2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Because the other half of the country thinks Obama is a failure at fixing the economy and the "fundamental change" he is looking for is undesirable.

[Gerald McGrew]

That's not what I've done. You'll have to think harder on this, apparently.

Again, bullshit. That's exactly what you're doing.

" 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."

Again, if you're going to equate liberal 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxers with the above, then you need to present equivalent enshrinement in Democratic documents. Anything less than that and you're still pissing.

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.

WTF? Are you really that delusional, or do you think everyone else is that dumb?

"They don't want to eliminate educational standards, they just want the freedom to educate kids however they want without the gov't interfering in any way."

FFS man, just stop already.

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?

Oh gee...conservative calls for "academic freedom"...where have we heard that before?

Really CES? You're that naive?

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.

Bullshit. It's in GOP state party platforms. Or are you seriously arguing that a political party's platform that is voted on and adopted only reflects fringe views? Or maybe you're going to argue that Republicans are only batshit crazy in a handful of states, but in the rest of them, they're perfectly rational?

Either way, you're just embarrassing yourself.

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 -

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.

And,

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.

Again, you're conflating between different things. There's a difference between those who believe W. Bush intentionally allowed an attack to occur (or actually planned it) and those who think the administration was negligent regarding the warnings of the potential threat from Al Qaeda. And the latter is not what "trutherism" is.

But again, show me a Democratic party platform with any of this in it and you'll have a point. Anything less and you're just pissing.

[Gerald McGrew]

So today, Romney's campaign says about tonight's debate: "This is really about introducing him to the country".

Let's see....primaries? Nope, didn't introduce him then apparently. All the TV ads and campaign stops? Not then either. The convention? Nuh uh.

Looks like another attempt to shake the etch-a-sketch and see if Mr. 47% can turn into someone else.

[tattuchu]

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.

Because the other half of the country thinks Obama is a failure at fixing the economy and the "fundamental change" he is looking for is undesirable.

Well that's the problem, isn't it? Fixing the economy is going to require fundamental change. But the conservatives/Republicans don't want change, so the economy (that their party fucked up) is never going to get fixed, certainly not if another Republitard gets into office.

[amused]

Clearly we need to immediately enact a voter competence requirement that would disqualify anyone who voted Republican in any election for the last 30 years. That should do it!

[Gerald McGrew]

The final word on the whole "Republicans are batshit crazy" thing...

The Republican National Committee adopted a resolution "exposing" the U.N. Agenda 21 conspiracy.

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... utions.pdf (third one down)

I believe we're done here.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

On Foreign Affairs all Mitt has to say is that the Furriners will do WTF America wants.

You think he'd win the debate with that line? - yes! Nice and simple to understand and it's what Americans like to hear (they think it makes them strong). Probably have to pretty it up a bit. but not too much.

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 Obama has done very well on Foreign Affairs, including Libya - both before, during and after the Benghazi attack! Whether by accident or design, I suspect a bit of both. Sometimes it takes more courage and smarts to do nothing. Libya has a way to go yet of course but looks well on track to be a western freindly Arab country - and not simply because the west have propped up a Govt / Dictator but because most of the population genuinely don't want to live under Islamic stupidity.....as events post Benghazi indicate (the locals running a couple of militias out of town (as a RESPONSE to the death of the Ambassador) is only a start - but one helluva message).

So overall I think no point in Mitt going after Obama on foreign affairs, except of course important to claim that Israel needs more support - the jews always like that

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 .

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. If he can't talk bullshit on numbers he is in the wrong job - those with half a brain know that anything either say on numbers now won't ever actually happen, so all he needs is to say very little specific.

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. Me would respond with the line that it is none of your f#cking business :Erasb

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. - for sure this is his big sell. Bain Capital, Salt Lake and his time in Gubberment means he knows where the levers are and how to pull them - both of which Obama didn't know, and still does not understand. I would be saying that the voters know in their hearts that in 4 years time Obama would still be failing (even those who wish it wasn't so), but with Mitt there is a far better chance - and to be blunt in 4 years time if Mitt fails then the Voters have not lost anything as the alternative is 4 more years of failure

Anyway, my bet is a score draw - with both sides in the debate claiming victory

[Ian]

Early verdict:

Both did fairly well, and neither was a clear winner. Obama played it safe and came off very smart but perhaps a bit defensive; I was hoping he'd slap Romney around a bit more than he did. He did too much lecturing. Romney was confident and well-rehearsed, but remains ideologically inconsistent (still hasn't detailed his policies well, and the President thankfully drove that point home) and his body language looked ridiculous: he had a weird perma-smirk on his face while Obama was speaking, and couldn't keep his own arms from flapping around when he was speaking.

The moderator served up softballs to both of them. It was basically: "Here's the subject. You start with a two minute speech, then your opponent can give one, and then you guys go back and forth at will." He didn't even control their time limits very well. I hope the others will be tougher.

Naturally, I wanted to tear my hair out every time Romney told an outright lie or something completely out of context, but I won't get into those things right now... except for Romney's invoking death panels. Politifact.com gave that their Lie Of The Year award in 2010. Jerk.

The whole thing was pretty damn dull, IMO.

[Drewish]

I gave a play by play of my responses to the debate here: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43544.0.html

[Bella Fortuna]

I gave a play by play of my responses to the debate here: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43544.0.html

Dare I look? Will I want to strangle you?

[Drewish]

It's actually pretty neutral and objective considering I can't stand either one of these guys

[Ian]

Just saw this already put online somewhere.

644536_483038075063948_983943323_n.jpg (59.44 KiB) Viewed 214 times

That this was posted so quickly is a pretty good indication of how predictable this debate was.

[Drewish]

You mean how predictable the partisan reactions and narratives writing would be. Anyone who had a pre-fab image to post after the debate in support of a candidate can be dismissed as not being any good indicator of how the debate actually went.

[Ian]

I don't think that picture is very partisan. Note the signature: NBC News.com. But it's probably a fair bet that whomever drew that up had a few alternates ready to go as well.

[Tero]

I would not do debates with anyone like Romney, who can't shut up when asked. In real life if I am faced with such situations, such as at work, I hold back. But sometimes an explosion follows. Then I walk off.