U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Deadvolcanoes]

Highlights of the debate for Romney:
1. Keep using the 716 billion dollar number that every single fact checker calls false
2. Attacked alternative energy, then say you support alternative energy
3. Deny you have said 5 trillion in tax cuts for the last 18 months
4. When asked for details over talk the useless moderator and change to some prepared one liner.
5. Deny you want to change medicare to a voucher program for 18 months, then finally say "yes I want to change medicare to a voucher program"
6. When asked why your tax plan does not add up change the subject

I think a lot of progressives expected this line of attack from Romney, so no big shock here.

What I didn't expect, was such a lethargic and non-aggressive response by Obama. I've never been a firm believer that debates really contribute much to swaying Independents one way or another, but if Obama doesn't wake up in the next two debates, he's in a lot of trouble.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

I know. That was the exact point I was trying to make, in reference to the original (Unsupported by evidence) claims about Bush and the Iraq war.

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 11:32 AM ----------



The U.S. leadership, prior to that event, was pretty hell-bent on staying out of the war.

OK. So Churchill had American blood on his hands because of a conspiracy theory that involved a German U-Boot sinking a cruise liner loaded up with ammunition, that the German Embassy had warned not to board. That sounds pretty wacky to me.

The USA joined WW1 two YEARS after the Lusitania was sunk, after the Germans started sinking many commercial ships flying under the American Ensign in the Atlantic. The simultaneous German offer of an alliance with Mexico caused Pres. Wilson to ask Congress for permission to join WW1.

[ptwonline]

I think a lot of progressives expected this line of attack from Romney, so no big shock here.

What I didn't expect, was such a lethargic and non-aggressive response by Obama. I've never been a firm believer that debates really contribute much to swaying Independents one way or another, but if Obama doesn't wake up in the next two debates, he's in a lot of trouble.

What I worry about is the hyping of the debates as if they are supposed to really matter and that the "winner" is somehow the better candidate, and that you're supposed to choose them. I'm guessing most people aren't that foolish and fickle, but it only takes a couple of percent to swing an election.

Winning a debate means you argued with more positive effect on the topics that got raised. It doesn't actually mean that your arguments are right, or better.

[bergmann620]

OK. So Churchill had American blood on his hands because of a conspiracy theory that involved a German U-Boot sinking a cruise liner loaded up with ammunition, that the German Embassy had warned not to board. That sounds pretty wacky to me.

The USA joined WW1 two YEARS after the Lusitania was sunk, after the Germans started sinking many commercial ships flying under the American Ensign in the Atlantic. The simultaneous German offer of an alliance with Mexico caused Pres. Wilson to ask Congress for permission to join WW1.

... This is why I said it's not worth the time. I basically put out a history 'joke' as a counter to a (unproven) claim by a specific individual. Have you ever had to walk a friend through a joke they didn't get, only to arrive at that awkward point where they get it, but it's not funny any more because they've thought about it too much?

Sorry. I had a 'Dennis Miller on MNF' moment, except with the audience dialing in asking him to explain it.

[Deadvolcanoes]

What I worry about is the hyping of the debates as if they are supposed to really matter and that the "winner" is somehow the better candidate, and that you're supposed to choose them. I'm guessing most people aren't that foolish and fickle, but it only takes a couple of percent to swing an election.

Winning a debate means you argued with more positive effect on the topics that got raised. It doesn't actually mean that your arguments are right, or better.

The popularity contest that is the Presidential election is certainly contributing to terrible candidates.

And how about the moderation last night. I thought it was pretty awful. He didn't challenge either candidate on anything. He didn't ask good follow up questions. It was basically, OK you talk and say something, then the other guy talks and says something, then we move on.

[ptwonline]

I know. That was the exact point I was trying to make, in reference to the original (Unsupported by evidence) claims about Bush and the Iraq war.

I don't think there is much evidence that Bush actually LIED about the things that led to the war (we can't read minds. We can only hope find some incriminating written evidence to show he thought one thing and said another). But there is plenty of evidence that he did not tell the truth, and withheld intel that would have contradicted their opinion and rationale for war.

Personally, my belief is that Bush and his Admin were so gung-ho to go to war with Iraq that they parsed all the intel in a way to get the result that they wanted to hear, ended up with massive groupthink, and as a result passed on completely false/biased info to Congress and the public to get their war. It may not (or it may depending on what we discover as records get released) have been a lie by the strictest of definitions, but I think it's fair to say that people were intentionally deceived. Pretty much a lie in all but name.

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 03:49 PM ----------

The popularity contest that is the Presidential election is certainly contributing to terrible candidates.

And how about the moderation last night. I thought it was pretty awful. He didn't challenge either candidate on anything. He didn't ask good follow up questions. It was basically, OK you talk and say something, then the other guy talks and says something, then we move on.

Moderation was fine. People complain about boring debates, so moderators are trying to loosen things up to free the candidates to go after each other a bit. I think that's fine if the moderator allows some rule bending. He simply has to keep it from getting too lopsided, and then to move the debate on to further questions.

