The 2012 Presidential Debates: Debate 2

[DoomsdayApex]

Hannity is kRush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc etc. Total joke/goon.

Anyone associated with Fox News is just... ignominious. Journalism skills/experience are not a requirement in the job description, apparently.

Ugh. *shivers*

 

[enterthemadness]

Anyone associated with Fox News is just... ignominious. Journalism skills/experience are not a requirement in the job description, apparently.

Ugh. *shivers*

you've never seen my knight in shiny armor, RED EYE. Libertarian, Newsparody, satire, comedy. a sexy 4 punch combo.

Dat Greg Gutfeld. Dat Bill Schutlz. Dat 3am time slot.

 

[Excel]

Anyone associated with Fox News is just... ignominious.

I wouldn't go that far.

I personally enjoy the opinions of the both the right & the left, assuming they at least attempt to be fair and factual. Bill O'Reilly is pretty good. Sure, he might talk over his guests on occasion, but the interviews he has done with both the Clintons & with Obama have been the best I have seen with anyone. Similarly when he has had Romney on. He concedes fair points, and doesn't let people get away with BS. I don't mind Brett Baer, Sheppard Smith, or Megyn Kelly either. Karl Rove usually has excellent election analysis (though his personal opinions on politics, not so much). Britt Hume is fairly good as well. Their problem for me is they really do not have a political analysis team. It is usually just people like Hannity offering their extremely biased opinions. Hannity is known to bring in the likes of Sarah Palin and Herman Cain for their 'analysis'. Sure, Hume can be objective, and Rove has his moments. But other than that, there is not much to get out them.

CNN does not really have the commentary shows like Fox does. MSNBC does, with Maddow, Matthews, previously Olberman. Maddow is ok but clearly very liberal. Same for Matthews. I don't mind them but they are not quite as fair to the other side as I would consider Bill O'reilly to be. Olberman was another Hannity. Like Fox, their political analysts are the same as their commentators. We know which direction they are coming from. It is obvious.

CNN, with David Gergen, Gloria Borger, and John King, I think certainly offer the most fair coverage of the election. All of those people are pretty much more objective than anybody else on either network when it comes to the election.

James Carville & Paul Begala are both better than anybody on Fox and MSNBC as well, though they are also clearly Democrats. But those two, and guys like Gergen, who worked as an advisor to Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, just have tremendous amounts of legitimate insight to offer. I usually what Gergen says as essential fact. He 110% nailed just about everything from the 2008 election, and in the 2012 GOP primaries.

 

[Mike]

Outstanding debate mr president. Good form!

 

[Excel]

Nobody mentioned it here during the debate, in fact I dont even recall it. But the press seems to be running with Romney saying "Binders full of women" as a legit gaffe.

http://www.google.com/#q=binders+fu...d8a34dddd6c462&bpcl=35277026&biw=1280&bih=625

 

[charl_huntress]

I just finished watching the debate and it seems clear to me it was a draw in term of the important issues the candidates addressed and how they answered. YET, what Obama did that I am sure will be talked about tomorrow is he made Romney look like... a bit....of a jerk. Romney can't seem to help himself in that department anyway, so it wasn't that hard for Obama to do that. I'd like to see how this plays out tomorrow once all the facts are checked and everyone who matters in the media had a chance to view the debate at least 50 times....lol

How funny though.

I don't think the polls will change much after this debate. Though, if Obama keeps pushing Romney the way he did in the next debate then I doubt Romney can close the deal. As I keep saying....all Romney needs is a moment to put his foot in his mouth...and TRUST...he will likely do it.

 

[SentinelMind]

Just watched it.

Crowley and the "undecided" audience was stacked in Obama's favor (the Pay Women Fairly question, how is Romney not like President Bush, I voted for Obama in 2008 but not just as excited. ... were all lame).

Nonetheless, I didn't see any missteps from Obama and saw a few from Romney. "Binder full of women" and semantics game about 'acts of terror' slipped up his momentum. Romney's mistake is directly asking Obama to clarify his record several times, which of course his opponent is going to spin. Obama is not going to flat out admit anything like cuts in federal drilling.

Both came out strong, Romney attacked Obama's record consistently but didn't say anything new. I give President Obama the slight win in stopping the momentum of Romney.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

When arriving to Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, Fox News takes the cake, unequivocally. While there are personalities like O'Reilly and Shepard that are not as bad as the others, the station is just menial half the time. Kelly and Rove are far from bumbling idiots like Beck and Palin, but the rhetoric they spew is oxymoronic and disgustingly over-the-top. At times, it gets so abominable, I wonder if some of those hosts/personalities, commentators, correspondents, etc truly believe in what they're reporting, discussing, and analyzing. Honestly, it's outlets like Fox that feed this idea to the American public (who believe in right-wing and conservative ideologies) that if you're not an ultra-patriot who praises God and Jesus every five minutes of your natural life, then you're the problem with this country. Don't get me wrong, MSNBC is equally just as horrific as Fox here and there but jeez oh mighty... Fox finds a way to up the ante, every time.

I'm a Moderate, so I share qualities with almost every political party out there in existence, but I refuse to vote for any candidate and/or party simply because this nation has turned our political system and selection process as some low-brow reality TV show. And a big reason for that is because of our current media market. It's only fueling the problem.

DemocracyNow! and RussiaToday put them to shame.

 

[Excel]

yup, binders of women & ryan photo op are becoming full blown gaffes. All over yahoo.

 

[charl_huntress]

Meh...I don't really care about the drama of politics anymore!

I'll admit last election cycle I was really caught up in it; though, seriously this drama has been a part of American politics for...forever. Drama filled elections and debates are the norm and they are good for TV. Compared to other countries, IMO,...this is nothing.

Personally, I'd like to see Romney and Obama at dawn with pistols...ready to defend their core beliefs to the death....

 

[SV Fan]

yup, binders of women & ryan photo op are becoming full blown gaffes. All over yahoo.

I think the ryan photo op is worse then binders full of women. Binders is just funny but you get what Romney means, the photo op just seems like one of those scummy things politicians do

 

[Donut]

Someone should take the audio from this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPEuemz9tjc

Keep the text that shows up. Change the title at the end & replace the video with random Obama & Romney clips. Then this is the perfect way to describe this election

 

[Matt]

I think that the binders full of women thing is the funniest gaffe in American political history. It is so stupid. It is so obvious what Romney meant to say. But he said it in such a poor way and some of the pictures that people are making just crack me up. Two of my favorites:

 

[terry78]

Basically if Mitt takes it, all that meager cooperation we get from our allies will be shot down to nil. The rest of the planet has already made it clear they view him as Bush 2.0.

 

[Nitehawk013]

Where exactly is this information? I don't recall seeing much on the news about the world hating MItt Romney. I do remember him being pretty well adored and embraced when he was in Israel. Europe? No clue. I think they need to worry more about not going bankrupt than they do about our elections.

 

[dnno1]

I wasn't disturbed by the "whole binders full of women" comment, but more so about the fact that he didn't answer the question pay equity for women. It is one thing to say that you have hired women, but tell me if you paid them the same as their male counterparts. Mr. Romeny didn't answer that question.

 

[Nitehawk013]

I don't know where that is even an issue. Every job I have worked has paid women the same as men. Personally I think this was just brought up as a wedge for the feminazis who keep imagining they are being held back and wouldn't vote Romney regardless of anythign he could say.

 

[dnno1]

I don't know where that is even an issue. Every job I have worked has paid women the same as men. Personally I think this was just brought up as a wedge for the feminazis who keep imagining they are being held back and wouldn't vote Romney regardless of anythign he could say.

Your local experience does not reflect the national averages. Even to this day, women make on average about 80% less than men do in the same field of work. The question of pay equity is real and is a concern to many women in this country (who make up more than half the population). It is a big issue.

 

[Nitehawk013]

ON the Benghazi/Act of terror issue, IF Obama was referring to teh Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism during his rose garden speech on 9/12, then WHY did Rice, multiple other administration spokesmen and even Obama himself continue to say it was random violence errupting from protestors for 2 weeks. They intentionally REFUSED to use the word terrorism in regards to the attack, be in on Letterman, the View, and everywhere else for 14 days.

So you really expect me to believe that Obama's official stance was to come out on 9/12 and call Benghazi a terrorist attack, but then hide it and do everything in his power to place blame on a movie and credit the attack to protestors before going back to admitting it was terrorism 14 days later? You Obama sycophants really think that is correct?

Obama may have spoken the words act of terror in the rose garden, but he never explicitly said Benghazi was a terrorist attack until 2 weeks later. He clearly didn't want the link made because he knew the effect that would have on his foreign policy. He couldn't come out and say "yeah we just had a clear terrorist attack on a US embassy under my watch, but my foreign policy is awesome so don't worry about it". He refused to call it terrorism so he could maintain the illusion he knows what he is doing in the eyes of those who only mildly pay attention. Thos eof us who do pay attention knew he was a fool from the beginning.

 

[Destructus86]

I wonder what parts of the country this is an issue in? I know plenty of working women who don't have this issue. Maybe it's a southern thing. (when in doubt, blame the south)

 

[Destructus86]

It was an entertaining debate...but really dis solidify me voting for Romney even more...and I can't even stand the guy. haha...

 

[Nitehawk013]

Your local experience does not reflect the national averages. Even to this day, women make on average about 80% less than men do in the same field of work. The question of pay equity is real and is a concern to many women in this country (who make up more than half the population). It is a big issue.

Yeah...ok. Think this through.

You REALLY believe that? YOu really believe that a woman doctor makes 80% less than a male of the same type practice? That a woman CEO of someplace like GE owuld make 80% less than a male? "We're going to save lot's this year because we were paying Bob $120,000 to run the company, but since he left and we hired Marcia we're only going to pay her $24,000." You really believe that a school would pay a man $160,000 to teach, but only pay a woman $32,000?

Even better since in my area I think teachers are pulling in about $40,000, you mean to tell me you think it true that woman teachers are only making about $10,000 a year?

Maybe you meant 8%, not 80%. In which case, 8% difference is nothing. That's not an egregious inequality worthy of Presidential outrage.

 

[Destructus86]

Yeah...ok. Think this through.

You REALLY believe that? YOu really believe that a woman doctor makes 80% less than a male of the same type practice? That a woman CEO of someplace like GE owuld make 80% less than a male? "We're going to save lot's this year because we were paying Bob $120,000 to run the company, but since he left and we hired Marcia we're only going to pay her $24,000." You really believe that a school would pay a man $160,000 to teach, but only pay a woman $32,000?

Even better since in my area I think teachers are pulling in about $40,000, you mean to tell me you think it true that woman teachers are only making about $10,000 a year?

Maybe you meant 8%, not 80%. In which case, 8% difference is nothing. That's not an egregious inequality worthy of Presidential outrage.

Well said.
*claps*

 

[Fading]

Yeah...ok. Think this through.

You REALLY believe that? YOu really believe that a woman doctor makes 80% less than a male of the same type practice? That a woman CEO of someplace like GE owuld make 80% less than a male? "We're going to save lot's this year because we were paying Bob $120,000 to run the company, but since he left and we hired Marcia we're only going to pay her $24,000," You really believe that a school would pay a man $160,000 to teach, but only pay a woman $32,000?

Even better since in my area I think teachers are pulling in about $40,000, you mean to tell me you think it true that woman teachers are only making about $10,000 a year?

Maybe you meant 8%, not 80%. In which case, 8% difference is nothing. That's not an egregious inequality worthy of Presidential outrage.

8%, or 80% shouldn't matter when talking inequality. Even if you view 8% as chump change, why should a woman make less doing the same amount of labor as a man? I agree that this isn't the case in most jobs. Factories, retail, restaurants, ect, tend to pay the same amount regardless. The inequality seems to come from climbing up the ladder. I guess I'm just not seeing why a woman wanting to be equal is a bad thing?

I'd also argue you're putting words in his mouth. He never stated which areas of work had the inequality in pay. Just because one work place doesn't have inequality doesn't mean they're all equal pay. I also disagree that inequality of a demographic shouldn't be worthy of presidential ire. What's wrong with a president wanting an equal playing field for all Americans? Once we settle that someones almost equal enough, and we should simply move on....I think that's one of those moments where we start failing as a society.

 

[Nitehawk013]

The number one value the left is interested in is equality. I do not share their feeling.

8% difference can be covered by almost anything. Maybe the man making 8% more has more experience, is more versatile, is a better team player and therefore is more valuable to the team, doesn't take as much time off so is more reliable? Maybe she literally can't do the same job a man can. I worked warehousing for years an dwomen got paid the same wage I did, yet did NONE of the real hard work. Was that "equality"?

All these tings should be considered. Yet some think it should simply be equal pay no matter what. You work in the same job title as a man, you should make just as much.