HuskerShark Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The fact that so many people think that Romney won the debate just shows that this country is filled with idiots that listen to the debates but don't actually listen to what is being said. While Romney appeared much more comfortable and confident during the debate, there's one problem: HE DIDN'T FREAKIN' SAY ANYTHING!!! Obama could have put a hurt on the Romney campaign if he had been more aggressive with his points against him. I've never seen Obama that hesitant and uncomfortable looking in front of a crowd. He usually is very well-spoken and confident, but he wasn't last night. I even caught myself for a brief moment thinking that Romney was winning and sounded pretty inspiring, and then I sat back and actually listened to what he was saying: NOTHING. The one time that Obama pointed out the fact that Romney has never given an actual rundown of what he is going to do as president to fix anything, Romney completely dodged the question and at one point stated something along the lines of, "The day after I'm elected, I will sit down and figure out what I plan on doing." NO! You're asking people to vote for you to become the next President of the US! Tell us what you plan to do NOW, you pompous, arrogant a$$! Ugh! How does that equate to winning a debate? Beats me.... 2 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The fact that so many people think that Romney won the debate just shows that this country is filled with idiots that listen to the debates but don't actually listen to what is being said. While Romney appeared much more comfortable and confident during the debate, there's one problem: HE DIDN'T FREAKIN' SAY ANYTHING!!! Obama could have put a hurt on the Romney campaign if he had been more aggressive with his points against him. I've never seen Obama that hesitant and uncomfortable looking in front of a crowd. He usually is very well-spoken and confident, but he wasn't last night. I even caught myself for a brief moment thinking that Romney was winning and sounded pretty inspiring, and then I sat back and actually listened to what he was saying: NOTHING. The one time that Obama pointed out the fact that Romney has never given an actual rundown of what he is going to do as president to fix anything, Romney completely dodged the question and at one point stated something along the lines of, "The day after I'm elected, I will sit down and figure out what I plan on doing." NO! You're asking people to vote for you to become the next President of the US! Tell us what you plan to do NOW, you pompous, arrogant a$$! Ugh! How does that equate to winning a debate? Beats me.... yes, yes indeed. he lied a lot and just said what was popular or sounded good, even if he had been campaigning against whatever it was for the past 8 months. Link to comment
Landlord Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'm not really paying attention to this thread but all I'll add is that it's easy for Romney to appear a bit more confident and aggressive when the stuff he's saying isn't supported by reality - I can confidently proclaim that I can fly while still staying on the ground at the same time, doesn't make it true. Seems like he's reversed nearly every position he's been campaigning for months, and it also seemed like changed his mind even within the short time of the debate: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk's delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he's getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers. Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Gotta love Team Anyone-But-Obama. I'm on team "Anyone But Obama/Romney" Link to comment
lo country Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 why did Obama not refer to Bain Capital and the 47%. Strategy for later debates? To a degree, IMO, I think it is because both sides have some pretty damaging sound bites on the other guy. If Romney brings up the whole "redistribution of wealth comments" from previous sound bytes and video, then Obama goes the 47% route. Possibly both sides realize that most people are sick and tired of the BS name calling and school yard he said she said crap. I know I am. Talk about your plan and how the other guys won't work. The bottom line is that each party has their base that is unwavering. Look at this board as an example. With all the cutting and pasting of this link or that link do you think anyone has changed their opinion? I do not. The debates are for the undecided and independents. IMO, both sides simply personally attacking the other guy instead of the plan will push away voters. Hard to like a guy, regardless of policies or plan, if the guy comes across as an arrogant a$$. If you truly are the "right" candidate for the job, let YOUR body of work stand on its own merits. You shouldn't have to win by proving the other guy is an a$$. Again, IMO, this can come across as arrogant and really put voters off. The recent debate showed reserve by both candidates. The could have gotten in more digs or zingers if you will, but chose to be more civil. I was surprised and even impressed by this. Maybe they are waiting for a later debate to mud sling more. Maybe both will simply leave it to their respective campaigns, proxies and media to do this so as to appear more "noble" one on one. Goes back to the old adage, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Romney made a convincing