2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Not Obama's. It would be anyone running against him. Including most of the folks that were on the stage with him during the primaries.

You honestly believe Ron Paul would want to do that? Congratulations, you've just confirmed you are an in-the-system libstain. Your only way to refute it now is to put your money where your mouth is on November 6th.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Jack Welch wants vindication.

Yes! Anecdotal evidence from all the poor, unemployed people Jack Welch hangs out with definitely proves his point. The answer was inside him the whole time. It's just like the Wizard of Oz, if Dorothy had stayed in Kansas and starved to death.

 

[Rover]

Somebody said the excuse that His Patheticness "wasn't on his game" in the debate is simply not true. That was his game. This is a man whose intellectual fire power has been vastly overrated by MSM sycophants. There's a good argument to be made that he wasn't even the principal author of one of his multiple biographies. He's not stupid. Probably pretty smart. But this idea, swallowed completely by libstains, that he's the smartest, most gifted politician ever, is utter nonsense. And the irony of his debate flop is it's the libstains who are surprised and reacting so badly. Chrissie's implosion was epic. He may come out like a chipmunk on Jolt next time, but it's very difficult to recalibrate. He'll certainly be better in coming debates, in part because it's hard to imagine that he could be worse.

This makes little sense, as Obama's had plenty of better debates than this one. Simply put Obama has to hammer Mittens over going back to Bush era tax policies, which the numbskull isn't even trying to hide anymore, a BIG mistake IMHO. Start that "economic growth will pay for my tax cuts" crap and you can cue the fake Texas accent and dumb smirk. It might as well be 2001 all over again. The funny part is Mittens didn't have a stellar debate any more than Mondale did in 1984. He looked good by comparison to someone not bringing his A game, but in the end all the public needs is a reassuring performance and its back to square one.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Why do people always complain about candidates failing to give precise specifics about what they're going to "do" or "deliver" or "change" when they get into office. I've never understood this. Nothing good can come from it.

First, it just sets up a target for the opposition to obstruct. It promotes rigidity and forces individuals to reject compromise. If two years down the road circumstances have changed, or maybe the original idea isn't that great anymore, the office holder nevertheless feels compelled to try to deliver on the promise, and we get a crappy law out of it, just because it was promised to us.

It also promotes the unabashed bribery that makes up much of politics today. You elect me, I'll do this for you.

I don't want Romney to tell me his tax plan. The minute he does that, the democrats will figure out how to thwart it. What I want is the minute one of these guys is officially sworn in, sit down with those clowns in Congress and tell them they've got to figure out how we can get out of the mess we're in, and get it done.

I'm not complaining about it per se, just noting to our many liberal posters that they are exhibiting pot-and-kettle syndrome when they claim Romney is a certain way but their own candidate is even more that way. Candidates rarely get into the weeds of the fine details of their proposals during a debate, and I'm fine with that.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Apparently the Dems actually started hiding Biden way back in May. But they couldn't avoid trotting him out once for the debate Thursday.

http://gma.yahoo.com/wheres-joe-5-months-since-biden-natl-tv-184603772--abc-news-politics.html

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

This makes little sense, as Obama's had plenty of better debates than this one. Simply put Obama has to hammer Mittens over going back to Bush era tax policies, which the numbskull isn't even trying to hide anymore, a BIG mistake IMHO. Start that "economic growth will pay for my tax cuts" crap and you can cue the fake Texas accent and dumb smirk. It might as well be 2001 all over again. The funny part is Mittens didn't have a stellar debate any more than Mondale did in 1984. He looked good by comparison to someone not bringing his A game, but in the end all the public needs is a reassuring performance and its back to square one.

Good luck trying to hammer a candidate on something you yourself encouraged (2010 extension). No wonder he can't sell it. There aren't enough suckers to actually buy it when he's proved otherwise.

 

[Rover]

Good luck trying to hammer a candidate on something you yourself encouraged (2010 extension). No wonder he can't sell it. There aren't enough suckers to actually buy it when he's proved otherwise.

