The Republican Thread

[Cknolls]

Good, Romney wins first debate. Even NBC has reluctantly conceded that point.

 

 

Down goes Frazier! Wait to go Millard. One down two to go.

[Soxbadger]

Obama is a terrible debater.

[Nyx81]

Obama is a terrible debater.

 

He looked terrible.

 

[Nyx81]

He looked terrible.

 

[Soxbadger]

I personally feel he is bad most of the time. Hes just not quick on his feet. Romney stunned him with the "thats not my plan" and then just kept repeating "oh well i wont lower taxes to increase deficit" and other really vague answers. Obama just didnt listen, he kept repeating his stupid talking points, instead of thinking on his feet and asking Romney to explicitly lay out the plan.

 

Obama just couldnt put it all together. But what he should have said was that Romney's plan, of lowering taxes and offsetting it with getting rid of deductions loop holes is a 0 sum game, Romney said it himself. He isnt going to change the amount of income, he just going to change how its collected. The real question here is what deductions are going to be removed. If he takes away certain ones that may increase burden on middle/lower or upper class class, but its impossible to know because he just says things that are so general.

 

Obama needed to let go of the rope and just let Romney sit up there and talk. Eventually hell convince himself to change his mind.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Soxbadger

[greg775]

Good, Romney wins first debate. Even NBC has reluctantly conceded that point.

I couldn't watch it cause of prior commitment. Why do you say Romney won? I guarantee you Wolf Blitzer won't say Romney won. And no way that guy that they spoof on Saturday Night Live with the unkept white hair on CNN will say it. I forget his name. I can't imagine any of the big named liberal announcers saying Obama lost. That's impossible.

 

He looked terrible.

How so?

Edited October 4, 2012 by greg775

[mr_genius]

I couldn't watch it cause of prior commitment. Why do you say Romney won? I guarantee you Wolf Blitzer won't say Romney won. And no way that guy that they spoof on Saturday Night Live with the unkept white hair on CNN will say it. I forget his name. I can't imagine any of the big named liberal announcers saying Obama lost. That's impossible.

 

 

How so?

 

they all admitted Romney won. the debate was an extreme blowout in favor of Romney.

 

even Obama fanatics like Andrew Sullivan are gloomy after the debate

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...ebate-2012.html

Edited October 4, 2012 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

I personally feel he is bad most of the time. Hes just not quick on his feet.

 

when you think about whom Obama has defeated in his big debates, McCain and Alan Keyes, he did not face any tough competition.

Edited October 4, 2012 by mr_genius

[Soxbadger]

Romney isnt good either. He should have been obliterated.

 

His plan is literally to just change the name of things. Youll pay less taxes, but you wont get as many deductions/credits/write offs, so end result, you pay the same to the govt.

 

The hardest part of an actual argument is to know when to shut up and let the other person sink themselves. To beat a guy like Romney, you just simply ask them questions: "So what deductions are you going to get rid of" and then let him explain himself into oblivion.

 

Instead Obama wanted to get into a war of facts, and that is never going to beat "You dont know my plan, because I dont know my plan, thus anything you say I can say isnt right and my plan has never been done before, so no one knows except me."

[mr_genius]

Youll pay less taxes, but you wont get as many deductions/credits/write offs, so end result, you pay the same to the govt.

 

that sounds good to me. the tax code needs simplification.

[Soxbadger]

that sounds good to me. the tax code needs simplification.

 

You really think that is where this is going?

 

My guess is he wants to get rid of things like standard deduction, housing deductions, etc. and replace them with far more complicated deductions.

 

Im entirely speculating because he never stated what type of things he was going to change. It would be nice if he had an actual plan, instead of forcing us to guess at what might be behind the curtain.

[mr_genius]

haha they are blaming Jim Lehrer for Obama's flop.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/03/1...-debate-because

 

if anything Lehrer was very generous to Obama. He even gave Obama more time on questions and rudely interrupted Romney on a number of occasions.

Edited October 4, 2012 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

You really think that is where this is going?

 

I sure hope so.

[Soxbadger]

Dont hold your breath. He was pitching it as a fix for the US economic problems, not just as a simplification of the tax code. Which means its gotta be pretty damn creative.

 

I personally think it was a tactical error to pull this gambit so early in the debate cycle, but we will see if Obama shows some fangs next debate. Id just basically memorize the transcript of tonight and keep quoting Romney on how his plan has "never been done before" (why, because its simply nonsense) and how you cant trust him because he has no conviction and literally has a new plan every other day. Half way through the debate id just abruptly ask Romney to confirm that he hasnt changed his plan again.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

Romney isnt good either. He should have been obliterated.

