2012 Presidential Debates - Page 18 - 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, 11:42 PM   #341
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 34,682
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
no one thought it was.

except apparently me.

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.
__________________

dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 11:45 PM   #342
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 67,887
Local Time: 11:33 PM
Those polls a realistic reaction to what occurred from people who watched the debate. Wait until the media (which seems to be heavily favoring Obama's performance) has an opportunity to spoonfeed the population a second-hand reproduction of the debate and you'll see the numbers shift significantly toward Obama.

Personally, I don't think it was even close. I can't imagine anyone in a parallel universe, let alone our own, who would consider Romney's performance stronger than Obama's.
__________________

LemonMelon is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 11:48 PM   #343
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 02:33 AM
First impressions are an interesting thing:

During the first debate, both my wife and I immediately noticed that Romney seemed to really answer the first question he was asked--it was striking (I say "seemed" because neither candidate actually answers the questions asked most of the time. ..but it helps tremendously if they at least sound like they are answering the question). He looked really impressive.

Tonight, we both noticed that Romney was NOT answering the first question that was asked of him. Again, very noticeable.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 11:50 PM   #344
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 02:33 AM
the buzz is on Obama's side.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 11:51 PM   #345
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 66,288
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't see the Libya attacks as quite the failure on the part of the Obama administration you're suggesting, largely because the implied answers are so terrible as to be implausible:

Why were the security requests denied? Because the Obama administration just doesn't care about the security of it's personnel? Come on. . . I'd have a lot of questions about the request, what was the nature of the denial, who made the decision to deny additional security and what the reasons were. But that doesn't add up to a callous disregard for the safety of diplomatic personnel by the administration as a whole.

Why did they lay blame on the video? Because the Obama administration wanted to hide what. . .? It seems more reasonable to conclude that the facts simply weren't clear at the time. Also reasonable, is that they may not have not wanted to admit that they didn't see the attack coming. Still it would be rather foolish to put the blame on the video when you know full well that the video wasn't responsible. They would have had to know the truth would come out so an intentional misplacing of blame would have been pretty dumb.

Finally, I just don't see the Libya attacks being the great game-changer when it comes to Romney vs. Obama on foreign policy. It wasn't in tonight's debate. I don't think it will be in the final debate either.
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.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 11:56 PM   #346
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 66,288
Local Time: 02:33 AM
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 offline  
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: 8,352
Local Time: 12:33 AM
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: 4,892
Local Time: 02:33 AM
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: 4,892
Local Time: 02:33 AM
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: 66,288
Local Time: 02:33 AM
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 offline  
Old 10-17-2012, 12:07 AM   #351
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 11:33 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: 8,352
Local Time: 12:33 AM
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: 28,600
Local Time: 11:33 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: 33,066
Local Time: 02:33 AM
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: 28,600
Local Time: 11:33 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: 33,066
Local Time: 02:33 AM
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: 4,892
Local Time: 02:33 AM
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: 28,600
Local Time: 11:33 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: 66,288
Local Time: 02:33 AM
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 offline  
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: 20,569
Local Time: 01:33 AM
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 offline  
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 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×