The Debates!

[Y2HH]

Im not sure many disagree. Ive commented numerous times about how its not really a debate and its more just repeating talking points.

 

Its useless to attack the format as its not going to change, at least not for this election. So might as well just discuss what did happen because that is all we are going to get.

 

These debates do not do much for me, as neither candidate is likely going to convince me to change my opinion. But there are a certain percentage of the population who can be influenced by repeating phrases etc, so we get to watch 2 people pander to that group.

 

That's the problem, there isn't much to discuss other than the failed debates/failed formats since all they did was repeat party platform talking points, over and over, whether questions related to those talking points were posed to them or not.

 

I really want to be involved...so I watch, and I truly try to care about the political future of this country, but all watching does is reenforce the fact that politics/civil political discourse in this country is completely dead and it's become pointless to try to find any substance from these debates. The only outcome after these debates is to repeat the same questions they were asked during the debates...since they don't bother answering them.

[GoSox05]

Greenwald on what a sham these debates are and have been for some time.

 

The lame rules for presidential debates: a perfect microcosm of US democracy

 

 

[MexSoxFan#1]

WTF? Seriously MexSox? If you have nothing to say, how about don't say anything.

 

Of couse it's my opinion, everything everyone has posted here is their opinion.

 

You're response was totally unnecessary...but thanks for pointing out the extremely obvious for everyone here that didn't realize these posts were opinions.

[Y2HH]

...in your opinion.

 

[RockRaines]

Its not just the debates, you can hear the money in their pockets from lobyists and powerful party leaders come out through their mouths. These guys at least during campaigning and first term leadership are puppets of their party and who paid them the most money.

[Soxbadger]

That's the problem, there isn't much to discuss other than the failed debates/failed formats since all they did was repeat party platform talking points, over and over, whether questions related to those talking points were posed to them or not.

 

I really want to be involved...so I watch, and I truly try to care about the political future of this country, but all watching does is reenforce the fact that politics/civil political discourse in this country is completely dead and it's become pointless to try to find any substance from these debates. The only outcome after these debates is to repeat the same questions they were asked during the debates...since they don't bother answering them.

 

The reason is because they are going after voters who are wish-washy on their stance.

 

If you are pro-killing babies you likely are not going to vote Republican.

 

If you are pro-govt controlling your sex life over religious reasons you are not going to vote Democrat.

 

There are only a fraction of people who somehow find a way to be unsure on this topic. But neither party really wants to hammer on it, because the trends show that each year its random which is more popular.

 

Same with gay marriage. If you want to let a hippo and rhino marry you probably wont vote Republican. If you want "tradition" and by that I mean only counting 2000 years not 6000, to dictate who can marry, you probably wont vote Democrat.

 

Thus we get stupid arguments about the economy which is nothing but lies. Obama and Romney are not the legislative branch. Neither of them can do s*** when you have guys like Grover Cleveland having people sign tax pledges. That is the reason Romney needs to make his asinine economic plan that does not "raise taxes" because that is okay with Grover.

 

The President is nothing more than a representation of America. And of the 2, Id rather have the outside world see me as a friend of Obama than Romney.

 

The perception of America is all that really changes, the rest is just window dressing.

[Jake]

I found the VP debate to much more constructive in terms of the discussion of policy and after watching last night's debate I really appreciate Biden calling Ryan out constantly for lying or not giving out details. Ryan was generally more detailed and Biden likewise...and it made the BO/JB ticket look better. It particularly made Ryan look bad when in the midst of his details, he awkwardly tried to explain why he would not give details on his tax policy.

[RockRaines]

I found the VP debate to much more constructive in terms of the discussion of policy and after watching last night's debate I really appreciate Biden calling Ryan out constantly for lying or not giving out details. Ryan was generally more detailed and Biden likewise...and it made the BO/JB ticket look better. It particularly made Ryan look bad when in the midst of his details, he awkwardly tried to explain why he would not give details on his tax policy.

The problem with that debate is that both VP's need to conform to the parties views. Ryan's policies and voting history are so different than the republican platform for this election.

[NorthSideSox72]

Romney could have made the argument better. I do think it's important that instead of immediately calling this thing a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist group, the Obama Administration took the tactic of apologizing to the world for a stupid American's youtube video. That's a policy difference in the two campaigns. But Romney never got it out right during the debate.

One could look at that argument to make, though I think it is not really true. Could work though.

 

To me, if I'm Romney, I think the real failure here is a good example of an area where Obama has been a failure across the board - executive leadership. That means leading his agencies. He's been horrible in this area, wihch is amazing because it is one of the core parts of being President. His Fin Reg agencies, law enforcement agencies, lots of them have been bumbling around with even the most crucial of their tasks. And this was a perfect example. Guy on the ground asks for more security, meanwhile bureaucrat trying to not make waves says no, we need LESS security. This is a failure in leadership, which falls on both Clinton and Obama. That, to me, is where you can make a good argument about Obama's failings, that Romney just hasn't gone after (despite that he's got a very good personal record to reflect against that very skill set).

 

[Jake]

The problem with that debate is that both VP's need to conform to the parties views. Ryan's policies and voting history are so different than the republican platform for this election.

 

That's certainly a tension, but since Ryan (perhaps reluctantly) articulated the party's views and Biden's views are basically those of his party I still found it much more useful.

 

I saw it noted that the VP debate could be a preview of a presidential debate in 2016 -- I didn't believe it before, but afterwards I can see that happen. I love Biden, but I wonder if the much-maligned from the right aggressiveness would indeed be polarizing.

 

Whether it is their own doing or not, things like the economy are almost certain to get better during an Obama second term so one wonders if any Democrat would have an easy time running on their predecessor's record. For instance, Moody's forecasts that without some sort of new manipulation, 12 million jobs will be created by 2016 (nice promise, Romney! staying the course will produce your jobs promise). If Biden runs and says "we created 12 million jobs in our second term!" how do you beat that?

[southsider2k5]

The reason is because they are going after voters who are wish-washy on their stance.

 

If you are pro-killing babies you likely are not going to vote Republican.

 

If you are pro-govt controlling your sex life over religious reasons you are not going to vote Democrat.

 

There are only a fraction of people who somehow find a way to be unsure on this topic. But neither party really wants to hammer on it, because the trends show that each year its random which is more popular.

 

Same with gay marriage. If you want to let a hippo and rhino marry you probably wont vote Republican. If you want "tradition" and by that I mean only counting 2000 years not 6000, to dictate who can marry, you probably wont vote Democrat.

 

Thus we get stupid arguments about the economy which is nothing but lies. Obama and Romney are not the legislative branch. Neither of them can do s*** when you have guys like Grover Cleveland having people sign tax pledges. That is the reason Romney needs to make his asinine economic plan that does not "raise taxes" because that is okay with Grover.

 

The President is nothing more than a representation of America. And of the 2, Id rather have the outside world see me as a friend of Obama than Romney.

 

The perception of America is all that really changes, the rest is just window dressing.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I wish I could say that was some clever word play, but it was a German's bombed pearl harbor moment.

[Jake]

 

^^

 

I wish I could say that was some clever word play, but it was a German's bombed pearl harbor moment.

 

lol, to think I gave you that much credit

[Jenksismyhero]

I also preferred his private answer, which is probably a bunch of BS but would have been better than his actual response to the question:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-w...e6a4b_blog.html

 

President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

 

As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

[NorthSideSox72]

I also preferred his private answer, which is probably a bunch of BS but would have been better than his actual response to the question:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-w...e6a4b_blog.html

I like that answer better as well, and doesn't seem like B.S. to me. In fact it seems less B.S. than anything either candidate said on stage.

 

[bmags]

I actually thought it was a good debate. You guys are just acting too cool.

[farmteam]

I also preferred his private answer, which is probably a bunch of BS but would have been better than his actual response to the question:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-w...e6a4b_blog.html

Agree with NSS here. Seems pretty plausible.

