Debate
Find a Conversation
Debate
| Wed, 10-03-2012 - 10:48pm |
I think Romney was way better tonight than Obama.
To confirm it, I switched on MSNBC after the debate. They are having an absolute panic attack over it, I thought Chris Mathews was about to cry.
Latest from the board
- The Real 'Re-Distribution' of Wealth 9
- Disgusting tweet from a Fox News Contributor 6
- "Mentally Ill" = Dangerous? 5
- Opinions on same sex marriage Supreme Court case? 4
- Can your elected representative win at Jeopardy? 1
- Government news manipulation 4
- Ask the White House Your Questions on Gun Control!
- Imminent threat to the 2nd amendment right now! 2
- Do You Think Hillary Will Run in 2016? 4
- Number of homeless Iraq, Afghan vets doubles 1
Memeber Support
Visit our Member Support area or browse the iVillage Help forum
| Q: | Where can I change my password? |
| A: | Log in, go to Edit My Preferences, and click the Account tab. Make and save your changes. |
I think it was the first chance for people to see him unfiltered. They got to see that he is not some big, bad business man that is trying to take away your (fill in the blank). They might now see that he is smart, not going to do bad things to them, and voting for him might not be such a bad idea.
I think he was able to wipe away months of propaganda from the other side, in one night.
I think Romney gave a good performance last night and said the right things. Obama certainly helped him by taking the high road not mentioning the 47%, Bain, etc.
I think that before people believe that he is "not going to do bad things to them" they will need to see more details and evaluations of those details from bipartisan experts.
Well, most of that stuff is democrat propaganda, which he was quite effective against last night. People got to hear it from him, not the propaganda machine, and they liked what they heard.
No. Defining unpalatable facts as propaganda does not, in any way, fit the definition of "propaganda":
prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/
Noun:
Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature [bolding mine], used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.
I am sure that conservatives were heartened to see their candidate perform (stress on that word, BTW) better than he has in the past, but as Songwright pointed out, there are still major flaws with his platform. Getting rid of public funding for PBS pretty much shows that he's fixated on the picayune, just for the sake of making a "statement". NOT presidential at all.
Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature
And there it is. The entire Obama campaign is based on misleading people.
And really, I'm sure you know that there is a bigger picture to what Romney is saying about cutting PBS, right? Or do I have to explain it?
And talk about being Presidential, Obama has lowered the office again with his "jerk around" comment. Just a little bit, this time. But please, we need someone in there that can at least behave like a President.
And really, could he act like he wants to be there? I mean, is it a little to much trouble for him to get in front of the American people and explain himself? I know he had to cut out a round of golf for this, but he has been able to play quite a lot of golf since he took office.
I agree that Romney appeared better in Wed night's debate. It's a good thing, though, that most viewers aren't stupid enough to believe the guy. He provided lots of goodies for the dems to add to their non-stop clips of "the real Romney" vs. "the fake Romney."
I don't believe he convinced any intelligent independents he should be pres, but he might have picked up a few clueless ones.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM