His wife....I totally would. and who is the other chick 
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Awesome.
Patrick and Castro were fantastic.
O' Malley was pretty good too.
Michelle is very different to Ann Romney. I don't know if that matters to anybody but the contrast between the two families is very striking. The Obamas seem natural, vivacious, and very relateable to ordinary people. I don't see the Romneys as anything like that. They seem like decent people but more like your grandparents than anything else.
Michelle is an extraordinarily skilled speaker.
I can see her having a political career if she wants it.
She's a woman with integrity, and US politics certainly needs more of those.
The Obamas come across as so much more genuine than the Romneys.
See the thing is eventhough they are extraordinarily successful now, they can still relate to the common hardworking people in the country who are trying to make it.
See the thing is eventhough they are extraordinarily successful now, they can still relate to the common hardworking people in the country who are trying to make it.
Yep...I think the Romney's are good, decent people but they just cannot compete with the Obamas It's really a striking contrast.
This is an incedible performance. A very powerful speech that has completely energized the room and is coming across just as well on TV.
What a great performance this is. Unbelievable. I'm fecking energized.
Absolutely brilliant. Not only did she nail the delivery and have the crowd roused she comes across as completely sincere in all she says.
Santos/McGarry 2020?
When she spoke of Student loans, parents sacrifice to get children educated. Heck everyone can connect to that.
And people can believe that the President is fighting for all the people who are struggling through the same things.
And people can believe that the President is fighting for all the people who are struggling through the same things.
FNC mostly moaning about the lack of mention of small businesses or entrepreneurs. It's a valid criticism.
Why are you watching FNC?
It's the best way to gauge how the right will react and you get a non-emotive evaluation of things. They make me laugh too....Hannity was barely able to contain his contempt for his guests tonight.
CNN's coverage is pretty good. The fact checkers have just been analyzing some of the claims and it wasn't pretty.
I find CNN to be shit.
CNN minus Piers Morgan is quite good. Once he starts, it becomes obvious he's being provocative to save his show despite low ratings.
As for the fact checks; multiple speakers mentioned the 4.5 million private sector jobs created. The FACT is we have also lost 5 million private sector jobs as well. So its a net loss of 500,000 private sector jobs. On top of that we have lost 800,000 public sector jobs. Michelle Obama mentioned the 4.5 million jobs createed were good well paid jobs. In fact the bulk of the private sector jobs created have been at the lower end of the salary scale.
So basically politicians lie no matter what is the color of their tie.
For me they would have been a lot better getting facts that can't be denied out there, like:
- we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama took over and we have just had 29 consecutive months of jobs growth.
So basically politicians lie no matter what is the color of their tie.
For me they would have been a lot better getting facts that can't be denied out there, like:
- we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama took over and we have just had 29 consecutive months of jobs growth.
But you would rather watch FNC...go figure
CNN's coverage was pretty balanced.
I don't need balanced coverage. I can work that out for myself. I enjoy seeing what the patisan hacks come up with to push their own agenda.
It's absolute lunacy to say there's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in the amount of lying.
mjs, that's a pretty pathetic bit of spin-doctoring yourself. 4.5million starts from January 2010, one year after he took office, and about as early as anyone being honest can credit to or blame Obama for, given the time the new budget and the stimulus needed to actually be implemented. Here's the graph for January 2008 through the present:
The nadir of that point is February 2010, when there were approximately 106.7M private sector jobs. The point prior when there was about 5M more than that was December 2008, before Obama took office.
More to the point, that graph makes it blatantly clear when the job losses were slowed and when the job creation began. You can credit the Administration's policies for those changes as much or as little as you like, but to try to pretend that there somehow hasn't been any gain as the Democrats are saying is either ignorance or deliberate falsehood on the part of anyone repeating it.
To equate it with the many many lies told by Paul Ryan (maybe the fact-checkers were tired because they just finished documenting all of his?) and Mitt Romney is simply absurd.
The nadir of that point is February 2010, when there were approximately 106.7M private sector jobs. The point prior when there was about 5M more than that was December 2008, before Obama took office.
More to the point, that graph makes it blatantly clear when the job losses were slowed and when the job creation began. You can credit the Administration's policies for those changes as much or as little as you like, but to try to pretend that there somehow hasn't been any gain as the Democrats are saying is either ignorance or deliberate falsehood on the part of anyone repeating it.
To equate it with the many many lies told by Paul Ryan (maybe the fact-checkers were tired because they just finished documenting all of his?) and Mitt Romney is simply absurd.
Saw this post elswhere about Julian Castro:
This man could be President some day. Think about it. President Castro.
"And I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of wingnuts cried out in horror and suddenly shat themselves."
btw Nate has Obama at 311
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
This man could be President some day. Think about it. President Castro.
"And I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of wingnuts cried out in horror and suddenly shat themselves."
btw Nate has Obama at 311
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
^Piers Morgan mentioned the President Castro thing too...and the brothers both joked, no way would they ever win Florida 
It was taken directly from politifact.
NPR run a segment several times a week called "Pants on Fire". They take the various adverts and things spouted by the parties and let politifact research them. Then they rate them: true; half true; pants on fire.
I have been listening to those segments all summer and there isn't a massive difference between the two parties. Neither get too many "true" scores, and I would say teh democrats get slightly less pants on fire but its very marginal.
There's always some bullshit about future presidents. It's usually wildly wrong, and the media simply in overdrive because they have nothing better to say. One keynote and everyone goes wild, disappear by the next one.
Hillary clinton, Bobby Jindal, Haley, Rubio, Castro, Huntsman.
Hillary clinton, Bobby Jindal, Haley, Rubio, Castro, Huntsman.
Just a small point, for your average American a job "at the lower end of the salary scale" is a good job.
Did Kucinich speak at all last night?
No thank feck.
He was knocked out in the primaries.
Couldn't find this anywhere but Matt Taibbi,of Rolling Stone and Goldman Sachs-bashing fame, brutally dismantles Romney:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
Bill is going to kill it tonight.
His ability to connect with low info and lower-middle class voters is untouchable.
His ability to connect with low info and lower-middle class voters is untouchable.
Why thank feck? He's the most principled and genuine candidate the dems have.
Thats a shame. Though he's far too left-leaning to be electable.
Not really sure what your point is there TBH. If someone loses a job on $50k and ends up taking another on $40k they still face a fair amount of hardship. My main point was although jobs have been created they have not even come close to the jobs lost in terms of numbers and quality of jobs.
Not necessarily blaming Obama; he inherited shit and the world economy is on the rocks. I just don't like the message they were sending out because it is inaccurate and there are better ways of campaigning, LIKE:
took office losing 500,000 jobs a month and the last 29 months we have seen jobless numbers declining.
That message highlights what he inherited and what he has achieved. Saying 4.5 million jobs have been created can be challenged and it really doesn't paint the whole picture.
when does a pol looking to get elected ever paint the full picture?
Obama would have a better chance of reelection with the correct message. The 4.5 million jobs created message was repeated by 5 different speakers last night and it was debunked within 30 minutes of the DNC finishing for the evening. So they wasted a lot of hot air only to look like liars or at the very least manipulative to anyone watching CNN, NBC, ABC and probably Fox.
- Status