[Soxbadger]

I dont like any debate where I have to sit on the sidelines.

 

[2nd_city_saint787]

Jill Stein 2012!

[NorthSideSox72]

I actually thought it was a good debate. You guys are just acting too cool.

It was, albeit messy at times. But some people are so embittered (with good reason) at the current state of things, that they will call everything awful as a knee-jerk reaction. Happens in PHT on here too, with the Sox, fans see some bad things, all of a sudden everything is the end of the world.

 

[Kyyle23]

It was, albeit messy at times. But some people are so embittered (with good reason) at the current state of things, that they will call everything awful as a knee-jerk reaction. Happens in PHT on here too, with the Sox, fans see some bad things, all of a sudden everything is the end of the world.

 

this post is awful. i hate it

[Jenksismyhero]

Agree with NSS here. Seems pretty plausible.

 

To me it's so plausible I don't understand why he's not explaining it that way to the public, so I'm assuming it's a BS response. Why continue this crap argument (lie) that they maintained it was an act of terrorism from day one if the real answer is that they knew it was an "act of terror" but couldn't yet determine if it was a legitimate, pre-planned attack by a terrorist group?

Edited October 17, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Y2HH]

It was, albeit messy at times. But some people are so embittered (with good reason) at the current state of things, that they will call everything awful as a knee-jerk reaction. Happens in PHT on here too, with the Sox, fans see some bad things, all of a sudden everything is the end of the world.

 

I don't figure a debate to be a good debate when neither candidate truly answers any questions -- or actually debates anything -- but merely regurgitates party line talking points over and over in response to the others talking points. That's not a debate. It's a political infomercial for two parties, at best.

 

A debate is when two individuals discuss a subject, and "debate" the pros and cons of their ideas/policies. That's not what happened last night.

 

The Bill O'Reilly/Jon Stewart debate was more or less what I consider a good debate, even if injected with comedy at times. At least there were times that both admitted they agreed with each other, and when they didn't they discussed why instead of just changing the subject which resorted in them restating some various talking point that was memorized off a cheat sheet of some sort.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't figure a debate to be a good debate when neither candidate truly answers any questions -- or actually debates anything -- but merely regurgitates party line talking points over and over in response to the others talking points. That's not a debate. It's a political infomercial for two parties, at best.

 

A debate is when two individuals discuss a subject, and "debate" the pros and cons of their ideas/policies. That's not what happened last night.

 

The Bill O'Reilly/Jon Stewart debate was more or less what I consider a good debate, even if injected with comedy at times. At least there were times that both admitted they agreed with each other, and when they didn't they discussed why instead of just changing the subject which resorted in them restating some various talking point that was memorized off a cheat sheet of some sort.

 

I agree to a certain extent, but I'm not sure what you were expecting. Debates have never been this ideal you're holding them to. And of all debates, this is one where the candidates literally went at each other. And they did agree with each other on certain topics, but just in a general sense (better education, more jobs, etc.) The first politician that says "You know what, I'm 100% in agreement with what the President did on X occasion and I would have done the exact same thing. Next question." would get MORE points for being like that. But instead it's all attack mode negativity.

 

 

[RockRaines]

I don't figure a debate to be a good debate when neither candidate truly answers any questions -- or actually debates anything -- but merely regurgitates party line talking points over and over in response to the others talking points. That's not a debate. It's a political infomercial for two parties, at best.

 

A debate is when two individuals discuss a subject, and "debate" the pros and cons of their ideas/policies. That's not what happened last night.

 

The Bill O'Reilly/Jon Stewart debate was more or less what I consider a good debate, even if injected with comedy at times. At least there were times that both admitted they agreed with each other, and when they didn't they discussed why instead of just changing the subject which resorted in them restating some various talking point that was memorized off a cheat sheet of some sort.

O'Reilly and Stewart dont answer to their parties and lobbyists. Money control these candidates, and their "viewpoints" as well. Just look at each of their viewpoints before they became candidates, totally flip flopped based on where the money comes from.