 

His plan is literally to just change the name of things. Youll pay less taxes, but you wont get as many deductions/credits/write offs, so end result, you pay the same to the govt.

 

The hardest part of an actual argument is to know when to shut up and let the other person sink themselves. To beat a guy like Romney, you just simply ask them questions: "So what deductions are you going to get rid of" and then let him explain himself into oblivion.

 

Instead Obama wanted to get into a war of facts, and that is never going to beat "You dont know my plan, because I dont know my plan, thus anything you say I can say isnt right and my plan has never been done before, so no one knows except me."

 

You obviously don't realize how debates work (only I know you do, so you should know this type of strategy doesn't work). You cannot stand there and "ask simple questions" all night...

 

...as for you saying Romney isn't good, either. Please, be biased more. He was outstanding last night, and anyone that says otherwise need not talk more, because its obvious they're eyes are closed and they're ears are shut. I'm not saying Romney will put on a show like that in the remaining debates, but last night he was very good, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Maybe he played over his head...the remaining debates will show if that's the case, but it still doesn't discount this performance.

 

Debates rarely go into specifics because of time constraints, so asking about specifics doesn't work well in this format, it's mostly generalities, and I believe you know this despite your recent string of posts on the contrary. Even if you do ask about specifics, you'll get generalized talking points in response, from either candidate. You can't go into a debate with the strategy that you're going to ask simple but specific questions to your opponent all night, conceding your speaking time by doing so, in the hopes they bury themselves. This is a terrible passive/aggressive play on a stage where you have to own the time you spend speaking. Experience in watching previous debates of this format would show you that repeatedly conceding your speaking time in the hopes your opponent answers exactly what you asked simply equates to you looking too afraid to speak on your own policies.

 

In a debate, a good offense is a good offense (not a typo), and it's always been that way.

 

Obama needs to drive home his own vision, remind the people that it stopped the economic free fall and, as with anything, remind people that it takes time to heal. It doesn't matter if these points can be argued, either. Furthermore, he should avoid the "Bush blame game" at all costs at this point, too, it makes him appear unsure of his own policies/decision making in the past 4 years. Most people hardly even remember 4 years ago, let alone what they watched on TV 2 nights ago.

 

Yes, these points can be argued by Romney -- but like I said above, he's not going to concede his own talking time to ask Obama questions about how or why -- Romney needs (as Obama needs) to use their time to drive their visions home to the viewer...to connect with them. You don't connect with people by being passive and allowing the other guy in the room to come across as the Alpha.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

they all admitted Romney won. the debate was an extreme blowout in favor of Romney.

 

even Obama fanatics like Andrew Sullivan are gloomy after the debate

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/20...ebate-2012.html

Sullivan's meltdown was hilarious, but i knew he would go that route as soon as Romney endorsed B-S (before explicitly rejecting many of its components). His main thing is DEFICIT!

[StrangeSox]

haha they are blaming Jim Lehrer for Obama's flop.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/03/1...-debate-because

 

if anything Lehrer was very generous to Obama. He even gave Obama more time on questions and rudely interrupted Romney on a number of occasions.

Both of them walked all over lehrer, who was terrible. "Explain your differences on 'government,' go."

[CrimsonWeltall]

Both of them walked all over lehrer, who was terrible. "Explain your differences on 'government,' go."

 

Lehrer every time one of the candidates basically told him SHUT IT, I'M NOT FINISHED

[MexSoxFan#1]

Good, Romney wins first debate. Even NBC has reluctantly conceded that point.

I thought you didn't like Romney? That he was a Democrat on top of the GOP ticket?

 

So you like him or you don't?

[Soxbadger]

You obviously don't realize how debates work (only I know you do, so you should know this type of strategy doesn't work). You cannot stand there and "ask simple questions" all night...

 

...as for you saying Romney isn't good, either. Please, be biased more. He was outstanding last night, and anyone that says otherwise need not talk more, because its obvious they're eyes are closed and they're ears are shut. I'm not saying Romney will put on a show like that in the remaining debates, but last night he was very good, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Maybe he played over his head...the remaining debates will show if that's the case, but it still doesn't discount this performance.

 

Debates rarely go into specifics because of time constraints, so asking about specifics doesn't work well in this format, it's mostly generalities, and I believe you know this despite your recent string of posts on the contrary. Even if you do ask about specifics, you'll get generalized talking points in response, from either candidate. You can't go into a debate with the strategy that you're going to ask simple but specific questions to your opponent all night, conceding your speaking time by doing so, in the hopes they bury themselves. This is a terrible passive/aggressive play on a stage where you have to own the time you spend speaking. Experience in watching previous debates of this format would show you that repeatedly conceding your speaking time in the hopes your opponent answers exactly what you asked simply equates to you looking too afraid to speak on your own policies.

