2012 Presidential/Vice Presidential Debates Thread

[Friday on my mind]

The system is rigged by the 2 parties and the medias.
Both parties are too affraid that the rise of a 3rd party could be lethal for them, they will never let that happen.
Also, the medias are very confortable with 2 parties and the rising of a 3rd one would not pleaser them : When there's only two parties, things are easy, one is red, one is blue. But there's 3, it ca't be green, it has to be purple, then things become twisty 'cause you gotta find if it's purple blue or purple red.

When there's two, there's black and white. Not black with some white, not white with some black, plan black and plain white.
When there's 3, there's black, white and grey but you gotta know (and explain) which shade of grey it is.

It's actually a little more complex than that. I won't try to explain it all here as that would mean a several page (a book lol) post. The US is a 2 party system yes and while there is no doubt in some ways that can be seen as not desirable due to it meaning that many what lets call more fringe voices and messages get shut out of our process. But the advantage is that it is also seen as leading to a less fractious system . The USA deliberately adopted this over other systems in order to try to make govt more effiecent and actually let someone get something done without having to have vast coalitions which can be difficult to forge In our history we have had many 3rd parties and movements arise and what happens is they always are ultimately absorbed by one of the 2 parties. IMO more parties is not whats needed in the US. Our real problem is the pervasive influence of money in our system which distorts both parties and makes them less responsive to the citizenry. What to do about the money is real tough given our constitution is interpreted as saying money is speech. Just introducing another party being funded by the monied interests really will not help and probably would just make it more likely nothing gets done. And a new 3rd party with no money is DOA like the libertarians are lol. If we could do something about the money we would then be able to get some grass root reforms and new ideas in both parties. Just my 2 cents

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Sasha Obama Asks ****** Why He Was Acting Like Such A Pussy During Debate

Al Gore blames altitude for Obama's poor performance.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Here are the other choices the American people can vote for on November 6th, 2012 as well as the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012

 

[Friday on my mind]

sasha obama asks ****** why he was acting like such a pussy during debate

al gore blames altitude for obama's poor performance.

lol

 

[georges]

I am glad Romney dominated the debate

 

[PlumpRump]

It's actually a little more complex than that. I won't try to explain it all here as that would mean a several page (a book lol) post. The US is a 2 party system yes and while there is no doubt in some ways that can be seen as not desirable due to it meaning that many what lets call more fringe voices and messages get shut out of our process. But the advantage is that it is also seen as leading to a less fractious system . The USA deliberately adopted this over other systems in order to try to make govt more effiecent and actually let someone get something done without having to have vast coalitions which can be difficult to forge In our history we have had many 3rd parties and movements arise and what happens is they always are ultimately absorbed by one of the 2 parties. IMO more parties is not whats needed in the US. Our real problem is the pervasive influence of money in our system which distorts both parties and makes them less responsive to the citizenry. What to do about the money is real tough given our constitution is interpreted as saying money is speech. Just introducing another party being funded by the monied interests really will not help and probably would just make it more likely nothing gets done. And a new 3rd party with no money is DOA like the libertarians are lol. If we could do something about the money we would then be able to get some grass root reforms and new ideas in both parties. Just my 2 cents

The US didn't really adopt a two-party system, per se. The electoral rules that we've chosen to govern (most) elections in the US have, as a byproduct, produced a two-party system, with 3rd parties having a significant disadvantage, and the only palpable difference a 3rd party is (usually) able to make is to steal votes away from one of the original 2 parties that, of the 2, better represent the 3rd party. Plurality, or 50%+1 elections (most elections in the United States), as well as (mostly) single-member districts, inherently promote a two-party system. Changing the rules to proportional representation elections, and dramatically increasing the number of multi-member districts (which will never happen in the US) is really the only way that a 3rd or 4th etc... party will ever have the ability to become viable.

 

[PlumpRump]

Romney reeked of desperation and continually talked over both Obama and Lehrer. Obama kept hitting Romney on his lack of policy details. Romney flip-flopped on issues he's campaigned on for the last two years. Obama should have contained his lack of patience with Romney, but Romney should have conducted himself like an adult, instead of as a contemptuous *****. Romney's only choice for the next debate is to ratchet up the wild swinging and pray he lands some punches, he failed to land any last night, and gave Obama more than enough fuel to make the next debate a whole lot more uncomfortable than the first. Fact checkers have eaten Romney alive on his lie-a-minute tactics. Republicans have absolutely nothing to be happy about.

Desperation from the right-wingers. Wish hard enough and maybe Romney will turn into a real boy!

Romney was a total disaster. If that's the best he's got he may as well make his concession call now.

The only way anyone could have thought Romney won was if they had no clue how many lies he was telling. Romney came off as an aggressive, lying, desperate douche bag.

You can climb out of David Axelrod's asshole anytime you like. They have no right to hold you prisoner there, you know.

 

[mikexmoran]

Frankly Obama has never been great in debates. Hillary was seen as winning the debates with him. And often you get these debates which are so cordial by sitting Presidents not wanting to look Petty or mean. WE heard nothing about the 47% comment by Romney. Nothing about whether he thinks paying such a low % tax rate with his wealth is fair etc. It will be different next debate I hope when the public is involved.

I think the 47% is something like (although less so) like the "they didn't build that" rhetoric. It is a bit of a misstep by Romney. I don't believe it was meant exactly that way. With the whole build thing it is just a complete misinterpretation.
Good points regarding Hilary and not wanting to look mean spirited. I actually applaud them for keeping it somewhat professional.

Romney reeked of desperation and continually talked over both Obama and Lehrer. Obama kept hitting Romney on his lack of policy details. Romney flip-flopped on issues he's campaigned on for the last two years. Obama should have contained his lack of patience with Romney, but Romney should have conducted himself like an adult, instead of as a contemptuous *****. Romney's only choice for the next debate is to ratchet up the wild swinging and pray he lands some punches, he failed to land any last night, and gave Obama more than enough fuel to make the next debate a whole lot more uncomfortable than the first. Fact checkers have eaten Romney alive on his lie-a-minute tactics. Republicans have absolutely nothing to be happy about.

I think you're a bit blinded by your loyalty and a bit of **** (dislike, disdain?). Just my opinion from what you're typing. It was a debate. Obama lost. They are both being checked out by the fact checkers and are both skewing facts. I don't think anything changed from before the debate. I think Obama had his butt handed to him. I'd be surprised if it happens again. I think Obama is going to win.

The problem is that the "winning/losing" was based, not on substance, but on style. Let's face it, Romney has still not put any substance into his campaign - all rhetoric but no detail of how he expects to actually achieve what he promises to.

He promises to drop taxes by 20% for all earners, but magically, this will not affect the revenue brought in by taxes. Looks like his maths is about as good as those of British MPs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666

True true
Over the next few days, the debate will be analysed, and the truth of what was said by both sides will come out.
From what I have read, this means that Romney, although a winner on the night, will be a loser overall.

The system is rigged by the 2 parties and the medias.
Both parties are too affraid that the rise of a 3rd party could be lethal for them, they will never let that happen.
Also, the medias are very confortable with 2 parties and the rising of a 3rd one would not pleaser them : When there's only two parties, things are easy, one is red, one is blue. But there's 3, it ca't be green, it has to be purple, then things become twisty 'cause you gotta find if it's purple blue or purple red.

When there's two, there's black and white. Not black with some white, not white with some black, plan black and plain white.
When there's 3, there's black, white and grey but you gotta know (and explain) which shade of grey it is.

I'm a bit color blind, but I agree with you anyway.

The US didn't really adopt a two-party system, per se. The electoral rules that we've chosen to govern (most) elections in the US have, as a byproduct, produced a two-party system, with 3rd parties having a significant disadvantage, and the only palpable difference a 3rd party is (usually) able to make is to steal votes away from one of the original 2 parties that, of the 2, better represent the 3rd party. Plurality, or 50%+1 elections (most elections in the United States), as well as (mostly) single-member districts, inherently promote a two-party system. Changing the rules to proportional representation elections, and dramatically increasing the number of multi-member districts (which will never happen in the US) is really the only way that a 3rd or 4th etc... party will ever have the ability to become viable.

Pretty good post. Sam points out the other parties somewhere in this thread. However, you're right regarding the viability o the third party. The Republican party came from the meltdown of the Whigs. Hypothetically if the Republicans get their butts handed to them in this election, I wonder if it could be the start of a reformation of the party or a start of something new (having nothing to do with stolen Revolutionary War flags and symbols).

 

[PirateKing]

Damn it Obama....he needs a Mickey to get him into shape for the next debate.

 

[xfire]

I think you're a bit blinded by your loyalty and a bit of **** (dislike, disdain?). Just my opinion from what you're typing. It was a debate. Obama lost. They are both being checked out by the fact checkers and are both skewing facts. I don't think anything changed from before the debate. I think Obama had his butt handed to him. I'd be surprised if it happens again. I think Obama is going to win.

Obama didn't lose the debate. Romney came aggressively out of the blocks and told lies at a rate of about one per minute. Obama wasn't as aggressive as Romney, and really didn't need to be after the campaign that Romney has run for the last six months. I doubt that Obama will show as much restraint in the next two debates. You may disagree, and that's great, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

 

[knowone]

When even Obama acolyte Chris Matthews is pulling his hair out over Obama's performance, it's not hard to understand that Romney won. Won might not be the right word though..annihilated might be better.

Chris Matthews would not have been happy with anything less than Obama walking over to Romney and kneeing him in the groin.

 

[Red Spyder]

...and we'll have the jobs report coming out in a few hours, if it underperforms again for like the, what? 48th month in a row or something? Obummer is having a bummer of a week.

and anyone who actually believes that he did good in the debate last night, what are you smoking? must be some good ****! :tongue:

 

[maildude]

Mitt Romney came out swinging...like a second-grader in a playground fight.

 

[meesterperfect]

Mitt Romney came out swinging...like a second-grader in a playground fight.

funny maildude.
hey how ya been?

ironic too because at one point romney compared obama to a ***** telling the same lie over and over again, hoping it will be believed.

ok, lets be real. obama is not used to being held accountable to what he says. he makes speeches. pretty much anybody can do that.
his words are almost always left unchallenged.
last night we saw what happens when he is questioned about what he says.

I liked that one part when Barry O said i think we should move on to the next topic.
it reminded me of Leonard - Duran II.

 

[mikexmoran]

Obama didn't lose the debate. Romney came aggressively out of the blocks and told lies at a rate of about one per minute. Obama wasn't as aggressive as Romney, and really didn't need to be after the campaign that Romney has run for the last six months. I doubt that Obama will show as much restraint in the next two debates. You may disagree, and that's great, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Why would I disagree that Obama would not let this happen again? It is exactly what I said.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Obama didn't lose the debate. Romney came aggressively out of the blocks and told lies at a rate of about one per minute. Obama wasn't as aggressive as Romney, and really didn't need to be after the campaign that Romney has run for the last six months. I doubt that Obama will show as much restraint in the next two debates. You may disagree, and that's great, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

If, as you say, Obama didn't need to be as agressive as Romney, why will he show less restraint in the next two debates?

If, as you claim, Obama actually won the first debate, why would he change anything in subsequent debates?

It seems to me that, when you win, you don't need to change anything. It's when you lose that you need to change your game plan. I do agree that Barrack Hussein Obama will be more aggressive in the next two debates. For his sake, he needs to be, or he will be be joining the ranks of the unemployed.

 

[xfire]

If, as you say, Obama didn't need to be as agressive as Romney, why will he show less restraint in the next two debates? If, as you claim, Obama actually won the first debate, why would he change anything in subsequent debates? It seems to me that, when you win, you don't need to change anything. It's when you lose that you need to change your game plan. I do agree that Barrack Obama will be more aggressive in the next two debates. For his sake, he needs to be, or he will be be joining the ranks of the unemployed.

The Romney campaign hasn't had a positive news cycle in weeks, if not months, so there was no reason for Obama to come out being a dick. Obama will be more aggressive because Romney made it clear that he has no intention of having a debate based on the truth. It's easy to stand there and lie, it's much harder to be accurate. Romney lost the debate based on his aversion for the truth. That's how actual debates work, not this trolling bullshit we pass off as debate on internet forums. 4chan should be proud of Romney, he was a perfect example of the type of tactics they use on /b/.

 

[Sam Fisher]

It's hilarious reading the comments from the liberals in here. The majority of his supporters in the real world even say Obama was lackluster, and that he just seemed out of touch and disinterested, as well as not having his facts straight. Well, except Al Gore. He went so far as to say the mile high altitude affected him.

You fucking clowns can't even accept the fact that your "savior" got his ass handed to him by a more intelligent man. Even Obama's two biggest slobbering fans (Bill Maher, Chris Mathews) said he sucked during the debate. Yet, you internet commandos in here act as if he won by a knockout.

 

[xfire]

http://www.politicususa.com/obamas-...nt-obama-fail-understand-debate-strategy.html

One of the privileges of being a spectator in a sporting event is criticizing athletes for making the wrong play, and it never fails that the most vocal critic likely never donned a uniform or actually played in a professional level game. What spectators often fail to acknowledge is that during the heat of a contest, an athlete may see something, or know something, that an observer cannot imagine because they are removed from the action and have little understanding of the game’s intricacies. The same thing happens in political debates and after examining volumes of criticism and interpretation of the first presidential debate in Denver, it is obvious that the critics misread President Obama and that they fail to understand debate strategy.

