Why Romney lost 2nd debate and will lose Election
 

Romney came out all black and blue from the 2nd debate. Clearly, he was overwhelmed by the facts Obama threw at him and his own stumble. It was fun to see his wife Ann displaying stone face while Mitt dag himself in every minute dipper whole. Romney/Ryan are so DONE :helpme

We weren't watching the same debate. What's with the new fake nickname anyway?

It was interesting

It's not over until November 6th.

Of course Romney will lose, he never had a chance in the first place... lol. Obama will win again, can't wait :thumbsup

If it was boxing I would say Obama won by a few points, simply by showing up this time. But there clearly was no knockout.

I also believe that the final debate is going to be a problem for Obama. He set the stage by playing footsie with the facts on what transpired in Libya. The other question that is sure to be asked is if Obama claims he is responsible for the lack of security,,why did he put Hillary Clinton out there earlier that day to be the fallguy.

congrats to the winners ...

Prep-school Mitt got his face pushed into the butter. Bout time. :thumbsup

http://www.bartcop.com/mitt-not-a-lie_n.jpg

Fuck yeah. :thumbsup

He didn't lose, He just didn't crush him again like a lot of people expected. Truth is Obama has done a horrible job and it is time to replace him. The only people I can see voting for Obama are those on Welfare or people who have no idea what is going on.

The American people were proud to have elected a black president. And truly wanted him to succeed, He didn't and as much as you want him to 4 more years will not help. It will only make things worse!

Obama is the lesser of two evils here, in my humble Canadian opinion. Then again, I'm not an asshole that hates poor people.

what about people who just don't believe that the majority of republican ideals are good for the country or personal freedom? not that the dems are much different but they are more liberal when it comes to personal freedoms.

I don't hate poor people, People who need help should get it. People who are able but would rather have a hand out are the problem in this country.

I believe Mitt Romney is better for the economy and I agree, Freedom is very important, neither of them are offering that...

That's a very good point.

The republicans would be much better served if they would stay away from abortion and religion. I strongly disagree with their stance on both of those issues.

But I also assume that Roe V Wade won't be overturned. And that organized religion has shot itself squarely in the foot with all the scandals.

So it does come down to fiscal and foreign policy for me.

+1

Nobody should be able to push their personal beliefs on others.

no, you're an asshole from canada with out much intelligence or future.

Yet that's what the Right has been trying to do every since they let the Religious Right hi-jack their party. Now the the Religious Reich as I like to call them, is starting to exit the center stage, they are now replaced by the biggit filled Tea Party.

The other problem is the Republicans no longer even believe in fiscal responsibility as they are far more spend happy than the Democrats. I'd be all for the Republicans if they left Religion & social concerns out of politics and were for cutting spending "ACROSS" the board and not just for cutting spending on social programs while increasing it elsewhere.

The left isn't much better, Just have a look at Obama care.

How is that? Roe V Wade is still the law, after nearly 40 years. No one is forcing anyone to attend or donate to any church. Gays can marry in many states. So maybe the republicans are big on letting voters know they have moral intentions, but we all know that intentions aren't actions.

So long as the church remains a tax free entity we are ALL donating to the church... And the total dollar value of revenue lost on a national and state level is massive. The rest of your point is well taken.

Also, there is a chance no justices will retire this cycle but if one does, I'd much rather have an Obama appointee than a Romney appointee.

I doubt that it would be overturned but one great concern is the supreme court picks. That could make a big difference on a lot of things for a lot longer than four years.

For me, some of the republicans fiscal ideas have worked in the past but they favor military spending, corporate welfare and dangerous deregulation too much. If the US was more like Canada in terms of its banking regulation, perhaps the housing bubble never would of happened.

As for foreign policy, I don't think either party does a good job. Nothing much changed under Obama but what Bush did won't be easily forgotten. Pissing off other countries and flexing military muscle just isn't good strategy anymore.

I love it when people talk out of their ass about corporate welfare.

Enlighten us, Clicky. Go beyond your usual 2 or 3 sentence jabs that have no substance.

I don't think Americans have a huge problem with bailing out financial institutions, but we (those of us on the left) can't seem to grasp why the decision makers at these companies use bailout money to protect their salary and bonuses. Would it really be such a bad thing if the executives at Citi, BOA, Wells Fargo, etc... lost their homes as a consequence of their poor work performance?

That being said do you honestly think Romney will be a good representative of the U.S. on the world stage?

Do you think he has the demeanor or tact to handle situations correctly?

What is a biggit?

GM didn't have to fire their poor performing union members.

not sure what your point is. do you live in the fantasy land where you can force the "decision makers" to work for free or do you live in the fantasy land where the decision makers should have been fired and replaced by underlings to run the largest banks in the country?

"can't wait"???

You seem so giddy over it. lol

Reality Check: You don't have to "wait" You've been living through it for four years now. :1orglaugh

a biggit is what the world's least literate people attempt to paint the tea party as.

I think it's so we don't have to listen to all the campaign bull shit everyday and just let him get back to work. This will also allow Republicans to go back to focusing on what they do best, that's pretend it didn't happen.

Don't worry... It's nearly over now... just a few more countries to go, and Central Banks to install.

Aint it wonderful to waste soooo much money on the last year on Obamas taking time to run around the country saying vote for me.

http://i.imgur.com/K61C2.gif

I believe the term is "bigot" . Let's ask the smart people at yahoo.

You have it backwards. Republican George W Bush did a horrible Job, and Obama has spent the last 4 years cleaning up after him, kill Bin Laden (something Bush gave up on), Save the automobile industry, bring health care to millions, etc, and alot more all without the help of the Republicans.

I think he will be better than what we have today. He didn't make a fortune and hold on to it without the ability and experience to negotiate with powerful people around the world.

Ahh my bad.. all the years of typing out Bigg Tits on my blogs did me in, I made a spelling mistake. Obviously that one little mistake makes the argument null & void.

Instead of dealing with the facts you guys always have to try to divert attention from your "short" comings. Much like the Republicans are now whining that Romney lost the debate and it was the moderators fault. Instead of owning up on the fact they picked a guy that tells more lies than Pinocchio and changes his mind about as often as he changes his magic underwear.

Ohh boohoohoo.. :1orglaugh

Yes...it's total bullshit that we taxpayers get nailed for the bill for a sitting President to fly around on his private jet with full staff and full contingent of Secret Service agents.
That shit should come out of his campaign funds and not the U.S. Govt.

That was always curious. I can't imagine what it costs to have the beast shipped to every stop. These huge advance teams and just the cost of operating a Boeing 747 per hour. You are certainly correct. The incumbent should have to use campaign funds for campaigning.

It costs much less than the assassination of a President.

If you get elected President of the United States, you should have lifetime security protection provided to you (Presidents don't anymore, they limited the years on it) and while in office I don't want you going out the front door to pick up a newspaper without a cadre of Secret Service checking it first. Being President comes with perks, yes including an airplane and security detail. It is less than a drop in the bucket and the cost of having a sitting President killed is exponentially larger. That goes for any President... of any party... at any time.

We do not need an unelected Biden, Cheney, Gore or Ryan much more than we do not need to pay for a few dozen flights with security details. :2 cents:

Being cutthroat in business is waaaaay different than being diplomatic in foreign matters.

Its obvious he is not the best at thinking on his feet. I bet he'd gaff his way into a war without realizing it.

You've seen him in action - Romney's demeanor is awful when he is cornered. I see him pulling that same "my way or the highway" crap GWB did. It will definitely rub for leaders the wrong way.

Nobody said an incumbent President shouldn't have his Secret Service detail with him.

What I'm saying is WHY do the taxpayers have to pay for it when he's campaigning?
He raised a billion dollars to run for President...let the money for AirForce One, his staff, his Secret Service contingency, advance teams, etc. come from the campaign funds when he is on the campaign trail.

The same for any other candidate. Romney, for instance should have to pay for all of his own travel and security as well from his campaign funds.

The U.S. govt. shouldn't be footing the bill for that from the taxpayers pocket.

He's going to lose because he's the king of tools, and only an idiot couldn't see that by now.

I am fine with that as long as all candidates are required to have the same level of security. If you require the President to have X Millions of dollars in security expenses for Airforce1 etc, you'd have to require Romney to have the same expense. Otherwise you are making the incumbent spend more on administrative costs and giving an advantage to challengers. That's the quick fix....

The real solution is publicly funded elections and ZERO campaign contributions. Each candidate gets X amount of television time, Y amount of flight time and public venue time etc and campaigns can not start before a specific date. Doing that would fix the problems created by Citizens United, take care of the travel cost issues you raised and provide fair elections with a tiny fraction of the money now wasted on them. Imagine if both candidates had a 100 million dollar campaign budget publicly financed. All the billions of dollars they now collect would never go into the political system, would not corrupt candidates, and would end up utilized elsewhere actually doing some good instead.