A.Nonymous

Not when the argument has already been heard and debunked completely and thoroughly.

copestag

heard and debunked thoroughly by whom exactly? sorry but their job is not to rely on your opinion of the subject...... they have a responsibility to hear complaints....... and certainly there are enough people in the state rallied behind the complaint to consider it an issue not to overlook

my guess is theres some petition minimum or at least a standards threshold for a complaint in order to make sure they dont have to filter through millions of complaints

I personally could not care less...... not a birther.....but I nor you have any real evidence that suggests they should just be overlooked without consideration

and the court of public opinion....... which includes yours....... has nothing to do whatsoever with the elections board hearing arguments over blocking a candidate

millions of people in this country and many in your state believe your opinion to be completely wrong

why are you so scared of them hearing arguments? if what you say is true... and again... it may well be... then there should be no problem.... after they hear arguments then they will dismiss the complaints

if what they say is true (or for that matter even if it isnt) then you would want to deny them due process?

just ask yourself this 1 simple question..... and if you cant logically come to the conclusion that youre incorrect in this matter.... then theres little hope and good luck

if the elections board's job is not to make decisions about who is eligible, who is breaking campaign laws, hear arguments and investigate complaints about candidates, etc....... then is there any reason to have an elections board at all?

maybe we should just ask for a statewide show of hands and let some guy in an airplane take a rough count and announce a winner....... no need to have any real elections anymore so no need for election boards

OutofDate1980

There are times one has to use the functions of this site.

A.Nonymous

It's been debunked thoroughly. Anyone who doesn't think so hasn't spent time looking at the facts or has a political ax to grind. The facts are out there. The birth certificate has already been released. In fact, both birth certificates have been released. The elections board heard the same complaint last week and claimed they needed time to "consider it" (WTF???). Public backlash against the guy who lodged the complaint in the first place made him withdraw it. The one that is before them now is from a lawyer in California who is apparently going around to any state who will listen and most of them aren't since this argument is ridiculous. It's shameful that my state is.

copestag

Its shameful that you dont believe in due process..... right or wrong it deserves a chance to be heard

A.Nonymous

I don't believe in wasting resources on something that clearly has no validity. Why should we spend time exploring something that has already been falsified?

ElasticNinja

Yet it has been heard repeatedly, and dismissed. It has had its chance to be heard. Many, many chances.

__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!

OutofDate1980

It appears poor George Romney wouldn't vote for Mittens because he was on public assistance and a refuge from Mexico to boot.

Lenore Romney on George Romney's Campaign for Governor - YouTube

OutofDate1980

Maybe after this election the Republicans will throw the wack jobs in control under the bus.

This Presidential Race Should Never Have Been This Close | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

"... The mere fact that Mitt Romney is even within striking distance of winning this election is an incredible testament to two things: a) the rank incompetence of the Democratic Party, which would have this and every other election for the next half century sewn up if they were a little less money-hungry and tried just a little harder to represent their ostensible constituents, and b) the power of our propaganda machine, which has conditioned all of us to accept the idea that the American population, ideologically speaking, is naturally split down the middle, whereas the real fault lines are a lot closer to the 99-1 ratio the Occupy movement has been talking about since last year."

A.Nonymous

I'd love it if both parties would throw their wack jobs under the bus and actually put reasonable people in charge. I'd also like world peace and for no children to go to bed hungry.

OutofDate1980

I want a Unicorn

OutofDate1980

The Colbert Report uncovers the scandal that polls show Obama ahead.

"Skewed" Presidential Polls - The Colbert Report - 2012-27-09 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

OutofDate1980

Are the voters still going to play the fool ?

Mitt Romney's Real Agenda | Politics News | Rolling Stone

The last time a Republican presidential candidate touted an agenda to cut spending, lower taxes, boost defense and balance the budget was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Like Romney and Ryan, Reagan didn't have an actual plan for his spending cuts – they were an accounting fantasy, openly joked about as the "magic asterisk." In the end, as promised, Reagan's tax cuts went through, and the Pentagon's budget soared. But the spending cuts never materialized – so Reagan wound up tripling the debt.

If it didn't work for Reagan, says his former budget director, it would be foolish to assume Romney and Ryan can do better. "The Republican record on spending control is so abysmally bad," Stockman says, "that at this point they don't have a leg to stand on." Indeed, the last GOP administration turned $5 trillion in projected surplus into $5 trillion of new debt.

OutofDate1980

Kansas is infested with ALEX locusts.

ALEC Politicians - SourceWatch

A.Nonymous

Anyone watching the debate? It's up on Youtube. I love Obama implying that we're providing Med***** at cost.

A.Nonymous

All the political talk and NO ONE watched the debate? Both guys seemed very fake to me. That was my initial takeaway.

ylexot

I watched it. Still don't like either of them.

I tried to watch Gary Johnson's commentary, but YouTube must have been slammed. I'd get a few seconds and then the stream would stop. I restarted it for a few minutes, but eventually gave up. I'll watch it later (no time right now).

A.Nonymous

I tried to watch Gary Johnson as well just because I was told it was a guy sitting in a room screaming at a TV. I couldn't get it to load for me either.

RazorSharp

Hahaha, it really is just a guy talking to a TV. That's hilarious.

Anyway, I thought the debate was interesting. Lots of MSM pundits are declaring Romney the "winner" just because he wasn't a robot, which I find puzzling. He was definitely more lively than I expected, I'll happily give him that, but he was way off the facts, and his constant departures from his own stated plans was mystifying. Obama looked sleepy and he rambled more than he should have, especially towards the beginning, but I felt like he picked it up towards the middle and end as he realized that Romney wasn't going to be a pushover. I'm hearing lots of Obama apologists saying "oh it's a chess match, he was feeling Romney out," etc etc, but I think it was just that he wasn't expecting Romney to bring it like that - inaccurate or not.

Seriously though, how can Obama be expected to debate someone who completely reneges on his own stated policy plans? Romney repeatedly tried to insist that he doesn't favor large tax cuts for the wealthy (he does), that his healthcare plan would allow coverage for those with pre-existing conditions (it doesn't), and a host of other wildly inaccurate claims - including the $716 billion from Med***** debacle, which he tried to use several times. Is he not aware that those cuts don't take any coverage away from seniors? Is he aware that he uses those same cuts in his own plan? Again, mystifying.

I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that the moderator was awful.

__________________
These teeth are razor sharp...
ROM: JDX 13.3
Kernel: leanKernel v6.3.1

Last edited by RazorSharp; October 4th, 2012 at 10:44 AM.

A.Nonymous

Obama looked rattled at times and looked like he was taken off guard. I was impressed by how Romney actually came across though not impressed by what he actually said. He sounded Presidential. Obama did too at times bother times looked off.

Jim Lehrer was horrible. Both guys walked all over him.

ElasticNinja

All I heard is that Romney won, and Obama sounded tired or something.
I wonder how the next one will go though. It sounded as if Obama was too calm and conservative as usual, I wonder will he change his game.

OutofDate1980

The debates are a waste of time, unless one enjoys "hoodwinking", which sounds like what two consenting adults should practice in the privacy of their homes.

League of Women Voters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The League sponsored the Presidential debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984.[2] On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release condemning the demands of the major candidates' campaigns:[3]

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
—League President Nancy M. Neuman, LWV October 03, 1988"

ElasticNinja

In all fairness, I think if Mitt Romney had been figuratively beaten to a pulp by Obama in the debate, you wouldn't be saying that.

OutofDate1980

With the same substance as two men with body guards punching out an old man.

RazorSharp

I'm not sure about that. If anything, Obama handily beating Romney in a debate may have made it seem like even more of a pointless exercise since Obama was already ahead in the polls.

Romney needed the debates to try to make a dent in Obama's lead - I'm sure he knew that he had to come out swinging and going on the attack, which is just what he did. While I laud him for executing the strategy, the facts paid dearly, and while he may have "won" on "style" according to MSM pundits, the fact-checkers are tearing him apart:

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks : It's All Politics : NPR

PolitiFact | Romney says IPAB board can "tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive." - Mostly False

Romney Admits Pushing Misinformation In Debate | ThinkProgress

At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes | ThinkProgress

An Unhelpful Presidential Debate - NYTimes.com

Last edited by RazorSharp; October 4th, 2012 at 02:30 PM.

OutofDate1980

I think those missing tax returns showing Romney's illegal foreign bank accounts, which he received amnesty is more outrageous, but each his own.

"Mitt Romney turned in a polished performance in last night's presidential debate – and revealed himself to be an accomplished and unapologetic liar. In an evening where he sought to slice and dice the president with statistics, Romney baldly misrepresented his own policy prescriptions, made up numbers to fit his attacks and buried clear contrasts with the president under a heaping pile of horseshit.

Here are mendacious Mitt's five most outrageous statements:"
The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies | Politics News | Rolling Stone

A.Nonymous

Obama looked and sounded taken aback. There were times he looked frustrated and came off as if he was on the defense. Romney came off looking like he was in control. As expected, both guys lied their asses off. Romney is being called on the carpet for it though and Obama given a free pass. It's ridiculous.

ElasticNinja

In all fairness, Romney has spent months bullshitting while Obama has, in general, at worst told half-truths or exaggerated. Not quite ridiculous.

Speed Daemon

Every report of the President acting poorly comes with glowing praise of Romney. I saw the debate. The President didn't look or sound bad at all. No "looking away", watch-gazing or anything like that.

OTOH Romney's inability to control himself when it came to hogging time and always getting the last word was still creepy. Not as bad as in the primaries, but still pretty bad.

Romney probably won if only because the low information voters don't know that the chances of him keeping any of those promises are nil, based on past history.

I guess that's all that matters at this late date. Even I didn't care enough to parse the rhetoric that I've heard a thousand times before.

ElasticNinja

Well, of course Romney is full of shit too.

Look at his comments of Spain, about the US and Spain spending 42% of GDP on government. Yet who gets more services and which one has a lower budget deficit?

A.Nonymous

Romney didn't exactly "hog time". Obama got a full 5 mins or so more than he did. I watched the debate. The President was constantly looking down, pursing his lips, etc... A humorous look from a Taiwanese site I think - https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iNhUI8ktHuw#!

And yes, Obama launched his share of bald faced lies. He claimed Romney proposes a $5 trillion tax cut which isn't true. He claims that premiums have gone up slower in the last two years and it's because of Obamacare which isn't true. He claimed that he'd raise taxes only to the Clinton era levels which isn't true and he claimed his "$4 trillion" deficit reduction plan which isn't true either. But we're going to claim these are "half truths" though.

OutofDate1980

Romney Adviser Gives Up The Ghost On Pre-existing Conditions | TPMDC

After the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Colorado on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged that, as a result Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance.

The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back.

OutofDate1980

Next debate, give the moderator control over the microphones. When times up, mute the candidate.

RazorSharp

I've read several interesting pieces today about presidential candidate body language and what it conveys. However, I want to point out that all the instances of Obama looking down and seeming to convey deference or defeat was actually something else entirely - he was writing! You can see him very clearly taking notes as Romney speaks. I'm not sure how I'm the only one to notice this, but I definitely don't think this somehow puts him in a negative light.

Speed Daemon

Sorry but your ridiculing of the President's facial expressions doesn't equate to time. The truth is that Romney was constantly interrupting and demanding time that he didn't deserve. And the moderator did cave in and give it to him. I have the video as proof.

Since you brought it up, precisely what is so wrong with the President taking notes as Romney spoke? You did notice that was what the President was doing because you watched, right?

Considering how many contradictory claims that Romney has made, it's not fair to say that someone who tried to score a constantly changing story a liar. Although it's fair to say you have a difference of opinion about specific numbers (factcheck.org thinks that the money saved by Obama ending Gulf War II shouldn't go to Obama's credit), calling him a liar over it is less than honest. The concept of an estimate is well understood. Estimates are not lies.

To his credit the President made the effort to make estimates and cite real numbers instead of saying "elect me and then I'll tell you". If you prefer a mystery plan over a real plan with numbers that will only "firm up" when it actually happens, that's your choice.

Speed Daemon

Looks like it's two of us. And I have video from two separate networks to prove it. To all those who took cheap shots against the President: nice try, but we got ya!

