2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post Reply
User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Tyrannical » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:23 pm

I think the Washington Times summed it up well :hehe:
Bewildered and lost without his teleprompter
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by FBM » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:30 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote: What's Obama's "doing fine" gaffe? We don't get that much news over here.
He said "The private sector is doing fine" -- in the most anemic recovery since the great depression.
Gotcha. Thanks.

But it is still a recovery, right? I saw a graph yesterday or so that showed a huge upswing in unemployment just before he took office, which naturally continued to climb after he took office. And now it's down to about the same level as when he took office. Looked to me like he's slowly turning thing around. Caveat: I'm ignorant about all this stuff.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:12 pm

FBM wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
FBM wrote: What's Obama's "doing fine" gaffe? We don't get that much news over here.
He said "The private sector is doing fine" -- in the most anemic recovery since the great depression.
Gotcha. Thanks.

But it is still a recovery, right? I saw a graph yesterday or so that showed a huge upswing in unemployment just before he took office, which naturally continued to climb after he took office. And now it's down to about the same level as when he took office. Looked to me like he's slowly turning thing around. Caveat: I'm ignorant about all this stuff.
It's considered a "recovery" because a recession is generally defined as negative GDP, a shrinking of the GDP. Since GDP has been like 1 or 1 1/2% and teetering, it is no longer "technically" a recession. BUT, unemployment is still over 8.1%, and they leading economic indicators are not good.

The huge upswing in unemployment took place after he took office. It was like 7.2% before he took office, and over time went up to 10.1 or 10.3% during his term and came down over the last year to where it is now, still over 8%. It is still much higher than when he took office.

But, usually a good way to evaluate these gaffes is to put them in the mouth of someone you don't like. Like what if GWBush said that under the same circumstances? If your reaction would be "what the fuck is that douche talking about," as I suspect it would be, it can't become a reasonable thing to say just because Obama says it.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by FBM » Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:39 pm

The graph I'm looking at shows that it kicked off right before he took office. Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize +/- 1% as "much higher." Anyway, the trend suggests that it's going in the right direction: down.
recession
risk appetitekeep upDefinition
A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. A recession is typically accompanied by a drop in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the housing market. A recession is generally considered less severe than a depression, and if a recession continues long enough it is often then classified as a depression. There is no one obvious cause of a recession, although overall blame generally falls on the federal leadership, often either the President himself, the head of the Federal Reserve, or the entire administration.


Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/4086/reces ... z28LEtKtqT
Not quite the same thing as a "negative GDP." Think about it.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:59 pm

FBM wrote:The graph I'm looking at shows that it kicked off right before he took office. Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize +/- 1% as "much higher." Anyway, the trend suggests that it's going in the right direction: down.
recession
risk appetitekeep upDefinition
A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. A recession is typically accompanied by a drop in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the housing market. A recession is generally considered less severe than a depression, and if a recession continues long enough it is often then classified as a depression. There is no one obvious cause of a recession, although overall blame generally falls on the federal leadership, often either the President himself, the head of the Federal Reserve, or the entire administration.


Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/4086/reces ... z28LEtKtqT
Not quite the same thing as a "negative GDP." Think about it.
It is exactly the same thing as a "negative GDP" growth -- it's decline in GDP -- GDP falls. Goes down. Recession. How is it not the same thing? Your definition says it.

So, we don't have declining GDP right now, so it can't rightly be called a "recession." It is teetering, though, and we're barely in the black.

We do have increased and stagnantly high unemployment. So, that means the recovery hasn't been good, because traditionally, after a recession, unemployment rebounds much better.

We have had a decline in the housing market, and it mostly has not rebounded.

So, those indicators that "normally accompany" a recession are still looking bad. Hence -- "anemic" recovery.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:06 pm

Left-leaning commentators hit President Barack Obama hard on TV and the Internet after the first presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday night, saying GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney handily defeated his more experienced opponent.
MSNBC hosts were “stunned” by Obama’s performance, suggesting the president was rusty for not having debated in four years.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z28LKNnlQj


User avatar
Gerald McGrew
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:32 pm
About me: Fisker of Men
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Gerald McGrew » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:41 pm

The problems with last night were many. Romney played loose and fast with the facts and adopted the creationist debate tactic of throwing out falsehoods at a rapid pace (death panels, closing loopholes on the rich is enough to pay for the reduced rates, Obamacare = gov't takeover, etc.), and usually that's difficult to counter because it takes far longer to counter the falsehoods than it does to state them. That's why YEC Duane Gish used to beat the crap out of scientists in debates. But for the most part, Obama didn't even try and when he did, he did so in a way that looked like he was anxious to get to the bar or something.

