I read foreign publications constantly. But the real issue is whether it is wise to gauge the value of an article based on who we are "listening to" rather than on the content of an opinion based article. To be fair, if an article is purporting to reveal new "facts" then that author's reputation is important. But for opinion based pieces, such as this one, the observations speak for themselves.
Horrible basketball analogy. It's more like a team that blows out another team early in the game and the other team is trying anything they can to get back in the game in the second half. The problem is Romney is getting more votes now than before the debates. You tell me who really won the debates.
He did clearly win with independents when it came to votes. Obama won it came to style and debate points. According to Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling institution, a full 48% of the independents said they were less likely to vote Obama after the debate. 47% of independents said they were more likely to vote Romney. Independents also trusted Romney more with foreign policy. 18 to 29 year olds also said they are more likely to vote for Romney 50%-35%This is a D+6 poll. Full PPP poll
You do know that there are Christians who voted for Obama, right? You do know that GWB didn't run against Obama, right? And on the birther issue, I was curious because I had never heard about it. People are allowed to vote for more than one party.
I don't even know what debate points are and don't care to know. How in the world can people who are so biased towards one side or the other can even judge debate points is beyond simple reason. The way you tell who won a debate or a series of debates is how much the polls swing after the debates. That's what the debates are for. They for undecided voters to be able to size up each candidate side by side. They (the undecided voters) determine the winner. You liberals that are wanting to triumph some great Obama debate victory.....it's just no there. The polls show it's not there. Anything else is just your rose-colored glasses wanting it to be so.
At first I enjoyed the debates. Then I hated the debates. Then I was ambivalent about the debates. Then I changed my mind and my position entirely. I'm suffering from third stage Romnesia.
Your post shows the dishonesty of your previous post. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7257353&postcount=465 unless you claim to 'suffer' from the 3rd stage of a rocket. Sounds like you know Obama was referring to cancer and just choose to lie.
You lie. I have no idea what you're talking about and I have never made any other post regarding Romnesia...ever.
That is what I expected based on him being irrational and bending over backwards to spout Fox talking points. It is hilarious that he does not get that his username is not consistent with his politics.
Romney upped his standing, so in that regard he won the debate. However, I don't think Romeny will win the presidency because of the electoral college. Because of this, I think the money that was supposed to be diverted to GOP congressional candidates will stay with Romney (who still has a puncher's chance) and thus, the GOP might lose substantial seats or control all together (in which case, the Democrats have won).
Seriously . . . it is time this is pried from the hands of Republicans and Democrats I think some third or fourth parties need to be allowed to participate I think restricting them out of it is a disservice for the rest of America Rocket River
Irrational based on what? Talking about election news and sharing what is being said national is spouting Fox talking points? I don't even visit Foxnews.com Bob Marley would never vote Demo or Repug. Just saying. American gov't is different than music.
I hate these stupid debates for the following reasons: 1. Both candidates are smart guys who can adequately appreciate the complexity of economics, public policy and foreign policy, but the viewership is not smart, so the candidates have talk to a very low common denominator. 2. Related, style trumps substance because arguments are being evaluated by this comparatively dumb viewership. More emphasis is put on how candidates comport themselves and how they treat one another than the substance of the argument. Not that those things are completely unimportant, but they are given undue weight due to the nature of the debates. 3. When the substance is evaluated, it's compared to what this dumb viewership already believes to be true, so good arguments could be rejected if it defies the common wisdom, or partisan wisdom. 4. So what's left in substance is rife with misleading characterizations of information and logical fallacies. And candidates are actually rewarded for employing these sleights of hand. 5. Then, when the dust clears, the public discourse is not about whether Romney or Obama have a better idea for leading the country but about who 'won.' No one seems to care how the content of the debate affected their own thinking, only how it affected everybody else, especially the mythical beast, the 'undecided voter.' And partisan polling groups probably get more of a bounce for their lieges by simply declaring him the winner than anything that candidate could have himself done in the debate. These are not the Lincoln-Douglas debates. This is a debased reality tv show, beloved for maintaining the appearance of democracy while helping to ensure the permanency of the status quo in a two-party system that isn't even twice as good as the one-party systems we used to call totalitarian.
this is a get out the vote election. undecideds won't matter that much. what will matter is whose base is more fired up in the swing states. obama just got in romney's face, he was playing to his base. romney was just trying to hang on. romney looked like a vajayjay. not sure what you saw.
Repped. I watch the debates solely to see the kind of BS (presentation over substance) the viewers will eat up and later post on social media. There's a dark fascination with seeing how easily people are persuaded and fooled into thinking they have a choice between the corrupt Democrats and Republicans.
Are these the two best this country can offer? There gotta be someone else out there .... Sometime during election years, I'm wondering there has to be better qualify candidates out there to run this country.
A tie overall, but Romney made himself look electable and presidential, which he didn't appear to be pre-debate.
The coin is called corporatocracy while its two sides are democrat & republican. The mere fact people here celebrate either candidate is laughable. article RE corporatocracy: http://www.mybudget360.com/the-corp...e-class-to-a-perpetual-cycle-of-debt-serfdom/