[bergmann620]

What I worry about is the hyping of the debates as if they are supposed to really matter and that the "winner" is somehow the better candidate, and that you're supposed to choose them. I'm guessing most people aren't that foolish and fickle, but it only takes a couple of percent to swing an election.

Winning a debate means you argued with more positive effect on the topics that got raised. It doesn't actually mean that your arguments are right, or better.

I hype the debates because it's the only time we hear from both guys, at the same time, with no media filter. How do they do when speaking outside of their campaign echo chambers?

It does show an ability to get people to side with you, and build consensus, which is an important part of leading as President.

It still shocks me that Obama, considered by so many to be a skilled orator, struggles mightily at times- and his administration as a whole has, too, to communicate with people.

[Masark]

The U.S. leadership, prior to that event, was pretty hell-bent on staying out of the war.

In the "not wanting to send troops" sense, yes, but they were providing substantial amounts of munitions and other supplies. The USA was about as neutral in early-WW1 as they were in early-WW2.

[ptwonline]

I hype the debates because it's the only time we hear from both guys, at the same time, with no media filter. How do they do when speaking outside of their campaign echo chambers?

It does show an ability to get people to side with you, and build consensus, which is an important part of leading as President.

It still shocks me that Obama, considered by so many to be a skilled orator, struggles mightily at times- and his administration as a whole has, too, to communicate with people.

To be fair, a debate is about arguing points against an opponent, not necessarily "communicating with people". In fact, I think that's a big reason why Obama appears to have lost the debate: he was trying to talk to the people more and actually debate Romney less, whereas Romney was much more in actual debate mode.

And please don't make us laugh with the notion that Mr. 47% actually wants to build a consensus and get people to side with him. He's a businessman and he's simply trying to close a sale. The details of trying to fulfill the terms of sale? Psh, worry about that later.

[bergmann620]

I don't think there is much evidence that Bush actually LIED about the things that led to the war (we can't read minds. We can only hope find some incriminating written evidence to show he thought one thing and said another). But there is plenty of evidence that he did not tell the truth, and withheld intel that would have contradicted their opinion and rationale for war.

Personally, my belief is that Bush and his Admin were so gung-ho to go to war with Iraq that they parsed all the intel in a way to get the result that they wanted to hear, ended up with massive groupthink, and as a result passed on completely false/biased info to Congress and the public to get their war. It may not (or it may depending on what we discover as records get released) have been a lie by the strictest of definitions, but I think it's fair to say that people were intentionally deceived. Pretty much a lie in all but name.

It's been said that the WMD evidence was more solid than what we based the Bin Laden raid on. It was probably at least as good as what we're basing our Pakistani drone strikes on.

(Unrelated, but I would LOVE to hear the uproar generated if the TSA used the same criteria for its' screenings that we use for target selection.)

[FusedMass]

I just feel so depressed. I wanted so badly for Obama to blow him out of the water. I mean can you imagine Mitt as President. My God that cuts he will make to SS and other vital programs. Those people tossed out into the freezing cold. Thousands of life's depend on this election for Obama to be re-elected.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

It's been said that the WMD evidence was more solid than what we based the Bin Laden raid on. It was probably at least as good as what we're basing our Pakistani drone strikes on.

(Unrelated, but I would LOVE to hear the uproar generated if the TSA used the same criteria for its' screenings that we use for target selection.)

The WMD "evidence" was largely based on the evidence given to the CIA by an individual who has since said, on camera for a BBC documentary series, than he lied when giving that evidence, and that Rumsfeld took that "evidence" and embellished it when he took it to the UN Security Council.

[bergmann620]

And please don't make us laugh with the notion that Mr. 47% actually wants to build a consensus and get people to side with him. He's a businessman and he's simply trying to close a sale. The details of trying to fulfill the terms of sale? Psh, worry about that later.

There are different ways to communicate and different messages to be communicated. Romney's message last night was largely, "I can get on stage next to the leader of the free world and wag him like a tail."

You don't get to the Presidency without a consensus of electoral votes. You don't get to pass legislation if your leadership doesn't encourage folks to vote for legislators that are favorable to your goals- a democrat that's tired of the 'obstructionism' should know that.

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 12:05 PM ----------

I just feel so depressed. I wanted so badly for Obama to blow him out of the water. I mean can you imagine Mitt as President. My God that cuts he will make to SS and other vital programs. Those people tossed out into the freezing cold. Thousands of life's depend on this election for Obama to be re-elected.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

No really, is that sarcasm, or...?

[Puremallace]

lol

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49287227
Facts Take a Beating in First Presidential Debate

My favorite part of the entire article

Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan does devote some $92 billion to programs that can broadly be described as “green,” such as renewable energy and high speed rail. The largest portion of the money — $29 million — includes funding for energy efficient buildings.

As we reported in August, one of the members of Congress who sought some of that money for projects in his district was GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan.

[FusedMass]

There are different ways to communicate and different messages to be communicated. Romney's message last night was largely, "I can get on stage next to the leader of the free world and wag him like a tail."