Further, Romney served up a couple of opportunities for Obama to create one of those definable, headline moments ("make up a number", "I'm not aware of any tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas"...hello...Bain?) and he completely let the pass by and instead spent most of the night looking down at his podium.

But again, what really matters is if this moves the polls at all.
If you don't like being called "stupid", then stop saying stupid things.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Ian » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:06 pm

Gerald McGrew wrote:But again, what really matters is if this moves the polls at all.
Indeed. Historically the first debate helps the challenger, though not by a huge amount.

To break down my earlier remarks a bit further, I'd say Romney won on style and attitude, though certainly not on going point-for-point. I'd give him a B+ grade due to playing loose with too many facts. Obama stretched a few too, but not nearly to same degree. The next few days there will be a lot more discussion over some of the facts he fudged. Drudging up no less than two of Politifact.com's Lie Of The Year issues (death panels and the "goverment takeover" of health care) as well as others will continue to be discussed. And the flip-flopping continued at a jaw-dropping pace, most notably over tax plans. As Bill Maher tweeted: The etch-a-sketch was shaken again and Romney the moderate emerged. The guy is a windsock.

On the other hand I'd give Obama a grade of C. Good command of knowledge, but a weak attitude and he missed a lot of opportunities to not only refute Romney's points but hit Mitt in his own soft spots. I'd never seen Obama like I saw him last night. I almost wonder if it was part of some deep strategy; beforehand the pundits were all talking about how important it was for him to keep his cool. Well, I think he did a little too much of that.

The question is, what did Romney win? The debate? Overall, yes. But did he win over undecided voters? I think he might get a plurality but not a majority; many of these people (and there aren't too many this year) still remain undecided if the focus groups are anything to go by. Did he win over all the seniors he needs in Florida? The two didn't fight over Social Security much, but Medicare policy is something Obama will retain to his advantage. Did he energize the conservative base enough? I dunno - last night's performance was not aimed at them. Polls published later next week should tell a better picture of the effects.

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by klr » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:16 pm

Ian wrote:
Gerald McGrew wrote:But again, what really matters is if this moves the polls at all.
Indeed. Historically the first debate helps the challenger, though not by a huge amount.

...
:this:

The challenger will usually try to put all their new and shiny ideas and phrases to the fore in the first debate, and will get extra brownie points just for appearing to be new and novel. But by the later debates, the novelty tends to wear off. And the opponents will have the challenger sussed. In the 2010 UK general election campaign, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats won the first televised leader's debate. He was regarded as interesting, innovative and refreshing. The fact that his party was also the underdog helped him. During the second and third debates, his rivals gradually clawed back the ground they'd lost.
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
Gerald McGrew
Posts: 611
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:32 pm
About me: Fisker of Men
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Gerald McGrew » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:26 pm

Ian wrote:I'd never seen Obama like I saw him last night. I almost wonder if it was part of some deep strategy; beforehand the pundits were all talking about how important it was for him to keep his cool. Well, I think he did a little too much of that.
That's what I kept wondering. Who the hell is this guy and what have you done with Barack Obama?

I thought for a while that since it was his wedding anniversary, maybe Michelle banged the shit out of him right before the debate and he was just sleepy. :snooze:
If you don't like being called "stupid", then stop saying stupid things.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:30 pm

Ian wrote:
Gerald McGrew wrote:But again, what really matters is if this moves the polls at all.
Indeed. Historically the first debate helps the challenger, though not by a huge amount.

To break down my earlier remarks a bit further, I'd say Romney won on style and attitude, though certainly not on going point-for-point. I'd give him a B+ grade due to playing loose with too many facts. Obama stretched a few too, but not nearly to same degree. The next few days there will be a lot more discussion over some of the facts he fudged. Drudging up no less than two of Politifact.com's Lie Of The Year issues (death panels and the "goverment takeover" of health care) as well as others will continue to be discussed. And the flip-flopping continued at a jaw-dropping pace, most notably over tax plans. As Bill Maher tweeted: The etch-a-sketch was shaken again and Romney the moderate emerged. The guy is a windsock.
I take some issue with this. He did not say "death panels." He referred to a review board that actually was in Obamacare and which Obama himself said existed -- they both agreed on what it did -- review things to determine what ought to have money spent on it. Obama characterizes it would be a benign cost-saving thing, and Romney says it would pick and choose different treatments that would be available. Both are correct, really. To call that a Romney "lie" is inaccurate, and to say he brought up "death panels" is also inaccurate. He brought up a review panel that actually would exist -- and Obama described it as a panel of experts, doctors, administrators and such.

Etch-a-sketch? I don't know how someone could support obama and object to shaking Etch-a-Sketches. Obama changes persona based on his audience all the time.
Ian wrote:
On the other hand I'd give Obama a grade of C. Good command of knowledge, but a weak attitude and he missed a lot of opportunities to not only refute Romney's points but hit Mitt in his own soft spots. I'd never seen Obama like I saw him last night. I almost wonder if it was part of some deep strategy; beforehand the pundits were all talking about how important it was for him to keep his cool. Well, I think he did a little too much of that.

The question is, what did Romney win? The debate? Overall, yes. But did he win over undecided voters? I think he might get a plurality but not a majority; many of these people (and there aren't too many this year) still remain undecided if the focus groups are anything to go by. Did he win over all the seniors he needs in Florida? The two didn't fight over Social Security much, but Medicare policy is something Obama will retain to his advantage. Did he energize the conservative base enough? I dunno - last night's performance was not aimed at them. Polls published later next week should tell a better picture of the effects.
I think that he did win the debate, but more important was that he won the punditry afterwards. The pundits were shouting loud and clear that Romney won. That is who the undecided are more likely to see. Whether it sways the polls remains to be seen.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 18911
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:35 pm

I think Obama was awful.
meh

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Ian » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:39 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:I take some issue with this. He did not say "death panels." He referred to a review board that actually was in Obamacare and which Obama himself said existed -- they both agreed on what it did -- review things to determine what ought to have money spent on it. Obama characterizes it would be a benign cost-saving thing, and Romney says it would pick and choose different treatments that would be available. Both are correct, really. To call that a Romney "lie" is inaccurate, and to say he brought up "death panels" is also inaccurate. He brought up a review panel that actually would exist -- and Obama described it as a panel of experts, doctors, administrators and such.
No, Romney did not use the term death panels. But he sure invoked that idea. He described the panels enough to get people who don't understand the details enough information to think they'd have the power of granting life or death, without actually saying so. A bit blurry there, but it was he who brought up the "panels" discussion.

However, the "government takeover of health care" bit was said loud and clear by Romney at least a couple times. I sincerely hope he gets slapped around for that more in the coming days.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:47 pm

Ian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I take some issue with this. He did not say "death panels." He referred to a review board that actually was in Obamacare and which Obama himself said existed -- they both agreed on what it did -- review things to determine what ought to have money spent on it. Obama characterizes it would be a benign cost-saving thing, and Romney says it would pick and choose different treatments that would be available. Both are correct, really. To call that a Romney "lie" is inaccurate, and to say he brought up "death panels" is also inaccurate. He brought up a review panel that actually would exist -- and Obama described it as a panel of experts, doctors, administrators and such.
No, Romney did not use the term death panels. But he sure invoked that idea. He described the panels enough to get people who don't understand the details enough information to think they'd have the power of granting life or death, without actually saying so. A bit blurry there, but it was he who brought up the "panels" discussion.

However, the "government takeover of health care" bit was said loud and clear by Romney at least a couple times. I sincerely hope he gets slapped around for that more in the coming days.
Can you explain how he can bring up that review panel without "invoking the idea?" Are we not allowed to discuss that aspect of Obamacare because it reminds people of the label "death panel?"

In a way, they DO have the power of granting life and death, because if they rule out a life saving procedure that would otherwise be available, people will likely die as a result. How that panel works and what it is going to decide on is certainly a reasonable item for discussion.

Government takeover is such a vague term. It is another example, really, of "bluster" or "puffery" being characterized as a "lie." I mean -- what is a government takeover? One side might say that it is only a takeover if 100% of it is controlled by the government. Another side may say something less than that still qualifies as a takeover.

These things are matters of opinion.

I mean -- Obama said "Republicans want dirtier air, dirtier water and less people with health insurance." I sure hell have never heard a Republican say that is what they want. Is he lying? He would say no, he wasn't, because what he's referring to is what he thinks in his opinion the end result of the policies Republicans advocate would be. But, the Republicans say he is lying because they have the opposite opinion, AND they can rightly claim they never advocated dirty water, dirty air or that they want people to have no health insurance. So, who is lying?

That's similar to the government takeover thing That's how Romney is characterizing what Obamacare does. The Dems say it's not a takeover. It all hinges on what people mean by "takeover" in that context.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests