• 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.

So why did Obama lose

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
was it because he was so far behind after the last debate

or was it that most of the debate was on economics and domestic policies

or was it because even when Romney stumbled on Libya and was tripped up by a moderator who got the facts backwards, the record is so bad for Obama he cannot make it up
 
Again...I don't think Obama lost...I call a draw.

Props to Obama for showing up this time.
 
It was closer this time. Maybe a draw.

However, being from AZ, I didn't like Obama's false statement on AZ illegal immigration law. He came across that the police a stoping people they think may be in the US illegally. That is not true. The LEO has to have a legal reason to stop the person, then their has to be other reasonalble reasons to check a persons immigration status. So sick of mis represenation of the law.

I thought Romney did well while being pressed by Obama.
 
The most damaging thing was

1) what Obama promised

2) what he has not delivered

good night all
 
Abort! Stop the Republican Party From Growing, one baby at a time....Vote pro-choice. Vote DNC.

Anyone else see that?
 
was it because he was so far behind after the last debate

or was it that most of the debate was on economics and domestic policies

or was it because even when Romney stumbled on Libya and was tripped up by a moderator who got the facts backwards, the record is so bad for Obama he cannot make it up

Fox reported 46% of undecided voters thought Romney won, so I looked up the source they cited (Source), looks like it was written on October 4th and about the first debate. So I say, well maybe I was wrong, maybe I didn't find the source Fox cited. So giving Hannity the benefit of the doubt, I go to Fox's website and find this poll (Source #2).
 
Fox reported 46% of undecided voters thought Romney won, so I looked up the source they cited (Source), looks like it was written on October 4th and about the first debate. So I say, well maybe I was wrong, maybe I didn't find the source Fox cited. So giving Hannity the benefit of the doubt, I go to Fox's website and find this poll (Source #2).

Source #2 is not a link to Fox News.
 
I'd call it a draw. I was dissapointed that he spent most of his time defending and touting what he HAS done and not what he is going to do. However, Romney has spread so much misinformation about his own policy and Obama's record that Barrack had to clear the air.
 
Obama lost me w/ supporting a renewal of the "Assault Weapons" ban.
 
Obama lost me w/ supporting a renewal of the "Assault Weapons" ban.

as if you were voting for him anyway. I'm glad Obama will revisit "Assault Weapon" Ban for good.
 
He won't. The fish ain't big enough.
 
Obama lost me w/ supporting a renewal of the "Assault Weapons" ban.

It struck me, that when that question came up, Obama didn't have the faintest clue what he was talking about. Neither did whoever formed the question. Some lady asked about Obama having pledged to “Keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals”, and asked what Obama has done toward that purpose. Obama went on to talk about AK-47s and automatic weapons, and “assault weapons”, in a manner that made it painfully clear that he had no clue about what any of these terms were suppose to mean, or what the present legalities were concerning them.

Romney picked up in a manner that demonstrated that he had considerably more knowledge of the subject than Obama did, but he really wasn't interested in talking about gun control.

The highlight, for me, of the portion of the debate which I saw, was when Romney went on from there to discuss the terrible impact that the destruction of the family has had on society, the importance of a man and a woman being married before they have children, and how this failure leads to the sort of crime and violence that those on the left want to “solve” with such useless measures as gun control.

I expected to come on to this forum tonight, and find several threads condemning Romney for these remarks, for how “bigoted” and “narrow-minded” they show him to be; but he was absolutely right in making these remarks. The undermining and destruction of the family is almost certainly, in my mind, the single overwhelmingly biggest cause of nearly all of the social ills that we face in this time. It was refreshing to see Romney standing up for this important principle.
 
Last edited:
He didn't lose.
 
as if you were voting for him anyway. I'm glad Obama will revisit "Assault Weapon" Ban for good.

That made me a little uneasy, but I don't think Obama will do anything about assault weapons, no reason they should be banned.
 
It struck me, that when that question came up, Obama didn't have the faintest clue what he was talking about. Neither did whoever formed the question. Some lady asked about Obama having pledged to “Keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals”, and asked what Obama has done toward that purpose. Obama went on to talk about AK-47s and automatic weapons, and “assault weapons”, in a manner that made it painfully clear that he had no clue about what any of these terms were suppose to mean, or what the present legalities were concerning them.

Romney picked up in a manner that demonstrated that he had considerably more knowledge of the subject than Obama did, but he really wasn't interested in talking about gun control.

The highlight, for me, of the portion of the debate which I saw, was when Romney went on from there to discuss the terrible impact that the destruction of the family has had on society, the importance of a man and a woman being married before they have children, and how this failure leads to the sort of crime and violence that those on the left want to “solve” with such useless measures as gun control.

I expected to come on to this forum tonight, and find several threads condemning Romney for these remarks, for how “bigoted” and “narrow-minded” they show him to be; but he was absolutely right in making these remarks. The undermining and destruction of the family is almost certainly, in my mind, the single overwhelmingly biggest cause of nearly all of the social ills that we face in this time. It was refreshing to see Romney standing up for this important principle
.

I had a bunch of friends talk about how they were raised in a single parent household, and were now going to go on a killing spree, because that's what they were supposed to do now.

Oh, and if you really cared about improving families you'd be for SSM. I figured that's where you were getting at.
 
Oh, and if you really cared about improving families you'd be for SSM. I figured that's where you were getting at.

No, I most certainly would not. “Same sex marriage” is a direct attack on the family, and is just the latest manifestation of the very sickness that is responsible for the destruction of the family and the social ills that result therefrom.
 
Last edited:
No, I most certainly would not. “Same sex marriage” is a direct attack on the family, and is just the latest manifestation of the very sickness that is responsible for the destruction of the family and the social ills that result therefrom.

So these aren't families? This is the antithesis of a family? This is what is destroying the fabric of American society?

lgbt-parents.jpg


012c4arlington-wed07.jpg


gayneighborbrief_story1.jpg


family-services.jpg
 
No, I most certainly would not. “Same sex marriage” is a direct attack on the family, and is just the latest manifestation of the very sickness that is responsible for the destruction of the family and the social ills that result therefrom.

So basically "My marriage won't survive if a small fraction of people around me don't have the same kind of marriage I do?" What gives you the right to define what a family is and isn't? Or better yet what gives you the right to enforce your definition of family onto other people?
 
No, I most certainly would not. “Same sex marriage” is a direct attack on the family, and is just the latest manifestation of the very sickness that is responsible for the destruction of the family and the social ills that result therefrom.

But divorce is okay?

Divorce Rates By State: Which States Have The Highest?

The majority of the top ten states with the highest divorce rates tend to vote Republican.

SSM threatens the family far less than divorce does.
 
Back
Top Bottom