Tomorrow's Debate Will Likely Decide the Election

[IMPress Polly]

Tomorrow's presidential debate will be the last remaining one that includes discussion of domestic policy. The last debate (next week) will center on foreign policy, which statistically Americans consider much less important to them this election cycle than domestic economic issues. Right now poll results show the presidential race neck-and-neck. In the view of these facts, tomorrow's debate will set the tone for the remaining three weeks of the election season. A perceived win for Obama will enable Obama and the Democrats to go on a renewed offensive. A perceived win for Romney will enable Romney and the Republicans to go on a renewed offensive. Either way the election will basically be decided by the outcome of tomorrow's presidential debate. If Romney is cast as the winner, progressives should begin mentally preparing themselves for a Mitt Romney presidency.

[Mister D]

If it's a draw we will have to wait but I agree with you that should this debate go stringly in favor of one candidate it may be wrapped up. Because of BO's defeat in debate #1 this is even more likely should Romney win.

[Cigar]

I think Fox News already declared Willard Won the Debate :)

[Larry Dickman]

Desperate last gasps from drowning progressives.

New flash, Polly- there will be no Barrack the Magic Negro :afro:showing up tomorrow. You and your leftist friends would be wise to already start planning life under Republican rule. Mitt Romney is way too skilled a politician to lose tomorrow's smack down. But, I can say for certain, that so long as OhBama is not quite as dismal a failure as he was the first time, the spin will be win by the MSM. Regardless, the people will know the truth.

[Cigar]

Desperate last gasps from drowning progressives.

New flash, Polly- there will be no Barrack the Magic Negro :afro:showing up tomorrow. You and your leftist friends would be wise to already start planning life under Republican rule. Mitt Romney is way too skilled a politician to lose tomorrow's smack down. But, I can say for certain, that so long as OhBama is not quite as dismal a failure as he was the first time, the spin will be win by the MSM. Regardless, the people will know the truth.

You won't see Democrats doing this ti get Vote. :)

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/121015-when-republicans-visit-soup-kitchens.jpg

Can someone show him how to wash dishes ... the dirty ones :)

[GrumpyDog]

Obama may have some faults, but not nearly as bad as Romney, the pathelogicial flip flopper.

Just cause Obama is a nice guy, does not mean he has to lose, especially since..

Obama, IS STILL A REALLY WELL BALANCED INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING!! In stark contrast to Romney the reprogramable android with the requisite index finger ready to do Grover Norquists bidding.

[coolwalker]

Don't forget the last one...the town hall meeting at Hofstra University, the seat of progressive learning. Unless Obama sleeps tomorrow, the media will declare him the winner.

[IMPress Polly]

Larry Dickman wrote:
New flash, Polly- there will be no Barrack the Magic Negro :afro:showing up tomorrow.

Nothing racist there. :rollseyes:


You and your leftist friends would be wise to already start planning life under Republican rule. Mitt Romney is way too skilled a politician to lose tomorrow's smack down. But, I can say for certain, that so long as OhBama is not quite as dismal a failure as he was the first time, the spin will be win by the MSM. Regardless, the people will know the truth.

You sure showed me Mr. Manly Man. Seriously, and you claim to be older and more mature than me. :rollseyes::rollseyes:

Oooo! "Smack down!" "Barrack the Magic Negro!" Name misspellings! Blaming the media in advance!* You sure are tough.

* Blaming the media is an excuse for losing.

[Cigar]

Nothing racist there. :rollseyes:



You sure showed me Mr. Manly Man. Seriously, and you claim to be older and more mature than me. :rollseyes::rollseyes:

Oooo! "Smack down!" "Barrack the Magic Negro!" Name misspellings! Blaming the media! You sure are tough.

He's just entertaining himself as only he can do. :jerk:

[patrickt]

I expect the media to announce President Obama has won the debate tomorrow night. They should announce it this afternoon. It is a format that should work for President Obama but I seriously doubt one debate will cancel the last four years and his campaign so far. But, I never discount the power of fraud and free phones.

