Debate

Postby drawscore » Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:59 pm

Of course, I expect my liberal friends to disagree, but I think Obama really screwed the pooch in the first debate. Romney came across as strong and confident, while Obama seemed to be defensive.

Even liberal pundit Bill Maher commented that Obama looked like he needed a teleprompter.

Obama has some work to do, to overcome his dismal performance. As for the first debate, Romney cleaned Obama's clock. Thoroughly.

Drawscore

Re: Debate

Postby Chris12 » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:53 am

Haven't seen it but i heard Romney was the better one in this debate.

And don't we already have a topic about this? the election one.

Re: Debate

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:45 am

And if being a skilled debater was a useful presidential skill, you might have something there... but to coin one your favorite catch phrases it's about as useful as pockets in underwear. Being able to debate under the strict guidelines used isn't relevant to the job.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Debate

Postby Chris12 » Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:57 am

But Obama is a good bebater right? Well in his previous one....i think.

Re: Debate

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:20 am

Obama is a good debater... usually. But Romney did have some advantages. He doesn't have the responsibility of running the country at the moment he is running for president, giving him much more leisure time to prepare. Also, he is getting away with providing vague answers and no details while Obama is having to explain things in considerable detail based on the years he's already served as president. Also, Romney is relying on zingers rather than facts to score points, and he doesn't have four years of experience of his own dealing with an already trashed economy to have to explain away.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Debate

Postby Kyle » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:11 pm

I didn't see it, but this could be a troubling sign for Obama because speaking and debating are supposed to be two of his strengths, and speaking and relating to people is definitely NOT one of Romney's strengths. Although truthfully, I think too much stock is put on these debates. I watched all 3 of them last election and learned very little real useful information.

Re: Debate

Postby drawscore » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:38 pm

Romney just flat out cleaned Obama's clock. Obama got his ass handed to him on a plate.

Drawscore

Re: Debate

Postby Kyle » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:41 pm

That's about what I've been hearing. Even Obama's supporters generally think Romney won this one, although not as much as Romney supporters of course.

Re: Debate

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:06 pm

drawscore wrote:Romney just flat out cleaned Obama's clock. Obama got his ass handed to him on a plate.

Drawscore

Don't hold back. What do you really think? :roll:
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Debate

Postby ebascoray » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:46 am

In all honesty, ***NEITHER*** candidate impressed me very much. Both of them have a long way to go to convince me to vote for one or the other. That's all that I have to say on the matter.

Ebascoray

Re: Debate

Postby Jack Roper » Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:33 pm

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/201 ... ebate.html

I agree that Obama did poorly. Too bad he didn't bring a "magic hankie" like Romney did. Watch this video to see how the rich and infamous cheat on live TV.

They are not supposed to bring any notes of any kind. You may recall in 2004, during George Bush's second debate with John Kerry, there was a suspicious bulge in the back of Bush's jacket, which some surmised was a devise for Karl Rove to transmit much more clear answers to Bush than in his first debate, when he was incoherent.

Re: Debate

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:39 pm

Looks suspicious all right. :worried:
Even so, Obama clearly could have done much better than he did. His performance was plain awful.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Debate

Postby Sacrificiallove » Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Well, if you ask me, I think Romney sounded like a rude old arrogant rich guy who really has no respect for anyone but himself. The thing is, though, I don't know crap about politics, so other than the vibe I was getting from them, I don't know crap.

Re: Debate

Postby drawscore » Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:31 pm

Lots of liberal spin from the left:

"Romney cheated," when he tossed a handkerchief on the lectern, according to the Daily Kos. (The liberal Huffington Post debunked that claim.)

Al Gore said Obama's poor performance was due to the altitude. Yeah, right. He sure did OK in Denver four years ago, and did not seem to be affected by the altitude.

And Chris Matthews' post debate rant was, in a word, pathetic.

Gee, libs. Would you like some cheese with those whines? Get over it. Your guy was FUBAR, and anyone with an ounce of sense that watched even five minutes of the debate, knows it.


Drawscore

Re: Debate

Postby Chris12 » Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:32 am

Of course the conservative reaction would be totally different if Romney sucked right? :lol: But yeah your right Drawscore, they should just admit Obama lost this one.

