2012 Presidential Debates - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-16-2012, 11:56 PM   #346
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,442
Local Time: 07:26 PM
more interesting things from the CNN poll... despite people saying that obama clearly won, romney won by a huge margin on the economy... and frankly, it's the economy, stupid.

i think obama won the debate... but i don't think he stopped the momentum. slowed it, maybe, probably... but he still has work to do.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:00 AM   #347
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,090
Local Time: 04:26 PM
I felt President Obama clearly won the debate. I don't think he has reversed the momentum but has slowed it considerably. The media spin this week will be interesting.
__________________

__________________
trojanchick99 is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:01 AM   #348
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
why did Bush say we were going to Iraq for WMD's, when they knew there weren't any? why did he do what he did in New Orleans?

it doesn't have to make sense.

it could be for sinister reasons... it could be just a plain and simple and horrible oversight. either way it was a fuck up.

how is it not plausible that the administration wanted to hide said fuck up? it's certainly worth a discussion. and that's the point... the discussion should have been about the handling of the incident, which there are serious questions about... not over the timing and use of the word terror, which is just plain stupid.
Bush said we were going to Iraq for WMDs because he knew that the real reasons for going wouldn't sell well with the American people. I also question that the Bush admin knew for certain that there were no WMDs. However, I believe the Bush admin believed going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do and would work in the best interests of the country. Of course they were wrong. I thought so at the time and of course I still think so now.

The response to New Orleans was not sinister. . .it was as you said a horrible oversight. It was not however, the worst thing Bush did in his presidency (the war in Iraq takes the cake for that).

I don't think it's implausible for the president's administration to try to hide a fuck up particularly if details are sketchy. It is implausible for the administration to hide something that clearly happened and that they knew clearly happened.

It's like blaming Bush for not stopping 9/11.

I don't buy that kind of argument.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:03 AM   #349
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post

i think obama won the debate... but i don't think he stopped the momentum. slowed it, maybe, probably... but he still has work to do.
Agree here. I'm much less optimistic about Obama winning the election than I was before the first debate.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:06 AM   #350
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,442
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Bush said we were going to Iraq for WMDs because he knew that the real reasons for going wouldn't sell well with the American people. I also question that the Bush admin knew for certain that there were no WMDs. However, I believe the Bush admin believed going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do and would work in the best interests of the country. Of course they were wrong. I thought so at the time and of course I still think so now.

The response to New Orleans was not sinister. . .it was as you said a horrible oversight. It was not however, the worst thing Bush did in his presidency (the war in Iraq takes the cake for that).

I don't think it's implausible for the president's administration to try to hide a fuck up particularly if details are sketchy. It is implausible for the administration to hide something that clearly happened and that they knew clearly happened.

It's like blaming Bush for not stopping 9/11.

I don't buy that kind of argument.
so how is it implausible that Benghazi was an incredible oversight by the Obama administration? Nothing sinister... but a giant fuck up? And the confusion argument is fine for a day or two, but they continued to blame the riots around the video for longer than that when it was clear that it had nothing to do with it.

so my only point here is that THAT should have been what romney went after, because there are perfectly legitimate questions and concerns, and i, for one, would love to hear the administration's full answers to all of them... but that he chose to go after when he used the word terror is baffling, asinine, and incredibly stupid.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:07 AM   #351
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Agree here. I'm much less optimistic about Obama winning the election than I was before the first debate.


same

again, that is why tonight can end being that 'net' win for Romney

this needed to be a direction changer, like the first debate was a 'game changer' for Romney.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:10 AM   #352
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,090
Local Time: 04:26 PM
Disagree. The President needed a win, and I think he got one. He didn't need to completely reverse what happened in the first debate. If he wins the last debate, I think he will at that point have the momentum completely back.
__________________
trojanchick99 is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:13 AM   #353
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
so how is it implausible that Benghazi was an incredible oversight by the Obama administration?

this is over kill, but it is playing with the average joe smoe.


this was not the embassy in Libya.

ok, they had 2 guards, if the request for more security was granted would they have had 6? 8?.

and what difference would that have made with 200 attackers with assault rifles?

truth is 200 armed attackers could be successful at many of our diplomatic buildings in many countries. We just don't want to come out and say that.
Any flash mob can loot a store, even ones with good security.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:15 AM   #354
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post

how is it not plausible that the administration wanted to hide said fuck up? it's certainly worth a discussion. and that's the point... the discussion should have been about the handling of the incident, which there are serious questions about... not over the timing and use of the word terror, which is just plain stupid.


but that's not what Romney is doing. he's trying to make this incident fit the narrative they've constructed that the man who killed OBL and sends drones into Pakistan has gone on an apology tour and projects "weakness" because he's somehow not brave enough to call things terror and that because of this "weakness" our enemies are emboldened and they respond by killing embassy staff and murdering a lot of Syrians.

they don't have a foreign policy argument to make, and it's become evident in how they can't make hay of Benghazi.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:19 AM   #355
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trojanchick99 View Post
Disagree. The President needed a win, and I think he got one. He didn't need to completely reverse what happened in the first debate. If he wins the last debate, I think he will at that point have the momentum completely back.
people may be voting now, I think

and by the last debate quite a few will have voted.


tonight keeps him in the race, a big loss like last time would have put him in danger.

just like a big loss by Romney in the first would have put him on the ropes. A small win is good. A decisive win is what they were hoping for.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:29 AM   #356
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:26 PM
there are very few decisive wins in politics. the fist debate is the only one in my lifetime.

what needs to happen are "moments," and then for the targeted groups to hear specifics. everything else is noise.

Obama clearly made himself heard to women. and he got his "moments" too -- with Libya, ironically, being his high point. he got the moderator to fact check Romney, and the crowd applauded. twice.

Romney was, still, good. he's done his job, which is to seem presidential. but i don't see how anyone could conclude, on the merits, that this debate was anything but a win for the president.

as for the race, we'll continue to see it be close, but my guess is that Obama will shore up his small but clear 2% lead across the board.

also, the Dems are easily going to hold the senate.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:39 AM   #357
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
so how is it implausible that Benghazi was an incredible oversight by the Obama administration? Nothing sinister... but a giant fuck up? .

Our disagreement is over degree. I think it was an oversight, just not an incredible one. I agree that it was a fuck up, just not a giant one.

This is one of those uncomfortable truths that the American people don't want to hear:

No one can guarantee that there will never be another terrorist attack. No one. No matter what we do, we'll miss something at some point and a terrorist will exploit that weakness.

For that reason, situations like what happened in Libya are not "incredible failures of security" (deep made some good points on this). Not unless they are part of a pattern of failures and missed opportunities that allow terrorists to attack time after time. There is no such pattern with the Obama administration and as a result there is no "incredible failure."
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:45 AM   #358
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
there are very few decisive wins in politics. the fist debate is the only one in my lifetime.

what needs to happen are "moments," and then for the targeted groups to hear specifics. everything else is noise.

Obama clearly made himself heard to women. and he got his "moments" too -- with Libya, ironically, being his high point. he got the moderator to fact check Romney, and the crowd applauded. twice.

Romney was, still, good. he's done his job, which is to seem presidential. but i don't see how anyone could conclude, on the merits, that this debate was anything but a win for the president.

as for the race, we'll continue to see it be close, but my guess is that Obama will shore up his small but clear 2% lead across the board.

also, the Dems are easily going to hold the senate.
I pretty much agree with that


a few weeks back my over under for Romney was 200 electoral votes

now it could be around 260, easy to hit the 270

I keep checking the no toss ups on the senate and see it at 52-48

I keep hoping there might be a couple of upsets for the dems to get it to 53, 54. perhaps Tester in Montana can win, I want to see Scott Brown go out the same way he came in, naked on a bear skin rug.

Bush 1 killed Michael Dukakis in a debate in 88, those poll numbers flipped by double digits.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:49 AM   #359
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,442
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean

Our disagreement is over degree. I think it was an oversight, just not an incredible one. I agree that it was a fuck up, just not a giant one.

This is one of those uncomfortable truths that the American people don't want to hear:

No one can guarantee that there will never be another terrorist attack. No one. No matter what we do, we'll miss something at some point and a terrorist will exploit that weakness.

For that reason, situations like what happened in Libya are not "incredible failures of security" (deep made some good points on this). Not unless they are part of a pattern of failures and missed opportunities that allow terrorists to attack time after time. There is no such pattern with the Obama administration and as a result there is no "incredible failure."
I can go with that.

My point is still that there are plenty of questions and points that Romney could have brought up that could have been negative for the President, yet he brought up the one that could be spun into a positive.

Which is pretty dumb.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:56 AM   #360
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzledbylight View Post
i did hear callers on a particular radio talkers show ( an ? independent and leaning towards some progressivism person) after the (1st) debate saying how they liked that Obama didn't get all "agressive". Some thought he won, too by being that way.
Agreed. I personally like it when he's more aggressive, but some people prefer the opposite, too, for a variety of reasons.

Also, well said to Sean and Irvine (your posts are making me feel better, I must say).
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com