[IMPress Polly]

Nobody knows who will win and who will lose at this point. There is no point in guessing. :rollseyes:

[Larry Dickman]

Nothing racist there. :rollseyes:



You sure showed me Mr. Manly Man. Seriously, and you claim to be older and more mature than me. :rollseyes::rollseyes:

Oooo! "Smack down!" "Barrack the Magic Negro!" Name misspellings! Blaming the media in advance!* You sure are tough.

* Blaming the media is an excuse for losing.

You're over thinking all this too much Polly 0. Also, not my fault you are ignorant on the origins of The Magic Negro.:afro:

I didn't expect my little post to register as some kind of misogyny rant.

[IMPress Polly]

I simply found it macho posturing. Maybe I just take things too seriously sometimes. But that part of your statement was racist was pretty indisputable.

[Larry Dickman]

I simply found it macho posturing. Maybe I just take things too seriously sometimes. But that part of your statement was racist was pretty indisputable.

If anything, I have allowed that your youth and background color why you resonate with socialism. It's not meant as a slam, but I suppose you might read it as "dumb kid". No offense, but anyone who sides with Marx over Thomas Jefferson is not thinking things through.

The Magic Negro origin is here- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

My comment is a caustic expression of knowing that the bloom is off the rose, and little Barry can't rely on Grecian columns or bullshit pontifications to save his sorry ass tomorrow night. The Magic Negro is dead.

[Cigar]

... and he's your President ... doesn't that just sting yea ... sport? :)

Don't Boo ... Vote :grin:

[Calypso Jones]

and then maybe not.

[Larry Dickman]

... and he's your President ... doesn't that just sting yea ... sport? :)

Don't Boo ... Vote :grin:


I have never recognized him as my president and never will. He's nothing more than a weak hurt little boy who lucked into the center stage at a time when more Americans were ignorant, stupid, or disconnected, than those who were paying attention.

And his time is up.

[Mainecoons]

If anything, I have allowed that your youth and background color why you resonate with socialism. It's not meant as a slam, but I suppose you might read it as "dumb kid". No offense, but anyone who sides with Marx over Thomas Jefferson is not thinking things through.

The Magic Negro origin is here- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

My comment is a caustic expression of knowing that the bloom is off the rose, and little Barry can't rely on Grecian columns or bullshit pontifications to save his sorry ass tomorrow night. The Magic Negro is dead.

Great quote there and from the patently leftist L.A. Times no less.


Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness
of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the
less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white
America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

[Calypso Jones]

.

The Magic Negro origin is here- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

.


Dems can read. It's their reading comprehension that is the problem.

[Cigar]

I have never recognized him as my president and never will. He's nothing more than a weak hurt little boy who lucked into the center stage at a time when more Americans were ignorant, stupid, or disconnected, than those who were paying attention.

And his time is up.


Don't worry ... your recognition has never been important .. nor will it ever.

Stick around for another 4 years, it's going to be fun feeding you crow and watching you like it.

What on earth are you going to do when the President following Obama is going to be a Woman or Hispanic Democrat?

[Cigar]

Dems can read. It's their reading comprehension that is the problem.

Can you read sign language? :)

[Larry Dickman]

Don't worry ... your recognition has never been important .. nor will it ever.

Stick around for another 4 years, it's going to be fun feeding you crow and watching you like it.

What on earth are you going to do when the President following Obama is going to be a Woman or Hispanic Democrat?

Number one, you are delusional if you really believe OhBama will win again. Truly.

Two, you are brain dead if you support the man.

Three, I don't give a fuck what color or gender the president is, but that filthy Democrat title is vile.

[Trinnity]

Obama may have some faults, but not nearly as bad as Romney, the pathelogicial flip flopper.
I don't get this. Obama has told quite a few lies and this massive coverup of what really happened in Benghazi and the outright lies that were presented by the admin, is a doozy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0

Watch the video. LISTEN.

