Presidential debate 1

[Adam Of Angels]

Treeunit said it.

 

[Treeunit212]

Romney to me lost here
" You didn't cooperate with republicans when creating Obamacare."
" It was a Republican idea"

Obama had virtual ALL of the zingers, clever comparisons, and disses that would have otherwise thrown the debate audience into a roaring mob, because it sure as fuck did at the state theater I watched from.

I haven't paid close enough attention to any debate like this before, so perhaps that's why I'm so stunned Romney is being crowned the victor.

 

[Watty]

Everyone will always say their side won the debate, so what's the point declaring a winner? (Especially evident in youtube videos debating religion.....ugh)

In the first 5 minutes, I loved how Mitt tried to say that his plan was different from Obama's. The only difference between what he said and what Obama said was that Mitt chose to number his points (further reinforcing the idea that they were rehearsed) whereas Obama spoke about them in a manner indicating thought while speaking, if not only to encompass a larger idea that to pin each one into a taking point.

On a different note, Obama didn't even bother bringing out the 47% guns and such, so perhaps he let Mitt play himself up only to be shot down later...don't care much either way as I'm not voting for Mitt regardless of how well he performed tonight or any other night.

Also, EVERY time I hear Mitt say he wants Americans to be able to pursue liberty, I die a little inside. He's convinced himself that liberties that infringe on archaic religious traditions are automatically moot. How can LGBT folks pursue the same liberties as straight folks when they're being denied rights?! I know Obama would have looked childish asking him that in the middle of the debate, but I really want to see how Mitt would respond (at this stage in the gamne, not surrounded by other candidates who are even more crazy religiously than he is - as odd as that sounds). I'm glad I live in Washington, where we're about to pass a marriage equality act that will even the proverbial playing field; though I'm not happy that it had to be evened out in the first place...

LET THE FACT CHECKING........COMMENCE!!!

 

[tacotiklah]

Even Obama fell into a trap that I cannot stand: When asked a direct question about jobs, he goes on and on about how his wife is awesome and other bullshit. If I wanted an opinion on the state of your marriage, I would ask "So how's your lovely wife?". In this case, I wanna know how you're gonna put my ass back to work. That's like me asking someone what number comes after 2 and they start telling me how photosynthesis works.

 

[Necris]

That's like me asking someone what number comes after 2 and they start telling me how photosynthesis works.

Oxygen is the number 2 of photosynthesis.

 

[Watty]

Even Obama fell into a trap that I cannot stand: When asked a direct question about jobs, he goes on and on about how his wife is awesome and other bullshit. If I wanted an opinion on the state of your marriage, I would ask "So how's your lovely wife?". In this case, I wanna know how you're gonna put my ass back to work. That's like me asking someone what number comes after 2 and they start telling me how photosynthesis works.

He mentioned it because it's their 20th wedding anniversary... A major milestone in today's society to be sure. Granted the question wasn't answered in the first 40 seconds of his reply, but he led up to it. If you paid attention to what the political analysts were saying, a major point of contention was whether or not Obama could come across as jovial and compassionate. He accomplished that and transitioned nicely into the question; as if the next 10 minutes of talking weren't enough to answer the question...?

And I think it's laudable when people think the president can directly put "[their] ass back to work." The president merely helps foster the environment in which job creation becomes a viable and desirable outcome, which (granted) hasn't been as successful as it could have been at this point in time. With all the companies that Mitt claims create jobs out there with CEO's being paid millions every year, what's another employee who will only cost them 50k a year? Job creation is as much about profit and greed as it is about fixing our economy. This should be evident enough given that the reason we're in this mess in the first place revolves around rich people wanting to get even more so as a result of gambling with money that wasn't theirs to begin with.

And to clarify, are you not working because people won't hire you, or are you not working because you won't apply for a job you feel is "beneath" your qualifications?

 

[tacotiklah]

I'm not working because 1.) My area has over 17% unemployment so the the job market is saturated with other people looking for work and 2.) My area is notorious for discrimination against transpeople looking for a job. So yeah, there's where the government could REALLY help me find a job.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's their anniversary and all. But going on and on about your wife when you are asked a direct question sounds like the kind of political waffling that I can't stand. I believe when you are asked a straight question, then you are obliged to give a straight answer.

I don't care if he sounds jovial or upbeat, I care that he's going to do his job. That's ALL I care about. I wanna know what his plan is and how he plans to execute it. If it is something logical, feasible and doable, then I'm all for it. If it isn't, then I wanna hear what the other guy's plan is. If neither of them can come up with anything that sounds like it's in the right direction, then I want to hear someone else's ideas on the subject.

Also, spending 10 minutes to answer a question that you only have 2-3 minutes to answer is ridiculous. You should be going into a debate knowing what you plan to say long before you say it, and in a way that won't send most of the attention inept people of America into a coma. In other words, avoid over elaborating on minor details and put more emphasis on the major points.


Note that I feel Obama won this debate, but I do have some qualms about how he did it. I feel that he wasn't aggressive enough on some of his points, although he did come out swinging on a few that made me laugh my ass off. Mitt of course keeps spinning the same bullshit he has been for a while now. Then of course I was unimpressed with Obama making his anniversary a key issue in the debate. Make it a footnote, not the very first thing out of your mouth.

I'm willing to bet that if Obama came out a bit more harshly and more focused in the next debate, Mitt will have a snowball's chance in hell. For some people it's not what you say, but how you say it that matters.

 

[Watty]

I'm not working because 1.) My area has over 17% unemployment so the the job market is saturated with other people looking for work and 2.) My area is notorious for discrimination against transpeople looking for a job. So yeah, there's where the government could REALLY help me find a job.

Sounds like it might behoove you to think about switching to a different industry, or, at the very least, pick up a part time job doing something else? Sometimes you have to embrace the fact that people suck and will treat you differently as a result of who you are; that's life. I'm not saying you should change, but you can't walk through life claiming that everyone HAS TO accept you for who you are because it's not going to happen. And if you're against the discrimination, I don't get why you'd be irked by anything Obama said...he's going to be the candidate more likely to sympathize with your position and pass legislation to help...I'm thinking Mitt would say something like "it's your choice, it's your problem" if he didn't have cameras on him...

And aren't there laws requiring that employment not be denied on the basis of gender or sexual orientation? People who don't want to hire a trans will find a way to legally justify it (other qualifications come to mind), so the government isn't going to be able to do much for you in that respect. That is, unless you had the funds to take it up the court system and could prove it...but then we're right back to people sucking and the circle begins again!

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's their anniversary and all. But going on and on about your wife when you are asked a direct question sounds like the kind of political waffling that I can't stand. I believe when you are asked a straight question, then you are obliged to give a straight answer.

Waffling would imply that he didn't know how to answer. He did know how, and given what I mentioned about his strategy in the debate, he elected to do so after the comments regarding his marriage. Politicians are notrious for dodging direct questions, I thought that was evident to everyone? See Paul Ryan a few days ago about the tax plan for an even better example.

I don't care if he sounds jovial or upbeat, I care that he's going to do his job. That's ALL I care about. I wanna know what his plan is and how he plans to execute it. If it is something logical, feasible and doable, then I'm all for it. If it isn't, then I wanna hear what the other guy's plan is. If neither of them can come up with anything that sounds like it's in the right direction, then I want to hear someone else's ideas on the subject.

Then you shouldn't have bothered to watch the debate at all as they rarely answer anything other than how much mud will the candidates choose to throw at one another's policies and principles. This one wasn't all that bad, but it's only because Obama chose to fight fair.

Also, spending 10 minutes to answer a question that you only have 2-3 minutes to answer is ridiculous. You should be going into a debate knowing what you plan to say long before you say it, and in a way that won't send most of the attention inept people of America into a coma. In other words, avoid over elaborating on minor details and put more emphasis on the major points.

I meant to say that they talked about jobs and other related topics for the following 15 minutes or so and that you should have been able to find an answer to your question in what was said during that time.

 

[tacotiklah]

Sounds like it might behoove you to think about switching to a different industry, or, at the very least, pick up a part time job doing something else? And if you're against the discrimination, I don't get why you'd be irked by anything Obama said...he's going to be the candidate more likely to sympathize with your position and pass legislation to change it...I'm thinking Mitt would say something like "it's your choice, it's your problem" if he didn't have cameras on him...

I'm 100% sure that's EXACTLY what Romney would say, hence why I'd never vote for that scumbag. Nothing about this debate has ever swayed me from wanting to vote for Obama. That doesn't mean that I have to like everything Obama does, and I also like to be objective about things that I like and dislike and not pander to one party or another. Hence why I'm registered as an undecided voter because I vote across party lines in order to pick the candidate that I most agree with regardless of what party they identify with. In this case, I agree completely Obama would do the best job in ensuring that there are safeguards against discrimination against LGBTs in the workplace in all 50 states.

As far as work goes, I'm actually a full-time student right now and as such I get paid in the form of grants and loans. Obama did an AWESOME job of adequately laying out the groundwork for how he has helped students across the country pay for college, and it has certainly helped me as I learn a new trade and grow as an individual. Full marks for Obama on this one.

