• 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.

How Romney Packed The Univision Forum

Somerville said:
You rather apparently didn't bother to read the paragraph that I quoted from the original post, a paragraph which made claims about the lack of numbers at ALL Romney events and that the Romney campaign is using smaller venues so as to make it look like there is a large crowd even when the numbers are dropping. Yes, the comparison at the beginning of the linked article is politically biased when it compares a open meeting with a closed one requiring a substantial donation to enter but that was not the point I tried to make in my earlier post.

wait are we talking the DNC event that Obama had to cancel from the outside venue due to lack of attendees?


Read your opponents' posts carefully and then maybe you won't be posting "stupid things" in the future.
Click to expand...



wait ar we talking the DNC event that Obama had to cancel from the outside venue due to lack of attendees?
 
Moderator's Warning:
I know people are impassioned this election season - however - let us discuss things in a civil matter that stay within Debate Politics rules and TOS. Thank you.
 
Rokkitsci said:
How I spend my time is my prerogative - I choose to not spend it with socialists. I don't intend to put in the effort required to change their minds and I know they have nothing to say that could possibly change mine. All that equals wasted time.

I suspect you would not spend time debating a KKKer, either. You might spend your time making fun of them for their stupidity, but not in vigorous debate in trying to change their minds. Nor would I = unless they indicated that they had some misgivings about their current stances.

Now, I am willing to debate a liberal as long as they stick to facts and logic. I just don't intend to waste any of my time with a dailyKos 'talking point of the day' unless the poster agrees to actually debate the logic of it.

Liberalism is a misnomer these days anyway. I am a true liberal, a progressive, in the real sense of the words. Today's liberals are too much like left wing radicals for my taste, but I will engage them if the want honest debate.

My conservatism stems from my faith in the constitution as written and commonly understood at the time of adoption. I am more than willing to change the constitution to 'keep up with the times' by employing the means it provides = the amendment process.

I am totally opposed to "interpreting" the basic tenets of the constitution to imply the opposite of what they meant or to 'find' things in there that just are not there.

Modern day 'liberals' and 'progressives' see the constitution as a barrier to what they want to do, and use the judiciary to rewrite it for their convenience.
Click to expand...

So the answer is two fold. No, I really don't want to debate with anybody that disagrees with me and yes, I believe the document written in 1792 answers every single question that could possibly arise and that we should all give it the meaning that white, wealthy, 18th century property owners - some of who including human beings in that property they owned.

Remarkably 'progressive' of you.
 
Okay, it was a little weird and pandery for Mitt to go defcon one at the spray tan booth for Univision, but I really think he's gone too far for his NAACP appearance.

blackface_mitt.jpg
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Moderator's Warning:
I know people are impassioned this election season - however - let us discuss things in a civil matter that stay within Debate Politics rules and TOS. Thank you.
Click to expand...


 
Wiggen said:
So the answer is two fold. No, I really don't want to debate with anybody that disagrees with me and yes, I believe the document written in 1792 answers every single question that could possibly arise and that we should all give it the meaning that white, wealthy, 18th century property owners - some of who including human beings in that property they owned.

Remarkably 'progressive' of you.
Click to expand...
You seem to have major reading comprehension problems.
 
Rokkitsci said:
According to Drudge, all those 18,000 in Wisconsin had to fit inside a 5,000 seat arena that was not completely filled.

But hey, DEMs don't care about the facts - they just like the sound of their rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Summerfest grounds( AKA Henry Maier Festival Park)is a 75 acre park... not an arena.

if you are talking about the amphitheater on the grounds of the park... it holds 23,000

Henry Maier Festival Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




beware of presenting FACTS that are NOT FACTUAL....
 
Thrilla said:
Summerfest grounds( AKA Henry Maier Festival Park)is a 75 acre park... not an arena.

if you are talking about the amphitheater on the grounds of the park... it holds 23,000

Henry Maier Festival Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




beware of presenting FACTS that are NOT FACTUAL....

****** below is the info I was referring to ***********

But the media are always eager to help--for example, putting 18,000 people inside a 5,000-seat arena at an Obama event in Milwaukee on Saturday.

The contradiction was first noted by battlegroundwatch.com. Local media, including the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, reported that Obama had addressed "supporters who filled the 5,000-seat BMO Harris Pavilion, along with thousands more who sat in bleachers and stood on the pavement beyond the protection of the roof, even as wind and rain lashed down in the latter moments of the near 30-minute speech."

The pavilion was not "filled"--a local reporter for Patch.com filmed empty seats in the bleachers at the side of the arena (see above). Nevertheless, the Journal-Sentinal played it safe, putting attendance at roughly 5,000-plus, a small but respectable turnout.

That's not how national media covered it. Darren Samuelsohn of Politico reported that the president addressed "a crowd the Obama campaign estimated at 18,000 in a city park overlooking Lake Michigan" in an attempt to "lock up" Wisconsin.

Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal--whose news section, according to UCLA professor Tim Groseclose, is the most liberal of any major mainstream outlet--repeated the campaign's 18,000 claim without even revealing the source of the official-sounding estimate.

Both outlets described the location of the rally as a "park," without revealing the name of the arena itself, which would have given the game away.

The images provided by news wires are predominantly close-up shots such as the one above, showing Obama surrounded by a small circle of supporters. Only Getty Images has a wider shot, similar to images at the left-wing message board Democratic Underground that show the inside of the arena. That's a full-ish arena, but nowhere near 18,000 people.

There seem to be no images at all of the 13,000 people who supposedly made up the difference outside the BMO Harris Pavilion.

(I'll be happy to correct this article if anyone can find any.)
Click to expand...

OK - This is from Breitbart, but it was linked from DRUDGE (I think)

Don't know if it is accurate or not - don't know the area at all or where the event was actually held.

If the story is inaccurate, I apologize.

peace
 
ok, now we have the name of the arena to go off of ( thanks)

according to their website... the arena ( BMO harris pavilion) seats 10,000.. with an additional standing room areas that holds 5,000

BMO Harris Pavilion | Summerfest 2013 | June 26 - June 30, July 2 - 7, 2013 in Milwaukee, WI

18,000 sounds like a bit too big of a number... but the article got it's facts wrong on the capacity.

if the pavilion was "fullish".. with folks standing in the standing area... i'd probably estimate it at 10k-12k.( the the wide a angle pics tell about the same tale)



regardless... it's a pretty good sized crowd for a campaign stop.


also, campaign have always bolstered their numbers... either though overestimating crowd size, busing people in, or whatever.

crowd size is pretty irrelevant, overall.... the one and only time I saw Reagan was in a crowd of less than 500....I saw Ron Paul in a crowd of over 5,000.. and we all know how they both ended up :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom