Presidential Debate 10/16/2012
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
WC_lun
Senior Master
I don't have an issue with a little combativeness between the debaters. It shows they are human and feel something about what they are talking about. I did think cutting off and trying to bully the moderator was in bad taste.
Romney was the same Romney from the last debate. Obama was not. I think many of Mr Romney's previous statements were brought back to bite him in the butt. Mr Romney made a terrible gaff in trying to call out the president on his statement the day after the Bengahzi attack. If you do not KNOW the president did not say what he said he did, leave it alone. It showed Romney was willing to shoot without knowing facts, which is not a good thing to have in a president. Romney did well on pointing out the things Obama has not gotten done. Unfortunately, I think that is kinda making the case for Obama on why he needs a second term. I think Obama had two strong moments. The first when he asked Romney if he would take a bussiness deal in which he paid 8 trillion dollars without knowing the specifics of how he was going to recoup that money. The second was the very end. I am a bit mystified why Romney brought up his 47% comment, although he did it without mentioning it directly. It gave Obama a huge opening to finish the debate strong.
I believe fair viewers will chalk this up as an Obama win.
Romney was the same Romney from the last debate. Obama was not. I think many of Mr Romney's previous statements were brought back to bite him in the butt. Mr Romney made a terrible gaff in trying to call out the president on his statement the day after the Bengahzi attack. If you do not KNOW the president did not say what he said he did, leave it alone. It showed Romney was willing to shoot without knowing facts, which is not a good thing to have in a president. Romney did well on pointing out the things Obama has not gotten done. Unfortunately, I think that is kinda making the case for Obama on why he needs a second term. I think Obama had two strong moments. The first when he asked Romney if he would take a bussiness deal in which he paid 8 trillion dollars without knowing the specifics of how he was going to recoup that money. The second was the very end. I am a bit mystified why Romney brought up his 47% comment, although he did it without mentioning it directly. It gave Obama a huge opening to finish the debate strong.
I believe fair viewers will chalk this up as an Obama win.
They were both being somewhat childish, however Romney made two major mistakes in my opinion. First, saying that it would take him 8 years to fix a problem, makes him seem both presumptuous thinking he'll have two terms, and incompetent because he's not able to complete it in one term (not saying he IS incompetent, that is yet to be proven, just saying that he's saying he is). Second, I don't recall exactly what he said, but I believe he implied that God/his religion influence his political choices and life choices in general, one of the major criticisms of Santorum. Obama, IMHO did not make any mistakes of the same scale.
My friend posted who he believes one each section.Warning: He's a democrat
Agree/Disagree?
Agree/Disagree?
The bottom line with me is Obama has failed in the past 4 years. Give him another 4 years? I don't think so. I'll vote for the guy that has experience. Obamas experience is very, very, well let's just say not there. The big question is...are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Last edited:
WC_lun
Senior Master
Experience? Mr Romney's only experience with governance is his one term in MA. A state that overwhelmingly supports his competitor. If Romney was such a damn fine governor, then those numbers should be a bit closer, you'd think. Running a bussiness and running a government are like comparing apples and oranges. Both fruit, but not even close to being the same.
If you believe that a %20 tax cut across the board is feasable with congress deciding how to pay for it, then Romney is your choice.
If you believe in the reversal of Roe vs Wade, then Romney is your choice.
If you believe strength in foriegn policy is going off half cocked without facts, then Romney is your guy.
If you believe 8 trillion dollars can be made up by closing tax loopholes and no one but the rich will be impacted, then Romney is your guy...and I've got a bussiness propisition for you.
If you believe that 14% tax rate is acceptable for rich millionares, while people making $50k a year pay a greater effective tax rate is fair, then Romney is in your corner.
If you believe a war with Iran is unavoidable, Romney is your War Hawk.
If you believe Russia is our greatest social economic threat, Romney agrees with you...though it begs the question, have you heard of Al Quada, Iran, and China?
If you believe in the full repeal of Obamacare, even though it will cost money to do so, then Romney's your fellow.
If you believe that the constitution should outlaw same sex marriage in all of america, then Romney fits the bill.
If you believe the day after pill for rape victims should not be paid for her isurance, then Romney is a man after your own heart.
If you believe that a sitting president can do much about the prices Opec sets for crude oil, well not even Romney is for you, because it isn't going to happen.
If you believe oil production should be increased by at least %50 here on our own shores, then Rom...no wait Obama did that.
If you believe terrorist should be hunted down no matter where they are then Romn...nope agian that is Obama.
If you believe in smaller government, then romney is definitley...um not your person. Obama has shrunk it by 2% for the last three years.
If you believe that GM and Chrysler should have recieved funding to keep the recession from getting worse, that was Bush continued by Obama, against the very public op ed Mr Romney wrote about letting the industry fail.
If you believe that Romney would do anythig different in foriegn affairs than Obama has, other than talk tough, Romney is your guy and god help us all.
If you think gays openly serving in the military is something you find repugnant, Romney's your guy.
If the average corporate tax rate of 4% is good for you, then Romney should be you vote.