I must have missed where Mittens has blown this race wide open? Obama is openly running on a platform of bringing tax rates back to Clinton era levels for the wealthy. The Mittwit wants to cut those rates by 20%, as if the rich need even more tax breaks, because the last ones they got clearly didn't have the intended effect unless lining China's pockets was the goal (and I don't remember Dubya mentioning that). Tricke down economics is a complete, total, and abject failure. Obama's mistake wasn't in objecting to it, it was in not forefully bringing that up in the debate, a mistake I suspect he won't be making again while Mittens gets to explain why he needs another tax break to send more money offshore.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I must have missed where Mittens has blown this race wide open? Obama is openly running on a platform of bringing tax rates back to Clinton era levels for the wealthy. The Mittwit wants to cut those rates by 20%, as if the rich need even more tax breaks, because the last ones they got clearly didn't have the intended effect unless lining China's pockets was the goal (and I don't remember Dubya mentioning that). Tricke down economics is a complete, total, and abject failure. Obama's mistake wasn't in objecting to it, it was in not forefully bringing that up in the debate, a mistake I suspect he won't be making again while Mittens gets to explain why he needs another tax break to send more money offshore.

Doesn't matter if he brings it up now or not. The GOP has successfully labeled his economic plan "Trickle Down Government". And the mindless automatons that make up the electorate are more afraid of government than anything else.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

This makes little sense, as Obama's had plenty of better debates than this one. Simply put Obama has to hammer Mittens over going back to Bush era tax policies, which the numbskull isn't even trying to hide anymore, a BIG mistake IMHO. Start that "economic growth will pay for my tax cuts" crap and you can cue the fake Texas accent and dumb smirk. It might as well be 2001 all over again. The funny part is Mittens didn't have a stellar debate any more than Mondale did in 1984. He looked good by comparison to someone not bringing his A game, but in the end all the public needs is a reassuring performance and its back to square one.

Yeah, with the wind at his back and the MSM drunk on hopeychangium, against McCain, he looked pretty good. So what? Romney ain't McCain. One other teensy little difference: His Failureness is running on his "record," not on platitudinous codswallop. It's a little different. Obama, intellectually, is vastly over rated. Not stupid by any means, just over rated. For cripes sake he takes a teleprompter into schools to give the kiddies a little pep talk! That's pathetic and everybody (except for Chrissie) knows it.

"Fake Texas accent?" Seriously? I see you're still suffering the lingering effects of Bush Derangement Syndrome. BTW, as much as you and His Islamistness wish it were so, Bush isn't on the ballot this year. Sorry.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Good luck trying to hammer a candidate on something you yourself encouraged (2010 extension). No wonder he can't sell it. There aren't enough suckers to actually buy it when he's proved otherwise.

As that lying hag Cutter said: "Okay, so it's not 5 trillion dollars." It's really fascinating (regardless of where you stand) to learn that as the debate was in progress the Obama campaign did a 180 and changed their narrative to "Romney is a liar," and dropped "Romney is a monster who killed a guy's wife." Cutter, in case anyone has forgotten, is the one who claimed not to have called Romney a "felon" right up to the point an audio tape of her saying exactly that was produced. Oops. She's Barack's baby, all right.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

People ask for specifics when it takes 5 minutes to figure out that what the candidate is proposing is fantasy. There is no way he can cut taxes by 5 trillion and make up the difference cutting PBS, deductions, and loopholes.

Don't slurp when you drink your Kool-aid. One of His Oneness' top campaign people told CNN: "Okay, it's not 5 trillion dollars." Now she's admitted it's a lie. What's your excuse?

 

[Rover]

Don't slurp when you drink your Kool-aid. One of His Oneness' top campaign people told CNN: "Okay, it's not 5 trillion dollars." Now she's admitted it's a lie. What's your excuse?

So its 4.8T instead of 5T. This is what you're shooting your wad over? Ooookaaayyyy...

Moving on to the latest polling:

Latest Swing State Polls
Here are the latest polls from the battleground states:

Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (University of North Florida)

Nevada: Obama 47%, Romney 46% (SurveyUSA)

New Hampshire: Obama 48%, Romney 48% (Rasmussen)

Ohio: Obama 45%, Romney 44% (SurveyUSA)

Pennsylvania: Obama 51%, Romney 46% (Rasmussen)

Wisconsin: Obama 51%, Romney 49% (Rasmussen)


So, we've got two Republican pollsters and the U of North Florida which I've never seen before. These polls are taken in the aftermath of Mittens "game changing" win in the debate.....yet I don't see ANY lead for the Mittwit?!?! Correct me if I'm wrong, my knuckledragger friends, but from the rhetoric out here I would have thought Romney would be leaving Obama in the dust? What gives? If Republican pollsters surveying field right after the best days of Romney's campaign can't show him in the lead, when exactly does he start pulling ahead?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

"The Loyal Order of Muslim Raccoons" is how Lucienne.com characterized the terrorists in Benghazi. Couldn't be Al Qaeda, because His Ineptness says "they're on their heels." I'll quote again that line from "Judgement at Nuremberg," where prosecutor Richard Widmark says the problem in Nazi Germany "was all those Eskimos."

The administration says: "we were just giving the best information we had at the time." Assuming that's true (which I don't) does anyone remember any qualifications to their statements? Did Ambassador Rice say "we haven't got all the facts yet, but it appears that a demonstration against the video went terriblly wrong and got violent." My recollection is she, and Hillary, and His Islamistness stated as facts, without equivocation, things we now know to be categorically untrue.

And if they were reacting to the first, scattered bits of information, where did all of those specific claims about what went on come from anyway?

American diplomats are dead. And the man who has been endzone dancing about clipping Bin Laden to burnish his foreign policy cred now says "don't blame me." Well, who else? If he wants credit for taking out Bin Laden, logically he should take the blame here. This was a foreign policy failure. And it could be we're about to see, again, validation of the notion that the coverup is worse than the crime.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

All those polls are just left wing media propaganda. I learned that from Rush. He told me when Obama is winning its left wing bias. When Romney is winning its dead balls accurate.

I learn so much from his program.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

So its 4.8T instead of 5T. This is what you're shooting your wad over? Ooookaaayyyy...

Moving on to the latest polling:

Latest Swing State Polls
Here are the latest polls from the battleground states:

Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (University of North Florida)

Nevada: Obama 47%, Romney 46% (SurveyUSA)

New Hampshire: Obama 48%, Romney 48% (Rasmussen)

Ohio: Obama 45%, Romney 44% (SurveyUSA)

Pennsylvania: Obama 51%, Romney 46% (Rasmussen)

Wisconsin: Obama 51%, Romney 49% (Rasmussen)


So, we've got two Republican pollsters and the U of North Florida which I've never seen before. These polls are taken in the aftermath of Mittens "game changing" win in the debate.....yet I don't see ANY lead for the Mittwit?!?! Correct me if I'm wrong, my knuckledragger friends, but from the rhetoric out here I would have thought Romney would be leaving Obama in the dust? What gives? If Republican pollsters surveying field right after the best days of Romney's campaign can't show him in the lead, when exactly does he start pulling ahead?

You give the impression of Captain Smith on the bridge of the Titanic. You're right. It's in the bag. Don't worry. His Islamistness will do better in the next debates. Move along, nothing to see here. And there's no "there" there in Benghazi-gate.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

All those polls are just left wing media propaganda. I learned that from Rush. He told me when Obama is winning its left wing bias. When Romney is winning its dead balls accurate.

I learn so much from his program.

You want a Purple Heart or something for listening? Such a sacrifice.