Waffling would imply that he didn't know how to answer. He did know how, and given what I mentioned about his strategy in the debate, he elected to do so after the comments regarding his marriage. Politicians are notorious for dodging direct questions, I thought that was evident to everyone? See Paul Ryan a few days ago about the tax plan for an even better example.

If Obama wanted to differentiate himself from every other politician, not going on and on about his home life would have been the way to do that. This was the kind of thing I expected from Mitt tbvh. Obama DID lay out his plan, but I would have rather he came out of the gate talking about jobs and things like that because of the fact that is what is on the majority of American's minds right now. Mitt actually took that bull by the horns and that's about the only thing that he really had going for him in this debate. Now if you go and fact check what Mitt says, you're gonna see that bullshit meter explode. However, the fact that Mitt made it a real point long before Obama did will only help Mitt. Obama has to come out with focus on jobs first and foremost if he wants to grab the attention of the swing states. If Obama did this, not only would he have facts and mathematical logic on his side, but he'd also do so in a way that would get people to actually pay attention to what he has to say. (the whole point of a debate in other words)

Then you shouldn't have bothered to watch the debate at all as they rarely answer anything other than how much mud will the candidates choose to throw at one another's policies and principles. This one wasn't all that bad, but it's only because Obama chose to fight fair.

I watch the debate because I prefer to actually care about what goes on in the world outside of my house. That doesn't mean I have to like it or condone it.

I meant to say that they talked about jobs and other related topics for the following 15 minutes or so and that you should have been able to find an answer to your question in what was said during that time.

Well he eventually got to his point. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to debates with timed responses, you don't take forever trying to get to your main point. You get to it in a clear, concise manner and eschew over-elaboration and useless jargon.

 

[TRENCHLORD]

Romney has soooo much more knowledge and experience in business and economics.
This was an easy slam dunk for Romney. Most of the experts and commentators seem to be agreeing that Obama came off like shit. (but he's still a nice guy lol)

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

From what i've gathered from this...

...Just thought it was fitting.

 

[tacotiklah]

Romney has soooo much more knowledge and experience in business and economics.
This was an easy slam dunk for Romney. Most of the experts and commentators seem to be agreeing that Obama came off like shit. (but he's still a nice guy lol)

As a person studying in business and economics, I can tell you first hand that it does NOT make a person a better leader. A better accountant definitely, a better economist sure, but NOT a better leader. Remember that the sole purpose of a business is to turn a profit. If a business could legally throw their own mother under a bus to make more money, I bet you anything that said business would do it. Remember also that the business is out to make more money for itself, NOT you.

Romney will run the government in a way that increases his own pockets, and not in a way that will actually benefit you.

 

[petereanima]

Well, I should have gone to sleep, that wasn't really worth for me staying up after all (that thing started 3:30 a.m. locally).

Has America really gone down so far, that the more aggressive speaker is automatically the "winner" now? You must be kidding me. Well, than why waste time with debattes, let them battle royal in a cage match, or just let them drop their pants and whoever has the bigger balls, wins.

 

[tacotiklah]

Well, I should have gone to sleep, that wasn't really worth for me staying up after all (that thing started 3:30 a.m. locally).

Has America really gone down so far, that the more aggressive speaker is automatically the "winner" now? You must be kidding me. Well, than why waste time with debattes, let them battle royal in a cage match, or just let them drop their pants and whoever has the bigger balls, wins.

+rep for this because this is so sad, yet so goddamn true!

I would have appreciated if Obama had taken Mitt to task a bit more for some of the idiotic things Mitt has been saying as of late, but I gotta admit that he tried to stay classy about it.

 

[Lasik124]

I find it extremely disheartening that even NPR is calling the debate for Romney, simply because he was aggressive and that's all voters will notice. It was frantic, defensive energy with no basis in factual reality.

Obama was confident and collected, whereas Romney had to rudely interrupt the awful mediator just to rebuke like the condescending asshole he is.

How the fuck is that presidential? Why are we talking about how many notes Obama took instead of Romney's inability to take a punch like a grown up?

Romney didn't let up because every word he says is rehearsed garbage designed to display confidence. Obama actually thinks as he talks, and that's a bad thing?

Obama will come back learning that you can't debate like a grown up with an asshole like Romney, and hopefully next time the moderator says "Let's not, you rude motherfucker" quite more often.

I'll just make my response what this guy said

 

[MrPepperoniNipples]

Has America really gone down so far, that the more aggressive speaker is automatically the "winner" now? You must be kidding me. Well, than why waste time with debattes, let them battle royal in a cage match, or just let them drop their pants and whoever has the bigger balls, wins.

Well keep in mind when the candidates have these debates they're not trying to convince any Republican to vote Democrat or liberal to vote conservative, but instead trying to sway the undecided voters in their favor.

In that sense, I think Romney 'won' because of his aggression and what have you because after that night (and that night alone) I think more undecided voters would be more confident in Romney than Obama.

 

[synrgy]

The majority of the "questions" were bullshit to begin with, and both men were allowed to divert to talking points instead of answering the questions as posed.

Put differently, I'm not surprised at the perceived 'results' being based on poise. If there are no real questions, and no real answers, what the fuck else are we supposed to judge?

The whole thing was embarrassing.

 

[lurgar]

Well, I should have gone to sleep, that wasn't really worth for me staying up after all (that thing started 3:30 a.m. locally).

Has America really gone down so far, that the more aggressive speaker is automatically the "winner" now? You must be kidding me. Well, than why waste time with debattes, let them battle royal in a cage match, or just let them drop their pants and whoever has the bigger balls, wins.

This is American politics now. One of the main reasons the debate was called for Romney wasn't because he was talking the truth or had amazing ideas or anything. It was simply because he was more aggressive and caught Obama offguard with his brand new positions. Fact checking is already not being very kind to Romney, but that doesn't matter to people. What matters is who is more aggressive and who is more assertive. Facts are based on your own personal reality and if you can't articulate that in a short little soundbyte then it must be too complicated to actually make sense and you must be making fun of my intelligence so therefore you're wrong and all of your ideas are wrong what am I even talking about now?

It's much easier to appeal to be peoples' reactive nature than their intellectual one especially when people have been fed the idea that the most educated and most intelligent people are the "elite" and look down upon the common man.

 

[Watty]

Romney has soooo much more knowledge and experience in business and economics.

You forgot to mention that the bulk of his knowledge and experience is limited to the private sector, which I would think is a fair amount different than taking over the economic system for the entire country (not to mention its effects on the world stage). I'd imagine it's much easier to appease the interests present in a single state than to try and fight all the influence that is involved with making decisions involving the entire country. All it takes is for a few people to take a bribe from a company to break the system, and no amount of economic experience can combat that sort of thing.

This was an easy slam dunk for Romney. Most of the experts and commentators seem to be agreeing that Obama came off like shit. (but he's still a nice guy lol)

Again, each side will call their own and it seems like you did just that. If this is indeed the case, it's only because Obama chose not to bring up the gaffes that Mitt's made over the course of his campaign; something I can respect Obama for even more now. And what exactly does shit come off like when concerning a presidential debate?

Overall, Romney sounded as if he was reading from a script most of the time; I mentioned early that the first point they made was exactly the same. The only difference being that Mitt numbered the points, which I suppose will be seen as a plus for those looking for "structure" in what they believe their candidate will be responsible for doing once he hits the White House. However, I think Obama was appealing more towards the folks that can read between the proverbial lines, as it were, and......wait this all sounds bullshit doesn't it? Of course it does....you can spin things any way you want! If Mitt does win the election, it will be because conservative voters get false information from places like Fox news that spin it as such and don't bother to check their facts. I've said it once, and I'll say it again....I know some older folks who honestly believe that Obama breaks down doors and does back flips at press conferences. You can't compete with that sort of blind indifference to the truth, and these sorts of uninformed voters are what the Republican's are counting on. The one thing we can take solace in is that these folks will be dying off soon and we can finally move forward instead of backward.

For me, it boils down to fact that I'd rather live in a slightly unstable country where everyone has the same rights and privileges instead of one where theology grows into a governing force and the income gap gets even wider than it is now. I don't know if Obama can fix everything he inherited from the Republicans, or if he'll be able to do much after winning (given that the Republicans will continue to block the Dem's out of spite for having lost the election)...but I do know that he's representative of where I'd like to see this country headed. Out of the religiously based stone age and into prosperity; after all, we've seen in work in the Scandinavian nations, right?

 

[celticelk]

Romney has soooo much more knowledge and experience in business and economics.
This was an easy slam dunk for Romney. Most of the experts and commentators seem to be agreeing that Obama came off like shit. (but he's still a nice guy lol)

And John Kerry beat the pants off Bush in their first debate, and we all know how that election turned out. Don't count your chickens, etc.

The general consensus does seem to be that Romney came off looking better, but the fact checks indicate that Romney was significantly more...truth-challenged, shall we say, in his responses. I'm sure that's gonna come back to bite him in the form of campaign ads in a couple of days.