Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[Chicog]

Flows through the Strait in 2011 were roughly 35 percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide. More than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea, and China representing the largest destinations. In addition, Qatar exports about 2 trillion cubic feet per year of liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz, accounting for almost 20 percent of global LNG trade. Furthermore, Kuwait imports LNG volumes that travel northward through the Strait of Hormuz. These flows totaled about 100 billion cubic feet per year in 2010. http://www.eia.gov/c...ips=WOTC&trk=p3

Before you start abandoning the Arabian Gulf, you might want to find out how you are going to replace the 1.465 million barrels per day the US currently imports from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

You might also want to find out who's going to be able to afford to buy all those American exports when the oil price flies through $300 a barrel.

[Jingthing]

Romney supporters: can you please say WHICH Romney he would actually be if he is elected? How can anyone possibly have a clue? Does HE know? The crazed super-Hawk neocon from the primaries or the channeling George McGovern calm peacenik from the debate? If he wins, it will be amazing, as that will prove turbo-Romnesia is a tactic that wins.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[uptheos]

I watched the debate this morning and thought Obama shaded it.

However, watching it again this evening I'm not so sure....I thought Romney came across more 'presidential'.

Obama's attempt at sarcasm and trying to belittle Romney, was plain childish.

If I were American, I'd vote for Romney.

[Jingthing]

I watched the debate this morning and thought Obama shaded it.

However, watching it again this evening I'm not so sure....I thought Romney came across more 'presidential'.

Obama's attempt at sarcasm and trying to belittle Romney, was plain childish.

If I were American, I'd vote for Romney.

Most Americans already made up their minds well BEFORE the debates. Only a small percentage are swayed by the artificial theater of the debates. I reckon most Americans are actually more serious about all this and wouldn't change a vote based on not enjoying someone's sarcasm. Whichever side wins has real consequences in real life to millions of Americans. For example if you or a loved one desperately needed Obamacare's plan to allow access to health care to Americans with preexisting conditions and you weren't tricked by Romney's shameless deception on this issue, you would almost definitely vote for Obama. The undecideds at this point are really very much out of the norm. Edited October 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[uptheos]

I watched the debate this morning and thought Obama shaded it.

However, watching it again this evening I'm not so sure....I thought Romney came across more 'presidential'.

Obama's attempt at sarcasm and trying to belittle Romney, was plain childish.

If I were American, I'd vote for Romney.

Most Americans already made up their minds well BEFORE the debates. Only a small percentage are swayed by the artificial theater of the debates. I reckon most Americans are actually more serious about all this and wouldn't change a vote based on not enjoying someone's sarcasm. Whichever side wins has real consequences in real life to millions of Americans. For example if you or a loved one desperately needed Obamacare's plan to allow access to health care to Americans with preexisting conditions and you weren't tricked by Romney's shameless deception on this issue, you would almost definitely vote for Obama. The undecideds at this point are really very much out of the norm.

Well, if Obama's packages are so good, why isn't he streets ahead?

Can I ask a question?

If the election were decided purely on peoples actual votes........ who would win?

[notmyself]

If he wins, it will be amazing, as that will prove turbo-Romnesia is a tactic that wins.

Even if he doesn't it will still show that anyone can get a massive percentage of the US population to vote for them by simply telling endless lies, not while lies but full in your face lies.

[KeyserSoze01]

This tells me all I need to know.

Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years!

http://times247.com/articles/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-dictators#ixzz2A0bKfogs

Now, if you're a socialist and want to see the US slide down that slipper slope, then vote where you receive you welfare checks. The rest of us tax payers who actually built something instead of living off the public coffers know which way to vote.

Currently working on uninstalling Obama 1.0. Only a few more days before the uninstall is complete.

UNINSTALLING OBAMA.....……………. █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete

[Jingthing]

Can I ask a question?

If the election were decided purely on peoples actual votes........ who would win?

Not sure what you are asking here. The difference between the popular vote and the electoral college? I think Obama will win the electoral college by about 25 and will win or lose the popular vote by 3 to -1 percent. But nobody knows yet. (Well, hopefully anyway.) Edited October 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[notmyself]

This tells me all I need to know.

Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years!

http://times247.com/...s#ixzz2A0bKfogs

Now, if you're a socialist and want to see the US slide down that slipper slope, then vote where you receive you welfare checks. The rest of us tax payers who actually built something instead of living off the public coffers know which way to vote.

Currently working on uninstalling Obama 1.0. Only a few more days before the uninstall is complete.

UNINSTALLING OBAMA.....……………. █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete

That brings us to Russia’s Vladimir Putin.... He's a fascist as are Chavez and Castro.

[uptheos]

That brings us to Russia’s Vladimir Putin.... He's a fascist as are Chavez and Castro.

And he only needs to wait until Obama has more flexibility, according to their little whisper (what a plonker)

[notmyself]

That brings us to Russia’s Vladimir Putin.... He's a fascist as are Chavez and Castro.

And he only needs to wait until Obama has more flexibility, according to their little whisper (what a plonker)

Russia are a power on the world stage, better to be flexible I think. Romney wouldn't have to be flexible unless he finds it hard to get down on all fours though in all fairness I would have to concede that Putin may have a problem with majic underwear.

[Throatwobbler]

However, What I didn't know was that until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, it was virtually the same price it is now. The price collapsed when the economies collapsed. All it's really done is gradually returned to pre-crisis levels as demand picks back up.

So you can safely ignore that little bit of spin from the right, amazing how you can paint something by leaving out a simple little thing like a tiny fact.

Facts like this? One gallon of gasoline is about an average of $4.00 today.

1990 - $1.341

1991 - $1.053

1992 - $1.069

1993 - $0.999

1994 - $1.077

1995 - $1.082

1996 - $1.227

1997 - $1.112

1998 - $0.993

1999 - $1.273

2000 - $1.414

2001 - $1.096

2002 - $1.441

2003 - $1.478

2004 - $1.791

2005 - $2.197

2006 - $2.341

2007 - $3.053

If you are going to use figures to try and back up your argument at least use figures that are relative.

But let's see what use we can get out of these figures.

If the gas prices kept rising at the same rate as the 4 before Obama took office then we should be looking at gas prices of about $5.20. So maybe Obama's not doing too bad after all. How ever we all know facts aren't Republicans strong point.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Throatwobbler

[chuckd]

If he wins, it will be amazing, as that will prove turbo-Romnesia is a tactic that wins.

Even if he doesn't it will still show that anyone can get a massive percentage of the US population to vote for them by simply telling endless lies, not while lies but full in your face lies.

Have you been paying attention? How do you think Obama won the election in 2008?

[notmyself]

If he wins, it will be amazing, as that will prove turbo-Romnesia is a tactic that wins.

Even if he doesn't it will still show that anyone can get a massive percentage of the US population to vote for them by simply telling endless lies, not while lies but full in your face lies.

Have you been paying attention? How do you think Obama won the election in 2008?

Have you been paying attention. All politicians lie and they get found out at some stage. Romney is streamlining the process by just telling lies which are known now and I doubt this is for the economic benefit of others. Mitt 'tuk tuk driver' Romney is a fraud, a charlatan, a huxter and does not even bother attempting to try and cover this up. He is an insult to the people of America, the World and humanity in general. People such as him should be selling pencils from a cup, not taken seriously.

[Edit] Something I said may have broken house rules.

Edited October 23, 2012 by notmyself

[nurofiend]

This tells me all I need to know.

Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years!

http://times247.com/...s#ixzz2A0bKfogs

Now, if you're a socialist and want to see the US slide down that slipper slope, then vote where you receive you welfare checks. The rest of us tax payers who actually built something instead of living off the public coffers know which way to vote.

Currently working on uninstalling Obama 1.0. Only a few more days before the uninstall is complete.

UNINSTALLING OBAMA.....……………. █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete

i love this 'socialist' moniker that gets thrown around so easily in america when it's an extremely obtuse term, i believe most of the people using the term as a weapon don't even know what it means ^ yourself excluded as i'm sure you're using the now established american version.

anyway, i think you might have to wait four years for that bar to load... i really hope so anyway.

[koheesti]

Romney supporters: can you please say WHICH Romney he would actually be if he is elected? How can anyone possibly have a clue? Does HE know? The crazed super-Hawk neocon from the primaries or the channeling George McGovern calm peacenik from the debate? If he wins, it will be amazing, as that will prove turbo-Romnesia is a tactic that wins.

Which Romney?? I'm more worried that we know exactly which Obama we'll be stuck with if he wins.

I watched the debate this morning and thought Obama shaded it.

However, watching it again this evening I'm not so sure....I thought Romney came across more 'presidential'.

Obama's attempt at sarcasm and trying to belittle Romney, was plain childish.

If I were American, I'd vote for Romney.

I've been feeling the same way as the day went on (and I read about the debate). I wrote here right after the debate that Obama won. I was looking for Romney to go after Obama. But I think the strategy was to be, as you say, more presidential. I mean, the first question was specifically about the Benghazi controversy and Romney just let it slide...<deleted>? I've read that men love the battling between candidates, whereas women don't. Maybe this was a subtle way for Romney to appeal to female undecided voters instead of voters like me - male and already decided.

[koheesti]

Most Americans already made up their minds well BEFORE the debates. Only a small percentage are swayed by the artificial theater of the debates.

That's probably true.

But does anyone think the debates could affect voter turnout? I doubt any debate would get me to switch to Obama. But it would have been much more likely that a really bad debate could have turned me off Romney enough to keep me from bothering to vote (overseas absentee voter and I just dropped my ballot off at the embassy this afternoon). I didn't vote in '96 because Bob "It's my turn" Dole did nothing for me but I wasn't about to vote for Clinton.

Maybe Obama's first debate was bad enough to make some of his supporters think twice about taking the time to go to the poll on election day?

Edited October 23, 2012 by koheesti

[electau]

Americas finest, hardly representitive of the average US citizen. A Salt Lake CityMormon (Moron) and a mixed race Chicago lawyer, both born with a silver spoon. Then politicians are no more than snake oil salesmen and confidence tricksters one should only take them at face value.

If you where an honest employer would you employ any of them in your business?

My personal opinion of polititicians in general is about the level of a used car salesman but there are exceptions to the rule.

Having said that Obama would be the preferred option for Foreign policy, but foreign policy does not win elections, domestic issues do. You do need a good independant Civil service to give unbiased advice.

[Ulysses G.]

If he wins, it will be amazing, as that will prove turbo-Romnesia is a tactic that wins.

Even if he doesn't it will still show that anyone can get a massive percentage of the US population to vote for them by simply telling endless lies, not while lies but full in your face lies.

Have you been paying attention? How do you think Obama won the election in 2008?

By claiming that he would cut the deficit in half during his first - and hopefully only - term?

[keemapoot]

The betting markets have moved a lot toward Romney in the past few weeks, but Obama is still projected to win: 57:43. This in spite of some anonymous larger better trying to swing it more in Romney's favor after the debate:

How to swing the prediction markets and boost Mitt Romney’s fortunes

But there’s an odd twist here. The betting markets can sometimes be swung — at least temporarily — by single traders who post extraordinarily large trades.

http://www.washingto...mneys-fortunes/

http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/

[Ulysses G.]

The average price of Regular Gas today is $3.687 per Gallon according to http://www.eia.gov/p...leum/gasdiesel/

So where did you get your "$4 a gallon" price from,

Do you really not understand the word ABOUT? The average price of gas has been hovering at about $4.00.

One gallon of gasoline is about an average of $4.00 today.

Also:

However, What I didn't know was that until the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, it was virtually the same price it is now. The price collapsed when the economies collapsed.

Gas was about $4.00 for only a few months until Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling in the summer of 2008. Then, in Sept 2008, the congressional moratorium on drilling expired. These two events were the primary reason for the huge drop in gas prices and had little to do with the "economy collapsing".

President Obama reinstated the drilling ban in February 2009. He also reversed several other policies that had allowed for new drilling on federal lands. The reversal in Feb 2009 squelched the optimism of the market over anticipation of an increase in domestic supplies from Bush's policies and began the sharp, steady rise in prices once again.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

More than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea, and China representing the largest destinations. In addition, Qatar exports about 2 trillion cubic feet per year of liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz, accounting for almost 20 percent of global LNG trade. Furthermore, Kuwait imports LNG volumes that travel northward through the Strait of Hormuz. These flows totaled about 100 billion cubic feet per year in 2010. http://www.eia.gov/c...ips=WOTC&trk=p3

Let the Asians protect their energy supply. The USA is spending an enormous sum to protect the energy interests of third parties. Why?

Because it would be foolish to relinquish control to the Chinese.

Maybe you think that the US Navy should stop activity everywhere other than within 12 miles of the US coastline?

No, that is not what I think. However, I suggest you take a page from the Thatcher led and Reagan endorsed cold war era playbook. They let the Soviets spend their way to collapse. Despite all this talk of Chinese power, the fact of the matter is that China has serious economic structure weaknesses and would bleed red if it had to step up its presence to protect its oil supply from the middle east. The continued persian gulf expense incurred by the USA amounts to an indirect subsidy to South Korean and Indian industries that are dependent upon middle eastern oil to fuel their heavy industry and trade. Oil is an expense and if India and South Korea, along with China had to take on more of this expense, it would be reflected in the goods and even services that undercut the USA's service and manufacturing sector(s). One of the reasons why India has been able to undercut the Thai price of rice is in large part due to India's sweetheart deal on Iranian oil. India's agriculture sector is energy inefficient. That cheap Iranian oil reduced Indian production costs and the costs of shipping the rice to foreign markets. One of the reasons China is able to send all of its cheap low quality poducts to the North American market is because shipping costs are kept low. China's labour costs are increasing and its workers don't want to do the low wage jobs anymore. A shove in the right direction will help US manufacturers because they will then have a shipping cost advantage. It makes no sense that consumer goods such as brooms are manufactuured in China and shipped to retailers in North America. The USa should take a small amount of its foreign defense expenditures and invest it in railway and highway infrastructure at home to make transport of goods more efficient and less costly.

[maidu]

I mean, the first question was specifically about the Benghazi controversy and Romney just let it slide...<deleted>?

No surprise there. Romney has tried to politicize that issue. It worked in stump speeches, when no one was around to challenge his rhetoric. However, it failed in the 2nd debate, when both the president and the moderator put him in his place, and showed that he (Romney) was out of line. It's completely understandable why Romney retreated from his earlier inflamatory rhetoric, which tried to politicize a tragic event.

Have you been paying attention? How do you think Obama won the election in 2008?

By claiming that he would cut the deficit in half during his first - and hopefully only - term?

The most noticeable action that the Republican-led congress has portrayed in the past 4 years is No. No. and No. They've purposefully tried to block everything Obama or the Democrats have tried to push, maily because they (the Republicans) are sore about losing in 2008 and know that if they can portray Obama's administration as hamstrung, then they can gain political points. Even the Supreme Court had to decide on the 'Obamacare' issue, and came down in favor of the Democrat-sponsored legislation which, ironically, resembled legislation which Romney had championed months earlier.

Edited October 24, 2012 by maidu

[Ulysses G.]

I mean, the first question was specifically about the Benghazi controversy and Romney just let it slide...<deleted>?

No surprise there. Romney has tried to politicize that issue. It worked in stump speeches, when no one was around to challenge his rhetoric. However, it failed in the 2nd debate, when both the president and the moderator put him in his place, and showed that he (Romney) was out of line.

You must have missed it. Candy Crowley backpedaled on that. Obama was wrong and so was she. Mitt Romney was right.

[Ulysses G.]

Have you been paying attention? How do you think Obama won the election in 2008?

By claiming that he would cut the deficit in half during his first - and hopefully only - term?

The most noticeable action that the Republican-led congress has portrayed in the past 4 years is No. No. and No.

Both houses of congress were run by the Democrats for Obama's first two years and he got everything that he wanted including wasting 831 billion on a failed "stimulus" plan. The Republicans were not responsible for Obama's failed policies.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maidu]

For those who want to politicize the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi, and try to put blame on Obama and/or Sec. Clinton, here's something you can put in your pipe and smoke:

1983: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured in one horendous terrorist attack, ....in Lebanon. You know who was president at the time. You want to blame R.Reagan for those deaths? I didn't think so.

[maidu]

The day after the attack in Libya, this excerpt from the president's speech:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,...."

Where in that sentence do you see the word 'terror'? I see it. Do Republican attack dogs see it?

[Ulysses G.]

I guess that Candy Crowley doesn't see it either or she recognizes that it was not referring to the attack in Benghazi.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[uptheos]

The main thing, has Obama apologised for American's being there in the first place?

[SteeleJoe]

I gues that Candy Crowley doesn't see it either or she recognizes that it was not referring to the attack in Benghazi.

It wasn't? How do you figure? (or do you just get to arbitrarily shape facts to match your extreme biases?)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap