ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Jupiter551]

Not trying to derail this convo but:

Is anyone else trying to watch the debate from Canada tonight and can point me in the direction of a good live stream? The Fox News stream I was hitching a ride on for the last debate appears to have been locked down!

bit late but http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/watch-the-presidential-debate-live-_n_1971154.html

PS, the hottie Latina who just asked a question :drool:

 

[sweetiebatman]

16.10.12 03:10 BST The moment Mittens campaign blew up in his face

He was made to look exactly what he is, an incompetent lying idiot when answering the feign policy question about Lybian terrorist attacks

If ANYONE thinks Uncle Mittens is presidential after that they need thier heads checking

He's on the ropes now, stuttering and stumbling his way through

 

[Jupiter551]

Lol Obama is destroying him in this debate :twocents-02cents:

 

[Jupiter551]

Joe Citizen: Governor Romney, what do you think about issues of gun control?
Romney: Great question Joe, because we need to get this economy going again! I've balanced my budget for years, I can balance the nation's! PS Fuck China!

Jane Lunchbox: Governor Romney, what's your stance on immigration reform?
Romney: I'm glad you asked that Jane. We need to get this economy going again, for four years this government has been making things worse! I've made Massachusetts the land of milk and honey and I'll do it everywhere! Also, fuck China.

Jake Voter: Governor Romney, under the last Republican administration we became involved in two ongoing conflicts. How will your foreign policy differ in respect to the Bush Administration's?
Romney: Thank you Jake, I really want the American people to know that an issue dear to my heart, is the economy and how much President Obama has failed to fix it. We'll get this economy moving again by insulting China and giving tax breaks to big businesses! I'm a rich businessman and I became rich by buying stuff cheap and selling stuff higher - I have experience in this!

 

[RogueWarrior]

Ok, there about 24 3/4 pages of this I have not read, and will not read. I said somewhere on the first two pages that I would eventually have to comment on this thread. While I'm sure you all have been waiting with bated breath, that time is now.

I really wish in my voting lifetime that a major party would put up a candidate that I could actually vote for rather than having to place a vote for the lesser of two evils or worse yet, voting against a candidate. That, my friends, is a sad state of affairs.

As my state will overwhelmingly vote Republican, Romney is a shoe-in to get the electoral votes here. That being the case, I am tempted to place my vote for the Libertarian candidate, which is where my political leanings are anyway, although he has 0.00% chance of winning.

The sad facts are that if Obama is re-elected he will drive the bus that pulls this country over the cliff. If Romney is elected, he will merely be a passenger. Hopefully he knows how to use the emergency brake.

Neither candidate is really palatable to me, but given the choice, I go with Romney. Not with confidence, but am scared shitless of what this country could look like after 4 more years of the Obama regime.

 

[sweetiebatman]

 

[AllisonWilder]

I'm terrified about what my future will look like if Romney actually wins this election. Planned Parenthood and women's right to choose what to do with their bodies will be completely destroyed. :?

eta: I also absolutely loved the condescending tone Romney took in regards to having babies out of wedlock. :roll:

 

[tubby556]

67% want to destroy the country even more. Very sad.

 

[Jupiter551]

67% want to destroy the country even more. Very sad.

No offense man, but that's a pretty unfair way to judge people's rights to vote for who they please. If Romney wasn't trying to push in as many ultra-conservative agendas like his anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-47% crap, his economic reform platform and supposed tax cuts (which, according to at least 6 studies don't add up) would probably walk it in.

Then, in four years I can guarantee he'll be the one up on the debate platform explaining why it wasn't feasible to grow the economy or reduce unemployment the way he promised in his election campaign. I can't believe people actually buy politicians election BS. They'll say anything to get elected and then do whatever they promised the industries and corporations who paid for their campaign.

 

[mynameisbob84]

So, wait... Romney polled better than Obama after that? What is wrong with you people? (by 'you people', I don't mean you personally, but your fellow Americans).
Does a presidential candidate accusing the current president of mining tragedy for political gain only to turn around and in the very next sentence, use that very same tragedy for political gain and cite false information whilst doing so not count as a giant, embarrassing gaffe any more??

