• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

The 2012 Presidential Debates: Debate 2

Voting for the lesser of two evils got us into this mess...

Are you referring to Bush or Obama? I definitely never supported Bush. Not even in 2000.

voting for the two major parties probably won't get us out of this anytime soon.

For a 3rd party candidate to become President OR be successful as President, you need to give that person support through the senate and congress. Look how much harrassement Obama has gotten from republicans. Can you imagine a 3rd party candidate with no allies whatsoever? You need to change everyone around the President before you can change the top dog. Everybody pays attention to the Presidential elections and makes a big deal about them but they ignore everything else. And that is the problem. We need to fix that.
 
For the last time...cause this has gotten old...I make a point about the Bush question and then you bring in another question. If I am talking about A and you say 'well what about B,'...that is deferring my point to your straw man while at the same time in another post then saying I am setting up a straw man. That's that. You can think whatever else, that's fine.

What non Obama koolaid supporter actually believes that Bush and the Republicans were the prime cause of the current recession? That's an Obama campaign point...that is where she got it. She's either an Obama supporter or not too smart. I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

How exactly is pointing out the gaping hole in your argument a straw-man? Allow me to dramatise our exchange.

"Asking Mitt a question about Bush exhibits bias."
"How? Also, doesn't a disappointed 08 supporter asking Barack a question exhibit bias?"
"Bush and Barack are the same! Why not ask Barack to differentiate himself? Bias!"
"They aren't exactly the same. Also, what about the 08 supporter?"
"They are the same! Here are all the ways that they are the same..."
"There might be constants, but they aren't the same. But what about the 08 supporter? Is that not bias too?"
*no answer, restate that Bush and Barack are the same* x infinity

So nothing but speculation on your part in regards to the second question then. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
I can't wait to see what the Daily Show and Colbert Report have to say tomorrow night. Love this guys
 
CPD...will....probably do that when they stop being bias and allow 3rd parties into debates based on ballot access.So nevar, never.

I have no clue what you just said.....but I love ya, so I'll just shake my head.....ok.
 
I have no clue what you just said.....but I love ya, so I'll just shake my head.....ok.

The CPD (the Commission on Presidential Debates) is the group that sets up the presidential debates. It was founded by Democrats and Republicans. Unsurprisingly, its membership is dominated by them.

A number of people (including ETM) believe that they are biased against third party candidates.
 
The CPD (the Commission on Presidential Debates) is the group that sets up the presidential debates. It was founded by Democrats and Republicans. Unsurprisingly, its membership is dominated by them.

A number of people (including ETM) believe that they are biased against third party candidates.


Aw, yes........well, it is NOOOOW, 2 hours and 8 minutes after my bedtime....so you can see where I'm coming from....:cwink:

And I agree with him...
 
Do you realize how silly you sound when you say stupid things like this? Politics isn't a spectator sport. "Big O," doubled our national debt. "Big O," has mortgaged your children's future. "Big O," has been, for all intents and purposes a terrible president. People like you are the reason I left the Democratic Party. It shouldn't matter what letter is by someone's name if they are doing a terrible job. Grow the **** up or don't vote. This type of mentality is an embarrassment to our country.

Not to knock you off that high horse Matt, but while I know you made no over-the-top football cheers/chants/analogies, you were pretty excitedly for days talking about how the debate opened the race up for Romney and were calling it....well almost like....a horserace....(which is a spectator sport)

<runs away>
 
Last edited:
Obama hasn't been a great President. And I think MOST people would agree with that. However, I definitely do not believe that Mitt Romney is a better option or a suitable replacement. I would love to support a 3rd party candidate but I'm very much aware that it is a waste of a vote.

I see a lot of support for Romney but I wonder if this people truly believe Romney is better OR are they just disappointed with Obama. We are all disappointed with Obama to some degree but let's not downgrade ourselves because of it.

That's my problem. I would be happy enough to vote for a Republican if they put out a candidate I felt was better. McCain/Palin was a poor ticket last time, and Romney/Ryan is the worst I've seen in my lifetime personally. That's not to say Obama's a good president, he's made mistakes, lots. However I'm not entirely a pessimists either, I'm not one of those types who only looks at how the country is going wrong. Some poor decision making aside, an Obama 1st term did see us (atleast for now) steer away from the depression we were headed towards, the Iraq war ended, the Afghan war starting to wind down, Al-Queda hit hard, ect. Obama could have done much better, but I don't see his first term as a pure train wreck a lot of ppl do. I'm more willing to give him a second term, than Romney a 1st.

Romney on the other hand has been Mr. gaffe, and etch a sketch. The only reason we're still not talking like he's a walking disaster area politically is because he won one debate. His foreign policy, and ideas for defense spending is in the crapper. His tax ideas take Bush's tax policy to even greater heights. His secret videos show almost a disgust for half the country. He pisses off our allies before even getting the job, and calls Russia our biggest foe. Almost all of his new ideas involve benefitting the rich who are still increasingly wealthy despite the recession, while statistically shown to increase the burden on the middle class. He says things completely contrary to what he's campaigned on this entire time in front of cameras to pull in centerist voters, then has his campaign cntrl+alt+delete it quitely the next day. His flip flopping makes Kerry look good. Even when he does give details, he changes them the next week.

There has just been nothing of Romney to show me he'd be a better president. As bad as Obama has been, he's atleast done some good too. Romney is just completely downhill. If he gets in office, and gets a tea party republican congress....I honestly think we'll see a tougher road for all but the top 3% by the end of his first term. An Obama second term may see a higher national debt, but atleast I see the middle class gaining some ground during that time, which is better than losing it. Overall though, I don't see either candidate getting us out of this hole in the next 4 years, the same way we all knew neither McCain or Obama would last election cycle.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I personally thought Obama did very well tonight. He did what I always thought is the most effective way to debate Romney, bring up that almost everything he says that night he once said the complete opposite of--be it as a Massachusetts governor, a GOP primary contender or even a few weeks ago--and is spitting out half-truths. Obama did very well in that regard. I also think he had enough confidence to hold Romney back and somehow was able to turn his weakness on the Libya diplomacy incident into a strength because Romney got stuck in the weeds about what Obama said and completely lost his mojo after that.

I'm happy with the debate, but it is not going to create the monstrous momentum Romney had after the first one--at least I don't think so. However, I do think it will give Obama some much needed lift and change the narrative/momentum from Romney soaring to the two in a dead heat. And at that point Obama has the advantage.

Also, I do not think that Crowley was biased. The losing side always says this. I just think this format does not allow for tough questions.
 
Not to knock you off that high horse Matt, but while I know you made no over-the-top football cheers/chants/analogies, you were pretty excitedly for days talking about how it opened the race up for Romney and were calling it....well almost like....a horserace....(which is a spectator sport)

<runs away>

There's a difference between talking about how the debate had changed the dynamic of the race (can you really deny that it did) and being silly and over the top.

At any rate, I publicly apologize to Excel, I went too far. I'm sorry, buddy. Long night. Honestly, political wouldn't be the same without you. :O :hrt:
 
Anyway, I personally thought Obama did very well tonight. He did what I always thought is the most effective way to debate Romney, bring up that almost everything he says that night he once said the complete opposite of--be it as a Massachusetts governor, a GOP primary contender or even a few weeks ago--and is spitting out half-truths. Obama did very well in that regard. I also think he had enough confidence to hold Romney back and somehow was able to turn his weakness on the Libya diplomacy incident into a strength because Romney got stuck in the weeds about what Obama said and completely lost his mojo after that.

I'm happy with the debate, but it is not going to create the monstrous momentum Romney had after the first one--at least I don't think so. However, I do think it will give Obama some much needed lift and change the narrative/momentum from Romney soaring to the two in a dead heat. And at that point Obama has the advantage.

Also, I do not think that Crowley was biased. The losing side always says this. I just think this format does not allow for tough questions.

I think when you have the MODERATOR more or less debating one of the debaters, they have crossed the line from moderator to participant, but that is just my opinion.
 
She pointed out how he literally flipped on the spot one of his positions (assault rifle ban) and pointed out that he was wrong and Obama did mention terrorism the day after the assassination in Libya. That is not so much debating him as bringing up facts.
 
Hmmmm.....I think she had a hell of battle to fight with those two in this type of debate setting....

I do not think she should have said anything as far as the Libya portion, but people can go and find that speech very easily on youtube and figure it out for themselves.

His wording in that particular speech was "Act of Terror" people can read as they wish.....I did not see that as his official stance on what happened, it was clear that the official stance was that it was an attack, unplanned, in retaliation against the trailer of the movie....so IMO, they both fudged on the truth there....and Candy should have kept her mouth shut, because they both fudged on the truth in a lot of areas.

But again, I don't see this debate as any kind of game changer....pretty much a meh.
 
Last edited:
At any rate, I publicly apologize to Excel, I went too far. I'm sorry, buddy. Long night. Honestly, political wouldn't be the same without you. :O :hrt:

No worries, Matt. :cwink:
 
Anyway, I personally thought Obama did very well tonight. He did what I always thought is the most effective way to debate Romney, bring up that almost everything he says that night he once said the complete opposite of--be it as a Massachusetts governor, a GOP primary contender or even a few weeks ago--and is spitting out half-truths. Obama did very well in that regard. I also think he had enough confidence to hold Romney back and somehow was able to turn his weakness on the Libya diplomacy incident into a strength because Romney got stuck in the weeds about what Obama said and completely lost his mojo after that.

I'm happy with the debate, but it is not going to create the monstrous momentum Romney had after the first one--at least I don't think so. However, I do think it will give Obama some much needed lift and change the narrative/momentum from Romney soaring to the two in a dead heat. And at that point Obama has the advantage.

Also, I do not think that Crowley was biased. The losing side always says this. I just think this format does not allow for tough questions.
I don't think any of the mods have been biased, Even the one from the debate Obama lost. I liked the way Crowley fact checked Romney and I wish all mods did it all the time with both sides. You'd see alot less lying if they know someone is going to call them on it if they do lie.

I don't think it will be a big bump like Romney got from the first debate but I do think this win for Obama, And it was a win, Will help alot and stop Romney's bump from getting any bigger.
 
I don't think any of the mods have been biased, Even the one from the debate Obama lost. I liked the way Crowley fact checked Romney and I wish all mods did it all the time with both sides. You'd see alot less lying if they know someone is going to call them on it if they do lie.

I don't think it will be a big bump like Romney got from the first debate but I do think this win for Obama, And it was a win, Will help alot and stop Romney's bump from getting any bigger.

Seriously. I like the in-debate fact checking, and I like it when they actually engage eachother.
 
So, I get this from Hannity tonight. Apparently, according to him, Crowley is admitting that she was wrong and Romney was right about the Lybia comment. Hannity says Obama was actually talking about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 during his rose garden speech. And since he didn't say specifically "Bengazi was a terrorist attack", that means he was wrong. I read a couple of right wing blog posts, and they are parroting the same thing.

I read the first part of the rose garden transcript, and he does start off talking about 9/11/01, then segues into talking about the troops, segues into talking about our American resolve and values, then mentions "acts of terror" and immediately in the next sentence mentions the people died in Bengazi. I don't know how you can't see he is plainly calling Bengazi a terrorist attack, but I guess since he didn't say literally "Bengazi was a terrorist attack", it doesn't count.

Then I watched the clip of her "admitting" Romney was right. She actually said Romney was right about saying the administration kept talking about the tape for two weeks, which she also said during the debate. She did not say "Romney was right about Obama not calling Bengazi a terrorist attack for two weeks".

So, just to clarify myself, I guess it's ok to infer things from what Crowley said, but Obama needs an actual specific quote or it's too vague to know what he's really talking about. This is going to be an annoying war of semantics in the days to come.
 
Hannity is kRush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc etc. Total joke/goon.
 
So, I get this from Hannity tonight. Apparently, according to him, Crowley is admitting that she was wrong and Romney was right about the Lybia comment.

Hannity is misquoting Crowley. Crowley basically came out and said that Romney's point about the Obama administration did basically wait 2 weeks to come out with information was true but in terms of Obama referring it to terror at the Rose garden, Obama was 100% truthful about that statement being made at that time.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,422
Members
45,876
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"