Obama was Unprepared? How Can Anyone Prepare to Debate a Shape-shifter?

[monovillage]

I think you're understating your case. Try the next five HUNDRED years. And forget Denver, this is what people will remember about the United States of America long after we've taken over the planet and colonized the galaxy!

Back here in reality-land, you're definitely not going to get any argument from me that Romney did a MUCH better job in the debate than Obama. But Republicans seem to think Romney's performance was SO awesome that it tore a hole in space-time and it's suddenly November 7th and Romney got 300+ electoral votes. Still 3 debates (counting the VP one) and 4 weeks to go...and Romney started quite a bit behind. There's a decent chance the victory lap at this point will leave some conservatives looking a little silly. Ask John Kerry about HIS first debate in 2004

You type as if making fun of Jhhnn and my old home town of Denver metro is a bad thing. I've repeatedly said that the odds favor Obama winning a second term, even a piss poor performance by Obama in the first debate hasn't changed my opinion.

and no i'm not going to bet $500 either.

Al Gore claims it was the altitude that might have led to Obama's bad performance.
http://kfor.com/2012/10/04/al-gore-altitude-to-blame-for-obamas-debate-performance/

 

[EXman]

Actually that is an interesting point. How can you debate someone who has been on every single side of any policy switching every 2 yrs to 24hrs? You could go after his plan but there is no plan...

Obama needs to call out his flip flops over and over, attacking his complete lack of principles. It really is the only thing you can target that he can't deny.

Dems Love it when Clinton and What was that guy who ran 8 years ago that looked like a beagle?

 

[MrColin]

As I've been telling you guys for months, the PIC have already chosen Romney as our next president. He wasn't even trying to win the debate, Obama's only objective was to put up some token effort and keep a small amount of dignity while losing.

 

[boomerang]

Can you imagine the excuses if we finally get to see Obama’s transcripts? I’ll bet some are written in crayon. lol

They've been released.

 

[boomerang]

I wonder if Obamas heart and gut is really in his re-election bid, that is, does he really want another term? I would think most who get elected go in full of hope and change, but get beaten down by the system, the economy, reality, whatever. There is a good reason why so many go grey haired so soon afterall.

But in reality, he has to run again whether he wants to or not. Just a thought based on how little he seemed to be 'up' for the debate.

He's admitted himself he's lazy. That may be part of it. I think that if even 1/10th of what I'm reading is going to be thrown at him before this is over has any truth to it, he knows he can't win this election.

I also think that when this is all said and done that analysts will have a lot of good things to say about how the Romney campaign was run from a purely political perspective. I've said for the longest time that there are tons of videos of Obama acting like the real Obama and not the version we've seen which is the electable version. The Romney campaign is letting it out slowly and building towards election day. Obama will be shown as a man with radical roots and in a fashion that cannot be disputed - through video. Some are already out there.

I also feel that what appeared to be a lack of drive, a failure to be "up" for the debate was really the outward symptoms of constrained rage against Romney. Mitt Romney personifies everything that Obama hates. To have to share the stage with the man, to actually have to present a case against such a man had Obama far angrier than we could ever imagine. Obama does not do well when unscripted. He is thin-skinned too and does not react well to criticism.

Or, I could be wrong.

 

[zsdersw]

 

[zsdersw]

Or, I could be wrong.

Someone as heavily biased and partisan as you? Yes, there's a very strong chance you're wrong.

 

[boomerang]

Someone as heavily biased and partisan as you? Yes, there's a very strong chance you're wrong.

I left the door open on purpose to see who the first half-wit would be to make the comment you made. Congrats, you won. Sorry, no prize.

 

[zsdersw]

I left the door open on purpose to see who the first half-wit would be to make the comment you made. Congrats, you won. Sorry, no prize.

So, people with heavy political biases do not have a very strong chance of being wrong? Nothing was incorrect about what I said.

Face it... you're a partisan hack. Nothing Obama could do (or not do) would ever lead to either praise or support of him from you.

 

[hal2kilo]

They've been released.

That's F'n funny.:biggrin:

 

[umbrella39]

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

 

[waggy]

Obama lost. He was not prepared. There is no excuse for it. Everyone making excuses for him should be upset with him for that instead of defending him.

though i do not expect the next debate to go the same way.