It is curious that any observer was surprised that pathological liar Willard Romney came to the debate armed with a mountain of lies. One has to wonder if any spectator expected Willard to stand on that stage and tell the American people he intended to slash education, give $5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy, reduce the number of police and fire fighters, or admit that he has contempt for 47% of the population, and yet the blogosphere was rife with articles recounting the number of lies and flip-flops Romney is best known for. It was also somewhat surprising to see critics assailing President Obama for not calling out each of Romney’s lies, and if they looked at the bigger picture, or understood the nuances of debate, they may have couched their criticism and gave the President the credit he deserves, and he does deserve credit for not succumbing to Romney’s tactics.

Of course Willard lied, it is what pathological liars do, and as a master liar, Romney distinguished himself as the best. He took his lying seriously too, even resurrecting a Sarah Pa.lin lie that won distinction as “Lie of the Year” in 2009 regarding the dreaded “death panels.” Romney has not come up with any novel ideas throughout the campaign, but up until Wednesday night he primarily parroted Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush rhetoric in hopes of appealing to conservatives stuck in the 1980s and early 21st century. However, when he complained that the Affordable Care Act contained a provision to ration healthcare, he put himself on the same level as Palin.

It was not the first time the Romney-Ryan tandem entertained the notion that a group of appointees would decide if grandma was worthy of healthcare or lifesaving medical attention, because last week in Florida Paul Ryan took the opportunity to expound on Palin’s death panel sophistry. For the record, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of Senate-confirmed experts, are explicitly prohibited from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits, or raising the Medicare eligibility age, so obviously they do not have power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe. However, Willard did not mention the truth about the panels and the President did not waste valuable time debunking 2009′s lie of the year again, and it leads to why President Obama did not squander his time discrediting each and every Romney lie.

There is a tactic in debating called “spreading” that involves throwing as many unproven assertions as possible at an opponent in hopes they waste time refuting lies instead of expounding their message. If the President had spent his limited time refuting every lie Romney told in Wednesday’s debate, he could not have shared his vision for America’s future or how he intended to fight for Americans who are not in Willard’s wealthy elite class. What Americans were treated to, was a President with a clear vision and message, replete with specifics, that the people have come to expect from Barack Obama. Romney’s tactic was popularized by a creationist maniac, Duane Tolbert Gish, who without facts or valid arguments to back up his creation myth ideology, drowned his opponents in lies, half-truths, and straw-man arguments in rapid bursts they could not answer in real time. Romney utilized the tactic well, but he failed to take one simple fact into account. His lies on Wednesday night do not square with his campaign rhetoric and he came off looking more transient on the issues than ever, and it is a misstep he has made throughout his run for the White House.

Romney and, indeed, all Republicans fail to understand that in the information age of instant reporting and video tape, every statement a candidate makes is easily verified or, in Romney’s case, debunked within minutes of uttering a contrary position or outright lie. On Wednesday night, Romney not only lied as pathological liars are wont to do, but he contradicted his own position and statements he made just a day earlier and that is the peril for pathological liars; they lie with such ease that they lose touch with reality and forget the lies they told just a minute earlier, and one has to wonder if President Obama knew Romney was digging himself into a pit of mendacity with no way out.

There have been few critics who noted the President’s steady resolve in dealing with Romney’s lies, or that he was able to wade through Willard-excrement and still get his message across to the American people. It is true that a spectator’s first inclination may have been to second-guess President Obama’s handling a pathological liar, but it is tantamount to questioning the logic of not preaching sobriety to a raging alcoholic during a ******* stupor, and it is another example of why President Obama is much more intelligent than the average pundit. If there is one thing Americans should have learned by now about the President, is that he looks at the big picture and does not do knee-jerk reactions that an undisciplined teenager is apt to do. President Obama is no undisciplined teenager.

On CNN throughout the debate, they put up a graph that showed how each participant was faring in real time according to their panel of white Southerners, and it showed President Obama lagging below the midline right up to the closing statements. However, after he gave his closing remarks, and unnoticed by most spectators, the line quickly moved back to the center line and it just shows that the President was successful getting his message across despite suffering ninety minutes of mendacity from America’s biggest liar. It should be but another reminder that this President’s foresight, discipline, and resolve are qualities Americans expect in a President, and after 9 months of Romney’s Palinesque lies, the people want an honest leader with a consistent vision for the future, and despite the pundits, armchair debaters, and reactionary critics, President Obama successfully reiterated what he first said almost 4 years ago; as President he will work for all Americans and according to his most recent approval ratings, people believe him.