Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Dear Mr. President

Debate

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:38 PM

When your opponent stands there and lies you do NOT congratulate him on a "terrific debate".

When you are trying to reach voters you do NOT fail to challenge your opponent, you CALL HIM ON HIS LIES.

When your opponent has been TAPED saying it's not his job to care for 47% of people you DON'T talk about how similar his and your views are on issues like Social Security.

And most of all Mr. President?

You have a record you CAN stand on.  Mr. Clinton amply demonstrated this at the DNC.  When you are closing a debate you STAND ON THAT RECORD and talk about what's next.  You DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE STAND THERE WITH HAT IN HAND AND APOLOGIZE.

Edited by Bad Wolf, 04 October 2012 - 01:38 PM.

Posted Image

#2 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:20 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 04 October 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

When your opponent stands there and lies you do NOT congratulate him on a "terrific debate".

When you are trying to reach voters you do NOT fail to challenge your opponent, you CALL HIM ON HIS LIES.

When your opponent has been TAPED saying it's not his job to care for 47% of people you DON'T talk about how similar his and your views are on issues like Social Security.

And most of all Mr. President?

You have a record you CAN stand on.  Mr. Clinton amply demonstrated this at the DNC.  When you are closing a debate you STAND ON THAT RECORD and talk about what's next.  You DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE STAND THERE WITH HAT IN HAND AND APOLOGIZE.

Amen!  Lordy, I couldn't believe that debate.  And every time that Romney talked about how he could work with Democrats to get stuff done like it's the Presidents fault that all the Republicans cared about was getting rid of the President to do the peoples work.  The first 2 years of the Presidents first term I was pissed that he kept giving in to the Republicans and all they did was badmouth him and obstruct EVERYTHING.  I sure hope he gets his act together for the next one because right now, it's his to lose.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#3 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:56 PM

Congress will NEVER be 87% one party.  Of course Romney had to work with his 87% majority state legislature because they didn't just have an overwhelming majority, they could override ANY VETO.

Voters like you and I of course see through the shenanigans going on last night but you and I are not who Obama needed to reach last night.  He needed to reach people who are inclined to make decisions based on who got the last word and what they said right then and there.  Obama needed to call out Romney on each and every single lie, inapposite analogy, flip flop and statement that just didn't add up.

Instead he says "terrific debate" and apologizes.

Oh TODAY he's mocking Romney but he needed to do that LAST NIGHT.

Egads I wish Hilary had won.

Dear Mr. President:

Please pick up the phone and call Bill Clinton.
Posted Image

#4 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 03:32 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 04 October 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:


Egads I wish Hilary had won.

Don't most of us?

Quote

Dear Mr. President:

Please pick up the phone and call Bill Clinton.

Talk about wasting all the political capital Bill got for him coming out of the convention.  Jeeze.  Clinton painted a road-map for voters AND Obama.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#5 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 413 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 04:05 PM

As someone who supported Obama here during the '08 primaries, I also wish Hillary had won. But I've been saying that since early on in his first term. I think Obama's true beliefs are much closer to my own politically, but he rarely stands up for them. Hillary hails from the DLC hawkish wing that I loathe, but at least she's a fighter, Obama's a conciliator. He looks like he just wants to retire. Hillary would go after Romney and this radical rightwing threat with everything she has. She'd fight till her last breath.

#6 Balthamos

Balthamos

    Once more unto the breach!

  • Islander
  • 2,280 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 04:21 PM

Is the current president automatically assumed to be the candidate for the next election assuming he is in his first term?

In England we don't vote for our prime minister. We vote for MPs and the party with the majority chooses their leader as the prime minister so technically whenever the leadership of the party changes the prime minister could change. Did the members of the democratic party, or the voters, not get a chance to choose someone else to run for president?

#7 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 04:23 PM

No, I don't wish that Hillary won.  Guess I'm in the minority. :)  I didn't watch the debates because I couldn't, but it sounds like it was mostly a disaster for President Obama.  Which, is not new. He's not all that good at debates, and sometimes he just sucks. A format where the audience has to be utterly still and not respond is not his forte, and his tendency is to ramble on explaining things (I happen to like that tendency, but I recall that it was a source of complaint last election).

I guess we'll see what happens come November.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#8 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 04:41 PM

View PostBalthamos, on 04 October 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Is the current president automatically assumed to be the candidate for the next election assuming he is in his first term?