 

[mynameisbob84]

Wait. Disregard that last post, I thought tubby was referring to 67% arguing that Romney "won" the debate

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, don't mind tubby. I think he's just one of those dudes who likes to come on here every once in a blue moon to post a smart-ass remark to get people all riled up...while he eats a big-ass tub of popcorn...lol.

 

[Mirra]

Maybe I was watching the wrong debate but I have a hard time believing any of the polls regarding who "won" the debate. A lot of people are hearing what they want to hear I think and not what's actually being said. It's like they went "Oh yeah... my candidate CLEARLY won the debate!" I fear a lot of people watch these and just get angry over everything the other candidate says regardless of WHAT was said whether truthful or not.

Neither candidate did a good job of answering direct questions with direct answers. Neither candidate did a good job of really explaining things. They both overwhelmingly spewed semi-relevant talking points from their standard campaign speech as questions were answered. I've been leaning towards the President and even he started annoying me with his answers. A few times, they would eventually came around and vaguely addressed the question. There were a couple moments where the two of them spoke to each other and I honestly feel like I learned more about the two men on those few minutes than the rest of the debate.

I'm starting to think the only positive from this election is going to be the fun had with social networking trends. (Lorraine? Yes, Lorraine. Okay. It's Lorraine? Yes, Lorraine. You don't seem to be in Governor Romney's binder full of women, Lorraine.)

Alright... so I've been leaning towards Obama so I'll admit I heard a lot of things from Romney that I was like "Pardon me, sir, but what the fuck are you talking about?" First of all, Romney pulled out the "apology tour" line again? Politifact rated that one as "Pants on Fire" way back on June 2nd. When you're caught in a blatant lie, you don't keep saying it. It just keeps hurting your credibility with anyone who is actually paying attention.

Secondly, the top 5% are going to keep paying 60% of the taxes... that's not going to change... but the middle class is going to get a tax cut. Maybe I'm missing something but if the top 5% are going to pay the same % of the taxes, that means the bottom 95% are going to keep paying the same % of the taxes as well. I'm guessing he aims to reduce the number of people who qualify for enough deductions to not pay federal income tax but are these people in the 47% really the source we need to look to for this? Most of these deductions have at least some logic to them even if I do agree that several can go. I just don't think it's going to be enough to do what Romney claims.

Oh... and those of us making less than $200,000 a year don't have to pay tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains? Or is it people making less than $200,000 a year ON their interest, dividends, and capital gains won't have to pay taxes on them? When I think about those three things, I think to myself "Sure, I will eventually profit from some of those... but is that really going to be effective tax relief for the average middle class family?"

Meh... I also need to find a place to re-watch part of it because of something else I may have noticed but I want to double check and am not having much luck finding a video of the section I need this morning. ><

 

[mynameisbob84]

Also, the "woman in a binder" thing is my new favourite meme and I have an uncontrollable to urge to conclude any and all future arguments with women with "get back in the binder, bitch" :-D

 

[Jupiter551]

I thought Lorraine was a pretty hot little thing tbh

I dunno, obviously I like Obama better but I STILL think he at least made an effort to answer questions directly - I felt like Romney would just waffle until he found a segue to talk about the economy.

 

[Bocefish]

CNN Poll: Obama wins overall, Romney wins many issues:
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The major post debate polls are showing most debate watchers think President Obama was
the winner — and a typical finding comes in the CNN post-debate poll of registered voters who actually watched the debate.

They were 33 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican — which means it’s weighted a bit to include about 8 percent more Republicans than the voting population as a whole.

Bottom line: by 46-39 percent, the CNN.com poll respondents called Obama the winner. But asked who did the debate make you more likely to vote for, the respondents were tied between Romney and Obama, 25-25 percent.