You don't get to the Presidency without a consensus of electoral votes. You don't get to pass legislation if your leadership doesn't encourage folks to vote for legislators that are favorable to your goals- a democrat that's tired of the 'obstructionism' should know that.

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 12:05 PM ----------




LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

No really, is that sarcasm, or...?

I'm being serious.

[Felya]

It's been said that the WMD evidence was more solid than what we based the Bin Laden raid on. It was probably at least as good as what we're basing our Pakistani drone strikes on.

How could it have possibly been more solid, when one was right and the solid one wasn't? This would be comparable to WMDs, if we started a war with Pakistan, and 2000 dead American soldiers and 8 years later withdrew troops without finding him.

You are saying that evidence that never resulted to be true, but got us an 8 year quagmire of a war, was more solid than one resulting in a dead Bin Laden and no war?

We can directly compare Bush getting Bin Laden in the still going war in Afghanistan to the tactical strike against a building. A building in a country, that we not only did not start a war with, but who's leader appeared on the daily show the very next week to talk about it.

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 04:46 PM ----------

The WMD "evidence" was largely based on the evidence given to the CIA by an individual who has since said, on camera for a BBC documentary series, than he lied when giving that evidence, and that Rumsfeld took that "evidence" and embellished it when he took it to the UN Security Council.

To be fair, he is also saying Obama can be a lot more effective than Bush, with less evidence.

[Lenonis]

Which is good for the Obama camp, because I imagine Biden is going to curl up and die during his debate with Ryan. Palin was an easy opponent because she's... well, her, but Ryan has cunning. I'll be surprised if he doesn't eat Biden alive.

Except Ryan really seems stuck in the same cycle of talking points, and when pushed past them he really falters. Biden knows this and will prepare counterpoints -- so I don't think it's going to be a slam dunk as you think. Plus Biden will be way more willing to call him a liar liar pants on fire than Obama was, and that could make things...interesting.

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 11:55 AM ----------

I think you're overestimating the number of people that are adversely affected. Again, to be clear, I'm not pro-recession policies... just that not everyone gets hit hard, and many people wouldn't notice the difference if you didn't inform them.

I work in a recession proof industry (pharmaceuticals) and thus haven't been "hit hard" -- but I'm still stuck with a condo that's underwater, thus I've still be negatively affected.

I'd say most people have been negatively affected one way or another. A few people have been hit hard. And a very few people have been able to profit due to low interest rates, or other such side effects.

That's probably a better picture.

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 12:04 PM ----------

When Obamacare was being unconstitutionally crammed through Congress

Hard to call something unconstitutional when the supreme court upheld it.

House leader said, "We have to pass it to find out what's in it".

which would easily been deflected by putting that quote in context.

You've said you were going to cut the deficit, and you haven't explained how.

It's very dangerous to level a charge against your opponent when it has been one of the primary attacks against you.

I could go on for ten minutes with example after example of how your administration has been secretive.

This would actually have been a decent attack -- however it wouldn't have really fit in with the debate topics.

The debate wasn't a free for all that allowed the candidates to just attack each other blindly. It was a structured debate with certain topics -- and both candidates had to be extremely sensitive to how they came across. Look at how much analysis is being done on a debate where frankly both candidates performed well and had no major screw ups. If you sit there and turn into a rabid attack dog the media and press would have a field day with words like "desperate" "reaching" "last resort" and the perception would be that you know you are losing and your campaign is a lost cause.

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 12:07 PM ----------

I just feel so depressed.

Unless you are grossly exaggerating I think you might need to take a step back and do some objecting thinking about all this -- you shouldn't be getting this worked up about it, especially since it was just a debate and is not likely to move the needle enough to make a difference.

[bergmann620]

How could it have possibly been more solid, when one was right and the solid one wasn't? This would be comparable to WMDs, if we started a war with Pakistan, and 2000 dead American soldiers and 8 years later withdrew troops without finding him.

You are saying that evidence that never resulted to be true, but got us an 8 year quagmire of a war, was more solid than one resulting in a dead Bin Laden and no war?

I'm not, as I haven't 'seen' the evidence for either engagement. In both cases, we're functioning on degrees of likelihood. You can't base the 'rightness' of the evidence on the result.

The 'evidence' (read: assumptions based on prior knowledge), says that the Lakers stand a good chance to win the championship next year. Them winning or loosing doesn't retroactively affect the quality of those prognostications.

[ptwonline]

Unless you are grossly exaggerating I think you might need to take a step back and do some objecting thinking about all this -- you shouldn't be getting this worked up about it, especially since it was just a debate and is not likely to move the needle enough to make a difference.

People who saw defeat snatched from the jaws of victory twice leading to the 2 disastrous terms of George W. Bush probably needs a bit more than a few words of encouragement.

[Grizzly Willy]

Lenonis, you're a bit late on Bergmann's posts. He was tossing out a wild conspiracy theory as a counter example to those chiding Bush without evidence.