If shrinking the government is something you believe should happen, then Romney...no wait, it is Obama that shrunk the government by 2% a year for the last 3 years.
If you believe a woman's decision to take contraceptives should include anyone other than her doctor, you will find Romney very supporting.
If you believe that a %20 tax cut across the board is feasable with congress deciding how to pay for it, then Romney is your choice.
If you believe in the reversal of Roe vs Wade, then Romney is your choice.
If you believe strength in foriegn policy is going off half cocked without facts, then Romney is your guy.
If you believe 8 trillion dollars can be made up by closing tax loopholes and no one but the rich will be impacted, then Romney is your guy...and I've got a bussiness propisition for you.
If you believe that 14% tax rate is acceptable for rich millionares, while people making $50k a year pay a greater effective tax rate is fair, then Romney is in your corner.
If you believe a war with Iran is unavoidable, Romney is your War Hawk.
If you believe Russia is our greatest social economic threat, Romney agrees with you...though it begs the question, have you heard of Al Quada, Iran, and China?
If you believe in the full repeal of Obamacare, even though it will cost money to do so, then Romney's your fellow.
If you believe that the constitution should outlaw same sex marriage in all of america, then Romney fits the bill.
If you believe the day after pill for rape victims should not be paid for her isurance, then Romney is a man after your own heart.
If you believe that a sitting president can do much about the prices Opec sets for crude oil, well not even Romney is for you, because it isn't going to happen.
If you believe oil production should be increased by at least %50 here on our own shores, then Rom...no wait Obama did that.
If you believe terrorist should be hunted down no matter where they are then Romn...nope agian that is Obama.
If you believe in smaller government, then romney is definitley...um not your person. Obama has shrunk it by 2% for the last three years.
If you believe that GM and Chrysler should have recieved funding to keep the recession from getting worse, that was Bush continued by Obama, against the very public op ed Mr Romney wrote about letting the industry fail.
If you believe that Romney would do anythig different in foriegn affairs than Obama has, other than talk tough, Romney is your guy and god help us all.
If you think gays openly serving in the military is something you find repugnant, Romney's your guy.
If the average corporate tax rate of 4% is good for you, then Romney should be you vote.
If shrinking the government is something you believe should happen, then Romney...no wait, it is Obama that shrunk the government by 2% a year for the last 3 years.
If you believe a woman's decision to take contraceptives should include anyone other than her doctor, you will find Romney very supporting.
Here's the BBC's report on the playground squabble:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19965927
The comments make an interesting read by the way - definitely show that over this side of the Pond Mr. Romney is seen as the Man Behind the Curtain and we most certainly do pay attention to what he says and how loosely it connects with reality. I'm not so sure that President Obama fairs that much better overall but he is perceived as less likely to cause more trouble in the world at large (both economic and military).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19965927
The comments make an interesting read by the way - definitely show that over this side of the Pond Mr. Romney is seen as the Man Behind the Curtain and we most certainly do pay attention to what he says and how loosely it connects with reality. I'm not so sure that President Obama fairs that much better overall but he is perceived as less likely to cause more trouble in the world at large (both economic and military).
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Coming from you, that means Obama won.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
The substance of the remarks made from the first to the second debate is nearly identical, even to some of the rebuttal points. And yet, each man "won" a different debate. What are we then to conclude? Substance makes almost no difference here, what matters is the presentation. We all learned that dominating the moderator and acting aggressive "won" the first debate, so both candidates went for that approach here. It makes no difference if you act genteel if you lose.
Blame the media and the voters who can apparently be swayed by such theatrics so easily. The politicians are merely responding to selective pressure in the Darwinian sense here.
I ask again.
WHY does anything out of either of their mouths matter in the TINIEST bit to anyone?
First, they are lying. Both of them. That is a given, and if pressed, you will agree grudgingly that they will SAY WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO to get elected. Yet you act like they are speaking the truth.
Second, their attitudes, demeanor, and responses are ALL TAILOR MADE by handlers and consultants. That's not a secret, it's openly talked about in the news, it's as clear as day. So WHY would you think their anger is genuine, their outrage is genuine, their points reflect their true beliefs, etc? They are MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS.
In a boxing match, there is a winner and a loser. No matter who prepares them, trains them, promotes them, etc, it is up to the fighters themselves to win or lose, and they do it based on their ability.
In a debate, there is also a winner and a loser, but nothing is proven. If candidate A wins the debate, that doesn't make his ideas better than candidate B's ideas. It just makes him the better speaker.
Debates are meaningless. They are pre-arranged by both major parties and run by them. They are intended to showcase attributes that have been manufactured by their respective camps. You hear terms like "looked presidential" and "seemed unruffled by the attacks," and "gave as good as he got," etc. None of means the slightest thing outside of the arena of the debate.
Yet you tune in, watch two lying liars lie, and then argue about which one lied better.
Good lord. There's a reason why our government is crap, and most of it is the electorate. We get the government we deserve, good and hard.
WHY does anything out of either of their mouths matter in the TINIEST bit to anyone?
First, they are lying. Both of them. That is a given, and if pressed, you will agree grudgingly that they will SAY WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO to get elected. Yet you act like they are speaking the truth.
Second, their attitudes, demeanor, and responses are ALL TAILOR MADE by handlers and consultants. That's not a secret, it's openly talked about in the news, it's as clear as day. So WHY would you think their anger is genuine, their outrage is genuine, their points reflect their true beliefs, etc? They are MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS.
In a boxing match, there is a winner and a loser. No matter who prepares them, trains them, promotes them, etc, it is up to the fighters themselves to win or lose, and they do it based on their ability.
In a debate, there is also a winner and a loser, but nothing is proven. If candidate A wins the debate, that doesn't make his ideas better than candidate B's ideas. It just makes him the better speaker.
Debates are meaningless. They are pre-arranged by both major parties and run by them. They are intended to showcase attributes that have been manufactured by their respective camps. You hear terms like "looked presidential" and "seemed unruffled by the attacks," and "gave as good as he got," etc. None of means the slightest thing outside of the arena of the debate.
Yet you tune in, watch two lying liars lie, and then argue about which one lied better.
Good lord. There's a reason why our government is crap, and most of it is the electorate. We get the government we deserve, good and hard.
And we will continue losing until everyone gets over parties and deals with issues. Not candidates; the voters.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
So then, are you saying, like I have said many times before that...George Washington was right when he said (216 years ago) political parties were a bad idea
I don't know if parties in general are a bad idea, but I think our current situation is bad. When there are more than two major parties, or NO major parties, coalitions form and compromise happens. We don't get anything but gridlock in our situation, and worse, the partisan citizens who are more concerned with 'winning' than having things work, which are going to cause our downfall.
The fiscal cliff we face at the end of the year is a prime example. Not talked about in the news, being thoroughly ignored by both major parties, and likely to completely END the USA, permanently.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-usa-congress-cliff-idUSBRE89E17U20121015
We ignore this because we are, as a nation, stupid beyond belief. We're a bunch of booger-eatin' morons, and we're going to pay for it. The Democrats and the Republicans are going to point fingers at each other over this, but when it happens, there will be riots in the streets. That is YOUR FAULT, GOP and DNC. YOUR FAULT. Get your mind around that.
And frankly, once it happens and we're all in the crapper, the first person who walks up to me and tells me it's the other party's fault (either party) is going to get punched right in the GD face. I HATE the GOP and the DNC. Liars, crooks, conmen, and worse. Anyone who supports them is either stupid or a criminal as well.
Would help to have neutral moderators...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/17/Flashback-Crowley-Said-Obama-Took-17-Days-To-Claim-Benghazi-Attacks-Were-Acts-Of-Terror
Just to add, libertarians are no better. They will sit out this election by voting for a candidate who will not make any difference in the future of this country. By voting libertarian in this specific election they will be voting for obama to be re-elected. If obama is re-elected, he will proceed to destroy everything that the libertarians say they stand for, and he will almost certainly prevent libertarian ideals from ever having a chance here in the states. That is what the libertarians are choosing to do this election cycle. They will, however, feel superior to all the rest of us who are trying to stop obama...they will have kept their purity.
If obama wins the election, whenever I hear someone complain about the state of the country, I'll actually ask them who they voted for. If they say obama or Gary Johnson, I will laugh and laugh.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/17/Flashback-Crowley-Said-Obama-Took-17-Days-To-Claim-Benghazi-Attacks-Were-Acts-Of-Terror
Just to add, libertarians are no better. They will sit out this election by voting for a candidate who will not make any difference in the future of this country. By voting libertarian in this specific election they will be voting for obama to be re-elected. If obama is re-elected, he will proceed to destroy everything that the libertarians say they stand for, and he will almost certainly prevent libertarian ideals from ever having a chance here in the states. That is what the libertarians are choosing to do this election cycle. They will, however, feel superior to all the rest of us who are trying to stop obama...they will have kept their purity.
If obama wins the election, whenever I hear someone complain about the state of the country, I'll actually ask them who they voted for. If they say obama or Gary Johnson, I will laugh and laugh.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Thanks for the article, I have been reading about the cliff and I knew there were a few CEOs talking, I just did not know it was that many
I have said this many times too...Republican, Democrat... No difference
And
How do you know a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Read through the platforms of both the GOP and the DNC. Then cross out each item and replace them with only two; power and money. That is all they want, and all they stand for. Nothing else.
And anyone who believes they want something else is a tool.
I don't know. I thought it was great tv. I was rolling at jiu jitsu last night, so I only got the last 1/2 of the debate, but it's good to see two passionate guys going at it.
Not passionate, not going at it. What part of 'this is an act' did you not get? All manufactured by their handlers - every bit of it. This isn't even something one can argue over, they bloody well TALK about how they're going to coach their candidates to speak, what body language to use, what to wear, facial expression, eye contact, gestures, all of it. It's very thoroughly discussed in the news; you are watching to Disney Animatronic figures.
There is no 'passion' and no 'going at it' present. None.
Similar threads
