News Flash - Obama Cheated in Debate!

You seriously need to become more informed. Obama said to look at the transcripts, but at no time did Crowley look at the transcrips, because if she did she would have gotten it right! Also,1:13:57 has nothing to do with your aligations.Geremy Epstein is asking a question at that time which is then followed by Romney.

WASHINGTON/DEL RAY BEACH, Florida (Reuters) - Facing a cliffhanger re-election attempt, President Barack Obama will launch a round-the-clock, two-day campaign blitz through six battleground states next week to try to fend off the challenge from Republican Mitt Romney.

Polls show Obama's strong debate performance this week gained him little or no ground against the former Massachusetts governor with just over two weeks until the November 6 election.

 

 

=================

How can it be that obama is having to work so hard to get re-elected? The democrats keep telling us how wonderful everything is. To hear them tell it we're just swimming in jobs and recovery, and anyone that says differently are just "sore losers" and racists. People that have worked all their adult life suddenly just decide to toss it all away in "protest". Yep, the democrats tale is that people so hate obama because of "who" he is that they are willing to toss their and their children's future away, and vote against the greatest thing since sliced bread. They're willing to go against their beliefs that they are responsible for their own welfare and go on the "government dole".

Some will say that the problem with businesses closing has to be the owners. After 20 or more years in business, even longer for some, to let dems tell it, a business owner suddenly "woke up stupid" and forgot how to run and manage his business. It took some a bit longer to do it, but they all woke up stupid. Other democrats think it's funny, something to laugh at and joke about, when businesses close and people lose their jobs. Besides, small businesses can't afford to pay their employees $75.00 an hour, have at least two employees to do one job, and hand out all the other "bennies", so what use are they anyway. Right dems?

At 1 hour 13 minute 57 second mark in the video as shown in the lower left corner of the video window President Obama certainly says "GET the Transcript" and not look at the transcripts as you say.  Either way HOW do you explain him knowing she had transcripts of what he said? 

 

MY Allegation is that the President should have not known anything about a transcript that Candy Crowley would have had.  The only way he could have known is if She told them she had one or if they gave her one.  Either way would indicate that there was prior revelation of the exact questions that would be ask for there would be no other reason to provide a transcript of that speech.

 

The speech, by the way, that spoke of terror only in the context of 9/11/2001 and not the attack on Libya as the President is trying to construe it to be.

This is seriously a stretch to call this cheating. Everyone in their right mind knew there would be some questions about the libya attack. Democrats knew it, Republicans knew it. The moderator knew it.  It does not seem unlikely at all that either one of these two things happened.
1) The democrats knew that a question about this would be brought up, (because everyone knew it would be at some point, not because of some secret prior knowledge). And then accordingly provided a transcript to the moderator so that when Romney attacked Obama's word he has proof to refute it.
2)The moderator wanted to be prepared so that she could fact check things on the spot and brought her own transcript.

I think option 1 is more likely, but in no way does thing indicate "cheating" Everyone and their mom knew a question about this would come up.

What is proven fact?  Obama and Candy improperly conspired attempting to bypass the oral and written reference to "terror" in general and nondescript terms.  Obama than began with his ...see I told you so....  This was clearly incorrect.  Obama and his handlers had their talking points designed to mislead and confuse.  Unfortunately for them, they had too many people telling the same lies while the truth was slowly seeping through.  We have seem enough of this type foul-ups; however, this is a perfect example of what happens when you try to govern through "talking-points."

Sorry but your #1 was refuted by Candy Crowley who said that she had researched it because she knew the question would be ask.  The candidates were not to be briefed as what to expect or know would be coming.  Look at the circumstantial evidence here.  Obama brings up a transcript without there even being one mentioned.  He had no way, if things were equal, to know what Candy Crowley had.  If you want to put on your rose colored glasses and believe all this was innocent happenstance then have at it.  I don't buy it and I fully believe that Obama revealed something that should not have been revealed and that is collusion between the Moderator and/or Obama and his campaign.  I fully believe that the first debate revealed the real Obama and went so disastrously bad that they would do anything to insure that the second didn't including stacking the deck against Romney.  

 

I look forward to your breakdown of Mitt posing 8 different direct questions to President Obama. Afterall, that is clearly against the rules of the debates. And while you're at it, breakdown jim lehrer ASKING Mitt to break the debate rules in the first place.

Pettiness is unflattering.

IF there is a violation of debate rules that is something that should be handled by the moderator, at the time they are broke and during the debate.  Your argument is with the Moderator.  Still if there was an infraction of debate rules by asking question that is so insignificant to cheating.   What happened with Obama asking Candy to look at the transcripts indicates that there was collusion between moderator and one of the participants which totally violates the integrity of the whole process and totally places the opponent at a disadvantage. 

 

Let me get this straight ... are you justifying cheating?   OR  Are you saying that Cheating or complaining about cheating is petty?   I would expect no more from someone who is willing to overlook all the other things that it appears that this Administration is participating in such as coverup of the attack in Libya or circumstances around it.   Face it you have a corrupt administration that you are forced to defend and accept, one that makes Nixon and Watergate pale in comparison. 

"Look at the transcripts" means simply that.  Get the transcripts and see what they actually say.  To posit that Candy C. had the transcripts there and ready to read simply because Obama said, "Look at the transcripts" is obviously reading way too much into the situation, but that is the way wingnut wackos do things.

8 direct questions addressed to Obama by Romney...(violation of debate rules?).  My immediate thought is, why didn't he answer just "one of the supposed eight questions"?

Yeah I'm sure reading far too much into it.  In a debate where the questions were supposedly unknown to either candidate in a debate not specifically about foreign policy Obama would just happen to know Candy Crowley had the specific transcripts of the September 12th speech?  Anyone that watches that interchange between them knows that was a statement not a question.  Not - do you have the transcripts, but, "get the transcripts".  I realize that there is nothing, absolutely nothing that the President or his campaign could be guilty of that would sway your vote in any way but the statements are there on the tape and I do believe that most independent and unbiased listeners would have doubts about just how the President knew Candy Crowley would have those transcripts at hand what with all the other questions that would be ask.  It surely is suspicious that either the Campaign knew exactly what transcript to provide her with, if they provided it, or that Obama knew she would have that transcript.  

 

There was no - if you would get the transcript, or have the fact checkers check the transcript but rather the statement was directed to her as knowing she had the exact transcript.  Her reaction also was telling in that she was obviously flustered over the statement and was wanting to move on.  I love the hypocrisy that the left has.  Had this been Bush or any other Conservative/Republican or even Ryan in his debate said something akin to that there would be no second guessing or no benefit of the doubt but there would have been Congressional hearings called for.  Trouble with Obama is that he just can't think ahead and was too anxious to have her confirm his mis-truth (the terrorism of the Sept 12th speech was looking back to Sept 11, 2001 and not the 2012 Libya attack anyway).

 

No one can prove that there was cheating in the form of the moderator communicating with the President or his campaign people before the debate but as far as circumstantial evidence is concerned I fully believe there is ample there to indicate that some prior collusion happened.  I am just hoping that some supporters of Obama would actually listen, somewhat, unbiased and actually consider the potential and possibility rather than outright denying it because they are so sure it couldn't happen with their saint of a man.  Just look at the zeal and zest and the efforts Obama supporters tried to tie Mitt Romney to cheating using notes in the 1st debate.  The media jumped all over it and there was much made over it until additional camera views proved it to be a napkin with no notes on it.  Yeah y'all were all willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt ... right? 

 

Just more proof that NOTHING would matter that would cause any of Obama's blind supporters to question anything around or regarding him.  No matter that the Administration was neck deep in a contrived coverup to attempt to place suspicion and blame on an obscure youtube video as causing the attack on our embassy in order to cover up their own incompetence.   Neither the coverup nor the incompetence of the Administration that got four Americans killed nor the Administration's failure to act in time to save those under attack means anything to supporters of Obama for I fully believe many of his supporters would rather see the nation be destroyed as long as he was re-elected.  I fully believe that if given a choice of Romney as President in a free America or suspending elections and placing Obama as dictator suspending freedoms of all Americans many would choose the later and be for placing Obama as dictator.   There are so many voters today that would vote for the man regardless of what his positions were or how bad his performance would be.  Don't fret though if you are one of those then you are in good company for there are plenty that, I believe, feel that way, and you have a very supporting and sympathetic media to accompany you as well.

you need some help... your blind hatred for the current POTUS is driving you crazy!

Obama won the debate, just like he won last night. Trying to blame it on the moderators is kind of like trying to blame the umpire for ONE bad call in a 38 to nothing shutout game.