Re: Debate

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:18 am

Regardless of who wins the debates and who wins the Presidency, life in the US for the next four years is going to suck out loud!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Debate

Postby drawscore » Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:19 am

You're probably right, but the question, is it going to suck less under Romney, or Obama?

Drawscore

Re: Debate

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:44 pm

Depends on your POV I suppose. Some people will be affected worse than others regardless.
Since Ryan and Romney want to screw up Medicare and Social Security though, I, being close to retirement age myself, think I'd rather vote for Obama. Obama is definitely not the best President we've had, but I dislike Romney more and I detest Ryan completely.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Debate

Postby drawscore » Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:21 pm

Gas is already over $4.50 a gallon in California. If Obama is re-elected, count on it being $7.00 or higher when he leaves office. You may not like Romney or Ryan, but I like the probability of $7.00 a gallon gas, a whole lot less. And even if you don't drive, it's still going to affect local, intrastate and interstate transportation, which means the price of everything transported by plane, train, or truck, is going to go up, right along with the gas prices. Plus there will be higher taxes so Obama can fund more Solyndra boondoggles.

Drawscore

Re: Debate

Postby Jack Roper » Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:35 pm

Gas was over $4.50 a gallon in the summer of 2008, under President Bush. Did he cause that? To attribute gas prices to a President is kinda stupid, really.

Re: Debate

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:48 am

It's also still only half of what they have to pay in most of Europe. The days of cheap fossil fuels are over. Deal with it.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Debate

Postby truly_trussed » Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:02 am

Well put Jason. I think we're getting a tad US-centric here. I'm sure readers in Canada and Europe are watching us yap about gas (petro) prices and saying "Awwwww!" I know in the GTA (Toronto area) prices are rather volatile but currently around $1.27 a litre. Multiply by 4 (to get an approximate gallon) and it's around $5 a gallon. That'a assuming the U.S. and CDN dollars are close to par.

For those in Europe, how about chiming in and tell us what petro costs in your neck of the woods. Converting liters to gallons and Euros, Pounds or other currencies to bucks and it probably comes out to around $8 to $12 a gallon. That's why when I head to Canada I fill up the tank in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area or Plattsburgh or Detroit or Bellingham, WA before crossing the border. I never drive in Europe, I just have a Rail Europe or Britrail pass. There's excellent train service all over the continent although Eastern European service in the old Soviet Bloc countries tends to lag behind Western Europe service. I understand on the High Speed Rail Line between Madrid and Barcelona you pay a premium fare but if your train is more than 5 minutes late you get a full refund!

I'm sure American conservatives would call this Socialized Transportation. When we Yanks fill up we should think globally and pay locally. It's a bargain, geographically speaking.

Re: Debate

Postby drawscore » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:46 pm

Americans have had a love affair with their automobiles since at least the 50's, and I would guess that if we were paying $2.00 a gallon instead of 19 cents a gallon back in the mid to late 50's, we would have a much better intercity and interstate rail network, and few, if any, eight mile a gallon gas guzzlers.

It was Eisenhower that proposed and started the Interstate highway system, which made auto travel much faster and easier.

I've heard that the Interstate highways must have at least a mile and a half of straightaway for every ten miles of roadway, which can be used as emergency landing strips for military aircraft (or any aircraft, for that matter).

Of course, if we could take advantages of our own resources, rather than depending on nations that have nothing but disdain and contempt for us (OPEC), and if we could keep those resources at home, rather than exporting them to China, and other nations, we could keep prices down, and drivers happy. Unfortunately, Obama wants to see "energy prices naturally skyrocket," and his energy policies seem planned to make that happen, and to make more Americans dependent on big government.

Drawscore

Re: Debate

Postby Kyle » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:40 pm

The story about interstates having to have a certain straight stretch of roadway for airplanes to land on is a myth, but I've heard it before too, although it's usually at least 1 straight mile for every 5 miles.

The US could use better railroad transportation (or public transportation in general) but as vast as this country is it's impractical to think we will ever be anything like Europe. The US is much more rural and spread out than Europe.

Cheap gas prices are a thing of the past. Government policies can influence it but ultimately it's caused by supply, demand, and greed of the oil companies.

Re: Debate

Postby Jack Roper » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:01 pm

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/t ... 2B3HEQdp88

Getting back to the topic that originally started this thread, read the link above to see the 27 fibs, lies or misdirections employed by ex-Gov. Romney in last weeks debate. Stunning in it's obfuscation!

