Presidential Debate #2

[UConn James]

Rut-roh. Romney gains a point post-debate. Gallup daily has him up 7 nationally.

 

Time to ratchet up the binders meme.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

 

As Rove is saying, no candidate who's polled higher than 50% in Gallup (even with their Obama-skewed methodology) in mid-October has ever lost the presidential election.

[Rob's House]

It is absolutely amazing how retarded some of you are.

 

Mitt was fact checked b/c he spent time fixating on if "act of terror" was used, and was trying to make Obama look like a liar, he was instantly fact checked, was completely wrong. Get out of your bubble. Candy went on to acknowledge there was confusion over the video, which to Mitt's broader point can be said. But if you are angry that he was fact checked on "act of terror"...then you are a conservative bubble dumbass who is just angry Mitt looked bad so you find a way to pretend it didn't happen.

I'm surprised at you. This is the kind of garbage I expect out of Ducky and other retards who are too simple to see beyond step one.

 

The moderator isn't qualified to fact check and is rarely impartial. She doesn't know all the facts that are going to come out and therefore can't consistently, fairly, and accurately fact check the debators. What you're suggesting is that any time a debate moderator thinks she might know the answer to a question in contention it's appropriate for her throw in her 2 cents. Somehow I doubt you'd be so giddy (hehe) if Rush Limbaugh were moderating and selectively and incorrectly fact checking Obama at key moments of the debate.

[DC Tom]

I still don't get this. THey went back and forth over if the transcripts said this, he was trying to call his opponent a liar on a strictly factual question. The American people watching and in that debate are like "I have no freaking idea"...there is a right answer and she gave it. This is good. On Fox News afterwords you have people screaming "The time for fact checking is after the debate"...actually...in a situation such as that...it's during the debate. If you don't want to be wrong, then don't be straight up wrong about a black and white issue. And btw....nobody even did this to Mitt...Mitt was focusing in on this weird semantic "atc of terror" issue all on his own...so don't be mad at anyone but Mitt if you think it hurt him.

 

Again, I don't care that it hurt Romney (if anything, I'm amused. Romney stuck his dick in a blender, and it got chopped off. Way to go, Romney...next time, do your homework, you idiot.) I DO question whether that's the correct role of a moderator. I also don't give a **** what FoxSnooze has to say on the topic.

 

And again, I see your point...that one could consider the role of a "moderator", in moderating a debate, to ensure that it doesn't degrade to mindless "Am not!/Are too!" back-and-forth because of a disagreement on verifiable facts. But just because I SEE your point, doesn't necessarily mean I AGREE with it, or am comfortable with it.

[3rdnlng]

If we're talking about qualifications in an experiential sense, you'd have to say at this point, after being President for four years, you'd have to say Obama is qualified to be President just as you'd have to say Dick Jauron is qualified to be an NFL head coach.

 

Four years ago you couldn't make the argument that Obama was qualified even if you stretched really hard to do it. His resume was basically that of someone who got out of college, did an internship, got an entry level job (state senate), got promoted to a jr. executive spot (US Senate) and before learning the ropes or doing anything more than showing up for a couple of meetings where he sat quietly in the back, he's all of a sudden CEO of a major corporation. It was like it came straight out of the Hudsucker Proxy.

 

If we're talking about qualifications in the competency sense, Obama's not qualified to be President for the same reason Brad Smith isn't qualified to be a starting QB in the NFL. On paper all the qualifications are there, but he doesn't have the skill set to effectively perform the job.

 

 

He hasn't been doing the job of a CEO. Instead of sitting in on security briefings and such he's been campaigning for the last 4 years. In other words, I don't think he's picked up much experience.

Edited October 18, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[dayman]

Again, I don't care that it hurt Romney (if anything, I'm amused. Romney stuck his dick in a blender, and it got chopped off. Way to go, Romney...next time, do your homework, you idiot.) I DO question whether that's the correct role of a moderator. I also don't give a **** what FoxSnooze has to say on the topic.

 

And again, I see your point...that one could consider the role of a "moderator", in moderating a debate, to ensure that it doesn't degrade to mindless "Am not!/Are too!" back-and-forth because of a disagreement on verifiable facts. But just because I SEE your point, doesn't necessarily mean I AGREE with it, or am comfortable with it.