[Trinnity]

... and he's your President ... doesn't that just sting yea ... sport? :)
Everyone knows your line up there ^ is meant to imply it stings cuz he's Black. But your racist comment has no bite.

Three and a half years under the Obama administration with a dem majority for the first 2 years and Harry Reid blocking any effort to redress Obama's agenda have left this country hurting.

Hurting for jobs~
Hurting small business~
Hurting from ever more regulations~
Hurting from a devalued dollar and inflation~

With a "friend" like Obama, who needs enemies?

[hanger4]

Nothing racist there. :rollseyes:


You would be correct Polly;

"Barack the Magic Negro" is a song by American political satirist Paul Shanklin who wrote and recorded it for the Rush Limbaugh Show as satire after it was first applied to presidential candidate Obama by movie and culture critic, David Ehrenstein, who is an African American, in a Los Angeles Times op ed column of March 19, 2007.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_the_Magic_Negro

[texmaster]

I think Fox News already declared Willard Won the Debate :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_A4g_kjpSWI/UHXekNmYJwI/AAAAAAAAG_U/QIZFR-z26rE/s1600/Obama+Comeback.jpg

[IMPress Polly]

Mainecoons wrote:
Great quote there and from the patently leftist L.A. Times no less.

Aside from the fact that the L.A. Times is an ordinary publication, not a "leftist" one (I can show you leftist ones in case you can't figure out the difference), the article itself has a distinctly racist curve to it. It's central argument is that Obama is really only aiming to appeal to white Americans and that any attempt to do so is obviously fake because he's black and therefore REALLY belongs to all the stereotypes and stigmas about 'how black men are'. (Yes I know the author is black. But he's arguing that there are such things as 'real blacks' and 'fake blacks' and that 'real blacks' are the ones who fit all of white people's stereotypes. In that way, his piece reflects an internalization of those stereotypes and stigmas; an acceptance of them as facts. It's kind of like how more jockish guys often refer to more intellectual men as "girlie men" or "fags", as opposed to being "real men" that fit neatly into a domineering cookie-cutter stereotype.)

[Mainecoons]

It was written by a black. :rofl:

Your definition of leftist is everyone else's definition of communist. Nice try though.

:grin:

[Mainecoons]

Interesting read on the debate here:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/towery-2012-presidential-debates/2012/10/16/id/460091

[Cedric]

Interesting read on the debate here:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/towery-2012-presidential-debates/2012/10/16/id/460091

That is an excellent analysis Mainecoons. Political junkies seem to break down into the policy wonk types and the psychological types [I admit to being that type myself] and the policy wonk types keep thinking that presidential debates are about content when on the whole they are about good or bad theater.

Assuming that this is going to be a standard townhall format then the two candidates are going to be free to roam around on stage and thus capable of executing a physical bobble. A physical miscue such as looking at one's watch or aggressively invading the personal space of your adversary is probably going to backfire on the candidate doing that. Similarly dangerous is allowing oneself to get discombobulated by a stunner of a question. You have to be a BS artist extraordinaire and roll so smoothly with the punches that even your own political handlers think that you weren't jolted to the core. The worse thing, however, is to get into an argument with that representative of Joe or Josephina Public asking the question.

In real political terms getting out of a townhall debate format with a political draw is a huge achievement, and it's bloody difficult to accomplish.

[Mainecoons]

I was right in my predictions about the VP debate and I'll make another one here. Obama will do much better in this format and he will be subtly aided by the leftist CNN "moderator" who will float a few soft balls over the plate for him to hit while subtly putting Romney on the spot just as happened to Ryan in the VP debate.

It reminds me of Charlie Brown and the football:

743

[IMPress Polly]

I'm not good at making debate predictions myself, so I don't try. I simply predict election outcomes and trends following major events. What I'm saying is that (minus the whole paranoid "media bias" allegations that seemingly all conservatives rely on as a crutch) I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

[Trinnity]

Interesting read on the debate here:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/towery-2012-presidential-debates/2012/10/16/id/460091Interesting.

