2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
- 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
Don't piss on my foot and tell me it's raining CES. When I stated that conservatives denied realities, you challenged that assertion. But once I posted several examples, you immediately moved the goalposts and finished by claiming I was actually the one who was uninformed. Now that your bullshit has been called out, you're throwing your hands up and saying it doesn't matter anyways. Of course if you really believed that, you never would have bothered to challenge the assertion in the first place.
- Jesus_of_Nazareth
- Posts: 681
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:09 pm
- Location: In your heart!
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
On Foreign Affairs all Mitt has to say is that the Furriners will do WTF America wants.
On the Economy his BIG plus is that he has a track record of economic success. if I was him I would be blunt and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with him socially and politically - but nonetheless most have to accept that he is the best placed to fix the economy (Obama - perhaps sadly, is not up to the job as he fundamentally does not understand how the game works, even after a 4 year lesson), and a fixed economy is for the benefit of everyone........and then he pins his hopes on the "Hold your nose" vote
(Maggie Thatcher won several elections where the Pollsters found it hard to find the people who would even admit to having voted for her, let alone were going to! People vote with their wallets - especially when they are empty).
For the rest of the world a Romney win would be good economically. I still would not want to live under an American economic regime - but that same whether Romulan or not
.
On the Economy his BIG plus is that he has a track record of economic success. if I was him I would be blunt and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with him socially and politically - but nonetheless most have to accept that he is the best placed to fix the economy (Obama - perhaps sadly, is not up to the job as he fundamentally does not understand how the game works, even after a 4 year lesson), and a fixed economy is for the benefit of everyone........and then he pins his hopes on the "Hold your nose" vote

For the rest of the world a Romney win would be good economically. I still would not want to live under an American economic regime - but that same whether Romulan or not

Get me to a Nunnery 
"Jesus also thinks you're a Cunt - FACT" branded leisure wear now available from selected retailers. Or simply send a prayer to the usual address.

"Jesus also thinks you're a Cunt - FACT" branded leisure wear now available from selected retailers. Or simply send a prayer to the usual address.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
Right because Romney is the conservative running for President. I noted that it was a fair point that you didn't say Romney in particular, but conservatives in general. As it happens, I don't dispute that some conservative deny realities, but it is equally true that some Liberals deny realities. The statements have no useful meaning if not put in light of particular conservatives at issue.Gerald McGrew wrote:Don't piss on my foot and tell me it's raining CES. When I stated that conservatives denied realities, you challenged that assertion.
I didn't say it doesn't matter anyways. Again, you need to try to comprehend the actual words on the page, and not constantly make up things.Gerald McGrew wrote: But once I posted several examples, you immediately moved the goalposts and finished by claiming I was actually the one who was uninformed. Now that your bullshit has been called out, you're throwing your hands up and saying it doesn't matter anyways. Of course if you really believed that, you never would have bothered to challenge the assertion in the first place.
Your assertions are juvenile nonsense, because to claim that conservative in general deny evolution is bullshit. Certain conservatives do, others don't. Romney, the conservative running for President and who is the subject of this thread (along with Obama), doesn't deny evolution. To claim that evolution is an example of a good generalizations where "conservatives deny reality" is as dopey as saying "Liberals think Bush did 9/11" since a number of them think that's true, along with thinking the Bush Administration controlled the ballot boxes and would rig the election to keep Obama from winning.
All you did was list a bunch of things where some people believe weird, counterfactual things.
Some of what you said was, in fact, not true, incidentally -- like the fact that you claimed Obama didn't raise federal taxes. He did. He did raise federal taxes. And, if he wasn't opposed, he would have raised a lot more because he said that's what he wanted to do. So, to believe that Obama raised federal taxes is not counterfactual at all. Did some people think he had raised taxes before he actually did? Sure, but some supposedly smart Liberals think vaccines cause autism.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
You think he'd win the debate with that line?Jesus_of_Nazareth wrote:On Foreign Affairs all Mitt has to say is that the Furriners will do WTF America wants.