 

For a moderator to be fact checking everything on the spot, not possible and not correct role. For a moderator to speak up when they actually know that a plain question of if something was or was not said is true or not and the two candidates are both insisting one way or the other...totally fine b/c the bottom line is these debates aren't for a candidate to look great...they're for the people watching them...and the people would just prefer to know in that moment of nonsense who was right since it's a matter of record and they both say the opposite.

[Rob's House]

I still don't get this. THey went back and forth over if the transcripts said this, he was trying to call his opponent a liar on a strictly factual question. The American people watching and in that debate are like "I have no freaking idea"...there is a right answer and she gave it. This is good. On Fox News afterwords you have people screaming "The time for fact checking is after the debate"...actually...in a situation such as that...it's during the debate. If you don't want to be wrong, then don't be straight up wrong about a black and white issue. And btw....nobody even did this to Mitt...Mitt was focusing in on this weird semantic "atc of terror" issue all on his own...so don't be mad at anyone but Mitt if you think it hurt him.

Then you have independent fact checkers who have been preselected to check and confirm these questions during the debate, not the fat !@#$ running the debate chiming in what she THINKS is the truth. It's interesting that you don't have any problem with the fact that she got it wrong, or that the "fact" that she "clarified" totally skewed the perception of how that situation really played out.

 

It comes off like Beloved Leader came out day 1 and called it like it was, when the reality is he sold a bull **** story for 2 weeks until he couldn't hide it anymore.

[Juror#8]

Romney may be a disappointment. He might be a huge success. I don't know. I do know Barry has been a failure and I see no reason to believe things will magically get better with another 4 years of him.

 

Actually the reason he won in 2008 was because he dug up dirt on his opponents, was never vetted by the MSM, and there was huge anti-GOP backlash at the time. Not to mention Sarah Palin. There was enough stuff to sink his campaign in 2008, but few bothered to look into it because of the historic nature of his candidacy and because the MSM is liberally-biased.

 

I know that you don't like B.O. but wow....just wow.

 

And I'm not sure you watched the same election season that I watched in 2008. I've NEVER seen anyone treated with kid gloves in the MSM like Palin was. EVER!

 

MSM Q: What newspapers do you read?

Palin A: Thats a "gotcha" question and you're not being nice.

MSM: We'll make sure not to ask it again. Sorry.

 

MSM Q: What is the Bush doctrine?

Palin A: That's a "gotcha" question and you're not being nice.

MSM: We're realizing that we can't ask you much.

 

Did you see the vice presidential debates in 2007? Poor Joe Biden was handicapped before the thing started because of how sensitive Palin is and how every aggressive policy discussion would get spun into some sort of verbal spousal abuse.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Meanwhile, back in Gotham, Obama has it coming at him from every direction...about Ayers, and Wright, and some other professor, and his birth certificate, and his religion, and the Weather Underground, and....

 

They talked about McCain and the Keating 5 for about a millisecond and then it was back to who Obama knew 20 years ago.

 

People who say that Obama was given a pass either slept through the entire 2008 campaign season, or refuse to dismount from their paradigms.

 

Here is an interesting story that tracks the negative press in the 2008 race (but only into July, 2008):

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election

[GG]

I still don't get this. THey went back and forth over if the transcripts said this, he was trying to call his opponent a liar on a strictly factual question. The American people watching and in that debate are like "I have no freaking idea"...there is a right answer and she gave it. This is good. On Fox News afterwords you have people screaming "The time for fact checking is after the debate"...actually...in a situation such as that...it's during the debate. If you don't want to be wrong, then don't be straight up wrong about a black and white issue. And btw....nobody even did this to Mitt...Mitt was focusing in on this weird semantic "atc of terror" issue all on his own...so don't be mad at anyone but Mitt if you think it hurt him.

 

As Crowley herself pointed out in her "retraction," Romney focused on the wrong wording and that Obama had in fact said "acts of terror" however, she recognized belatedly that Romney was correct on the main point that the administration did not attribute Benghazi to a terrorist attack.

 

So, you can hang your hat on a fixation on the wrong wording during a heated debate vs the administration's apparent attempts to deflect a dereliction of responsibility regarding the security of its citizens.

[wnyguy]

I still don't get this. THey went back and forth over if the transcripts said this, he was trying to call his opponent a liar on a strictly factual question. The American people watching and in that debate are like "I have no freaking idea"...there is a right answer and she gave it. This is good. On Fox News afterwords you have people screaming "The time for fact checking is after the debate"...actually...in a situation such as that...it's during the debate. If you don't want to be wrong, then don't be straight up wrong about a black and white issue. And btw....nobody even did this to Mitt...Mitt was focusing in on this weird semantic "atc of terror" issue all on his own...so don't be mad at anyone but Mitt if you think it hurt him.

 

The fact is that Obama did not consider the attack in Libya as an act of terrorism the day after the attacks took place. You can say different all you want but that is a fact and was the point Mitt Romney was making.

[Juror#8]

Again, I don't care that it hurt Romney (if anything, I'm amused. Romney stuck his dick in a blender, and it got chopped off. Way to go, Romney...next time, do your homework, you idiot.) I DO question whether that's the correct role of a moderator. I also don't give a **** what FoxSnooze has to say on the topic.

 

And again, I see your point...that one could consider the role of a "moderator", in moderating a debate, to ensure that it doesn't degrade to mindless "Am not!/Are too!" back-and-forth because of a disagreement on verifiable facts. But just because I SEE your point, doesn't necessarily mean I AGREE with it, or am comfortable with it.

 

1. You're so inconsistent.

2. Since you're critical of Romney, you secretly support Obama.

 

Sarcasm off.

[Rob's House]

The fact is that Obama did not consider the attack in Libya as an act of terrorism the day after the attacks took place. You can say different all you want but that is a fact and was the point Mitt Romney was making.

It doesn't matter. Anything that scores a point for Obama is not only acceptable, it's virtuous.

[dayman]

LOL retraction. Candy said Romney was wrong on "act of terror" and he was...he was focused on that trying to make Obama seem like a liar for saying that he said that...he said that.

 

Candy also said ON STAGE the video issue was also a cluster. Which she said after.

 

The right knows no bounds when it comes to the bubble here. There was no retraction. She said the same thing after, that she did on stage. She was not wrong. Romney was wrong on his weird little attack he thought would be a "gotcha moment." Once again, it is nobody's fault but Romney he thought he had a big win focusing in on some semantics about the word terror.

[DC Tom]

For a moderator to be fact checking everything on the spot, not possible and not correct role. For a moderator to speak up when they actually know that a plain question of if something was or was not said is true or not and the two candidates are both insisting one way or the other...totally fine b/c the bottom line is these debates aren't for a candidate to look great...they're for the people watching them...and the people would just prefer to know in that moment of nonsense who was right since it's a matter of record and they both say the opposite.

 

 

1. You're so inconsistent.

2. Since you're critical of Romney, you secretly support Obama.

 

Sarcasm off.

 

Since I know someone won't get your sarcasm, even though you stated it as such:

 

I'm perfectly consistent. I criticize stupid when I see it.

For a moderator to be fact checking everything on the spot, not possible and not correct role. For a moderator to speak up when they actually know that a plain question of if something was or was not said is true or not and the two candidates are both insisting one way or the other...totally fine b/c the bottom line is these debates aren't for a candidate to look great...they're for the people watching them...and the people would just prefer to know in that moment of nonsense who was right since it's a matter of record and they both say the opposite.

 

For a moderator to be fact checking everything on the spot isn't possible and not a correct role, so they should only fact-check sometimes?

 

That's just retarded. "Moderation" either includes ensuring both debaters are operating on the same basis if facts, or it doesn't. "Only sometimes" is a cop-out.

[meazza]

LOL retraction. Candy said Romney was wrong on "act of terror" and he was...he was focused on that trying to make Obama seem like a liar for saying that he said that...he said that.

 

Candy also said ON STAGE the video issue was also a cluster. Which she said after.

 

The right knows no bounds when it comes to the bubble here. There was no retraction. She said the same thing after, that she did on stage. She was not wrong. Romney was wrong on his weird little attack he thought would be a "gotcha moment." Once again, it is nobody's fault but Romney he thought he had a big win focusing in on some semantics about the word terror.