Not sure where Obama's motivations are. Consider this:

If his real goal is Sec Gen of the UN, he can't afford four more years as POTUS, because it will cement his record as a failure. He's got a better shot at UNSG if he's gone now; he can still claim he'd was turning it all around but was denied his chance to finish the job. So the thing now is to look for the signs of his commitment to win - not Valerie Jarrett's commitment to win. She has much more skin in this game than him.

[garyo]

No doubt in my mind that the liberal "moderator" will control the outcome of this debate.

[IMPress Polly]

Mainecoons wrote:
It was written by a black. :rofl:

Your definition of leftist is everyone else's definition of communist. Nice try though.

Like I said in my initial response (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/7317-Tomorrow-s-Debate-Will-Likely-Decide-the-Election?p=160299&viewfull=1#post160299), I'm aware that the author is black. That's a non-argument though. It's kind of like suggesting that all women are feminists by virtue of being female. There is, in reality, such a thing as internalizing oppression. I'm sure you'll recall that that was precisely the whole basis of the prosecution's argument in the famous Brown V. Board of Education case. You know, the black girls preferring the white dolls to the black ones? That sort of thing happens all the time. I don't think the author of this article has such problems on the same level, but I do think that acceptance of stereotypes as to 'how black men are' represents a certain internalization of racial oppression.

As to my definition of left wing politics, my criteria is the extent to which one advocates for the privatization of life on the one hand (right wing) or for the collectivization of life on the other (left wing). For example, if one believes that the economy should be 55% owned the public sector and 45% by the private sector, that person is a net leftist. Conversely, if someone believes the economy should be 55% owned by the private sector and 45% by the public sector, said person is a net rightist. That's how I define these things. I think that's reasonable, personally. I used to be one of those ideologues who believed anything that wasn't totally communist (and even a specific type of communist) to be "right wing". I think I've become a lot more objective than that over the last year in particular. IMO you're the one who is still stuck in strict ideological thinking. You seem to define any perspective left of your own as left wing overall, even if it's actually just a centrist perspective.

[Mister D]

Like I said in my initial response (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/7317-Tomorrow-s-Debate-Will-Likely-Decide-the-Election?p=160299&viewfull=1#post160299), I'm aware that the author is black. That's a non-argument though. It's kind of like suggesting that all women are feminists by virtue of being female. There is, in reality, such a thing as internalizing oppression. I'm sure you'll recall that that was precisely the whole basis of the prosecution's argument in the famous Brown V. Board of Education case. You know, the black girls preferring the white dolls to the black ones? That sort of thing happens all the time. I don't think the author of this article has such problems on the same level, but I do think that acceptance of stereotypes as to 'how black men are' represents a certain internalization of racial oppression.

As to my definition of left wing politics, my criteria is the extent to which one advocates for the privatization of life on the one hand (right wing) or for the collectivization of life on the other (left wing). For example, if one believes that the economy should be 55% owned the public sector and 45% by the private sector, that person is a net leftist. Conversely, if someone believes the economy should be 55% owned by the private sector and 45% by the public sector, said person is a net rightist. That's how I define these things. I think that's reasonable, personally. I used to be one of those ideologues who believed anything that wasn't totally communist (and even a specific type of communist) to be "right wing". I think I've become a lot more objective than that over the last year in particular. IMO you're the one who is still stuck in strict ideological thinking. You seem to define any perspective left of your own as left wing overall, even if it's actually just a centrist perspective.

The prosecution's argument in Brown was a dishonest and emotional one that was given credit by an activist court that was intent on ending segregation by any means necessary. Kenneth Clark failed to mention that black students in Massachusetts also selected the white doll and by a greater margin than black students in the segregated south. According to Clark's own research integration actually made these supposed feelings of inferiorty worse rather than better.