 

[Rover]

"The Loyal Order of Muslim Raccoons" is how Lucienne.com characterized the terrorists in Benghazi. Couldn't be Al Qaeda, because His Ineptness says "they're on their heels." I'll quote again that line from "Judgement at Nuremberg," where prosecutor Richard Widmark says the problem in Nazi Germany "was all those Eskimos."

The administration says: "we were just giving the best information we had at the time." Assuming that's true (which I don't) does anyone remember any qualifications to their statements? Did Ambassador Rice say "we haven't got all the facts yet, but it appears that a demonstration against the video went terriblly wrong and got violent." My recollection is she, and Hillary, and His Islamistness stated as facts, without equivocation, things we now know to be categorically untrue.

And if they were reacting to the first, scattered bits of information, where did all of those specific claims about what went on come from anyway?

American diplomats are dead. And the man who has been endzone dancing about clipping Bin Laden to burnish his foreign policy cred now says "don't blame me." Well, who else? If he wants credit for taking out Bin Laden, logically he should take the blame here. This was a foreign policy failure. And it could be we're about to see, again, validation of the notion that the coverup is worse than the crime.

Once again Old PO'd your poor eyesight has caused you to chug a bottle of rubbing alcohol while applying moonshine to your liver spots. Yet another nonsensical paranoid rant. In the chaos of Benghazi combined with a 24/7 news cycle the admin put out what they knew plus what they speculated. While in hindsight they should have put the speculation aside its tough in today's media climate. When more facts came out, they put them out. More amusing is the idea that Williard Mitt Romney is some foreign policy savant who'll straighten out the Middle East by starting yet another war, this time in Syria. I'm sure the American people are dying for that to happen.

 

[Rover]

You give the impression of Captain Smith on the bridge of the Titanic. You're right. It's in the bag. Don't worry. His Islamistness will do better in the next debates. Move along, nothing to see here. And there's no "there" there in Benghazi-gate.

No worries here Opie. Just make sure you're around to face the music when Mittens gets squashed come election day. While you may not realize now that you and your ilk are dinosaurs heading for the same fate (extinction) I'm guessing it'll be clear even for you soon enough. If not, I'll be happy to remind you, often.

From the mother of the Navy Seal killed in the Libya attack:

The mother of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya told WHDH-TV that she thought Mitt Romney was using her son's death for political advantage.

Said Barbara Doherty: "I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama."

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Once again Old PO'd your poor eyesight has caused you to chug a bottle of rubbing alcohol while applying moonshine to your liver spots. Yet another nonsensical paranoid rant. In the chaos of Benghazi combined with a 24/7 news cycle the admin put out what they knew plus what they speculated. While in hindsight they should have put the speculation aside its tough in today's media climate. When more facts came out, they put them out. More amusing is the idea that Williard Mitt Romney is some foreign policy savant who'll straighten out the Middle East by starting yet another war, this time in Syria. I'm sure the American people are dying for that to happen.

Try to stick to one obsession at a time. If they didn't actually know what happened, where did all those details about a "spontaneous demonstration," ginned up against a non-existant movie come from? Let's review: first it was a "spontaneous demonstration" against a movie nobody had ever heard of, let alone seen. Then, it was a "spontanous demonstration" which terrorists used as a cover for their attack. Then, finally, reluctantly, it was a terrorist attack from beginning to end. Do you need a PhD to at least guess that an event on the anniversary of 9/11 might not be "spontaneous?" Despite "not knowing" what had happened, they offered quite a few details. The mob was taking Stevens "to the hospital." Yeah. It's not paranoid to call bull sh*t, bull sh*t. It's just common sense. "It's all the media's fault," that's why they got caught lying, repeatedly, for days.

If His Foreignpolicyfailedness wants credit for Bin Laden, he should take the blame here. Remember that sign Harry Truman had on his desk: "Don't trust anybody whose middle name is Hussein," or something.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I'm just glad Mitt is going to solve all my problems and the problems in the Middle East by cutting taxes and spending money.

I wish I'd have thought of that.