 

And since it's a debate, perhaps Obama could defend his own statement rather than a third party?

 

Do you not get the slippery slope? Eventually will it become the moderators role to confirm/deny what the debaters are saying?

[DC Tom]

As Crowley herself pointed out in her "retraction," Romney focused on the wrong wording and that Obama had in fact said "acts of terror" however, she recognized belatedly that Romney was correct on the main point that the administration did not attribute Benghazi to a terrorist attack.

 

So, you can hang your hat on a fixation on the wrong wording during a heated debate vs the administration's apparent attempts to deflect a dereliction of responsibility regarding the security of its citizens.

 

Perception matters. It's a semantic argument, whether "act of terror" is synonymous with "terrorism" (hint: no). The debate, sheerly through presentation, made it the substantive issue. On which Romney, no matter what he "meant", and no matter what you think the proper role of a moderator should or should not be, got absolutely smoked.

[meazza]

Perception matters. It's a semantic argument, whether "act of terror" is synonymous with "terrorism" (hint: no). The debate, sheerly through presentation, made it the substantive issue. On which Romney, no matter what he "meant", and no matter what you think the proper role of a moderator should or should not be, got absolutely smoked.

 

Yep. He had the net wide open and he blasted it over or he played like the Bills defense, week 4 and 5.

[DC Tom]

Yep. He had the net wide open and he blasted it over or he played like the Bills defense, week 4 and 5.

 

You know what REALLY irritated me about that whole thing? President Smirk's ****-eating grin when he said "No, go ahead," as though he knew exactly what was coming...

[dayman]

That's just retarded. "Moderation" either includes ensuring both debaters are operating on the same basis if facts, or it doesn't. "Only sometimes" is a cop-out.

 

Example if Romney says oil production on federal land has gone down and Obama says it hasn't and they sort of go back and forth and at times Romney says it's gone down 14% in a year then as they quibble he says it's going down generally and Obama equally being weird about it and says it isn't...and the truth is it went down 14% last year but hasn't gone down net over the presidency...it's not her job to jump in and say "whoa, BP oil spill, also let me explain the lease situation, also there are concerns about the administrations focus as Romney says, also the year stat is right but the trend it is trying to show is misleading, and on and on"....that isn't the role.

 

If they literally go back and forth over a plain and simple fact of record, she can say it is or isn't on the record.

Edited October 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[meazza]

You know what REALLY irritated me about that whole thing? President Smirk's ****-eating grin when he said "No, go ahead," as though he knew exactly what was coming...

 

Though I also feel as if, had he not been interrupted, he might have been able to finish his point. He !@#$ed up but the moderator also killed his momentum.

 

I don't know how he will win the foreign policy debate. Don't feel as if he really has anything coherent to say apart from "apology tour", "china" and "getting tough on Iran".

[DC Tom]

Example if Romney says oil production on federal land has gone down and Obama says it hasn't and they sort of go back and forth and at times Romney says it's gone down 14% in a year then as they quibble he says it's going down generally and Obama equally being weird about it and says it isn't...and the truth is it went down 14% last year but hasn't gone down net over the presidency...it's not her job to jump in and say "whoa, BP oil spill, also let me explain the lease situation, also there are concerns about the administrations focus as Romney says, also the year stat is right but the trend it is trying to show is misleading, and on and on"....that isn't the role.

 

If they literally go back and forth over a plain and simple fact of record, she can say it is or isn't on the record.

 

So she SHOULD have jumped in to verify whether or not oil production was down over the time being discussed, but didn't. So she's a ****ty moderator, or...she's a ****ty moderator.

 

Though I also feel as if, had he not been interrupted, he might have been able to finish his point. He !@#$ed up but the moderator also killed his momentum.

 

I don't know how he will win the foreign policy debate. Don't feel as if he really has anything coherent to say apart from "apology tour", "china" and "getting tough on Iran".

 

And "Libya".

 

Though really, what does Obama have? "China," "Iran sanctions," "Libya," "Iraq," and "I killed bin Laden." It should be an awfully pathetic debate, actually.

 

Unless Romney's team is smart, and realizes that the US credit downgrade is, in fact, a foreign policy issue, and uses that as leverage to direct the discussion towards more economic issues. Frankly...I don't think his team is that's smart.