[Mister D]

And let's also notice Polly's opinion that any black that believes anything other than what a white leftist thinks a black should believe is a victim of false consciousness or some psychological problem.

[IMPress Polly]

What evidence do you have for that claim? (The one on the Massachusetts case.)

Also: Are you proposing a return to racial segregation?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Also: Are you proposing a return to racial segregation?

No, that's what Odumba wants.

[Mister D]

What evidence do you have for that claim? (The one on the Massachusetts case.)

Also: Are you proposing a return to racial segregation?


I stated my opinion very clearly. No need to rewrite it.


Look it up. It's well known.

No need to. We are still segregated and the academic performance of blacks did not meet the expectations of progressives. Not by a long shot. Know why? Because it was a BS argument.

[IMPress Polly]

Grassy:

...I'm confused. What evidence do you see in that regard?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Grassy:

...I'm confused. What evidence do you see in that regard?

How do you not see the evidence?
Occupy Wall Street was a direct attempt by Odumba to get white people to show up to these rallies where drugs were being used so that we would all become drug-addicts and be enslaved to the black drug dealers. OWS wasn't as popular as Odumba wanted though, so it didn't work.
Now what? He's planting Lying Liberals at Romney/Ryan events as supporters with shirts that say "put the white back in The White House" on the backs to make us appear racist so the divide will become even bigger between whites and blacks?
I could go on and on, but I doubt you'll see it even once you read this.

[roadmaster]

I think most have already made up their mind who they will vote for. We can't keep letting Obama and staff devalue the dollar.

[Peter1469]

Like I said in my initial response (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/7317-Tomorrow-s-Debate-Will-Likely-Decide-the-Election?p=160299&viewfull=1#post160299), I'm aware that the author is black. That's a non-argument though. It's kind of like suggesting that all women are feminists by virtue of being female. There is, in reality, such a thing as internalizing oppression. I'm sure you'll recall that that was precisely the whole basis of the prosecution's argument in the famous Brown V. Board of Education case. You know, the black girls preferring the white dolls to the black ones? That sort of thing happens all the time. I don't think the author of this article has such problems on the same level, but I do think that acceptance of stereotypes as to 'how black men are' represents a certain internalization of racial oppression.

As to my definition of left wing politics, my criteria is the extent to which one advocates for the privatization of life on the one hand (right wing) or for the collectivization of life on the other (left wing). For example, if one believes that the economy should be 55% owned the public sector and 45% by the private sector, that person is a net leftist. Conversely, if someone believes the economy should be 55% owned by the private sector and 45% by the public sector, said person is a net rightist. That's how I define these things. I think that's reasonable, personally. I used to be one of those ideologues who believed anything that wasn't totally communist (and even a specific type of communist) to be "right wing". I think I've become a lot more objective than that over the last year in particular. IMO you're the one who is still stuck in strict ideological thinking. You seem to define any perspective left of your own as left wing overall, even if it's actually just a centrist perspective.


As to my definition of left wing politics, my criteria is the extent to which one advocates for the privatization of life on the one hand (right wing) or for the collectivization of life on the other (left wing).

Agreed. That is how I define it as well.

[Canadianeye]

How do you not see the evidence?
Occupy Wall Street was a direct attempt by Odumba to get white people to show up to these rallies where drugs were being used so that we would all become drug-addicts and be enslaved to the black drug dealers. OWS wasn't as popular as Odumba wanted though, so it didn't work.
Now what? He's planting Lying Liberals at Romney/Ryan events as supporters with shirts that say "put the white back in The White House" on the backs to make us appear racist so the divide will become even bigger between whites and blacks?
I could go on and on, but I doubt you'll see it even once you read this.

I think Obama was in the loop on it, but it was Stephen Lerner who crafted the OWS movment, and Lerner was/is a big union (SEIU) guy who had at least 4 visits to the Obama Whitehouse.