 

In a debate, a good offense is a good offense (not a typo), and it's always been that way.

 

Obama needs to drive home his own vision, remind the people that it stopped the economic free fall and, as with anything, remind people that it takes time to heal. It doesn't matter if these points can be argued, either. Furthermore, he should avoid the "Bush blame game" at all costs at this point, too, it makes him appear unsure of his own policies/decision making in the past 4 years. Most people hardly even remember 4 years ago, let alone what they watched on TV 2 nights ago.

 

Yes, these points can be argued by Romney -- but like I said above, he's not going to concede his own talking time to ask Obama questions about how or why -- Romney needs (as Obama needs) to use their time to drive their visions home to the viewer...to connect with them. You don't connect with people by being passive and allowing the other guy in the room to come across as the Alpha.

 

I disagree, I have plenty of experience in this area. Romney was not very good, Obama was terrible. I wouldnt hire either of them to represent me in a court room. I only give a good rating to someone who I would let speak for me. Neither of these candidates are close.

 

Just because Romney was the best person on the stage, does not mean he is a good at debate. Not to mention, this type of debate is absolutely silly. If you want a real debate, each party should have to tell the other side their plan in advance, so that they can actually talk about it. The "I gotcha thats not my plan" may impress the masses, but that is bush league and I hope you realize it as well.

 

Im not sure how you can say I am biased when Ive said that Obama is not a good speaker multiple times.

 

[Y2HH]

I disagree, I have plenty of experience in this area. Romney was not very good, Obama was terrible. I wouldnt hire either of them to represent me in a court room. I only give a good rating to someone who I would let speak for me. Neither of these candidates are close.

 

Just because Romney was the best person on the stage, does not mean he is a good at debate. Not to mention, this type of debate is absolutely silly. If you want a real debate, each party should have to tell the other side their plan in advance, so that they can actually talk about it. The "I gotcha thats not my plan" may impress the masses, but that is bush league and I hope you realize it as well.

 

Im not sure how you can say I am biased when Ive said that Obama is not a good speaker multiple times.

 

Pretty much everyone disagrees with you on this...sorry to say.

 

I'm not saying your biased about Obama not being a good speaker...but you are biased about saying Romney wasn't very good, when it's obvious to most everyone that he was. Except you, that is...because your biased. He may not always be that good, but he was yesterday, and the entire political world -- including democrats -- are saying such. Again, except you...

 

It very well may have been a "wow, compared to Obama, Romney looked amazing" type of reaction, simply because of how off his game/bad Obama was...but regardless of the how or why he looked great, he looked great.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

It very well may have been a "wow, compared to Obama, Romney looked amazing" type of reaction, simply because of how off his game/bad Obama was...but regardless of the how or why he looked great, he looked great.

 

If there are 2 girls on stage and both are hideous, Im not calling either a 10, regardless if one is 100x better looking than the other.

 

 

[kapkomet]

If there are 2 girls on stage and both are hideous, Im not calling either a 10, regardless if one is 100x better looking than the other.

 

 

You can't even admit that your boy got absolutely f***ing schooled last night. What remains to be seen is if it even matters... to sheeple like you, nothing else matters except sticking your fingers upside your ass, er I mean ears, to defend your pretty candidate to the death.

[Soxbadger]

Obama is a terrible debater.

 

 

I personally feel he is bad most of the time. Hes just not quick on his feet. Romney stunned him with the "thats not my plan" and then just kept repeating "oh well i wont lower taxes to increase deficit" and other really vague answers. Obama just didnt listen, he kept repeating his stupid talking points, instead of thinking on his feet and asking Romney to explicitly lay out the plan.

 

Obama just couldnt put it all together.

 

 

You can't even admit that your boy got absolutely f***ing schooled last night. What remains to be seen is if it even matters... to sheeple like you, nothing else matters except sticking your fingers upside your ass, er I mean ears, to defend your pretty candidate to the death.

 

What is that Governor Romney, I cant hear you behind that long nose of yours.

 

Unlike Obama, I have no problem eviscerating any opponent who thinks its clever to lie about what I said.

 

Cause thats your game, you just make s*** up and run away.

 

I guess Id rather be called a sheep by someone who is ignorant of the term (I can tell you still havent actually read Nietzsche), then be a chicken.

 

I dont need to resort to blatant lies, thats just weak sauce, even on the internet.

 

Feel free to come to the debate thread, I dont want to mess up the Republican thread with this nonsense.

[mr_genius]