outlining of his general principles and pointed out, correctly, I think, that nobody goes into great specifics. Has Obama? I don't think so. But he demonstrated an understanding of the situation and a willingness to employ various resources and plans of attack to the solution. Depending on the specific situation. I don't know if I agree with all of his principles, because I don't know if I can debate those things on as technical a level. I think it's pointless to talk about wins or losses, but Obama hanging on to that incorrect $5 trillion figure strikes me as a big one. Both sides traded myths and inaccuracies and exaggerations, but Obama can't capitalize on the "give us more specifics, Mitt" bandwagon if he himself speaks in the same political generalities that every candidate does. Romney also did a good job clarifying the medicare Massachusetts position, which I'm actually surprised Obama jumped on: there is nothing there. Romney felt it was a good plan for the states, not as a federal system. I thought that one should have been obvious. I also think Romney made a great point. He's worked with Democrats from day one in Massachusetts, where the base is overwhelmingly Democrat. Obama has simply not been effective at leadership of the parties and bipartisanship, two things that were especially inspiring about his initial candidacy. Now, both sides of the aisle can play the victim on that one, but it does go both ways. The bottom line for me is that Romney established himself as someone who might very well know what the hell he's talking about. Obama doesn't seem especially weak in this area, but I do sort of consider it a tossup on their respective merits at this point. It will take a more careful and expert consideration of the platforms, a context that cherry-picking individual number checks don't really provide. Link to comment
krc1995 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 obama doesn't have to give specifics. He has his record to speak for him. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 "This mess that we're in" was largely created by the last election cycle where people blindly voted for a persons skin color and empty but catchy promises of hope and change. How's that hope holding out? How much change did we see? How many promises were fulfilled? How's that real unemployment doing? If you're in the middle class, how has your situation improved? Does it feel like your income is keeping up with ever increasing costs for groceries and gas? Step back and ask yourself if you really want another four years as bad or worse as the last four. Stop being part of the problem. Stop supporting these idiots. Stop mindlessly following people like Barack freaking Obama. Just. Stop. Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 One of the silliest snide implications Romney made all night was the ludicrous suggestion that Obama is at fault for rising gas prices. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 "This mess that we're in" was largely created by the last election cycle where people blindly voted for a persons skin color and empty but catchy promises of hope and change. How's that hope holding out? How much change did we see? How many promises were fulfilled? How's that real unemployment doing? If you're in the middle class, how has your situation improved? Does it feel like your income is keeping up with ever increasing costs for groceries and gas? Step back and ask yourself if you really want another four years as bad or worse as the last four. Stop being part of the problem. Stop supporting these idiots. Stop mindlessly following people like Barack freaking Obama. Just. Stop. I think it's funny how Obama continues to get the blame for a lot of the problems that Bush created during his term. The war in the Middle East was the biggest mistake I have ever seen, and a huge waste of money. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Carl- you don't want to discuss this. . . Which part of my post lead you to believe that? I sure don't need to be involved. Good evening. Alright. Have a good day as well. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 He wants it to be a state decision. He's alright with Romneycare because it's at the state level but not Obamacare (despite it being damn near identical) because it's at the federal level. But the states weren't doing anything (with a very few exceptions, Romneycare being the most prominent). Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 "This mess that we're in" was largely created by the last election cycle where people blindly voted for a persons skin color . . . Race card: played. How's that real unemployment doing? This morning unemployment fell to 7.8%. I guess that "unemployment above 8%" phrase will have to be re-worked. Stop being part of the problem. Stop supporting these idiots. Stop mindlessly following people like Barack freaking Obama. Just. Stop. Who should we support and why? Which plans lead you to believe that they would be a better option? 2 Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 One of the silliest snide implications Romney made all night was the ludicrous suggestion that Obama is at fault for rising gas prices. In a way he is, oil is tied to our economy... like it or not. EDIT: of course any pres would be as well. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 knapplc, carl, sd.. who do you guys support? Link to comment
Recommended Posts