• 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.

Rasmussen: First National Poll After Debate

I liked your post, but I don't agree with your last sentence. I believe he's an actor who was created by the Democratic Party. Who can we nominate who'll get us into the White House? It's a pretty small field, after all. I think most politicians don't even want to run because they can't stand the scrutiny. Barack Obama was young enough and vanilla enough in what he'd done in his short stint in the legislature, that he could.

sadly, Obama is weakeing us in ways no other terrorist could.. and we see the foreign moiney again supporting him to deatroy the USA as we knew it.. why else is this money coming from overseas..this is a repeat to the money that came in to defeat McCain from overseas ad somehow its ll under 200 bucks and not traceable..Obama needs to go to jail.. he is a criminal..

we see this with Holder also.. Obama is the jihad..
 
Last edited:
If Obama blinks wrong Mitt will destroy him.. Mitt has more ammo on the fraud Obama, and Obama knows he is a fraud..Obama should be very scared

Okay, so in regards to that, I have two things to ask you. How will Mitt destroy him? And what makes the incumbent a "fraud"?
 
Okay, so in regards to that, I have two things to ask you. How will Mitt destroy him? And what makes the incumbent a "fraud"?

Mitt will destroy Obama becasue Obama is a dope.. period... a loser..

Obama is fraud period.. hes a loser jr senator that cant be any more vacant or radical...Obama is the definition a zero radical marxist loser scumbag.. a plague..
 
sadly, Obama is weakeing us in ways no other terrorist could.. and we see the foreign moiney again supporting him to deatroy the USA as we knew it.. why else is this money coming from overseas..this is a repeat to the money that came in to defeat McCain from overseas ad somehow its ll under 200 bucks and not traceable..Obama needs to go to jail.. he is a criminal..

we see this with Holder also.. Obama is the jihad..

Democracy itself will destroy democracy. We don't need a jihad. It's happening, and there's nothing that can stop it.
 
Mitt will destroy Obama becasue Obama is a dope.. period... a loser..

Obama is fraud period.. hes a loser jr senator that cant be any more vacant or radical...Obama is the definition a zero radical marxist loser scumbag.. a plague..

Sorry, but it's hard to take rhetoric like that seriously. Insults don't count as evidence.
 
Democracy itself will destroy democracy. We don't need a jihad. It's happening, and there's nothing that can stop it.

Obama is the jihad.. the virus in the machine.. Obama was created to destroy us.. evedr wonder how he came out of nowhere with no record but a record of radicalism... he was 'african american" so he could not be attacked or one would be called racists...
 
Sorry, but it's hard to take rhetoric like that seriously. Insults don't count as evidence.

may I ask your age? I see you like Super Mario..
 
:lamo
may I ask your age? I see you like Super Mario..
:lamo

You know, I changed my avatar before this post was made, but now I'm considering reverting back to Mario.

In any case, my age is hardly an issue here. If you don't already know based on my posts, then I see no reason for you to.

It doesn't change the fact that you've failed to answer my questions and defend your position. We've marked you down as a hack, but I see no reason for you to prove us right.
 
Obama's staffers changed election strategy during Denver debate | The Daily Caller

On the conference call convened by aides in Denver and Chicago even as the candidates were still on stage… In just minutes, they reversed a longstanding strategic decision,” without the president’s involvement, according to the Oct. 8 article.

images
 
sadly, Obama is weakeing us in ways no other terrorist could.. and we see the foreign moiney again supporting him to deatroy the USA as we knew it.. why else is this money coming from overseas..this is a repeat to the money that came in to defeat McCain from overseas ad somehow its ll under 200 bucks and not traceable..Obama needs to go to jail.. he is a criminal..

we see this with Holder also.. Obama is the jihad..

Based on what? Where is your evidence for these wild rants and mad ravings? What about the Saudi money supporting Romney? What about the DhuBhai money supporting Romney? Talk about terrorist. Those two nations pay for groups to kill the US soldiers.

