Presidential Debate #2

[DC Tom]

For the briefest of moments, your post made a Romney presidency seem almost palatable - if nothing else because it would be difficult to be more ineffectual than the current WH has been (broad scale).

 

Why do people even believe things like this? It doesn't matter if you're talking about politics or quarterbacks, It can always be worse. It HAS been worse.

[meazza]

Good post.

 

I agree with everything that you said starting with "I" and ending with "."

 

You should post here more. I suspect that this type of approach, expressed nationally, would sway a lot of independents and people who just don't like Romney.

 

For the briefest of moments, your post made a Romney presidency seem almost palatable - if nothing else because it would be difficult to be more ineffectual than the current WH has been (broad scale).

 

7700 posts not enough?

[Juror#8]

Why do people even believe things like this? It doesn't matter if you're talking about politics or quarterbacks, It can always be worse. It HAS been worse.

 

Not sure if you mean the GOP candidate could be/has been worse or the current leadership could be/has been worse?

[DC Tom]

Not sure if you mean the GOP candidate could be/has been worse or the current leadership could be/has been worse?

 

I just mean in general. "Start Thigpen, he couldn't be worse!" "Vote for Kerry! He couldn't be worse!" "Vote for Romney, he couldn't be worse!"

 

It can ALWAYS be worse.

[meazza]

I just mean in general. "Start Thigpen, he couldn't be worse!" "Vote for Kerry! He couldn't be worse!" "Vote for Romney, he couldn't be worse!"

 

It can ALWAYS be worse.

 

Yes it could ALWAYS be worse... sigh

 

http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/10/18/james-mennie-podcast-pauline-marois-pq-is-quebec-already-fed-up/

[CosmicBills]

I'm still bugged that he was "fact checked" by the friggin' moderator. I couldn't care less that Romney looked bad.

Dude, you know I love you, but come on. She was THERE in the Rose Garden that day and knew Mitt was wrong, of course she should have spoken up. Mitt was (unknowingly or not) completely misrepresenting and trying to paint the President as liar on stage -- she has every right and dare I say a responsibility to speak up in that instance. Candy wasn't out of line in any way shape or form.

 

Also, everyone saying she admitted she was wrong is showing their unbelievable bias -- she never said she was wrong, she CLARIFIED her point and made the point Romney was trying to make. Yes, there has been an unbelievable fumbling of the Libya situation on part of the White House, which she said, but the point Mitt chose to make was wrong and she called him out on it. It's not her fault Mitt made a mistake. The denial in this thread by conservatives is ASTOUNDING. Yes, I'm looking at you Doc, LA, 3rding. Choosing to focus on covering up for Mitt's error rather than focusing on what's really at issue here (the White House's handling of the attack) is as bad as the liberals pretending that the Mitt's poor performance on Libya in the debate vindicates Obama.

 

Point of fact, Romney got caught in a semantic bear trap -- he walked into it himself. That's on him, not on Candy and not on Obama. Frankly, both him and Paul Ryan looked horrifyingly unprepared on issues of foreign policy. I may agree with them on (elements) of their economic policy, but they are absolutely terrifyingly wrong on matters of foreign policy as evidenced by the debates.

[meazza]

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/18/chris_matthews_romney_challenging_obama_is_against_constitution.html

[Juror#8]

7700 posts not enough?

 

Here in PPP.

 

I dislike Romney personally but don't like the current Administration so I'm very far from objective on this subject. I can't be trusted to discuss Romney's policies cause I find him loathsome. I'm biased.

 

People like 3rd, Bman, and Doc (and some others) APPEAR to have a personal issue with BO. I think that that implicates their view of him as a leader and a president. To them, BO listens to Iron Maiden backwards, gives alka seltzer to bald Eagles, and steals Halloween candy from blond haired, blue-eyed children. There is always another conspiracy.

 

It's refreshing to read an opinion from a republican that doesn't come from a place of animosity on either side. To a somewhat lesser extent, I feel the same way about Tom (though I'm not sure that he's a republican) and OC (even though OC is an insufferable lout).

 

Y'all are the 1943S copper pennies of this forum.

[CosmicBills]

 

http://www.realclear...nstitution.html

:lol: God bless his angry heart.

[3rdnlng]

Dude, you know I love you, but come on. She was THERE in the Rose Garden that day and knew Mitt was wrong, of course she should have spoken up. Mitt was (unknowingly or not) completely misrepresenting and trying to paint the President as liar on stage -- she has every right and dare I say a responsibility to speak up in that instance. Candy wasn't out of line in any way shape or form.

 

Also, everyone saying she admitted she was wrong is showing their unbelievable bias -- she never said she was wrong, she CLARIFIED her point and made the point Romney was trying to make. Yes, there has been an unbelievable fumbling of the Libya situation on part of the White House, which she said, but the point Mitt chose to make was wrong and she called him out on it. It's not her fault Mitt made a mistake. The denial in this thread by conservatives is ASTOUNDING. Yes, I'm looking at you Doc, LA, 3rding. Choosing to focus on covering up for Mitt's error rather than focusing on what's really at issue here (the White House's handling of the attack) is as bad as the liberals pretending that the Mitt's poor performance on Libya in the debate vindicates Obama.

 

Point of fact, Romney got caught in a semantic bear trap -- he walked into it himself. That's on him, not on Candy and not on Obama. Frankly, both him and Paul Ryan looked horrifyingly unprepared on issues of foreign policy. I may agree with them on (elements) of their economic policy, but they are absolutely terrifyingly wrong on matters of foreign policy as evidenced by the debates.

 

Obama's speech on 9-12 spoke of "acts of terror" in a generalized fashion. For two weeks afterwards he and his minions repeatedly brought up the movie trailer as being the cause of the attack in Libya. It wasn't a big deal that the Obama administration didn't immediately call it an act of terror. It was a big deal that once they knew (some say they knew that it was a terror attack at the time it was happening) they continued to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Romney was attempting to question why there was a coverup and Candy Crowley was absolutely wrong in siding with Obama.

[DC Tom]

Dude, you know I love you, but come on. She was THERE in the Rose Garden that day and knew Mitt was wrong, of course she should have spoken up. Mitt was (unknowingly or not) completely misrepresenting and trying to paint the President as liar on stage -- she has every right and dare I say a responsibility to speak up in that instance. Candy wasn't out of line in any way shape or form.

 

And both of them completely misrepresent each other at every turn...so was she out of line all the times she DIDN'T speak up - say, when Romney gave details of his tax plan, and Obama complained that he can't give any details, should she have said "Excuse me, Mr. President...he just did."

 

Because as I said before, she's either a ****ty moderator, or...she's a ****ty moderator. You can't have it both ways. Either a moderator is part of the debate, or not...there's no "well, maybe sometimes..."

 

 

Also, everyone saying she admitted she was wrong is showing their unbelievable bias -- she never said she was wrong, she CLARIFIED her point and made the point Romney was trying to make. Yes, there has been an unbelievable fumbling of the Libya situation on part of the White House, which she said, but the point Mitt chose to make was wrong and she called him out on it. It's not her fault Mitt made a mistake. The denial in this thread by conservatives is ASTOUNDING. Yes, I'm looking at you Doc, LA, 3rding. Choosing to focus on covering up for Mitt's error rather than focusing on what's really at issue here (the White House's handling of the attack) is as bad as the liberals pretending that the Mitt's poor performance on Libya in the debate vindicates Obama.

 

Point of fact, Romney got caught in a semantic bear trap -- he walked into it himself. That's on him, not on Candy and not on Obama. Frankly, both him and Paul Ryan looked horrifyingly unprepared on issues of foreign policy. I may agree with them on (elements) of their economic policy, but they are absolutely terrifyingly wrong on matters of foreign policy as evidenced by the debates.

 

Which is the real point. Romney didn't just walk into the semantic trap, he kicked it open and jumped in with both feet. Any discussion about Libya or Candy's role in the debate doesn't change that one simple fact - Romney did himself in, and with exemplary stupidity and unpreparedness (Candy becomes completely irrelevant to this discussion, for example, if Romney's team takes a half-hour beforehand to check Obama's statements and see what he ACTUALLY said.)

 

As for foreign policy...challengers are always more extreme in their statements, and tend to moderate once in office. More important, I think, is how the would formulate policy, rather than what their campaign slogans are. "Get tough on Iran" could be just as effective as "talk to Iran" if done sensibly...or just as spineless if done by proxy like this administration has done.

 

 

http://www.realclear...nstitution.html

 

What...the...!@#$?

[meazza]

Here in PPP.

 

I dislike Romney personally but don't like the current Administration so I'm very far from objective on this subject. I can't be trusted to discuss Romney's policies cause I find him loathsome. I'm biased.

 

People like 3rd, Bman, and Doc (and some others) APPEAR to have a personal issue with BO. I think that that implicates their view of him as a leader and a president. To them, BO listens to Iron Maiden backwards, gives alka seltzer to bald Eagles, and steals Halloween candy from blond haired, blue-eyed children. There is always another conspiracy.

 

It's refreshing to read an opinion from a republican that doesn't come from a place of animosity on either side. To a somewhat lesser extent, I feel the same way about Tom (though I'm not sure that he's a republican) and OC (even though OC is an insufferable lout).

 

Y'all are the 1943S copper pennies of this forum.

 

Just to clarify, I am not a republican. I am a fiscal conservative and don't give a **** about social issues (as long as they aren't batshit crazy policies).

[CosmicBills]

Obama's speech on 9-12 spoke of "acts of terror" in a generalized fashion. For two weeks afterwards he and his minions repeatedly brought up the movie trailer as being the cause of the attack in Libya. It wasn't a big deal that the Obama administration didn't immediately call it an act of terror. It was a big deal that once they knew (some say they knew that it was a terror attack at the time it was happening) they continued to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Romney was attempting to question why there was a coverup and Candy Crowley was absolutely wrong in siding with Obama.

Everything you say up to the underline part I agree with.

 

The underline part is where you and the other conservatives in this thread are making an erroneous leap. Romney made a mistake and what should have been a slam dunk he fumbled by choosing to try to trap the President. Candy did not side with Obama, she sided with the facts of the issue. And, immediately afterwards, she made the point Romney SHOULD have made.

 

The blame is on Romney for messing up what should have been an easy slam.

[DC Tom]

Obama's speech on 9-12 spoke of "acts of terror" in a generalized fashion. For two weeks afterwards he and his minions repeatedly brought up the movie trailer as being the cause of the attack in Libya. It wasn't a big deal that the Obama administration didn't immediately call it an act of terror. It was a big deal that once they knew (some say they knew that it was a terror attack at the time it was happening) they continued to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Romney was attempting to question why there was a coverup and Candy Crowley was absolutely wrong in siding with Obama.

 

Which was kinda Crawley's - and tgregg's point. "Acts of terror" is not "terrorism". They are semantically distinct - an "act of terror" is a single specific action taken to incite a reaction of fear. "Terrorism" is the application of "acts of terror" within the framework of a strategy to achieve a specific set of goals. Basically, the difference between some asshat shooting up a Sikh temple, and 9/11. The administration took two weeks (more or less) to decide the "act of terror" was "terrorism". Everyone BUT the administration admits that.

 

But - and here's the key point in this whole discussion - ROMNEY'S the one that made them semantically equivalent in the debate. He confused the two, used the wrong term, then tried to press the point. That little !@#$-up is ALL on him, and no one else. If Obama took advantage of Romney's !@#$-up...well, good for him. That's what you do in a debate.

[3rdnlng]

Here in PPP.

 

I dislike Romney personally but don't like the current Administration so I'm very far from objective on this subject. I can't be trusted to discuss Romney's policies cause I find him loathsome. I'm biased.

 

People like 3rd, Bman, and Doc (and some others) APPEAR to have a personal issue with BO. I think that that implicates their view of him as a leader and a president. To them, BO listens to Iron Maiden backwards, gives alka seltzer to bald Eagles, and steals Halloween candy from blond haired, blue-eyed children. There is always another conspiracy.

 

It's refreshing to read an opinion from a republican that doesn't come from a place of animosity on either side. To a somewhat lesser extent, I feel the same way about Tom (though I'm not sure that he's a republican) and OC (even though OC is an insufferable lout).

 

Y'all are the 1943S copper pennies of this forum.

 

I have issues with Obama for his many character flaws. I also have issues with him over his policies. If he was honest I wouldn't have an issue with his policies because he never would have been in a position that mattered.

[CosmicBills]

And both of them completely misrepresent each other at every turn...so was she out of line all the times she DIDN'T speak up - say, when Romney gave details of his tax plan, and Obama complained that he can't give any details, should she have said "Excuse me, Mr. President...he just did."

 

Because as I said before, she's either a ****ty moderator, or...she's a ****ty moderator. You can't have it both ways. Either a moderator is part of the debate, or not...there's no "well, maybe sometimes..."

There's a difference, it's a fine line, but still a difference. In the Libya situation, Romney was baiting the President and not moving forward until he got an answer. Obama even tried to let him off the hook by telling him to proceed (which I took as move on, others have took as "walk into the trap") but Mitt wasn't letting go. Candy had to speak up because she was there and to keep the debate moving forward.

 

 

Which is the real point. Romney didn't just walk into the semantic trap, he kicked it open and jumped in with both feet. Any discussion about Libya or Candy's role in the debate doesn't change that one simple fact - Romney did himself in, and with exemplary stupidity and unpreparedness (Candy becomes completely irrelevant to this discussion, for example, if Romney's team takes a half-hour beforehand to check Obama's statements and see what he ACTUALLY said.)

 

As for foreign policy...challengers are always more extreme in their statements, and tend to moderate once in office. More important, I think, is how the would formulate policy, rather than what their campaign slogans are. "Get tough on Iran" could be just as effective as "talk to Iran" if done sensibly...or just as spineless if done by proxy like this administration has done.

Agreed.

[DC Tom]

Here in PPP.

 

I dislike Romney personally but don't like the current Administration so I'm very far from objective on this subject. I can't be trusted to discuss Romney's policies cause I find him loathsome. I'm biased.

 

People like 3rd, Bman, and Doc (and some others) APPEAR to have a personal issue with BO. I think that that implicates their view of him as a leader and a president. To them, BO listens to Iron Maiden backwards, gives alka seltzer to bald Eagles, and steals Halloween candy from blond haired, blue-eyed children. There is always another conspiracy.

 

It's refreshing to read an opinion from a republican that doesn't come from a place of animosity on either side. To a somewhat lesser extent, I feel the same way about Tom (though I'm not sure that he's a republican) and OC (even though OC is an insufferable lout).

 

Y'all are the 1943S copper pennies of this forum.

 

I'm not a Republican, I'm a registered independent, and my voting tendencies tend more towards Democrats, to tell the truth (largely because I prefer conservative executives but liberal legislators, and the nature of the government is you vote for more legislators than executives).

 

Fundamentally, though...I think anyone who constrains themselves with a label is a card-carrying, certifiable idiot. To me, "I'm a Democrat/Republican/Whig/Catholic/Rajneesh Cultist/Whatever" is synonymous with "I'm too lazy to think and it's so much easier to let some one else do it for me and march lock-step with a predefined doctrine."

[Juror#8]

I just mean in general. "Start Thigpen, he couldn't be worse!" "Vote for Kerry! He couldn't be worse!" "Vote for Romney, he couldn't be worse!"

 

It can ALWAYS be worse.

 

Fair enough. I just think that outside of the promise of Obamacare (which I view as a good thing) and some small initiatives here and there, we are at the floor in terms of presence and direction.

 

I guess Romney could go all Herbert Hoover, but I hope not. He is a jackass, and a liar, but I hope that if he's elected he has enough sense to stick to the agenda that he's running on (outside of repealing Obamacare which I doubt will be successful) and let the advisors guide this country in a different, coherent, direction.

[dayman]

Fair enough. I just think that outside of the promise of Obamacare (which I view as a good thing) and some small initiatives here and there, we are at the floor in terms of presence and direction.

 

I guess Romney could go all Herbert Hoover, but I hope not. He is a jackass, and a liar, but I hope that if he's elected he has enough sense to stick to the agenda that he's running on (outside of repealing Obamacare which I doubt will be successful) and let the advisors guide this country in a different, coherent, direction.

 

The repeal Obamacare....lol...it's like closing guantanamo. Not going to happen and everyone knows it.

[DC Tom]

There's a difference, it's a fine line, but still a difference. In the Libya situation, Romney was baiting the President and not moving forward until he got an answer. Obama even tried to let him off the hook by telling him to proceed (which I took as move on, others have took as "walk into the trap") but Mitt wasn't letting go. Candy had to speak up because she was there and to keep the debate moving forward.

 

Which is a point that TheNewBills has been making, and I've already admitted the validity of it (without consenting to agree with it, mind you - you can go back maybe two pages, and see where I said as much).

 

And regarding Obama telling him to "proceed"...that's a REAL stretch of an interpretation, considering that it's the only time either of them allowed the other to proceed, and considering the smirk Obama had when he said it. He knew he had Romney on the hook, and he was looking forward to seeing him slammed for it. And I don't blame him one bit.