Re: Debate

Postby drawscore » Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:41 pm

More liberal spin from another liberal flack.

Drawscore

Re: Debate

Postby Jack Roper » Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:45 pm

Facts are stubborn that way: hard to refute so you just condemn them without any ratioanle--typical, Drawscore.

Re: Debate

Postby drawscore » Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:57 pm

You'd have more credibility if you would post links from something a bit more to the center, rather than from the far left. As for facts, as was once said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

It's a fact that Obama lost the debate, and lost badly. As much was admitted by scores of liberal pundits, including the MSLSD crowd. Even Bill Maher, who wrote a million dollar check to a super PAC supporting Obama, said that Obama must have spent the million on weed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 44691.html

(Note that I cited the liberal Huffington Post, so you and other liberals don't accuse me of linking to conservative sites to make my points.)

Drawscore

Re: Debate

Postby Jack Roper » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:07 pm

Facts are facts, whether from a liberal site or a conservative one. Sorry.

Here is Romney debating himself....

http://gawker.com/5949818/mitt-romney-d ... itt-romney

And, just for you Drawscore, a column from The American Conservative.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom


I tried to live-blog this thing, but just didn’t have the energy. So here is my strongest impression of the debate overall: Mitt Romney wants the audience to believe that he and Barack Obama disagree profoundly on fundamental philosophy, but disagree only very marginally about policy.

Over and over again, Mitt Romney would attack the President on general principles, then the President would say, in so many words, “well, the implications of that view are” and start listing policy implications, and Romney would retort: no, I don’t believe any of that, in fact that stuff you say I oppose is stuff I agree with, and that stuff you say I support is stuff I absolutely will not do.

On the budget, Romney praised Bowles-Simpson, which called for a substantial net increase in revenue, suggesting his own plan was a variation on that theme, and denied he would cut spending in any specific area that Obama highlighted as a possibility that he might cut – the only spending he talked about was spending he promised to increase: increases on defense, restoring cuts to Medicare, etc.

On health care, he repeatedly talked up his reform in Massachusetts, and when asked how it was distinguished from Obamacare, said it was a state-level plan that was enacted on a bi-partisan basis – an entirely process-related answer. Any time Obama talked about anything popular in Obamacare – like the way it handles pre-existing conditions – Romney said, effectively: don’t worry, I’ve got that covered in my plan as well.

On Wall Street regulation, Romney was at pains to reassure that he believed in regulation, and that there were plenty of sensible things in Dodd-Frank, and the one line that he called out as being a problem was the “too big to fail” designation (without explaining what that was, or how it was related to the regulation as a whole, or how he’d deal with the actual problem of too-big-to-fail).

On education, Romney was eager to say that Secretary Duncan had good ideas that he agreed with and would build on, and that he would not roll back the Federal role (but would use Federal leverage to promote school choice).

Even on taxes, the clearest point of contrast, Romney denied he intended to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy, denied he would increase taxes on the middle class, and denied he would increase the deficit. His tax cut was reduced to a “goal” of reducing rates and broadening the base, which would come out of a process that would involve both parties.

And on it went in that vein.

The President was plainly frustrated by this approach, and his frustration showed. If, as they say, you watched it without sound – or, even better, if you didn’t speak English, so you could hear the sound but couldn’t understand the words – I have to believe Romney won by a mile.

But if you didn’t watch the debate, and read the transcript, what you’d see is the following. When Romney attacked, Obama generally had a policy response – some more persuasive than others, but the response was generally policy-related. When Obama attacked, Romney would generally deny that he took the position that was being attacked.

Romney’s palpable zest for the debate made him look like a guy ready to take charge, and the President’s demeanor suggested some willingness to let him do so. But his refusal to stand his ground on anything – and the marked contrast with the President in that regard – made him sound like a snake-oil salesman.

I guess it’s clear how the combination played for me. How it played for a low-information voter, I don’t know.

.

Re: Debate

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:50 am

Romney is the ultimate flip-flopper; he changes what he says to suit the moment. It's one reason why Obama was off his game in the debate; how do you debate something who changes what he says to suit his own convenience? Romney can't be trusted, and Ryan even less so.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...