Show us the proof of foreign money supporting the President.

John McCain Accuses Republicans of Using Foreign Money Against Obama

John McCain has indirectly accused his fellow Republicans of using Citizens United to get foreign money into their campaign to defeat President Obama

Here is the video from PBS Newshour:

Video shows him saying it. And McCain was the republican choice for presidential candidate in 2008
 



Daily Caller?

ROFLMAO!!

About Us

Founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran journalist, and Neil Patel, former chief policy advisor to Vice President Cheney, The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news. In just two short years, The Daily Caller readership has grown to more than 5.5 million unique visitors per month and draws more than 20 million monthly pageviews. Mobile apps for The Daily Caller are available for download for the iPhone, iPad and Android. These user-friendly apps provide readers with the full range of The Daily Caller’s website offerings on the go.

Seems a little hard up to spread some lies about the President, huh?
 
Based on what? Where is your evidence for these wild rants and mad ravings? What about the Saudi money supporting Romney? What about the DhuBhai money supporting Romney? Talk about terrorist. Those two nations pay for groups to kill the US soldiers.

Show us the proof of foreign money supporting the President.

John McCain Accuses Republicans of Using Foreign Money Against Obama



Video shows him saying it. And McCain was the republican choice for presidential candidate in 2008

Your about to be knee deep in scandal...

do you ****ing think that 180 million in new donations passes the smell test?.... and 100 million of that was small donations from UNKNOWN people... again 100 million dollars... Obama voters cant even find jobs...makes no sense
 
Daily Caller?

ROFLMAO!!



Seems a little hard up to spread some lies about the President, huh?

Barack Erkle Hussein Soetero Obama

ROTHFLMAO.......

he sucks..
 
Your about to be knee deep in scandal...

do you ****ing think that 180 million in new donations passes the smell test?.... and 100 million of that was small donations from UNKNOWN people... again 100 million dollars... Obama voters cant even find jobs...makes no sense

Seems rather infantile a statement. Especially, since the tea party states are the ones who take in the MOST social welfare dollars while the democratic governor states have the majority of workers.

Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Read more: Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

Seems your analogy is all wrong. The 47% belong to the red states. The in your face neener neener is that democrats BELIEVE in helping the American WAY before giving tax dollars to the rich or dispensing corporate welfare.
 
You are rarely if ever clear. Most of your arguments involve you carping at someone about something that you can't articulate and no one can understand, with you repeatedly insisting that everyone knows exactly what you're talking about. Hint: no one knows what you're talking about.

Yeah. And the only support you have for that is haymarket. :lamo
 
Uhhhhhh....they are 9th on the list......due to their "Predictive Accuracy" quotient.

Or, didn't you bother to understand the table...I mean, it wasn't as if they were listed alphabetically.

PS...you are excused, I have gotten used to your obvious errors.

:roll: Even taking that into account, there are several groups of ties, making it entirely incorrect to say they were the "9th most accurate."

There's a reason the pollsters are not NUMBERED on that table.

That "predictive" score was based on the MARGIN, not on the actual numbers. In other words, the pollsters which were supposedly ranked "higher" were ranked so not because they actually got the numbers right, but because they were closer to Obama's margin of victory.

So, with the final result being 45.7 to 52.9 (margin 7.2), take the top one on the list, Democracy Corps -- it gave a result of 44 (off by 1.7) to 51 (off by 1.9). Rasmussen's result was 46 (off by 0.3) to 52 (off by 0.9), which is more accurate to the result, but because its margin is 6 instead of 7 (vs. 7.2), the "predictive" score was higher. But Rasmussen was closer on the actual vote percentages.

The report simply does NOT claim Rasmussen was "9th" in accuracy That was the spin given by whomever wrote the Wikipedia article.

Take a moment every now and then to think, dude.
 
Back
Top Bottom