate) thinks that you won, those are only the hardcore, blind supporters saying that (which there are on both sides). That just means the president really got his ass kicked.

There are many on the left who are saying he was great. I did some reading on the leftie sites, namely Huffpo and CNN. I read about the 5 reason he blew the debate, but they were all complimentary to Obama. Stupid excuses were made, like he was more interested in talking to the viewers than the people in the room. Or he was too busy with all his responsibilities (like apologizing to the ambassador's murderers) and didn't have time for this silly little debate. Now, I wonder, if Obama had won the debate by being animated and speaking up, would the left be upset that he didn't keep a low profile and talk to only the viewers? Would they have been concerned that he wasn't preoccupied with his current responsibilities. Hell, no!!!

If Obama had performed like Romney, both of Matthews legs would be tingling and the left would be slobbering all over themselves. And that would happen if Obama's performance had been the exact opposite of what it was. So, which is it, liberals? Were you proud of his skills last night or did you expect something different? If you prefer the gifted orator who stood in front of the Greek columns reading from the teleprompter (that the left wet themselves over), then quit making excuses for his dismal performance last night.

If Romney had mumbled and stared at the floor, the media, not to mention SNL, would have had a field day with it and would have gone into complete hysterics if anyone suggested altitude was responsible. Yet, they are claiming Obama may have been temporarily disabled because of that and they say it with a straight face!

Some will claim he won regardless of what he does. He was awful. He wasn't reasonable and calm like someone suggested, he went from babbling to complete lethargy. If the left really thought he did an acceptable job, they wouldn't be going out of their way to make so many excuses for him. He made a lot of work for his supporters because defending that performance just wasn't easy. Of course, his supporters have had lots of practice making a poor job look top notch. They've had the last 4 years to learn about spinning, deflection and outright lying to keep him elevated.

 

[courseofhistory]

If you compare a debate to a wrestling match, Romney won with his very aggressive and almost belligerent style and then topped off with lies, that really should have done him in. Obama was measured and calm which I guess most watching didn't like. Whose finger on the button would you like? Someone who is measured and calm or someone who jumps at every noise?

Also, if you LISTENED to the substance Obama won with more details and explanations. Someone shouting "that's absolutely not true" is not a good debater but as I said, people don't know the issues very well (and only know what the media says and maybe a few ads) AND therefore don't know how many times Romney lied.

So if you go by style only and you like manic style, Romney won.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obamination's tiny mind was too busy wondering what he could've done himself as a golf pro to prevent that US loss to Europe last weekend.

 

[Clementine]

.

Okay, this is pretty funny. Hilarious that Clint Eastwood had one of the most memorable speeches of any recent convention.

Funny!!!

Just a side note, did you know that the word "chair" has been added to the list of racist words? Not kidding.

 

[HUGGY]

You know its bad when only 27% think that someone won the debate. In most debates it doesn't really matters what each candidate said, both Repubs and Dems think that their side won the debate, and usually whatever candidate the polls are leaning to is the "winner" of the debate. When only 27% (which I think the president had like 55% of support before the debate) thinks that you won, those are only the hardcore, blind supporters saying that (which there are on both sides). That just means the president really got his ass kicked.

That was not a debate over facts. It was one guy telling the truth and a more entertaining one lying about everything and anything.

Before Obama goes on a stage with that serial liar he should change the basic rules of conduct and have himself and the opponent swear to tell the truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of liable and perjury with a Sgt at Arms standing by to take Mittens away in cuffs the second he opens his lying pie hole.

 

[Clementine]

If you compare a debate to a wrestling match, Romney won with his very aggressive and almost belligerent style and then topped off with lies, that really should have done him in. Obama was measured and calm which I guess most watching didn't like. Whose finger on the button would you like? Someone who is measured and calm or someone who jumps at every noise?

Also, if you LISTENED to the substance Obama won with more details and explanations. Someone shouting "that's absolutely not true" is not a good debater but as I said, people don't know the issues very well (and only know what the media says and maybe a few ads) AND therefore don't know how many times Romney lied.

So if you go by style only and you like manic style, Romney won.

"Measured and calm?" Now I have officially heard everything. Obama was unsure of himself and nervous. At times, he looked bored or maybe he was daydreaming about 2008 when he lit up the stage. Separated from reality is how I would describe him. And, no, I don't want him in charge of anything. His performance last night was exactly like his performance when it came to the ambassador's death. He could have prevented it. He didn't. He could have told the truth after the fact. He didn't. He could have stood firm against the radical terrorists. He didn't. Instead he blamed the wrong person and apologized to the guilty. And he doesn't have the decency now to come clean about the effort to deliberately mislead the public. And why didn't he do his job and attend security briefings and protect our citizens serving abroad? He was too busy campaigning and declaring himself as eye candy on The View. Sooooo presidential. Not.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey............con men and used car salesmen all have great presentations, matter of fact, they can convince you that their product or used car is the absolute best for you (even if everything they say is a lie).

Still doesn't change the fact that they've got a shitty product.

