I don't know the number, but it was a live poll of people watching the debate that were provided clickers.Greg Bernhardt said:How many people have voted?
Yes something I also support to some extent but I haven't heard that argument from Romney yet. He talked about bringing more economic freedom but completely ignored the question how he will lower deficits. He has been challenged on this for so many times during last and this debate but I don't recall he explained his conservative economic position. I believe he never brought the connection between "more economic freedom" and "lower deficits".russ_watters said:That's the basic conservative economic position: more economic freedom -> higher growth -> more tax revenue -> lower deficits.
Mentalist said:I did not like how either candidate answered the gun question. "Gang bangers", "we need two parents in the home," and, "education"? Are you serious?
Me: Assault weapons, shotguns, non-hunting rifles, all banned, banned, banned.
Mentalist said:Hunting rifles are not similar to AK-47 or AR15's. Hunting rifles aren't sniper rifles either and one can set plans to put those weapons on a banned list.
Dealing with gangs starts with dealing with their weapons, i.e. their assault rifles and shotguns.
Mentalist said:And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief.
mathwonk said:romney's fundamental problem is that most people do not agree with nor benefit from his philosophy, which favors the very wealthy, and this was made clear tonight. he is going down the tubes. he has an especially hard time defending why he himself pays only 14% income tax last year (what did you pay?) and he would have paid only 10% had he not been running for president, and still may do so if he loses. would you enjoy subsidizing his gifts to the mormon church?
No, that's misinformation being spread by biased media.CAC1001 said:Except that is precisely what he did. He sent out his own Ambassador onto five different Sunday talk shows to mislead that it was a random attack as opposed to an organized terrorism attack.
U.S. sources said Wednesday the four-hour assault in Benghazi had been planned, with the attackers using the protest as a diversion.
He said "it wasn't a mob action" he said "extremist militias" were suspected. That's saying it wasn't "protestors".We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama also said "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved
Nonsense, Evo. Rice did make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and talk about it being a "spontaneous" response to the protest. It actually happened. It is fact.Evo said:No, that's misinformation being spread by biased media.
1. Prove that "US sources" are from the White House. The fact that the statement contradicts direct administration statements implies to me that those sources were not from the White House or authorized by the White House. I can't prove that and don't assert it as fact, but you are claiming your speculation as fact.Here is what the WH sent to media on 9-12...
That was Sept 25, two weeks after the attack. In any case, one of the other things he was criticized for was in answering a direct question about "terrorism", he didn't use the word "terrorism".He said "it wasn't a mob action" he said "extremist militias" were suspected. That's saying it wasn't "protestors".
I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.russ_watters said:Nonsense, Evo. Rice did make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and talk about it being a "spontaneous" response to the protest. It actually happened. It is fact.
Obama Won Presidential Debate, 46 Percent Say in CNN Poll
President Barack Obama won last night’s presidential debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, according to a CNN/ORC International poll of 457 registered voters who watched the nationally televised event.
Forty-six percent of those surveyed said Obama fared better in the debate, compared with 39 percent for Romney, according to results aired on CNN after the event. The poll found 73 percent said Obama’s performance exceeded expectations, compared with 37 percent who said Romney did better than expected.
Poll: Obama edges Romney in second presidential debate
October 16, 2012 8:09 PM
In a CBS News Instant Poll of uncommitted voters, 37 percent say President Obama won the second presidential debate, 30 percent say Romney won, and 33 percent called it a tie.
Evo said:I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief."
Evo, you didn't quote Obama. At best, that is stating speculation as fact.Evo said:I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.
The first was a WH press release, the second was from Obama.russ_watters said:Evo, you didn't quote Obama.
No, I'm saying if someone on his staff made comments that appeared to contradict what the Presdient said, then post them. Stop twisiting my words.The second sententence is flipping: YOU are the one claiming a contradiction. You are the one saying he leaked statements that contradict what his representative made media rounds to say.
No, You are the one claiming Rice went around giving interviews that you claim contradict what the President said, so you need to provide those interviews. Please post all of the interviews, I haven't seen them so do not know what she was asked or said. There were riots popping up around embassies for a couple of weeks after Cairo & Libya. The only interview I saw, she was asked to comment on the movie and it's effects, creating protestors. Rice did not bring it up as a cause for the Libya attack.I am saying there is no evidence of such a intra-admin contradiction and you need to support your claim. My perception is that administration sources are typically labeled as such. That this one wasn't implies to me that it wasn't.
You posted this quote:Evo said:The first was a WH press release...
Your claim about it is doubly wrong:CNN said:U.S. sources said...
I'm not twisting your words, Evo, it honestly didn't occur to me that after multiple posts about this in two threads, plus discussion of it in the debate, you still wouldn't know what we're talking about. The first time I sourced this was three days ago, here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=643237&page=5&highlight=RiceNo, I'm saying if someone on his staff made comments that appeared to contradict what the Presdient said, then post them. Stop twisiting my words.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...-refute-administration-claims-on-libya-attackAmbassador Rice said:What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet," Rice said on "Fox News Sunday." "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States. ... What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”
MassGAP -
Moving Women Forward
The Massachusetts Government Appointments Project (MassGAP) was founded in 2002 as a bi-partisan coalition of women’s groups whose purpose is to increase the number of women appointed by the new governor to senior-level cabinet positions, agency heads and selected authorities and commissions in the Commonwealth. The Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (MWPC) is the Lead Sponsor of this coalition.
The nonpartisan Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus says in a statement that it instigated the process of bringing more women into state government before Romney took office — and that Romney fell off in appointing women to senior positions later in his term.
LOL. Please explain why it matters. :p Here is the update I mentioned that linked me to the news article I posted. Please explain how what I call it changes the content.russ_watters said:You posted this quote: Your claim about it is doubly wrong:
1. That's not a press release. That's a paraphrase of an unnamed source. A press release is a memo written on official letterhead and send to the media, either digitally or on paper. From the White House, they look like this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases
If I'm misunderstanding you and there's one in there on the subject, please show it to me.
UPDATE: U.S. officials have told The New York Times and CNN that the deadly consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, which killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, may have been planned in advance.
But U.S. sources said Wednesday the four-hour assault in Benghazi had been planned, with the attackers using the protest as a diversion.
That article doesn't have a transcript or video, so it's not worth addressing since we have no idea in which context anything was said and what the reporter asked that prompted replies. I want to see or read the actual interview. What Susan Rice says doesn't trump what the President said, and we DO have the transcript of what he said on the 12th.You responded to just about everything else in the post except the part that directly contradicted you. I'll post it again for you: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...-refute-administration-claims-on-libya-attack
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
If you had read mainstream news, you would have known on the 12th that the President said it was an act of terror.russ_watters said:In addition, there is the issue of the bad information the administration fed us for weeks after the incident regarding the nature of the incident and the continuing weaseling on that point. Characterizing the attack as growing out of a protest when no protest even existed was a pretty big - and pretty specific - miss, and the protracted struggle with pulling the truth out of the administration when media (first, Fox) had been reporting it for weeks looks like lying to us for political purposes (to suppress the idea that al Qaeda is still a significant threat despite Obama's efforts). And that is on Obama himself.
So I don't know who you are blaming here. Rice? Ok, I'll agree she may not have had accurate information, but she wasn't sent out by the WH with it.A spokesperson for Ambassador Rice told CBS News that she was given those speaking points by the intelligence community, not by the State Department.
Completely unreasonable request, but still, here's two, with the first one being the one quoted previously:That article doesn't have a transcript or video, so it's not worth addressing since we have no idea in which context anything was said and what the reporter asked that prompted replies. I want to see or read the actual interview.
TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We're hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They're saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What's the latest information?
RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
But as you've said in chat, Romney will destroy this country if elected, to paraphrase.Astronuc said:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ney-over-jobs-energy-024727253--election.html
http://news.yahoo.com/sidelines-debate-moderator-crowley-becomes-part-story-061946975.html
Republicans complain that CNN’s Candy Crowley sided with Obama during a key debate moment
"I don't complain about the refs," said campaign senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom. "I think Candy was dandy."
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-stumbles-latest-presidential-debate-015330844--election.html
I thought Romney sounded better prepared. Obama didn't seem ready to challenge Romney, particularly on energy or jobs. I listened from a distance because I was working on more important things.