Presidential Debate v2.0

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

As I mentioned in the shoutbox, I only saw about half of it. However I thought it was fairly even from what I saw. Obama might get a slight bump in numbers but very little will come of this, IMO. Nothing substantial anyway.

 

One of the biggest flops of the night was during the discussion on Libya when moderator Candy Crowley seemingly corrected Mitt Romney on a speech President Obama made after the terrorist attack in Libya. It looked bad, although I said it in the shoutbox at the time.. Crowley just got confused by bad wording and stumbling by Romney. It was a big turning point on an issue I believe Obama and the Democrats have been avoiding as much as humanly possible. Big fat zero by the Romney campaign at a time in the debate when they had the opportunity to surge back, but didn't.

 

Crowley in an interview on CNN directly after the debate admitted Romney was correct, but used poor wording.

 

Who Won?

Who Lost?

 

YOU DECIDE!

Edited October 17, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[Vin+ 3,121]

Tie.

 

I don't see what the point of a moderator is. If the clocks don't matter, if flow doesn't matter; then you might as well just give the candidates a sheet of talking points and let them go at it. Pretty much what's happening now, anyway.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I may not even watch the third debate. I'm so frustrated with the rhetorical back-and-forth. Both these men get up there and just say nothing. Romney had plenty of opportunities to explain why reduced rates for capital gains spur economic growth, but he didn't, and he was way too assertive, looking like an ass most of the time. The only positive to come of this debate was "binders full of women."

 

Just gonna cast my vote for Gary Johnson, sit back, and watch the fireworks the next four years.

[oochymp 2,393]

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Few thoughts:

 

-Not many will agree, but tonight Obama wiped his nuts on Romney's nose. Evens out the damage done from that first debate where Obama stammered like a man with d-d-d-down syndrome. A lot will ride on the third debate, I think.

 

-They both sat and avoided answering the questions like the plague, but when they actually spoke on issues Obama was much more clear and he made Romney look like a bitch in their squabbles.

-Obama was able to calm down more effectively and it made him look more credible, imo. Romney got riled and stayed that way.

 

-Obama was disrespectful to the moderator, just not as much as Romney. Romney didn't have the sense to act nice toward her at any point like Obama did.

 

-Both lied throughout the entire matter, the same as the last debate. It's really upsetting that we can't see the perspective of any of the other political parties.

 

-Obama repeatedly answered questions by repeating his answers on other matters that had nothing to do with the question at hand. Moron.

 

-Romney did a better job of actually answering questions, but continued his campaign of vagueness by making remarks about how he wanted to fix things, but not explicitly stating what he would do to make that happen.

 

-Obama mentioned that he kept his promises, which made me laugh. Romney's laugher came when he stated he cares about 100% of the American people.

 

-How can Romney say that "the government does not create jobs!", while in the same breath admonish Obama for not creating enough jobs? Contradictory logic, lmao. And why the fuck did Obama agree with him on this point? Idiots, the both of them.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Zack_of_Steel

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That was problem though.. They didn't really sit down and TALK about the issues.

 

There was a question posed to the President about his promise to try and get AKs out of the hands of folks around the country... In his answer, I think he said AK ONE TIME and that was simply to say that AKs weren't the problem. lol

 

Obama and Romney also both talked one hell of a game on the question about an increase in cost of living and what solutions they had to cut that increase. Neither man gave a single solution or even wanted to talk about the rise in cost of living. That's scary.

 

Then this thing with Libya... The two candidates, plus the fat cow moderator spent the whole time debating about the wording of President Obamas speech the next day. WHO CARES. They asked Obama about the refusal to put more security there after repeated request... He pretended like he wasn't asked that question.

 

Why didn't we talk about the Obama administration pretending like this was all because of Youtube for two weeks? Or how about why and how we funded Al Qaeda in Libya to begin with? Or how 20,000 missiles magically disappeared.

 

Screw the semantics and bickering over things that don't mean a damn thing.

 

This debate, more than the last (IMO)... Was just a complete joke. There was very little talk about the ISSUES (questions concerned the issues, obviously.. But both candidates beat around the bush all night). There was very little talk about REAL POLICY. There was very little talk about REAL SOLUTIONS.

 

All debate #2 was, was Obama and Romney flashing their junk to the crowd and measuring to see whose was bigger.

 

EDIT: Obama probably "won" just because he got beat down so badly the first time around. I would expect gains on his side, but nothing substantial.

 

Let's hope the next debate is better. Speaking of which.. Larry King will be moderating the 3rd party debate. Yay.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I also loved how when Obama called Romney out on his math not adding up (in terms of a tax cut and reducing the deficit simultaneously), his response was essentially, "Of course the math adds up" with no facts or details to back it up.

 

Whoever keeps running these Republican campaigns needs to be fired because the only thing worse than Romney's 2012 campaign was McCain's in 2008.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

It's the same thing with their awesome foreign policy. Not sure how they expect to win on a pro-war banner.

 

I am sure we will see an overhaul and change in tactics after Obama wins re-election for 2016.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

I also loved how when Obama called Romney out on his math not adding up (in terms of a tax cut and reducing the deficit simultaneously), his response was essentially, "Of course the math adds up" with no facts or details to back it up.

 

Whoever keeps running these Republican campaigns needs to be fired because the only thing worse than Romney's 2012 campaign was McCain's in 2008.

 

And yet all of the retarded Republicans gobble the ambiguity up and vomit it all over everyone and say, "SEE, ROMNEY KNOWS WHAT TO DO!!1!11! OBAMMY IS A MUSLIM, SOCIALIST FAGGOT!!1!!1! "

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I am sure we will see an overhaul and change in tactics after Obama wins re-election for 2016.

 

I'm not so sure. If Obama gets re-elected and the economy and/or deficit doesn't improve by 2016, the Republicans will be able to walk into the White House by singing the same old song, most likely.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I'm not so sure. If Obama gets re-elected and the economy and/or deficit doesn't improve by 2016, the Republicans will be able to walk into the White House by singing the same old song, most likely.

 

Probably, but it's time for a change regardless. And I think the group of candidates they will be unraveling will have the potential to make change.

 

Rand Paul *cough*

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Probably, but it's time for a change regardless. And I think the group of candidates they will be unraveling will have the potential to make change.

 

Rand Paul *cough*

 

From what little research I've done into Rand, I'm a fan. I'd also be down with Rubio (a local favorite of mine, being from Florida), but I worry that he'll just be a shining puppet for the Republican Party, similar to what Barack Obama became for the Democrats.

 

No matter the case, Republicans will have a much stronger primary field in 2016, IMO--though that won't be too difficult, because seriously, this year's batch of contenders outside of Ron Paul was a joke. Rick Perry? Newt Gingrich? Rick Santorum? C'mon man.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I honestly thought Romney won that one by quite a bit.

 

The only reason why people think Obama won was because of how poorly he did at debate #1. Yes, he did better than the first one, but Romney still won on pretty much all the important issues.

 

Both candidates were saying all sorts of things that weren't true, which is really get frustrating to say the least. I found it funny that the one time the moderator tried to correct someone, Romney was actually correct.

 

Also just curious, does the President gets to choose who gets to moderate the debates? I mean, PBS, CNN, and now Larry King, and the VP debate as well, all four moderators are liberal. I'm curious why we need to have a moderator. Just have someone watch the clock and prevent them from going on, and have them read the question. Nothing more, no opinions, no interrupting them, nothing. Just let the two speak.

 

The Democrats trying to argue semantics on the Libya issue is fucking imbecilic. Everyone who watched Obama's speech knows he thought it was because of the video and their ensuing cover-up is something Romney and co. should blow the Obama Admin up on, because it is absolutely shameful not to want to say there was a terror attack right before an election merely because one wishes to be re-elected. And then to continually try to spin it for weeks afterward saying it was because of a video, when they *knew it was no such thing within 24 hours of the attack.* (Honestly, anyone with a brain should have been able to figure out that a coordinated strike couldn't happen that fast and had to have been planned long before that video came out.)

 

I agree that whoever is running the Republican campaign should be fired, they have so many holes and opportunities to use, and they should blast the President on the Libya issue, and they haven't been, up to this point. Don't let the media, which is firmly in Obama's back-pocket for the most part, try to attack you on the issue of "politicizing a tragedy" because what Obama did is exactly that. Ignore what CNN, ABC, the NYT, etc., say, because you aren't going to win them anyway, they are firmly for Obama, as they have been for a long time. Follow your own advice and ignore the 47% of people that you can't win, and focus on the 53% that you can. That was sound strategy.

[OSUViking 505]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/17/1030581/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-31-myths-in-41-minutes/

 

^ Romney's performance on the night. I'll go look for an equally large Factcheck on Obama, but all of the fact checkers are tallying up more Romney lies than Obama lies from what I'm seeing.

 

EDIT:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/16/the-fact-check-a-second-look-at-claims-on-jobs-education/1637861/ < This is the only link I can find that shows a decent number of Obama claims.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Vikingfan465

[Thanatos 2,847]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/17/1030581/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-31-myths-in-41-minutes/

 

^ Romney's performance on the night. I'll go look for an equally large Factcheck on Obama, but all of the fact checkers are tallying up more Romney lies than Obama lies from what I'm seeing.

 

EDIT:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/16/the-fact-check-a-second-look-at-claims-on-jobs-education/1637861/ < This is the only link I can find that shows a decent number of Obama claims.

 

Well just looking at the first few "myths" that thinkprogress claims Romney to have told, (maybe you should get a less liberal source than thinkprogress to look at the Republican candidate's claims, given their obvious bias against him), all but one is subjective.

 

First myth his bill "could" cut the Pell Grant- but perhaps not. It depends on how you look at it. Romney simply wants to make sure, (at least as he says it), that the program's dollars are going to students who need it, rather than students who do not.

 

Second I'd have to look into, but the Washington Post is like the sister of the New York Times. Don't really trust them on Romney either.

 

Third isn't a myth at all, it's a fact. He's spinning what has occurred to make Obama seem bad, (although recent history does show a decline, so perhaps he could argue that Obama's policies worked at first, but now is not working), but its not a myth as to what he said.

 

Fourth- 5,000 permits isn't "slightly fewer" than 8,000 to 9,000. Yes, it's not half, as Romney claimed, but it's still a large amount less. Technically, then, this is myth. But Romney's point was valid, even if his numbers were an exaggeration, (far less slight than TP's claim of slightly fewer).

 

Fifth- Yes, Romney is against the one-year renewal of wind production tax credit. This says zilch as to his long-term goals.

 

Sixth- Again, need to look it up. I know how both sides like to use jobs that have nothing to do with the actual employment to spin the numbers.

 

Seven- How the hell does wanting to remove fuel efficiency standards mean that Romney is against getting the NA energy independence? Maybe he's going about a way that doesn't involve the government telling car manufacturers how to make their vehicles.

 

Eight- They even admit this is unclear, nor do they contradict what he claimed. This doesn't fall under even their lax standard of a "myth."

 

Nine- This is the myth. What you're paying at the pump does not automatically equate to whether or not a policy is working.

 

Ten- This is Romney's tax policy, which is vague and which he needs to explain further. But to say there is no way for it to work is asinine. One way, which he won't do, is to get out of the Middle East and the two wars we are in. But TP is claiming that there is no possible way it can work, as the money has to come from somewhere. This is classic Democratic politics, trying to pit the middle class against the rich.

 

As for the USA Today article, they actually have the gall to try to spin Romney's claim against Obama about the Libya attacks, saying that Obama called it an act of terror the day after.

 

Of course it was an act of terror, regardless of whether it was motivated by a video or not- and THAT is the point. Obama believed, or wanted us to believe, that it was not planned, it was spontaneous as a reaction to the video, and continued to spew this story for the next two weeks. The reason being that if it was a planned attack, the Republicans could feasibly attack the President for dropping the ball.

 

That is Romney's charge, and the USA Today is trying to cover for Obama on this one.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Socal 524]

The only difference between Romney's performance and Obama's was essentially Obama talked louder and was ruder than Romney was. They were both idiots, frankly. Saying either one of them won the debate is pointless.

 

Oh wait...

[OSUViking 505]

Oh wait...

 

I'm not going to deny it, I'm biased against Romney because I favor Obama.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Something I just remembered about the debate: When Romney was asked about his tax plan and he quickly explained that every middle class taxpayer will no longer pay taxes on capital gains, dividends, mutual funds, or other forms of unearned income.

 

So my question is...how many middle-income families have unearmed income or earn income from money? Do any of you? Most have their 401(k) through their employer but how many middle-income families do you know that will be significantly affected by no taxes on unearned income? If middle-class families don't earn unearned income, then how is Mitt Romney's plan a net tax break for anyone but the wealthy who invest their money? Or am I missing something here?

Edited October 21, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Something I just remembered about the debate: When Romney was asked about his tax plan and he quickly explained that every middle class taxpayer will no longer pay taxes on capital gains, dividends, mutual funds, or other forms of unearned income.

 

So my question is...how many middle-income families have unearmed income or earn income from money? Do any of you? Most have their 401(k) through their employer but how many middle-income families do you know that will be significantly affected by no taxes on unearned income? If middle-class families don't earn unearned income, then how is Mitt Romney's plan a net tax break for anyone but the wealthy who invest their money? Or am I missing something here?

 

I thought about that as well.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Debate 3 is tonight folks, and it's centered on foreign policy. Forewarning: Romney has the same foreign policy advisers as Dubya. Take that as you will.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Debate 3 is tonight folks, and it's centered on foreign policy. Forewarning: Romney has the same foreign policy advisers as Dubya. Take that as you will.

 

And yet Obama has basically continued Bush's foreign policy. They can both slurp my scrotum in this area.

[Vin+ 3,121]

At least Bob Schieffer shouldn't get run over.