Mittens has a shitty product in his policies. No matter how he presents it, it's still a pile of crap.

 

[Amelia]

That was not a debate over facts. It was one guy telling the truth and a more entertaining one lying about everything and anything.

Before Obama goes on a stage with that serial liar he should change the basic rules of conduct and have himself and the opponent swear to tell the truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of liable and perjury with a Sgt at Arms standing by to take Mittens away in cuffs the second he opens his lying pie hole.

 

[logical4u]

You know its bad when only 27% think that someone won the debate. In most debates it doesn't really matters what each candidate said, both Repubs and Dems think that their side won the debate, and usually whatever candidate the polls are leaning to is the "winner" of the debate. When only 27% (which I think the president had like 55% of support before the debate) thinks that you won, those are only the hardcore, blind supporters saying that (which there are on both sides). That just means the president really got his ass kicked.

That was not a debate over facts. It was one guy telling the truth and a more entertaining one lying about everything and anything.

Before Obama goes on a stage with that serial liar he should change the basic rules of conduct and have himself and the opponent swear to tell the truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of liable and perjury with a Sgt at Arms standing by to take Mittens away in cuffs the second he opens his lying pie hole.

Amusing to see those that support a corrupt fraud in the White house, complaining that some one else is lying.....

 

[Sallow]

On facts, substance and veracity? He won.

On style and dominance? No..he lost.

 

[sakinago]

You know its bad when only 27% think that someone won the debate. In most debates it doesn't really matters what each candidate said, both Repubs and Dems think that their side won the debate, and usually whatever candidate the polls are leaning to is the "winner" of the debate. When only 27% (which I think the president had like 55% of support before the debate) thinks that you won, those are only the hardcore, blind supporters saying that (which there are on both sides). That just means the president really got his ass kicked.

The reality is Romney WON the debate based on presentation and articulation, BUT Romney LOST the debate based on facts and policies.

Obama neither won or lost, he was just a bystander more or less.

Uh Obama barely made coherent points. Listen to way he "answered" the first question (he didnt even answer the question, just skirted around it) and his closing statement. That sums it up for you. Anyone before the debate would have told you Obama is going to do just fine because of how articulate he is, and his previous experience as a lawyer...and aparentley he is also an excellent debater (which Hilary easily beat him in the primaries on content, and policies, Obama just made general statements which sounded more profound; so I am not sure why people think that he was a good debater). Obamas plan was to put Romney on the defensive and not let him get on offense. The reason why Obama was not articulate like he usually is, is because Romney was able to defend himself and still go on the offensive. The reason Obama lost is because he had no content to be articulate with.

He even kicked himself plenty of times, like his point about Obamacare and the cleveland clinic. After he talked about cleveland clinic, I was like why would you bring that up. Systems like cleveland clinic are made by American ingenuity...not government. I wouldn't call Obamacare socialized medicine like a lot of righties like to do, but it doesnt solve anything. There is nothing affordable about it. It tries to address the issues about people recieving free healthcare in the ER's...but look at what it does. It is going to penalize (by taxing) the people who cant afford insurance. Most people who can afford healthcare, have healthcare. Most of the people without it cant afford it, or are illegal immigrants, just go to any ER in a heavily populated illegal immigrant areal. These people are still going to receive healthcare on the hospitals dollar. A quick way to make healthcare more affordable is to have tort reform for the healthcare system. There are doctors, nurses, hospitals that do deserve to get their asses sued off for malpractice... but a lot dont. So many unnecessary expensive tests and treatments are ordered for the simple fact that doctors have to cover their assess. On top of that so many hospitals have very expensive policies in place again to cover their ass; take for instance doctors prescribing proton pump inhibitors (very expensive med for acid reflux) to almost every patient that gets admitted for no reason at all, not only is this a very expensive med but in a lot of cases it is harmful to the patients health (no stomach acid to kill bacteria, mainly VRE, an antibiotic resistant strain).

 

[JakeStarkey]

sakinago, go ahead and post your source. You did not do that all by your lonesome.

 

[ABikerSailor]

sakinago, go ahead and post your source. You did not do that all by your lonesome.

I'm thinking more that their name is Skank And Go.

 

[Billo_Really]

Every Democrat who isn't an absolute shithead concedes Romney won. Obama could have showed up drunk and spent his time talking about his fascination with the Vagina Monologues, and 27% would have still said Obama won the debate.

I don't think Obama won, but I don't think Romney won either.

Romney still couldn't say anything specific about what he would do if he was President. Nothing. If there was ever a time to get specific about his platform, that was it and he flopped. Why can't he get specific about what he is proposing to the country? Maybe because all he's got is bullshit.

Obama needs an attitude adjustment. I would've ripped Romney a new asshole if I was up there. I would not of let him get away with his standard generalizations and pet phrases. I would've said to him, "Hey, fuckface, cut the crap! What are you going to do specifically?" And, "Why do you think half the country is a bunch of losers?"

Obama should've had Hillary debate him.

 

[auditor0007]

the pathetic performance by Obama is a fitting end to his pathetic Presidency

I just really, really, really, want to hear someone try to explain how Obama really won the debate (I need a good laugh today). It was that bad of an ass-kicking that I dont see there is any way possible.

Depends, if facts and truth matter then Obama won it because everything that came out of Mittens' mouth was a lie.

Romney looked good and he looked like he was in command where Obama did not. Romney's problem is in the substance of what he said. He left the door wide open for the Obama campaign to use one statement after another against Romney, because as you said, he lied. The question is how far will the Obama campaign go in using this against Romney. The biggest thing I see is Romney's tax cuts and the $5 trillion cost. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't cut taxes by nearly 30% and not lose revenue without getting rid of a slewful of deductions and credits, most of which will affect the middle class and low income earners. What Romney wants to do is transfer a massive amount of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super wealthy. It truly is unbelievable. What is scary is that many in the middle class are buying into it.

 

[Stephanie]

Romney won with his very aggressive and almost belligerent style

awww, Romney was aggressive and belligerent to the Dear Leader....I go cry now

About time someone put him in his place, he's not used to that..here's for poor dear leader

Obama looked like the loser he is, dumb and clueless unless he has words written down for him and no one challenges him

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just like you, Stephanie.

Romney won with his very aggressive and almost belligerent style

awww, Romney was aggressive and belligerent to the Dear Leader....I go cry now

About time someone put him in his place, he's not used to that..here's for poor dear leader

Obama looked like the loser he is, dumb and clueless unless he has words written down for him and no one challenges him

 

[Stephanie]

Just like you, Stephanie.

Romney won with his very aggressive and almost belligerent style

awww, Romney was aggressive and belligerent to the Dear Leader....I go cry now

About time someone put him in his place, he's not used to that..here's for poor dear leader

Obama looked like the loser he is, dumb and clueless unless he has words written down for him and no one challenges him

you mean like you little jakie..now go play

 

[sakinago]

Every Democrat who isn't an absolute shithead concedes Romney won. Obama could have showed up drunk and spent his time talking about his fascination with the Vagina Monologues, and 27% would have still said Obama won the debate.

I don't think Obama won, but I don't think Romney won either.

Romney still couldn't say anything specific about what he would do if he was President. Nothing. If there was ever a time to get specific about his platform, that was it and he flopped. Why can't he get specific about what he is proposing to the country? Maybe because all he's got is bullshit.

Obama needs an attitude adjustment. I would've ripped Romney a new asshole if I was up there. I would not of let him get away with his standard generalizations and pet phrases. I would've said to him, "Hey, fuckface, cut the crap! What are you going to do specifically?" And, "Why do you think half the country is a bunch of losers?"

Obama should've had Hillary debate him.

See this is the only opposing view on the debate I can understand, that actually uses some sort logic. That being said, the "lets hear the specifics on your plan" tactic is a trap. Any politician knows that you never go into specific detail publicly, especially in timed situations like campaign speeches and debates. Its an absolute killer to go into the specifics in your plan, go on for 20 mins about your plan realize that your not even halfway through and you are putting the crowed asleep. This is why Herman Cain became so popular with his 9-9-9 plan, it was short simple and made sense. In the primaries and shortly after, Romney had a big problem with going into specifics too much about tax plans and etc. He did a good job at making a 5 point plan, with clear, easy to understand points. I think we can all agree that Obama did not even scratch the surface on Obamacare. Obama knew Romney had a problem in going into detail to much, tried to get Romney to bite, and Romney did not fall for it.

As for my source on my previous post, its not from any sort of article that I know of, its just from my 2 years experience in a hospital. You can ask around anyone who works at your standard hospital will tell you they use CYA procedure (cover your ass). Dont get me wrong, some good things have come out of all the lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, (e.g. there is no excuse for bedsores, you should be turning and propping the patient at least every 2 hours), and you could make an argument that the electronic documentation system was in some way influenced by CYA procedure. But... let me put it this way, If some lady can sue McDonald's over because she spilled hot coffee, you best believe that there are a lot of ridiculous lawsuits in the healthcare industry, an industry whose business is to try to save people who are already dying, or have a lot of complications. I cant tell you how many countless lab tests Ive done on patients that were not even ruling out MRSA, just playing it safe, that I could bet my house that they didnt even come close to having MRSA but we still charged them for at least three test and very expensive antibiotics while they are getting tested over a 5 day period. And as someone with a BS in microbio, working as a lab tech, I was just like why are we doing this...were knocking out their normal flora and giving them a chance to catch a different infection. Its because hospitals wont get sued or have to pay out of their pocket for that secondary infection if they were covering their ass, the patients will; but the hospital will have to pay for the treatment or possibly get sued if they did not catch MRSA quick enough.

The one thing I do kind of agree with Obamacare is making free preventative care out there. That being said, Obama should not get credit for that (he already has 1 noble prize he didnt earn), because it is something the healthcare industry has been griping about for a long time, and it is the next logical step in healthcare reform (offcourse right after tort reform which is clearly the first logical step).