Still, Romney won in other key areas:
*On who would better handle the economy: 58 percent Romney; 40 percent Obama.
*On who would better handle health care: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
*On taxes: 51 percent Romney; 44 percent Obama
*On who is a stronger leader: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama


*On who is more likeable: 47 percent Obama: 41 percent Romney
*On who cares more about your life: 44 percent Obama; 40 percent Romney
*On who answered more directly: 45 percent Romney; 43 percent Obama

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/10 ... ny-issues/

 

[Bocefish]

Even CNN's Anderson Cooper says Crowley/Obama were wrong on Benghazi; Crowley also admits she was wrong. A moderator has no business saying who is right or who is wrong during a debate!

 

[Jupiter551]

CNN Poll: Obama wins overall, Romney wins many issues:
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Bottom line: by 46-39 percent, the CNN.com poll respondents called Obama the winner. But asked who did the debate make you more likely to vote for, the respondents were tied between Romney and Obama, 25-25 percent.

So in essence, the debate didn't convince anyone to switch their votes one way or the other.

Regarding the moderator interjecting about factchecking...whether it was her place or not, and whether she was in fact correct or not, I think there really needs to be some sort of evidence or fact-checking WHILE a debate is happening because how many times, in any of these debates (and I've watched the p/vp debates from 2008 and 2012 so far) does one or the other side say "you did this" or "you want to do that" and the other party says "that is NOT true!".

One way or the other, if there's no fact checking and no accountability for telling the truth it's just a he-said she-said popularity contest. And for such an important role, that is fucking ridiculous. Both sides continuously accuse the other of things they vehemently deny, so how is any potential voter to know who's telling the truth without combing through archives of senate sessions or lists of who voted on what bill etc?

 

[Nordling]

The reason Crowley did the ad hoc fact check, is because Romney was standing over her, attempting to intimidate. She felt the need to respond to him since he was demanding it...he got his wish.

We can parse all we want, Crowley was right...whether she later back tracked or not. The transcript of what the President said the next day is all over the place.

 

[JickyJuly]

Neither candidate did a good job of answering direct questions with direct answers. Neither candidate did a good job of really explaining things. They both overwhelmingly spewed semi-relevant talking points from their standard campaign speech as questions were answered. I've been leaning towards the President and even he started annoying me with his answers. A few times, they would eventually came around and vaguely addressed the question. There were a couple moments where the two of them spoke to each other and I honestly feel like I learned more about the two men on those few minutes than the rest of the debate.

They're both coming off as prissy, elitist weasels who only care about their own egos. I have personal disdain for Romney, but it's pretty clear at this point that they're both useless turds. How are these our candidates?! It's infuriating.

 

[BetsyBooty]

The reason Crowley did the ad hoc fact check, is because Romney was standing over her, attempting to intimidate. She felt the need to respond to him since he was demanding it...he got his wish.

We can parse all we want, Crowley was right...whether she later back tracked or not. The transcript of what the President said the next day is all over the place.

Obama's words:

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

Full transcript is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... taff-libya

I used to work as a magazine fact-checker. Camming is pleasanter.

 

[bob]

Neither candidate did a good job of answering direct questions with direct answers. Neither candidate did a good job of really explaining things. They both overwhelmingly spewed semi-relevant talking points from their standard campaign speech as questions were answered. I've been leaning towards the President and even he started annoying me with his answers. A few times, they would eventually came around and vaguely addressed the question. There were a couple moments where the two of them spoke to each other and I honestly feel like I learned more about the two men on those few minutes than the rest of the debate.

They're both coming off as prissy, elitist weasels who only care about their own egos. I have personal disdain for Romney, but it's pretty clear at this point that they're both useless turds. How are these our candidates?! It's infuriating.

I agree with you both....whatever debate there was last night was overshadowed by both guys having been shaped by the media's endless analysis of the first debate....they felt at times like nothing more than marionettes of the edutainment industry...some sort of bizarre reality tv show about political aspiration.

 

[Nordling]

Within the constraints of a debate, there's little time to get in depth about complex questions. Yes, they both gave lots of flowery, generalized answers...but there was a huge difference. Romney lied--in fact beat his last record from the first debate per fact check. Obama, at least, told few or no lies.

