U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Slammin Shaman]

If you're interested in some amazing stupidity, sure. There's not much that's more hilarious than this weird right wing meme about "anti-colonialism". It's almost like they don't know much about history... almost.

One of my friend's saw it and she said it was a great film and it opened her eyes and etc, etc, etc. Talked to her, turns out she only watches Fox because that's what her parents watch. I had a lot of explaining to do last night.

[Reeve]

Yeah that's what I'd imagine. Now, a Biden/Ryan debate might actually be interesting, but I suspect that if this debate isn't entirely pointless, Obama will walk all over Romney for the simple reason that Romney hasn't really said anything beyond "I won't do what he did except where I will but differently."

I think Obama has the edge on Romney in a debate, but I think Ryan would blow Biden out of the water.

[Felya]

If you're interested in some amazing stupidity, sure. There's not much that's more hilarious than this weird right wing meme about "anti-colonialism". It's almost like they don't know much about history... almost.

How does he rationalize Obama's ant-colonialism? I'm honestly interested. Is it just tied to his father's birthplace or is there something from Obama being spun?

[ptwonline]

Change of subject. Apparently there is a film out called "Obama's America" and it's showing at a local theater. I've never even heard of this film, and the first result from Google says it's made by Dinesh D'Souza and he's apparently a conservative who based his film off his own book about "Barack Obama's attitude toward America derives from his father's anti-colonialism and from a psychological desire to fulfill his father's dream of diminishing the power of Western imperial states."

Should I see this for the lolz?

D'Souza claims to know the "real Obama" in a way that others don't, and this film is an attempt to reveal that. But guess what? He's never even met Obama. He claims that Obama an anti-colonial worldview that he got from his father. You know, that father that he met only once.

The film has been savaged pretty badly. It's basically an unsubstantiated smear piece that lies and distorts enough to make Michael Moore blush. And D'Souza's attempted defense of his smear piece are so cringe-worthy and easily shot down that it's simply embarassing.

Here's a blog entry of one journalist doing so, including links to his previous criticism of D'Souza and his film.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/dinesh_...n.php?page=all

Should you see the movie? No. It's wasting a couple of hours of your life that you will never get back that you could be using to do things more interesting or productive. Like...well, anything.

---------- Post added 2012-10-01 at 02:37 PM ----------

How does he rationalize Obama's ant-colonialism? I'm honestly interested. Is it just tied to his father's birthplace or is there something from Obama being spun?

He basically defines everything that Obama does as anti-colonial (and un-American)

Here's a good review from the NYT:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...i-colonialism/

[Lenonis]

The first debate is Wednesday, and given my complete nonscientific and based on absolutely nothing conclusions, we're now entering the period of time that will be within the span of attention for people going to vote.

Both camps are going to have to be extremely careful about just about anything they say and do...and they will also need to get their surrogates in line as well.

The election at this point judging for pretty much every poll and analysis I've seen is favoring Obama. That doesn't mean a whole lot, other than Romney can't just maintain the status quo -- he needs to gain.

The first debate will be very make-or-break. If Romney completely flops or says something offensive, he's probably done as the media will hound it as the final straw in a floundering campaign, and everyone will tune out for whatever else he has to say.

However if he does well, and brings some details to the table that interest people it could re-ignite interest in his platform and candidacy.

Obama, however, pretty much just needs to maintain the status quo. He is coming into the debate with a lot of ammunition and isn't prone to making gaffes in debates, but you never know.

It will be interesting -- and interesting to see the response to the debates.

[Grimbolt]

Why anyone would vote for this guy...


wow, just wow.

[Healing Rain]

Am I the only person debating whether or not they should watch the debate? I've already made up my mind so I'd mute the TV whenever Obama speaks.

[Lenonis]

Am I the only person debating whether or not they should watch the debate? I've already made up my mind so I'd mute the TV whenever Obama speaks.

Regardless of how you feel you should be educated on what the candidates stand for and what they claim to be doing for the next four years.

If nothing else, because your candidate might not win, and you want to know what to expect.

Although...based on your post, I'm not sure your expectations will be in line with reality.

[Kasierith]

I think Obama has the edge on Romney in a debate, but I think Ryan would blow Biden out of the water.

Obama is a natural leader. Romney is not. Obama also has a much firmer establishment on policies and current events, while so far Romney has essentially been riding on rhetoric established beforehand by other conservatives. Obama also makes substantially less slips than Romney, is very well outspoken, and knows how to use inspirational language. I very highly doubt that this debate will do Romney any favors; at this point, it isn't so much what the Democratic debate planners can find to nail him with, but what out of the vast selections of attackable points from his non-disclosure of tax forms to his 47% statement would yield the most profit.

Unless something crazy happens, Romney's outspoken derision for a massive portion of the US population, quite a few of whom including the elderly are typically conservative voters, has already lost him the election.

[ptwonline]

The debates likely will not change anything by very much. The questions are too predictable and the answers will be pre-scripted. Each one will just rattle off his talking points. It will be less of a debate and more of a series of rotating ads.

A REAL debate would be more interesting. The best thing would be a less formal sit-down conversation, but the campaigns would have to agree to do it and they won't.

[Lenonis]

I'm also not so convinced the Biden vs Ryan debate is going to be as one sided as people think.

I've noticed Ryan seems to be stuck on a single set of talking points. I have absolutely no idea how he will respond when pushed off those talking points or directly confronted with how misleading they are.

Ryan certainly does seem to be more charismatic and a better speaker, but Biden has done decently in debates in the past as long as he can stay on point and not get...spontaneous.

I do have to confess I'm less interested in the VP debates...

[Felya]

I'm also not so convinced the Biden vs Ryan debate is going to be as one sided as people think.

I've noticed Ryan seems to be stuck on a single set of talking points. I have absolutely no idea how he will respond when pushed off those talking points or directly confronted with how misleading they are.

Ryan certainly does seem to be more charismatic and a better speaker, but Biden has done decently in debates in the past as long as he can stay on point and not get...spontaneous.

I do have to confess I'm less interested in the VP debates...

Here is a preview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM66-SxHDu0

[Lenonis]

Here is a preview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM66-SxHDu0

I heard about that this morning. That isn't going to fly during a debate.

[Felya]

I heard about that this morning. That isn't going to fly during a debate.

I think it will work better than in the video, because they have a time limit during the debates.

[Reeve]

Obama is a natural leader. Romney is not. Obama also has a much firmer establishment on policies and current events, while so far Romney has essentially been riding on rhetoric established beforehand by other conservatives. Obama also makes substantially less slips than Romney, is very well outspoken, and knows how to use inspirational language. I very highly doubt that this debate will do Romney any favors; at this point, it isn't so much what the Democratic debate planners can find to nail him with, but what out of the vast selections of attackable points from his non-disclosure of tax forms to his 47% statement would yield the most profit.

Unless something crazy happens, Romney's outspoken derision for a massive portion of the US population, quite a few of whom including the elderly are typically conservative voters, has already lost him the election.

I agree with you, but at the same time, Obama didn't win the debates of the 2008 elections. He is most comfortable in a speech giving format and less comfortable in a debate format.

[Deleted]

Obama is a natural leader. Romney is not

Romney was a pretty damn solid CEO, which requires leadership skills.

---------- Post added 2012-10-01 at 03:52 PM ----------

I agree with you, but at the same time, Obama didn't win the debates of the 2008 elections. He is most comfortable in a speech giving format and less comfortable in a debate format.

He had good speechwriters...

[ptwonline]

Romney was a pretty damn solid CEO, which requires leadership skills.

---------- Post added 2012-10-01 at 03:52 PM ----------


He had good speechwriters...

The difference between a CEO and POTUS is that the CEO can basically act as an emperor: he makes a decree, and he expects it to be carried out. If he's lousy he'll get sacked. On the other hand, POTUS will get questioned and challenged at every turn and there will be resistance to carrying out what he wants. How often do you see a CEO have to negotiate and compromise with middle management over company strategy? Or have an extended debate with frontline workers about product design? Never. He may ask for input, but his final word is law.

As for speeches, the candidates usually have both a hand in their writing and final say on the content. Money is no object for Romney. Why doesn't he just hire better speechwriters then if that's all it takes? The answer is because it's more than just the speechwriter that makes a good speech. For example, the topic and your approach to a problems is critical. You can write the best speech in the world but if the speaker is on the wrong side of the proper course of action to take then the best you can do as a speechwriter is to polish turds.

[smelltheglove]

The difference between a CEO and POTUS is that the CEO can basically act as an emperor: he makes a decree, and he expects it to be carried out.

well, a bigger difference imo is that if if you feel someone isnt benefiting the company, or not doing enough, you send them packing. kind of hard for a country to do, and from some of his comments he really doesnt understand this distinction

[Kasierith]

I agree with you, but at the same time, Obama didn't win the debates of the 2008 elections. He is most comfortable in a speech giving format and less comfortable in a debate format.

But the largest weakness of Obama in 2008 was experience; McCain was a highly experienced politician with a massive amount of history working on both sides of congress, with an undeniable real life experience contribution. Obama was pretty much new to the spectrum in comparison. In this campaign, however, you can't rationally argue that Obama lacks the experience to be president.

Romney was a pretty damn solid CEO, which requires leadership skills..

Being a good CEO requires delegation. You could be a completely distanced asocial shrewd, and still be a strong CEO if you know how to work the strengths of those around you and focus on collaborative strategies. Does strong presentation skills help? Yes, but its actually not necessary. And apologies if I got this wrong, haven't looked into this much, but hasn't Romney been a rather distant CEO for a while now?

Oh, and the US isn't the same as a business. So saying that being a CEO is appropriate experience for becoming president is a massive fallacy; it can help, but a large amount of the skill set just isn't transferable. You have to deal with problems, not maximize profits by removing problems all together... although I guess deporting 47% of the country could be something he plans on doing,

[Reeve]

Yeah, the US isn't a business. Honestly I'd much rather see an economist in the White House than a businessman.