In England we don't vote for our prime minister. We vote for MPs and the party with the majority chooses their leader as the prime minister so technically whenever the leadership of the party changes the prime minister could change. Did the members of the democratic party, or the voters, not get a chance to choose someone else to run for president?

In the US there is a primary for the party representative at each level.  However, party leaders don't like to run primary challenges against incumbents, for the most part.   Every now and then, a party member will insist on running against the incumbent  - they feel ideologically strong about something or another, and that trumps party unity for them.  It very rarely if ever works when we're talking the presidency, but some lower offices have successfully ousted an incumbent at the primary election stage.

The excitement of the last election (and the next) is that both parties had to have a nominating process, because there was no incumbent to the presidency - George W. Bush was term limited, so the Republican party had to choose a new nominee, and the Democrats had to choose a nominee as well.  The same will be true in 2016, assuming an Obama win this year (we can't assume that, but IF he wins, he's term-limited).

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#9 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,132 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 04:57 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 04 October 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Egads I wish Hilary had won.

Dear Mr. President:

Please pick up the phone and call Bill Clinton.

I supported Obama over Hillary, but would've been happy to have her as president.  Most of my gripes about Team Hillary were from Mark Penn's idiocy.  Obama's "cool hand' schtick/rope-a-dope routine worked well against John McCain, but it's not going to work against Mitt Romney.  He needs to show some fight in this one.

View PostBalthamos, on 04 October 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Is the current president automatically assumed to be the candidate for the next election assuming he is in his first term?

In England we don't vote for our prime minister. We vote for MPs and the party with the majority chooses their leader as the prime minister so technically whenever the leadership of the party changes the prime minister could change. Did the members of the democratic party, or the voters, not get a chance to choose someone else to run for president?

Incumbents usually run for re-election, although they don't have to, and the nomination isn't automatic.  We have primary elections to determine who becomes the nominee for each party.   Another Democrat could've challenged President Obama for the nomination, but it's pretty rare for somebody to mount a serious primary challenge against a sitting president--tho it has happened.

Congress does elect its leaders similarly to how your Prime Ministers get elected.  The House of Representatives elects a "Speaker" and the Senate elects a "majority leader."  They do some of the things your Prime Minister does, but only on the legislative side of things.

#10 Christopher

Christopher
  • Demigod
  • 32,990 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:13 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 04 October 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

  I sure hope he gets his act together for the next one because right now, it's his to lose.

Well, the analysts are saying that the incumbent usually does poorly in the first debate -- which shouldn't be surprising, since he's busy with actually being president and dealing with the weight of the world on his shoulders, and the campaign is a distraction from that.  They're also saying the debates don't really have that much of an impact on the voters' choices. Especially now that so much of the country is polarized and there's only a tiny percentage of undecideds to go after, perhaps not enough to shift the tide.

Besides, it's often seemed to me that President Obama does things like the Harlem Globetrotters did in their old Saturday morning cartoon -- have an initially inadequate response to a crisis or competition so that the tide seems to turn against him, but then put on his A game in the second half and dramatically turn things around. That's kinda what happened with the convention, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the next couple of debates.

I just wish the press wouldn't keep saying Romney "won" the debate. This isn't a talent show. You win a debate by having a greater command of the facts and a more legitimate argument on your side, and in that respect, Romney failed monumentally. The president could've done a better job pointing that out, though.
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." -- xkcd

"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." -- "H. G. Wells," Time After Time


Written Worlds -- My homepage and blog
Facebook Author Page

#11 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:56 PM

In EVERY presidential debate ONE participant is "busy being president"  SO?  As bad an excuse as that is for not being prepared, that wasn't Obama's problem.  Of course he was prepared.  He simply chose not to call out his opponent.  He simply chose to be apologetic instead of proactivce.  HE. PLAYED. DEFENSE.  And how busy or how not busy he was "being President" doesn't have a damned thing to do with it.  He's been playing defense since he got elected.  There's just no excuse for how this went down last night.


None at all.
Posted Image

#12 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:09 PM

Quote

When your opponent stands there and lies you do NOT congratulate him on a "terrific debate".

When you are trying to reach voters you do NOT fail to challenge your opponent, you CALL HIM ON HIS LIES.
I agree completely...and so does Mitt apparently. The problem is, 0bama lies far more often than he tells the truth. He lies so much he can't even remember which lies have been widely debunked. His strained relationship with "truth" in general, makes him a piss-poor avatar for campaign honesty. But maybe you were just being ironic.

Quote

When your opponent has been TAPED saying it's not his job to care for 47% of people you DON'T talk about how similar his and your views are on issues like Social Security.
Yeah the Kos/Huffpo/MSNBC wing of the Democrat Party seem to think that 47% recording is some kind of political deathblow. Not realizing only THEY give a crap about it...and it's easily countered with 0bama's far more disturbing comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians who "cling to guns or religion".

And y'know what else...there's been a lot of old "tapes" of candidates making the rounds lately. Turns out that in addition to being a chronic liar, 0bama's also a pretty shameless race baiter.(complete with grotesque on-demand "dialect") Maybe instead of lecturing their dear leader, the MSNBC Trotskyites should think about just why he didn't bring up the 47%.

Quote

And most of all Mr. President?
:dontgetit:

Quote

You have a record you CAN stand on.
:think: I assume you're talking about that sturdy "Like a Prayer" LP he keeps in his sock drawer. Because 0bama's record is sh*t...and he knows it. Bill Clinton knows it too...but once a sleazeball...

Edited by scherzo, 04 October 2012 - 07:12 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:19 PM

For some reason I'm now recalling River's parting words to Badger in Shindig. :rolleyes:
Posted Image

#14 Christopher

Christopher
  • Demigod
  • 32,990 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:20 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 04 October 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

There's just no excuse for how this went down last night.

None at all.

I'm not saying he couldn't have done better. I'm saying that it's unlikely his poor performance last night will make a material difference in the outcome of the election.
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." -- xkcd

"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." -- "H. G. Wells," Time After Time


Written Worlds -- My homepage and blog
Facebook Author Page

#15 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:21 PM

Well, I hope you're right Christopher. I'd like to see a Northeastern Republican take the White House one day - but not today, both because I happen to think President Obama is doing a good job and deserves to be reelected, and because the current republican trajectory is just not working for me, and I don't think the Northeastern Republicans can stand up to the party - Mitt hasn't so far.

But at the end of the day, I'm reasonably certain I'm not electing anyone to win debates.  I came here just to voice my one little rant - if the president lost the debate on style, presence, energy, etc, then he did.  I wish everyone would just accept that, instead of the inane articles about how he maybe really didn't lose, or whatever - it's overwrought and puts too much emphasis on all the wrong things - style, presence, energy, etc.... things that we happen to know that President Obama GENERALLY excels in.  SO if we're evaluating a future president - Obama already looks like one, and anyone can have a bad day, Mitt proved he can look like one - good for Mitt. But the actual purpose of debates are the substance of the answers to the questions.  While everyone is talking about zingers and lack thereof, energy, posture, etc, I'm just not hearing enough about the substance of the debates - did anyone say anything worth hearing and noting?  Was it all vague BS, and that's why all this chatter about winning and losing?  Was there an actual POINT that was won or lost (substantively, I mean)?

Media coverage of the "horse race" is exhausting, and I won't be following much of it any more.  I'm not interested in the 'horse race." I'm interested in electing the best man for the job - and it doesn't meet my objectives to feed the media's need for a story.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#16 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 413 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:30 PM

^ITA with you on the horse race coverage and the way these debates are judged on style over substance. Romney "won" the debate by spewing a litany of falsehoods and distortions in a crisp, articulate, commanding fashion. He made the sale to a low-information electorate and a superficial corporate media. On actual substance and accuracy, Obama routed Romney, but did so in an inexplicably sluggish fashion that bored even me. First time I've ever been bored watching a presidential debate.

#17 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 12:06 AM

Quote

^ITA with you on the horse race coverage and the way these debates are judged on style over substance. Romney "won" the debate by spewing a litany of falsehoods and distortions in a crisp, articulate, commanding fashion. He made the sale to a low-information electorate and a superficial corporate media.
While the low information electorate is a source of great concern, the segment of the electorate that is immune to any information that conflicts with their worldview...is wayyyyy scarier.



Stephanie Cutter concedes $5 Trillion Attack on Romney is Not True

Quote

Erin Burnett, CNN host: So you're saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?

Stephanie Cutter: It's a $5 trillion tab.

Burnett: But then when you close deductions it's not going to be anywhere near $5 trillion, that's our analysis.

Cutter: Well, okay, stipulated. It won't be near $5 trillion but it's also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he's going to close.
OK...so Crock Obama and his flacks are running with the new talking point that Romney is lying about a proposed $5 trillion tax cut. In effect, Team Hope and Change are serving up a LIE, in order to paint their opponent as a LIAR. When their deputy campaign manager is confronted with the truth on live TV, she acknowledges the problems but dutifully stays on offense.

Quote

Romney "won" the debate by spewing a litany of falsehoods and distortions...
Yes..quoting this again...because I'm in awe of it.

12 Obama Debate Lies And Counting… (hat tip NL)

Quote

LIE #1: OBAMA SAYS HIS PLAN REDUCES THE DEFICIT BY $4 TRILLION
THE CLAIM: Obama: “I’ve Proposed A Specific $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan.” OBAMA: “I’ve proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: “Virtually No Serious Budget Analyst Agreed With This Accounting.” “But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. Obama’s $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.” (Glenn Kessler, “Factchecking The First Presidential Debate Of 2012,” The Washington Post‘s The Fact Checker, 10/4/12)
THE FACTS: Obama’s $4 Trillion Figure Includes Money From Legislation Enacted With Republicans And From War Savings That Would Occur Anyway. “In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 billion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/3/12)
  • “Take Those ‘Cuts’ Away And Obama’s $2.50/$1 Ratio Of Spending Cuts To Tax Increases Shifts Significantly More In The Direction Of Tax Increases.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/3/12)
Obama “Twisted The Truth” With The $4 Trillion Figure. “Obama also twisted the truth when he repeated the claim that his proposals would reduce the 10-year deficit by $4 trillion. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that Obama’s budget would increase cumulative deficits by well over $2 trillion over that time period.” (Meghan McCarthy, Katy O’Donnell, Amy Harder, and Catherine Hollander, “Fact Checking The Presidential Debate,” National Journal, 10/3/12)
LIE #2: OBAMA CLAIMED HE WOULD RETURN AMERICA TO TAX RATES UNDER CLINTON

THE CLAIM: Obama: “We Should Go Back To The Rates That We Had When Bill Clinton Was President.” OBAMA: “But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: “Obama Repeated A Favorite Talking Point” But Americans Will Pay More Under Obama Than Clinton Due To New Taxes In ObamaCare. “Obama repeated a favorite talking point, saying that his tax plan would return rates for the wealthy back to where they were during economically prosperous times under President Bill Clinton. But those making over $250,000 a year would actually pay more than they did under Clinton due to new taxes imposed on upper-income people to pay for the health care law.” (Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore and Ben Finley, “Dubios Denver Debate Declarations,” Factcheck.org, 10/4/12)

etc etc etc...
Of course, virtually any sizable chunk of 0bama's public statements will test positive for lie infestation. But I find this list particularly useful in light of the subject matter.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#18 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,030 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 07:55 AM

Quote

the segment of the electorate that is immune to any information that conflicts with their worldview...is wayyyyy scarier.

I completely agree! :D

#19 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:28 AM

Factcheck.org - rated the debate as full of exaggerations.  But the one that bugs me the most is the dismissal of President Obama's assertion of savings for winding down the wars that were scheduled to end anyway.  The thing is - I am well aware of the number of folks opposing President Obama's commitment to end the wars on schedule.  So, I'm willing to give the President the point on this issue - I'd love to see the price tag for continuing the wars had we decided to stay a few more years.

Anyway - here is the Factcheck.org summary.  For details of each item, just click on scherzo's link:



Quote

Summary

We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.
  • Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
  • Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
  • Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
  • Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
  • Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
  • Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
  • Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
  • Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
  • Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.
Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator. He said “up to” 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employer-sponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million. He said 23 million Americans are “out of work” when the actual number of jobless is much lower. He claimed half of all college grads this year can’t find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless or underemployed. And he again said Obama “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, a figure that actually reflects a 10-year target for slowing Medicare spending, which will continue to grow.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#20 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 09:00 AM

View PostOmega, on 05 October 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Quote

the segment of the electorate that is immune to any information that conflicts with their worldview...is wayyyyy scarier.

I completely agree! :D

Heh!  Me too!  :D

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Debate

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users