2nd Debate Discussion

[Landlord]

Since the rest of these threads have all delved deep into hyper-focused mudslinging, I figured we'd start a new thread with a broad scope.

 

I'm no expert on politics so I won't say much to start it off since it will just get debunked, but what did you think generally speaking? Mitt Romney didn't seem to give direct answers nearly as well as Obama did - even wanting to go back to past topics much later because he can't handle not having the last say. His elementary school "he went first so I get to go now" mentality is incredibly off-putting, and he should have avoided the "I care about 100% of the people" line.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

 

Oh, and the moderator's factual rebuking of Romney on the "act of terror" bit was epic and classic.

[zoogs]

I feel Obama is still not as slick a debater as Mitt Romney is, and Mitt played off Obama's sometimes confrontational answers pretty well.

 

Mitt went back to talking about how there would be no tax increases, a lot of tax deductions, and that the math would all add up, with very little to back this up other than his personal assurance. I find it troubling and I wish someone would specifically throw some numbers out at him and ask him how that works. I suppose President Obama did that on a broad level. To me, after reading the CBO report on the Ryan plan, it seems pretty clear that cutting spending alone isn't feasible, and cutting revenue on top of that doesn't make it any easier.

 

I think Romney's continued attempts to take potshots at the Obama administration for what happened with the US ambassador is really pretty weak.

 

I'll agree they both had their snippy moments, but in the end I'm not too interested in "who won the looks show" - which is what 'who won the debate' often really is asking.

 

My growing sense is that the Romney / Ryan are impressive salesmen. But at this point, it's really, really hard to buy what is being sold. No matter how slick of a speaker Mitt is, and let's give him credit. He's good.

[carlfense]

[carlfense]

[Landlord]

 

 

Ridiculous that the Republican side is calling foul on the moderator for saying that as her "opinion", when it's demonstrable fact.

[carlfense]

Ridiculous that the Republican side is calling foul on the moderator for saying that as her "opinion", when it's demonstrable fact.

Within a certain circle . . . ideology trumps fact. Romney can't be wrong. That would hurt his electoral chances.

[krc1995]

I thought it was a good debate, although I have no idea why they have the 2 minute time limit. Romney did look pretty weak on Libya issue.

[carlfense]

I thought it was a good debate, although I have no idea why they have the 2 minute time limit. Romney did look pretty weak on Libya issue.

"Please proceed, Governor."

 

[Hercules]

[Mars]

I thought about the debate throughout the day and was excited when 8:00 came around.

 

I watched two minutes of the debate before I changed the channel. I can't stand Obama or Romney.

[knapplc]

I watched about half of it. It was two spin-doctors spinning gold from straw.

 

This is why I don't watch presidential debates. But last time I was told I couldn't comment if I didn't watch it. So there.

[JJ Husker]

First the act of terror thing. I would be ashamed if I was attempting to spin this deal as the Obama administration acknowledging the Benghazi attack as a "terrorist" attack instead of the story they, in factual reality, actually held onto for almost two weeks after the attack. Remember the story about the video? So, Romney got tripped up by the use of the word "terror" the day after. Big deal. Fact is the administration did not back off the video story and publically call it a terrorist attack for about two weeks. No big victory here for Obama and only a minor glich for Romney not being aware the word terror was used.

 

Now as far as the debate. I felt Obama did much better than the first debate. I am strictly talking about the debate itself and not necessarily substance or truth. He was a lot more aggresive and I believe he controlled the discussion very effectively. They both were quite aggressive but I have to say Obama probably scored more points. As far as substance, fact, and truthfulness, I would have to call it a draw. They both twisted answers, dodged questions, and spun numbers and facts to their benefit. It's what politicians do. I tend to think that the past four years speaks for itself and that alone handicaps Obama. I also think I understand the math and what Romney's economic plan is. I like his approach better than what has not worked for the past four years. I'm not sure this debate really helped any undecideds make up their mind and probably only reinforced already decided voters. I'll give a slight nod towards Obama narrowly winning the debate but I would be surprised to see any poll bumps similar to round one.

[JJ Husker]

BTW, I think the natural progression of these debates should lead them to change round three to the Octagon. Heck, throw in the veeps and make it a tag team match.

[knapplc]

BTW, I think the natural progression of these debates should lead them to change round three to the Octagon. Heck, throw in the veeps and make it a tag team match.

 

Not a bad plan. We could also force the politicians to fight in the front lines of any wars they want to get involved in. If we could get all of Earth to agree to that, war would cease overnight.

[zoogs]

I watched about half of it. It was two spin-doctors spinning gold from straw.

 

This is why I don't watch presidential debates. But last time I was told I couldn't comment if I didn't watch it. So there.

 

Oh, you got some neeerve on you... /shakes fists.

 

You know, I think it would be a lot more productive if we didn't put the candidates up there to practice debating skills and zingers against each other. Let's bring in independent interviewers, accomplished, smart people who are good at asking questions and not afraid to hold the candidates to task on answers. And not tied down to political considerations the way that the candidates themselves would be, in responding to one another.

 

And let's just keep airing these 2-hour in-depth interviews, in lieu of debates, as a means of letting the candidates introduce themselves. But they have to be hard-hitting. They have to be guys who, when a candidate says something that could be wrong, they'll get smacked over the head for it.