He has a lot more ammo on foreign affairs: he can go after the President on having been warned in advance of impending attacks in Bengazi and having done nothing, and having received calls for help from the Ambassador in the days in advance of his assassination, etc. He can go after the President for wrongly assigning blame to a stupid movie that doesn't appear to have had anything to do with the planned Bengazi attack. He can also take issue with the White House's response to the whole affair, and Obama's overarching middle east policy in general.
I think that Obama will go after him, or at least Jim Lehrer will ask, what deductions and such Romney proposes to end, and Romney needs to be prepared to deftly answer that. The Obama camp is taking the clear position that Romney is going to raise taxes on the middle class, because Romney has not specified which deductions and credits and such he will eliminate from the tax code, so nobody can do the math and figure out how his tax cuts and simplification will work. It's a fair question, and Romney needs to be able to answer it, or deftly avoid answering it. There are several ways to do it, and several ways for him to get caught looking foolish.Jesus_of_Nazareth wrote: On the Economy his BIG plus is that he has a track record of economic success. if I was him I would be blunt and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with him socially and politically - but nonetheless most have to accept that he is the best placed to fix the economy (Obama - perhaps sadly, is not up to the job as he fundamentally does not understand how the game works, even after a 4 year lesson), and a fixed economy is for the benefit of everyone........and then he pins his hopes on the "Hold your nose" vote(Maggie Thatcher won several elections where the Pollsters found it hard to find the people who would even admit to having voted for her, let alone were going to! People vote with their wallets - especially when they are empty).
For the rest of the world a Romney win would be good economically. I still would not want to live under an American economic regime - but that same whether Romulan or not.
He also needs to be able to answer why he won't release more tax returns, because no matter what one thinks of the merits of that, he will be asked about it by Lehrer.
I think if he focuses on his turnaround experience, he can be persuasive. He needs to embrace his Bain Capital past and laud it as a positive. Lehrer and Obama will cast it as a negative, and ask him to justify it. He needs to respond that he doesn't need to justify it, he is justifiably proud of it. He needs to give concrete examples of great turnarounds and how it saved good corporations to continue and to expand, like Staples, I think, and some others. Focus on the success stories. If the response is, "well what about this company that closed up..." he needs to respond that they tried their best to succeed every time, but that isn't going to be 100% success rate.
- 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
CES,
Again, bullshit.
Don't play the false equivalency game, where one guy jaywalks and the other commits mass murder, and you say "Well, they're both criminals".
Evolution denial, global warming denial, anti-intellectualism, anti-critical thinking, and a host of other batshit crazy positions are mainstream conservative and Republican ideas. They're fully enshrined in a host of GOP State Party Platforms, voted on and approved by Republicans across the country.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/98346/gop- ... n-science/
Now if you can show me where Democrats have voted in anti-vax and 9/11 truther crap in their platforms, you'll have a point. Otherwise, you're still pissing.
Again, bullshit.
Don't play the false equivalency game, where one guy jaywalks and the other commits mass murder, and you say "Well, they're both criminals".
Evolution denial, global warming denial, anti-intellectualism, anti-critical thinking, and a host of other batshit crazy positions are mainstream conservative and Republican ideas. They're fully enshrined in a host of GOP State Party Platforms, voted on and approved by Republicans across the country.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/98346/gop- ... n-science/
Now if you can show me where Democrats have voted in anti-vax and 9/11 truther crap in their platforms, you'll have a point. Otherwise, you're still pissing.
If you don't like being called "stupid", then stop saying stupid things.
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
Wow, the Lehrer-bashing really has already started. I thought conservatives would wait until Thursday to start talking about how biased he is. Silly me.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
That's not what I've done. You'll have to think harder on this, apparently.Gerald McGrew wrote:CES,
Again, bullshit.
Don't play the false equivalency game, where one guy jaywalks and the other commits mass murder, and you say "Well, they're both criminals".
I'll leave you to your proofs. You've made a clear allegation. Prove it.Gerald McGrew wrote:Evolution denial, global warming denial, anti-intellectualism, anti-critical thinking, and a host of other batshit crazy positions are mainstream conservative and Republican ideas.
Your link is wanting.Gerald McGrew wrote:
They're fully enshrined in a host of GOP State Party Platforms, voted on and approved by Republicans across the country.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/98346/gop- ... n-science/
Now if you can show me where Democrats have voted in anti-vax and 9/11 truther crap in their platforms, you'll have a point. Otherwise, you're still pissing.
" Out of the 32 platforms reviewed, 8 supported the notion that creationism/intelligent design had a place in science classes, with no reprisal." So - 8 supposedly "support the notion" that it has a "place" in the science classroom. That's not at all the same as "denial of evolution is mainstream."
The article also says, "Along with the erosion of science, state GOP parties appear to call for the erosion of standards in education. For instance, the Colorado, Nevada, Texas and Wyoming Republican Party platforms all call for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education." Elimination of the Dep't of Education is not the same thing at all as support for "erosion of standards in education."
Another allegation is that one state GOP party wants to eliminate educational standards because they "believe that parents and legal guardians may choose to educate their children in private schools to include, but not limited to, home schools and parochial schools without government interference," Again. That is not an example of wanting to eliminate educational standards, unless we are to assume that private schools and home schooling do/does not meet educational standards. They do.
The article goes on to say that the STate of Washington GOPers "allude to indoctrination" when they say "Colleges and universities should focus on promoting academic freedom by emphasizing courses that promote understanding and practical application of each discipline and avoid indoctrination and political correctness." What's wrong with that, as statement of principle? I don't want schools to indoctrinate or be "politically correct" either. So what?
I oppose the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent design in schools, but nothing what you linked to suggests what you noted -- that it is mainstream for Republicans to be anti-critical thinking and a host of other batshit crazy....blah blah blah.
Fully 35 percent of Democrats believe George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 97748.html
In another poll -
And,39 percent of Democrats believed W. Bush did not have advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, while 26 percent said they were unsure and slightly more than one third of Democrats believed W. Bush knew his country was going to be attacked.
More Democrats fell into the "truther" camp than Republicans fall into the "birther" camp. But the mainstream media has covered the "birther" poll far more vigorously. It's easy to understand, unless one is invested in the opposing camp, why these incongruities irk the political right.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
I'm not conservative, but I can answer this: This isn't Lehrer's first time at bat. He's been doing debates for 30 years. It's his track record that is worth commenting on. It's not like we will have only the upcoming debate to judge him and we're just being anticipatory.Ian wrote:Wow, the Lehrer-bashing really has already started. I thought conservatives would wait until Thursday to start talking about how biased he is. Silly me.
In 2000, Lehrer moderated all three debates, including a town hall debate. In that town hall debate, Lehrer took questions from the audience and had to approve the questions. Lehrer approved mostly liberal questions from the “uncommitted” audience. Eight questions came from the left, only two could be counted as conservative, and five were requests for information without an ideological tone. George W. Bush was asked, for example, “You seemed to overly enjoy, as a matter of fact proud that Texas...led the nation in execution of prisoners. Sir, did I misread your response, and are you really, really proud of the fact that Texas is number one in executions?” Even Saturday Night Live satirized the bias of the “uncommitted” questioners in 2000.
http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/ ... as-debatesIn 2004, Lehrer moderated the first George Bush-John Kerry debate, devoted to foreign policy matters. He pressed Bush: “President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him?...Do you feel that what he is doing in the name of anti-terrorism by changing some democratic processes is okay?” He asked Bush to get personal: “Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?” Bush protested: “That's a loaded question.”
In the same event, Lehrer’s questions to Kerry sounded like helpful speech set-ups:
■ “Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, ‘How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?’ Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?”
■ “‘Colossal misjudgments.’ What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?”
■ “You've repeatedly accused President Bush – not here tonight, but elsewhere before – of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.”
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
It is that 2004 dichotomy between questions posed to Bush and softballs thrown to Kerry that is illustrative and serves as an exemplar of what we may likely expect tonight. Loaded questions asked to Romney, and open ended set-ups to Obama.
I could be wrong, and we'll find out, but I'll be watching closely. I hope Ian and others will too, and then we can talk about it.
I'm psyched. I have some Yuenglings left over from the weekend and I'll be cracking a few open tonight for the debate action.
I could be wrong, and we'll find out, but I'll be watching closely. I hope Ian and others will too, and then we can talk about it.
I'm psyched. I have some Yuenglings left over from the weekend and I'll be cracking a few open tonight for the debate action.
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
Even if I were to accept your posts at face value, are you saying you'd prefer a moderator to politically reside halfway between the two candidates? That'd be what we keep referring to as False Balance. I think the question about Texas executions is pretty reasonable for an informed, educated moderator. It was George Bush's stance on the matter that prompted such questioning in the first place, and rightly so.
Anyway, even if the moderator is secretly preferential, these debates are little more than opportunities for the politicians to showcase their messages to the minority of voters who might be genuinely swayed by watching. They're not "debates" like actual debating teams might be used to. Regardless of how the moderator asks the questions, most answers will quickly be pivoted to whichever way the responder want to talk about it. And most pivots are hardly noticeable.
Anyway, even if the moderator is secretly preferential, these debates are little more than opportunities for the politicians to showcase their messages to the minority of voters who might be genuinely swayed by watching. They're not "debates" like actual debating teams might be used to. Regardless of how the moderator asks the questions, most answers will quickly be pivoted to whichever way the responder want to talk about it. And most pivots are hardly noticeable.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
No, that isn't necessary. What I would like is if a professional moderator, with decades of journalistic experience, would put together questions in an objective, non-loaded manner, and fairly posed to both sides in similar ways. I don't think he has to hold certain views. I do, however, know it is possible to put a certain amount of thought and work into writing and rewriting questions, and evaluate them for essential fairness. The 2004 debate town hall was lopsided enough to have Lehrer lampooned on Saturday Night LIve.Ian wrote:Even if I were to accept your posts at face value, are you saying you'd prefer a moderator to politically reside halfway between the two candidates? That'd be what we keep referring to as False Balance. I think the question about Texas executions is pretty reasonable for an informed, educated moderator. It was George Bush's stance on the matter that prompted such questioning in the first place, and rightly so.
I don't mind the question about executions per se, the bias was shown in that 8 questions of that ilk were chosen to be fired at Bush, while only 2 at Kerry. It isn't a "false balance" to ask that both participants in a debate be asked a approximately the same number of pressing questions. To suggest that there weren't tough questions that could legitimately be asked of Kerry, such that it could have been 5 to Bush and 5 to Kerry doesn't sound credible to me.
that is a fair point, but if one candidate is consistently asked questions that suggest a negative and the other candidate is consistently asked more fairly posed open ended questions, the manner of questioning can slant the perception. It also shakes a debater to be asked questions loaded and in a cross examination mode, rather than an open ended mode, so the candidate getting those fired at him is going to appear to be constantly digging out of a hole.Ian wrote:
Anyway, even if the moderator is secretly preferential, these debates are little more than opportunities for the politicians to showcase their messages to the minority of voters who might be genuinely swayed by watching. They're not "debates" like actual debating teams might be used to. Regardless of how the moderator asks the questions, most answers will quickly be pivoted to whichever way the responder want to talk about it. And most pivots are hardly noticeable.
I don't have a problem with the moderator being tough on the candidates. But, Lehrer is a long-time professional, supposedly a smart guy who knows how to interview and ask questions. He is perfectly capable of putting together questions that are presented fairly. Let's see if he does that tonight.
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
I'd like to see a debate moderated by Jon Stewart, but I guess I'll have to live with the disappointment. 

- amused
- amused
- Posts: 3873
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
- About me: Reinvention phase initiated
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
Democrats and Obama are so clearly the better selection, only a fool would consider that other group and their 'candidate'.
I don't see where we need to have these debates at all.
I don't see where we need to have these debates at all.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012
Honestly, I think Jon Stewart would be great. I bet he could hit both candidates with tough and well-worded questions, and he has a very quick mind and I bet he could hold their feet to the fire.Ian wrote:I'd like to see a debate moderated by Jon Stewart, but I guess I'll have to live with the disappointment.
Most so-called professional journalists do not impress me.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], macdoc and 15 guests