• 101 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -


#2 Posted by SexyToad (2760 posts) -

We have a thread on this topic already.

#3 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@SexyToad said:

We have a thread on this topic already.

This isn't a discussion thread, it's a poll asking who won between the two.

#4 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7077 posts) -
@astrotriforce

@SexyToad said:

We have a thread on this topic already.

This isn't a discussion thread, it's a poll asking who won between the two.

Mods will more than likely say this is still a duplicate.
#5 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

this time we should just move it here and lock the other topic

also

if you voted for romney you are selectively hearing something fierce, romney fumbled on the most softballiest of softballs with Libya.

also binders full of women

#6 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

@Animasta said:

this time we should just move it here and lock the other topic

also

if you voted for romney you are selectively hearing something fierce, romney fumbled on the most softballiest of softballs with Libya.

also binders full of women

Don't worry, astrotriforce will be explaining how Romney won this debate soon. ;)

#7 Edited by TruthTellah (8781 posts) -

@astrotriforce: You should close this and add "Neither" to this. Having only two selections is a bad way to conduct a poll like this; it leads to more partisanship and less actually useful information.

Even better, divide it as: Obama won by a lot, Obama won by a little, Romney won by a lot, Romney won by a little, or Neither won.

#8 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@Animasta: Everyone knows Obama wasn't referring to a terrorist attack. See his UN speech. He said "acts of terror" like someone who mugs another person in the streets. Yes that's an act of terror. We all know Obama's lies and spin should be the focus, which is why they are focusing on this parsing of the word "terror".

@Guided_By_Tigers: It was a draw, but I'd give the edge to Romney myself. Here's how I put it. Obama gained his mojo back, but didn't blunt Romney's momentum.

#9 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@TruthTellah said:

@astrotriforce: You should close this and add "Neither" to this. Having only two selections is a bad way to conduct a poll like this; it leads to more partisanship and less actually useful information.

Even better, divide it as: Obama won by a lot, Obama won by a little, Romney won by a lot, Romney won by a little, or Neither won.

No because it's about who WON. If you thought it was a tie, then don't vote. It's about who won. If you put neither in, everyone will pick that and we won't know who "won".

#10 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

@astrotriforce: listen I admitted that mitt won the first debate and I am mad liberal (despite him winning by not saying anything and being super aggressive), how about you try being anything other than completely biased? Romney had the perfect opportunity to slam the prez on libya, hard, and he didn't. FACT.

#11 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@Animasta: Libya speaks for itself. I am biased dude. Just like you. Obama gained his mojo back. It was a tie. It was a Romney win in MY eyes, just like it was an Obama win in all liberal eyes. We'll see what Independents say about it.

All people throwing out jokes are not the people who will matter in this election.

#12 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

@astrotriforce: I will never understand the conservative mindset I swear

#13 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7077 posts) -
@Animasta

@astrotriforce: listen I admitted that mitt won the first debate and I am mad liberal (despite him winning by not saying anything and being super aggressive), how about you try being anything other than completely biased? Romney had the perfect opportunity to slam the prez on libya, hard, and he didn't. FACT.

Romney stuttered through that question until someone said "Whoops, we broke him. Let's just move on before this gets any uglier and he starts foaming at the mouth."
#14 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@Animasta: At least I've never used a curse word when referring to President Obama. I don't stoop that low.

#15 Edited by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre: You would too if they threw a gotcha at you. We all know what Romney was referring to and what Obama was referring too. His UN speech told either how much he is lying, or how incompetent Obama is.

#16 Posted by Th3_James (2576 posts) -

Obizzle fo shizzle.

#17 Posted by DharmaBum (1049 posts) -

Obama destroyed him, told him to sit the fuck down with the Benghazi reaction.

#18 Edited by TruthTellah (8781 posts) -

@astrotriforce: If "Neither" doesn't make you happy, as though there can never be any uncertainty at all, why not at least split them up into two different categories? Obama won by a lot, Obama won by a little, Romney won by a lot, and Romney won by a little.

You're going to get far more interesting information out that. Just look at your past polls like this. For most of the time after the first debate, the vast majority just said President Obama had won. Then things evened out over time. Yet, people were just answering the poll based on their partisan leanings, as they were given only two answers. Even if they thought President Obama hadn't done well, they still would have answered that he "won", because they agreed with him more. You're going to see that in this one, too.

The best you're going to get is some kind of indication of how many of each side showed up to vote in the poll, not any kind of indication of who really "won". If you want to get something out of this, you can split them by how -much- they won, and that would at least give some indication of how close or distant the debate was based on enthusiasm over their performances.

#19 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

@astrotriforce said:

@Animasta: At least I've never used a curse word when referring to President Obama. I don't stoop that low.

who gives a shit? Obama fucking sucks and Romney fucking sucks three times as hard. they're both terrible, but one (romney) would ruin the country while the other (obama) would not. The president is just some dude, if you are abstaining from cursing the president (or a president hopeful) and not abstaining from it in your daily life you are being extremely hypocritical

#20 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@astrotriforce said:

This isn't a discussion thread, it's a poll asking who won between the two.
 
 then immediately
 
@astrotriforce said:

[discussion]
#21 Posted by Hunter5024 (5614 posts) -

Obama did better than last time I guess, but that's not saying much. I don't really think there was a clear winner in this debate.

#22 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3050 posts) -

Neither of them were very great, but Romney was a trainwreck. Obama wins by default.

#23 Posted by Milkman (16660 posts) -
@astrotriforce said:

@Animasta: Everyone knows Obama wasn't referring to a terrorist attack. See his UN speech. He said "acts of terror" like someone who mugs another person in the streets. Yes that's an act of terror. We all know Obama's lies and spin should be the focus, which is why they are focusing on this parsing of the word "terror".

That's fucking absurd.
#24 Posted by SSully (4157 posts) -

@TruthTellah said:

@astrotriforce: If "Neither" doesn't make you happy, as though there can never be any uncertainty at all, why not at least split them up into two different categories? Obama won by a lot, Obama won by a little, Romney won by a lot, and Romney won by a little.

You're going to get far more interesting information out that. Just look at your past polls like this. For most of the time after the first debate, the vast majority just said President Obama had won. Then things evened out over time. Yet, people were just answering the poll based on their partisan leanings, as they were given only two answers. Even if they thought President Obama hadn't done well, they still would have answered that he "won", because they agreed with him more. You're going to see that in this one, too.

The best you're going to get is some kind of indication of how many of each side showed up to vote in the poll, not any kind of indication of who really "won". If you want to get something out of this, you can split them by how -much- they won, and that would at least give some indication of how close or distant the debate was based on enthusiasm over their performances.

I am proof of this post. I didn't see the debate, but wanted to see the poll results so I just voted obama

#25 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@Animasta: Well obviously I disagree. Obama will push us off the cliff, Romney MAY not. And no I just have some dignity and respect for others.

@TruthTellah: That's a good point. But the reason I frame it this way is because I prefer simplicity. I don't like polls to get too convoluted. Sadly liberalism is baked into the cake though, they'll just vote "all Obama". So I think the change would be a wash. If you make it simple, at least people have only one or two choices and MUST choose. So that's my thinking.

#26 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7077 posts) -
@astrotriforce

@MariachiMacabre: You would too if they threw a gotcha at you. We all know what Romney was referring to and what Obama was referring too. His UN speech told either how much he is lying, or how incompetent Obama is.

A "gotcha"? How the fuck is anything referring to a recent attack on US diplomats a "gotcha"? Romney knew it was coming and he knew what he was going to say but the first thing he said was shot down as untrue and he failed to do anything but stutter when corrected.
#27 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

@astrotriforce: fine, have some dignity and respect for others, but don't act like cursing the president is any different then cursing patrick for being boring in a QL or whatever

#28 Posted by InsidiousBliss (38 posts) -

Who won? People that like to argue about politics.

#29 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

Post-debate poll on CNN. 58% Romney, Obama 46% (Economy), Taxes: 51% Romney.... couldn't type fast enough. Romney has won the debate in the post CNN poll. We'll see how it turns out in other polls.

#30 Posted by Dalai (7017 posts) -

I was waiting for one of them to say, "Great job, Jeremy." So nobody won.

#31 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

@astrotriforce said:

Post-debate poll on CNN. 58% Romney, Obama 46% (Economy), Taxes: 51% Romney.... couldn't type fast enough. Romney has won the debate in the post CNN poll. We'll see how it turns out in other polls.

how many of the democratic leaning polls are you going to post, hmm? (also I do believe that Obama had a 7% lead over mittens in the who won poll)

#32 Posted by Jams (2960 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@astrotriforce: I will never understand the conservative mindset I swear

That's the real problem isn't it? People can't stand to put themselves in other people shoes and even try to consider another persons mindset. By the way, that's not really a passive aggressive comment towards you, but to all people who can't even fathom to play the devils advocate.

#33 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre: Because their trying to parse words and make it out like Romney was wrong. Romney's POINT was that Obama didn't call the attack what it was, a terrorist attack. But we'll just ignore that, and point out that Obama said "terror". Meanwhile he puts the blame on a youtube video in a major speech in front of the UN and repeats it six times while sending out the UN Ambassador Susan Rice to speak on foreign policy matters on all the news shows when it's Secretary Clinton's department. It's blatant what is going on. It's called a cover up.

#34 Posted by Milkman (16660 posts) -
@astrotriforce said:

Post-debate poll on CNN. 58% Romney, Obama 46% (Economy), Taxes: 51% Romney.... couldn't type fast enough. Romney has won the debate in the post CNN poll. We'll see how it turns out in other polls.

No idea where you're getting this information. The poll on the front page of CNN is 68% Obama, 32% Romney. 
#35 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4338 posts) -

Not choosing cuz they're both suckers. Have the nation fucked faster with Mitt at the helm or have it slowly sink with Obama back for another term. Great choices.

#36 Posted by Subjugation (4720 posts) -

These topics straight up shouldn't be created on this site, even in the off-topic sub-forum. These always turn into threads devoid of real discussion and filled with blatant partisanship and serious vitriol.

#37 Posted by eccentrix (1546 posts) -

@Jams said:

@Animasta said:

@astrotriforce: I will never understand the conservative mindset I swear

That's the real problem isn't it? People can't stand to put themselves in other people shoes and even try to consider another persons mindset. By the way, that's not really a passive aggressive comment towards you, but to all people who can't even fathom to play the devils advocate.

I try to think about it, but the only lead I have to go on is "Let's be evil for the sake of it." I guess there's some religious motives, but if you're wanting to separate church and state, or at least pretending to want to, I don't think they're worth considering.

I'm not trying to get into an argument or anything, I just want to put my hat in as someone who doesn't understand it, even though I have tried.

#38 Posted by Jams (2960 posts) -

@astrotriforce said:

@MariachiMacabre: Because their trying to parse words and make it out like Romney was wrong. Romney's POINT was that Obama didn't call the attack what it was, a terrorist attack. But we'll just ignore that, and point out that Obama said "terror". Meanwhile he puts the blame on a youtube video in a major speech in front of the UN and repeats it six times while sending out the UN Ambassador Susan Rice to speak on foreign policy matters on all the news shows when it's Secretary Clinton's department. It's blatant what is going on. It's called a cover up.

The transcript shows he just mentions "acts of terror". But if he called it a terrorist attack then why did he have to say that it was still being investigated and blame a video? Obama and Candy corn were both wrong on that.

#39 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

Obama won by a lot, he was winning by a relatively small margin a la Romney in the first debate but then Romney fucked up on Libya and that's all folks. Don't think Obama's going to laze it up for the next debate and even with the press still trying to doggedly write the underdog narrative anyone who saw that gaff isn't going to be stupid enough to think Romney has much credibility in his accusations.

#40 Posted by Turambar (6738 posts) -

@astrotriforce said:

@TruthTellah said:

@astrotriforce: You should close this and add "Neither" to this. Having only two selections is a bad way to conduct a poll like this; it leads to more partisanship and less actually useful information.

Even better, divide it as: Obama won by a lot, Obama won by a little, Romney won by a lot, Romney won by a little, or Neither won.

No because it's about who WON. If you thought it was a tie, then don't vote. It's about who won. If you put neither in, everyone will pick that and we won't know who "won".

That sentence is fucking sad. Maybe the fact that everyone would pick neither tells you something about who won.

#41 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@Milkman: From the livestream.

www.cnn.com/election/2012/debates/second-presidential-debate

Looks like people are saying Obama won the debate, Romney won on each individual subject.

#42 Posted by TheFreeMan (2712 posts) -

It was kinda boring. Obama was playing it pretty cool, which was a little dull, but also hilarious considering Romney was making one goof after another goof and generally coming off as a mess.

I dunno. I guess Romney lost. I'm Canadian.

#43 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

I love how romney is trying to channel Herman Cain in his ability to say memetic things

#44 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@Turambar: Yet one WILL become President. So who won the debate? Whether you want to vote neither is irrelevant. One of the two wins.

#45 Edited by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

Romney creeps me out big time. I would not let my children (who don't exist) play near his house.

#46 Edited by TruthTellah (8781 posts) -

@astrotriforce said:

@TruthTellah: That's a good point. But the reason I frame it this way is because I prefer simplicity. I don't like polls to get too convoluted. Sadly liberalism is baked into the cake though, they'll just vote "all Obama". So I think the change would be a wash. If you make it simple, at least people have only one or two choices and MUST choose. So that's my thinking.

Four choices is hardly lacking in simplicity. I think you will find a disappointing poll yet again, and it won't provide any information outside of "Well, more Giant Bomb users lean Democratic." That's just the reality, and asking it -too- simply leads to people just expressing their support instead of giving some kind of useful information. If you made it "Candidate by a lot, or Candidate by a little", you would at least be able to see some indication of enthusiasm over their performances which can inform the general feeling of Giant Bomb users toward the debate instead of it just being a party-line poll.

Now you're just getting people voting for their guy to even see the poll. It's a waste of time like this, and it's just an excuse to argue. Test the temperature of how well they did, not just test who people support. That's the most you can get out of a poll with such a select group like this.

#47 Posted by Turambar (6738 posts) -

@astrotriforce said:

@Turambar: Yet one WILL become President. So who won the debate? Whether you want to vote neither is irrelevant. One of the two wins.

Yeah, and its not gonna be because whether they won or lost this debate when the criteria for winning or losing is "who is better at dodging questions."

#48 Edited by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@TruthTellah: Do you HONESTLY think it would make a difference? That people would vote "Romney won by a little" instead of "Obama won by a lot?" I don't think so considering the make-up of the partisanship. But point well taken, I'll change the format for the next debate poll to include your options.

#49 Posted by Jams (2960 posts) -

@eccentrix said:

@Jams said:

@Animasta said:

@astrotriforce: I will never understand the conservative mindset I swear

That's the real problem isn't it? People can't stand to put themselves in other people shoes and even try to consider another persons mindset. By the way, that's not really a passive aggressive comment towards you, but to all people who can't even fathom to play the devils advocate.

I try to think about it, but the only lead I have to go on is "Let's be evil for the sake of it." I guess there's some religious motives, but if you're wanting to separate church and state, or at least pretending to want to, I don't think they're worth considering.

I'm not trying to get into an argument or anything, I just want to put my hat in as someone who doesn't understand it, even though I have tried.

I just tried 100 different ways to explain and failed on every one. It's something I can't explain in words unfortunately.

#50 Posted by astrotriforce (1326 posts) -

@Jams said:

@eccentrix said:

@Jams said:

@Animasta said:

@astrotriforce: I will never understand the conservative mindset I swear

That's the real problem isn't it? People can't stand to put themselves in other people shoes and even try to consider another persons mindset. By the way, that's not really a passive aggressive comment towards you, but to all people who can't even fathom to play the devils advocate.

I try to think about it, but the only lead I have to go on is "Let's be evil for the sake of it." I guess there's some religious motives, but if you're wanting to separate church and state, or at least pretending to want to, I don't think they're worth considering.

I'm not trying to get into an argument or anything, I just want to put my hat in as someone who doesn't understand it, even though I have tried.

I just tried 100 different ways to explain and failed on every one. It's something I can't explain in words unfortunately.

No one is evil for the sake of it unless they are TRULY evil (murderer or whatnot). A person's viewpoints are their viewpoints and their opinion and are shaped by many different factors. This generation's tendency to toss crap like that out about others is sad. And will lead to our downfall as others only see those who they disagree with with hateful eyes. When the Bible says to do the opposite, "Pray for those who persecute you." Don't wish for them to die.