• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

So what are the reasons Romney lost?

I saw this as a clear Victory for Romney.

"We don't have to live like this!" - he picked apart the Obama economy, piece by piece, made it easy to understand, and then hammered it home.

"Trickle Down Government doesn't work."

I'm with Mitt.
 
tererun said:
yeah, he called it an act of terror. That is calling it a terrorist attack. Another losing point for mittens. Obama did call it an act of terror and did say we would get those responsible. unmlike mittens who seemed to want to glass libya, Obama kept a cool head and will find those responsible. This is why obama is a good president, and mitt is a loud mouthed pundit.

of course, his mistake was further exacerbated when he tried top cry about it despite being clearly corrected by both obama and the moderator. He just looked like a small child who would not give up his lie.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, Oh Partisan Champion. Sorry you don't believe direct quotes, but it's that's damned glasses you wear. As far as "glassing Libya," perhaps you didn't know, but Obama's not far off from that himself. Watch for the October Surprise.

Romney was correct. The Moderator was incorrect. Up until September 26th, the White House position was that the attack was due to the YouTube video.

Now. I posted my quotes showing that. Perhaps you can post yours. That's what thinking for ones' self does -- makes one look for the actual facts and not taking what a moderator says as golden just because it gives you that tingly feeling.
 
Regardless if Crowley thought she was right, she had no right to correct Romney. It wasn't her place to do so here.
 
azgreg said:
Regardless if Crowley thought she was right, she had no right to correct Romney. It wasn't her place to do so here.
Click to expand...

To the contrary: that's what a moderator ought to do. In every other civilized nation in the world, from Britain's Question Time to Canada's ministerial debates, the moderator actively corrals the candidates.
 
Einzige said:
To the contrary: that's what a moderator ought to do. In every other civilized nation in the world, from Britain's Question Time to Canada's ministerial debates, the moderator actively corrals the candidates.
Click to expand...

Not in this case. It was decided that her role was to control rebuttals and control time and nothing more.
 
azgreg said:
Not in this case. It was decided that her role was to control rebuttals and control time and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Which is dumb in the first place. When you leave the task of 'correcting' one candidate to another, you end up with candidates who talk over each other more than they talk to the audience. American election debates are Godawful. They wouldn't cut the muster in a prep school debate class.
 
anyone who says this particular debate had a clear winner... already had a clear winner in mind before the debate began.

it was a good showing by both candidates.
 
Einzige said:
Which is dumb in the first place. When you leave the task of 'correcting' one candidate to another, you end up with candidates who talk over each other more than they talk to the audience. American election debates are Godawful. They wouldn't cut the muster in a prep school debate class.
Click to expand...

What makes you think this should be anything like a prep school debate class?
 
Einzige said:
Which is dumb in the first place. When you leave the task of 'correcting' one candidate to another, you end up with candidates who talk over each other more than they talk to the audience. American election debates are Godawful. They wouldn't cut the muster in a prep school debate class.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I think I read somewhere that the debate commission liked the talking over and the vocal disagreement between the debaters.
 
Einzige said:
To the contrary: that's what a moderator ought to do. In every other civilized nation in the world, from Britain's Question Time to Canada's ministerial debates, the moderator actively corrals the candidates.
Click to expand...

she was wrong

when Obama mentioned a terrorist attack he was not referring to something he attributed to a spontaneous riot over a video. SO she was right about him mentioning it, she completely failed as to the content and context

she was a complete moron there
 
Thrilla said:
anyone who says this particular debate had a clear winner... already had a clear winner in mind before the debate began.

it was a good showing by both candidates.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.
 
Mycroft said:
What makes you think this should be anything like a prep school debate class?
Click to expand...

Because debates in a debate class setting are clear and concise by necessity. Even the best showings in American Presidential debates end up looking hilarious in comparison.
 
How does one tell another "we cant afford to take care of you?"

Of course progressives are too coward to com out and say that - hence out national debt..
 
TurtleDude said:
she was wrong

when Obama mentioned a terrorist attack he was not referring to something he attributed to a spontaneous riot over a video. SO she was right about him mentioning it, she completely failed as to the content and context

she was a complete moron there
Click to expand...

Did Obama use the phrase "terrorist attack" in his initial response?

Y/N
 
My impression was Obama did better but in the end it was a draw.

Obama did misrepresent AZ illegal immigration law when he spoke about Law Enforcement stopping people.

I think both Romney and Obama didn't answer many questions with a direct answer. They went off on tangents and presented talking points.
 
Einzige said:
Because debates in a debate class setting are clear and concise by necessity. Even the best showings in American Presidential debates end up looking hilarious in comparison.
Click to expand...

The goal of our Presidential debates is not to be clear or concise, but for the candidates to make their cases the best they can.

For clear and concise, you would probably be better served attempting your own research than relying on a debate.
 
tererun said:
yeah, he called it an act of terror. That is calling it a terrorist attack. Another losing point for mittens. Obama did call it an act of terror and did say we would get those responsible. unmlike mittens who seemed to want to glass libya, Obama kept a cool head and will find those responsible. This is why obama is a good president, and mitt is a loud mouthed pundit.

of course, his mistake was further exacerbated when he tried top cry about it despite being clearly corrected by both obama and the moderator. He just looked like a small child who would not give up his lie.
Click to expand...

sure..sure... except that Mitt was correct in his argument... anyone who has paid any attention knows the President attributed the attack to a response to the anti-Muslim movie, and did so for weeks.

after reading the transcript of his initial statement, i'm not convinced he called this specific attack an act of terror... that phrase only came out after speaking about the anniversary of 9/11 .. towards the end of his statement.
his words , pertaining specifically to this particular attack, were "The United States condemns, in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack."

anyways, Mitt had it right... the President was not being honest at all.
 
Mycroft said:
The goal of our Presidential debates is not to be clear or concise, but for the candidates to make their cases the best they can.

For clear and concise, you would probably be better served attempting your own research than relying on a debate.
Click to expand...

The "best case" a candidate can make is exactly correlative to making a "clear and concise" case.
 
Thrilla said:
towards the end of his statement.
his words , pertaining specifically to this particular attack, were "The United States condemns, in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack."
Click to expand...

This might be the most asinine thing I've ever read on a forum.

Imagine slipping a single word between 'shocking' and 'attack' - 'terror'.

Does it fundamentally change the gist of the statement? No.
Does it convey a more morally correct position? No.

This is the dumbest non-issue since Palin's Russian vista.
 
tererun said:
yeah, he called it an act of terror. That is calling it a terrorist attack. Another losing point for mittens. Obama did call it an act of terror and did say we would get those responsible. unmlike mittens who seemed to want to glass libya, Obama kept a cool head and will find those responsible. This is why obama is a good president, and mitt is a loud mouthed pundit.

of course, his mistake was further exacerbated when he tried top cry about it despite being clearly corrected by both obama and the moderator. He just looked like a small child who would not give up his lie.
Click to expand...

Order of words is important. To quote the immortal George Carlin: "You can prick your finger, but don't finger your prick".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom