President Obama Re-Elected - Page 870

On October 17 2012 22:46 xDaunt wrote:
Romney is already perceived as a moderate, and before picking Ryan, he had real problems rallying the republican, conservative base to his cause. By picking Ryan, he locked that up, thereby allowing himself to focus on the swing voters. Additionally, Ryan appeals to swing and moderate voters far more than y'all are giving him credit for.

Let's be honest. I don't think any of you would have approved of Romney picking anyone who wasn't a democrat.

On October 17 2012 22:42 DarK[A] wrote:


Except unlike Palin, Ryan actually knows his stuff and can debate, and debate well.

On October 17 2012 22:46 xDaunt wrote:
Romney is already perceived as a moderate, and before picking Ryan, he had real problems rallying the republican, conservative base to his cause. By picking Ryan, he locked that up, thereby allowing himself to focus on the swing voters. Additionally, Ryan appeals to swing and moderate voters far more than y'all are giving him credit for.

Let's be honest. I don't think any of you would have approved of Romney picking anyone who wasn't a democrat.

On October 17 2012 23:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Not..really, as evidenced by the debate with Biden. He was at best mediocre and couldn't think on his feet at all.

On October 17 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote:

To be the devil's advocate though, Ryan has some knowledge that he doesn't master well. Palin had nothing.

On October 17 2012 23:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so Crowley somehow had the exact transcript that Obama had mentioned just seconds earlier, and Obama somehow knew she had it to say to her: "get the transcript". why else would he have referenced that speech, and then smirked when Romney challenge him and then said: "please proceed, Governor."

since Obama's the one who brought up that speech, we can only assume that he and Crowley must have had some kind of prior contact, in which he told her he would be referencing that speech. now, it's one thing to lie (and have a moderator lie for you), but it's a whole other thing to cheat in order to trap your debate opponent using a lie. unless she just happened to magically have the random speech that Obama referenced, and just happened to know that the words "act of terror" were in that speech, but didn't know that those words didn't actually refer to Benghazi (must not have read it). i mean, any reasonable person should know what happened.

i agree with Dick Morris on this debate though, big win for Romney.

On October 17 2012 23:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so Crowley somehow had the exact transcript that Obama had mentioned just seconds earlier, and Obama somehow knew she had it to say to her: "get the transcript". why else would he have referenced that speech, and then smirked when Romney challenge him and then said: "please proceed, Governor."

since Obama's the one who brought up that speech, we can only assume that he and Crowley must have had some kind of prior contact, in which he told her he would be referencing that speech. now, it's one thing to lie (and have a moderator lie for you), but it's a whole other thing to cheat in order to trap your debate opponent using a lie. unless she just happened to magically have the random speech that Obama referenced, and just happened to know that the words "act of terror" were in that speech, but didn't know that those words didn't actually refer to Benghazi (must not have read it). i mean, any reasonable person should know what happened.

i agree with Dick Morris on this debate though, big win for Romney.

On October 17 2012 23:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
so Crowley somehow had the exact transcript that Obama had mentioned just seconds earlier, and Obama somehow knew she had it to say to her: "get the transcript". why else would he have referenced that speech, and then smirked when Romney challenge him and then said: "please proceed, Governor."

since Obama's the one who brought up that speech, we can only assume that he and Crowley must have had some kind of prior contact, in which he told her he would be referencing that speech. now, it's one thing to lie (and have a moderator lie for you), but it's a whole other thing to cheat in order to trap your debate opponent using a lie. unless she just happened to magically have the random speech that Obama referenced, and just happened to know that the words "act of terror" were in that speech, but didn't know that those words didn't actually refer to Benghazi (must not have read it). i mean, any reasonable person should know what happened.

i agree with Dick Morris on this debate though, big win for Romney.

CROWLEY: Right. Well, I knew that the president has said act of terror, because this has kind of come up before, and also I heard him that day. And what Mitt Romney was going for, and I think where he tripped himself up was that he picked that one wrong fact. The president did call it or refer to it in some ways an act of terror, and so it felt as though - and the president kept looking at me going, you know, and I thought, well, I did know then, I said, you know, he did call it an act of terror. That's what caused the applause.

Source: http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/cnns-candy-crowley-on-moderating-second-presidential-debate/

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END

On October 18 2012 00:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:


No, any reasonable person applies Occam's razor and assumes that the moderator did her research and had a slight bias towards Obama that made her "correct" Romney, because this is the most likely possibility.

Edit2: The "get the transcript" wasn't asking the moderator to do that, it was asking the American public to do that...at least that was my impression.