OutofDate1980

Romney is following the 1980 strategy of Reagan, promise to cut spending, lower taxes, boost defense and balance the budget. What we got was a tripling of the debt, arms for hostages, and propping up dictators. US Federal Elections 2012

The fiscal responsible wing of the Republican Party was destroyed by the Nixon disaster and never recovered.

Last edited by OutofDate1980; October 4th, 2012 at 10:31 PM.

A.Nonymous

Once again, Obama got a full 5 mins or so more of speaking time than Romney did. So, if Romney was "hogging time" he sure did not do a good job of it since the President got significantly more time than he did.

Here's the example I saw on one site. I'm too tired to see if it was Factcheck or some place else. Let's say you borrow $50k a year every year for four years to go to college. Then you graduate. Can you really say you are saving $500k over the next ten years? Is that an honest statement? That is exactly what Obama is saying. The irony is that when Bush didn't include those numbers in order to make his budget estimates look smaller the Democrats called him on it. Bush's argument was that we didn't know if we'd still be at war then, if the war would be worse or better, etc... therefore such estimates would be inaccurate. Dems still called him on it claiming he was avoiding including them to make his deficits look smaller. Now they gladly claim them (even though they don't exist) in order to inflate their numbers. It's a complete lie and, again, it's one that both sides tell quite willingly when it suits their purpose.

I'd prefer neither of the above. Since both agree that we should go further into debt I'll pass on both and look for someone who's actually fiscally responsible.

RazorSharp

Incorrect.

Romney - 50:24
Obama - 31:06

copestag

wow ........ I cant even find those numbers on the most liberal of sites..... even they know how to tell time and every one of them say Obama had over 4 minutes more time speaking than Romney

but its your story.... tell it how you want....... stick to the liberal motto.... 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story'

A.Nonymous

Source? I've not seen that anywhere so I call shenanigans.

Gmash

I watched the debate and was shocked that the polls said Romney won by such a big margin. It seemed to me that Obama was content to give Romney the rope to continue hanging himself. Problem with that is, apparently most Americans are too dumb to notice that Romney seemingly changed all the positions he's been running on overnight. Most politicians are bad, but Romney takes flip flopping to a whole different level. He just appears to have no core values whatsoever. He's now trying to take back his 47% comments after just saying he stood behind them. This guy truly scares me because we honestly have no idea what he really believes in besides his twin obsessions of making money and the Cult of Mormonism.

__________________
"Machete don't text"

ylexot

Romney takes debate to Obama over economy, health care - CNN.com
Where did you get your numbers? Daily Kos? John Stewart?

ylexot

Here's the thing with debates (and politicians in general)...only ~7% of winning/losing comes from what they actually say. ~38% comes from how they say it and ~55% comes from their non-verbal communication (i.e. where they are looking while the other person is talking).

A.Nonymous

I googled those alleged times and came up with nothing. The numbers showing Obama speaking for nearly 5 mins longer are from CNN and a number of other places so I'm willing to rely on them in absence of anything else from a credible source.

ElasticNinja

I also thought Obama went on long monologues, did he not?

ylexot

Here's another source that says Obama got 4 more minutes:

OutofDate1980

It looks like Koch and Rowe have a heated contest to see which can cheat, lie, and steal the most.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/politics/nathan-sproul-a-republican-operative-long-trailed-by-voter-fraud-claims.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement said it was reviewing "numerous" claims involving a company that Mr. Sproul runs to determine if a criminal investigation is warranted. Complaints have surfaced in 10 Florida counties, among them allegations that registrations had similar signatures or false addresses, or were filed under the names of dead people. In other cases, party affiliations appeared to have been changed.

In recent days, similar claims against Mr. Sproul have arisen in Nevada and Colorado. Mr. Sproul, 40, a former executive director of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Republican Party in Arizona, is well known in political circles there. Since 2004, Mr. Sproul's companies - he has operated under several corporate names - have collected more than $17.6 million from Republican committees, candidates and the "super PAC" American Crossroads, mostly for voter registration operations, according to campaign finance records."

RazorSharp

My mistake, I got the times from an infographic, but clearly I should have done more research to corroborate!

copestag

no big deal.... you just failed to read what your numbers were actually representing

let me clarify them for you:

Romney - 50:24 (amount of time spent bitchslapping an idiot)
Obama - 31:06 (amount of time spent staring at shoes in shame)