It's sad that more people don't do their own research, and instead utilize the debate, talking points from whatever media stream that tells them what they want to hear and generally are uninterested in things that will affect them the rest of their lives.

 

[Bocefish]

It's sad that more people don't do their own research, and instead utilize the debate, talking points from whatever media stream that tells them what they want to hear and generally are uninterested in things that will affect them the rest of their lives.

 

[Bocefish]

The reason Crowley did the ad hoc fact check, is because Romney was standing over her, attempting to intimidate. She felt the need to respond to him since he was demanding it...he got his wish.

We can parse all we want, Crowley was right...whether she later back tracked or not. The transcript of what the President said the next day is all over the place.

Obama's words:

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

Full transcript is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... taff-libya

I used to work as a magazine fact-checker. Camming is pleasanter.

Obama called the Benghazi attack a "Terrible Act," he said act(S) of terror in reference to previous or future acts and never called what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack until weeks later. Oddly enough, Obama has suddenly left out yelling at his campaign speeches that "Al-Queda is on it's heels" after this cover up of his failed policy has come to light. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... _its_heels

 

[AmberCutie]

To me, it looks like people are splitting hairs about exactly when Obama said certain exact words in that speech. It seems he was including the attack in his "acts of terror" line within the speech.

I'm not really sure why this particular thing is being picked apart so much, but when I read the transcript, that's what I took from it.

 

[Just Me]

Even CNN's Anderson Cooper says Crowley/Obama were wrong on Benghazi; Crowley also admits she was wrong. A moderator has no business saying who is right or who is wrong during a debate!

Again you are lacking in facts. A moderator is synonymous with a mediator. Merriam-Webster dictionary gives an example of a mediator:

if you two cannot resolve this argument on your own, we'll have to bring in a mediator

Crowley might have been the first moderator to actually be a moderator in that moment. Words have meanings, we should just call the people that are "moderators" at the debates presenters or time keepers or the "lets pretend we are actually having a debate person that is really not needed."

FactCheck.org is a non-partisan fact checking site and you can read their take on it here.. Substantially, Romney is correct that it was 14 days before our the government or white house officially labeled it as an act of terrorism. So what? I would hope our government like our judicial system waits for the facts before jumping to conclusions. Where is his proof that the government or white house was trying to cover something up?

Let's also remind everyone what Mitt Romney was doing the night of the attacks. a statement from Romney saying, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." Very presidential on his part, turning an attack on american's into a political attack. Which republicans condemned in the article and previous nominee's for president never tried to do when they had the opportunity. I do not see Romney labeling it as a terrorist attack in any of his statements that day.

Just another non-issue political attack that sounds good, since Romney has little if no foreign policy experience.

 

[Nordling]

To me, it looks like people are splitting hairs about exactly when Obama said certain exact words in that speech. It seems he was including the attack in his "acts of terror" line within the speech.

I'm not really sure why this particular thing is being picked apart so much, but when I read the transcript, that's what I took from it.

Yes, to me, even if it WAS based on the video, it was a terrorist attack. Whether or not the President, Secretary Clinton or Peewee Herman used the word "terror" in any form or not is not germane to what is obvious. If a group of disgruntled Fuller Brush salesmen broke into an embassy and murdered four people, they'd still be terrorists...even if someone referred to them as Milkmen.

 

[Just Me]

Remember Romney's 47% video? If anyone can't see or refuses to see this is all political rhetoric about a non-issue, when to call something a terrorist act. Then go ahead and vote for the man who hoped for an attack on US citizens to further his political career. Great leadership. :roll:

As you watch the video, notice the man (is that a British accent?) asking Romney how he can “duplicate” an Iran hostage type scenario. Instead of dismissing the question as going against American interests, Romney agrees that the strategy would be beneficial. The entire video is worth a listen but at the end, Romney says, “if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to take advantage of the opportunity.”

 

[Bocefish]

Another non-issue? Congressional hearings are always called for non-issues, Americans died due to this non-issue of Obama's failed policies. Obama didn't want to call it a terrorist attack because it would blow his BS claim that "Al-Queda is on it's heels."