The president did call it or refer to it in some ways an act of terror, and so it felt as though - and the president kept looking at me going, you know, and I thought, well, I did know then, I said, you know, he did call it an act of terror.

On October 18 2012 00:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:

did her research... and Obama knew that she would have done the research and have had that exact transcript in her hands, ready to be referenced at any moment? oh, and she didn't do enough research to know that he didn't refer to Benghazi as a terror attack, but was actually talking about 9/11 2001?

so this is the story:

she did enough research to know that in some random speech, Obama had said the words "act of terror" in proximity to referencing the Libyan attack. she didn't read the speech beforehand, but just highlighted the word "act of terror" and then put that transcript on the top of her papers, ready to be brought up whenever.

Obama, who brings this speech up, knows that Crowley has the transcript. i mean, he didn't say "get the transcript" as some kind of rhetorical response. he straight up pointed at Crowley and said: "get the transcript" as if he knew for a fact that she had it and not only that, but she did have it right then and there. only she didn't read it because she had to walk back her words.

obviously, Romney's campaign wouldn't run this, and I doubt many people want to believe that Obama cheated. personally, I'm not surprised in the least, and I have no doubt whatsoever that that is what happened. i'll try to find the transcript of her post-debate interview where she basically admits that Barack knew she had the transcript. now, I guess we could play the game of "smoking gun isn't IN my hands!" but i don't want to do that. Crowley and Obama had prior contact, the Libyan moment was a scripted attack, and it's funny because it's going to end up hurting Obama way more than Romney.

Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.

And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare. (Applause.)

So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America. (Applause.)

On October 18 2012 00:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:

did her research... and Obama knew that she would have done the research and have had that exact transcript in her hands, ready to be referenced at any moment? oh, and she didn't do enough research to know that he didn't refer to Benghazi as a terror attack, but was actually talking about 9/11 2001?

so this is the story:

she did enough research to know that in some random speech, Obama had said the words "act of terror" in proximity to referencing the Libyan attack. she didn't read the speech beforehand, but just highlighted the word "act of terror" and then put that transcript on the top of her papers, ready to be brought up whenever.

Obama, who brings this speech up, knows that Crowley has the transcript. i mean, he didn't say "get the transcript" as some kind of rhetorical response. he straight up pointed at Crowley and said: "get the transcript" as if he knew for a fact that she had it and not only that, but she did have it right then and there. only she didn't read it because she had to walk back her words.

obviously, Romney's campaign wouldn't run this, and I doubt many people want to believe that Obama cheated. personally, I'm not surprised in the least, and I have no doubt whatsoever that that is what happened. i'll try to find the transcript of her post-debate interview where she basically admits that Barack knew she had the transcript. now, I guess we could play the game of "smoking gun isn't IN my hands!" but i don't want to do that. Crowley and Obama had prior contact, the Libyan moment was a scripted attack, and it's funny because it's going to end up hurting Obama way more than Romney.


edit:


watch it again, he is CLEARLY talking to Crowley and not making a general "get the transcript" comment.


why was the President looking at her, expecting her to cut in? because he had prior knowledge that she would have the transcript.

On October 18 2012 00:25 zeru wrote:
Occams razor people, seriously. Theres no need at all to make up conspiracy theories about really insignificant topics.

On October 17 2012 23:58 xDaunt wrote:


Though I do think that Crowley is probably guilty of manipulating the debate topics and the flow of the debate to Obama's advantage, I don't think that she cheated on the Libya thing by having prior contact with Obama. Everyone knew the issue was coming. I would expect her to be prepared. I also would expect Obama to be prepared. I do wish Romney had directly said that Obama did play politics with the attack, but I don't think that it's going to matter in the long run.

On October 17 2012 23:35 Rassy wrote:
Debate again today, have to say am slowly loosing interest in it.
Didnt find the debates particulary interesting so far.
Obama will win annyway, it seems a done deal.
First to make president with 8% unemployment.
The Dow near ath, pushed by bernankes unlimited monneyprinting will help obama take the undecided voters.
meh

On October 18 2012 00:36 ZeaL. wrote:
While I won't disagree that Obama was definitely looking for an excuse to redirect focus to that video, you can't say that the Romney campaign hasn't been playing politics with this. From the way Republicans talk about it, the attack on Benghazi was the greatest blow to American foreign policy in forever and there was some elaborate plan by Obama to hide his monumental failure. When what I see is 4 Americans dying in a freshly rebelled country, forgive me if I think that you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when other acts of terror in the last 20 years have been so much worse. When Benghazi happened it was like Republican strategists jizzed in their pants over the fact they finally have something with which to paint Obama as soft on terrorism.