 

[CycloWizard]

The best way to win an argument is to be right in the first place. If you simply stick to your own policies and they are sound, then what difference does it make what tactics your opponent uses?

Edit: No, I'm not arguing that Romney is right - he isn't. However, neither is Obama. If he were, then this wouldn't be an issue. If your policies sound stupid when you speak them outloud, they probably are stupid.

 

[dank69]

The best way to win an argument is to be right in the first place. If you simply stick to your own policies and they are sound, then what difference does it make what tactics your opponent uses?

Edit: No, I'm not arguing that Romney is right - he isn't. However, neither is Obama. If he were, then this wouldn't be an issue. If your policies sound stupid when you speak them outloud, they probably are stupid.

I'd think that you, as a teacher, wouldn't think Obama's policy of investing in education and training sounds stupid.

 

[thraashman]

It would be neat if there were some way that during debates it were only possible for candidates to say things that were true. If that were the case the debate would have been maybe 20 minutes long with Romney never once opening his mouth. I don't see how anyone can support this man who fact check after fact check has shown as the single most dishonest Presidential candidate by a MASSIVE margin. If he only told about 1% as many lies as he does, then he'd be at about the level of other politicians (exceptions Paul Ryan, Boehner, Issa, McConnell, Reid).

 

[CycloWizard]

I'd think that you, as a teacher, wouldn't think Obama's policy of investing in education and training sounds stupid.

The federal government's involvement in education and research has led us down the path to the piss poor system we have today. Why would I cheer for more involvement?

 

[dank69]

The federal government's involvement in education and research has led us down the path to the piss poor system we have today. Why would I cheer for more involvement?

I'm not really talking about involvement. I'm talking about investment, specifically.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Amazing all these threads that are popping up because their man got whipped and they need to find excuses rather than he failed to prepare properly.
3-4 excuse threads today alone - that could translate into 20 by the next debate.

You guys need to contact Kimberly Clark to get a bulk rate on tissue boxes!

 

[Fern]

They've been released.

I was literally LOL when I saw that.

:thumbsup:

Fern

 

[yllus]

I was literally LOL when I saw that.

:thumbsup:

Fern

It's the S's in the left margin that kill me. I used to make those because my name starts with an S. I don't know why Obama would have done so (even fictionally) which makes it even funnier.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I wonder if Obamas heart and gut is really in his re-election bid, that is, does he really want another term? I would think most who get elected go in full of hope and change, but get beaten down by the system, the economy, reality, whatever. There is a good reason why so many go grey haired so soon afterall.

But in reality, he has to run again whether he wants to or not. Just a thought based on how little he seemed to be 'up' for the debate.

Remember in '08 he said that he should not get another term if he did not accomplish certain things. Maybe his karma is coming back around

 

[Fern]

So the idiots in the Obama administration spend months and tons of cash lying in their ads to paint Romney a certain way they think will benefit them with their stupid voters and then act surprised when Mitt doesn't play along in real life? Liberals are far stupider than I ever imagined....and I have one hell of an imagination.

While you are expressing it more harshly than I would, I've been thinking along similar lines.

Bringing up things like the $5 trillion tax claim just serves as an opportunity for Romney to debunk it. Whether he's doing so truthfully or because he's a sneaky liar doesn't make any difference for the election IMO.

It's easy to demonize someone in a commercial and where they get no opportunity to respond, but as we have seen a debate is an entirely different matter.

The next two presidential debates could be quite interesting.

And yes, Romney turned million of negative political ads into dust.

Fern

 

[Todd33]

I wonder if Romney will empley this tactic again:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish Gallop

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation.

 

[zinfamous]

I didn't see the entire debate, so I can only comment on Obama's claim that Romney's tax plan costs $5 trillion in tax revenue. In that case I think it more that Obama stepped in his own Bull Shiz. Yes, some private estimates, which rely HEAVILY upon assumptions, have quoted that amount, just as others have differed. Obama and the Dems have been making a claim they cannot support. Romney's published tax plan lacks sufficient detail to produce an estimate and curiously the Dems keep lamenting that lack of detail but at the same time make the $5 trillion claim. Trying to have it both ways bit him in the azz.

Fern

well, the truth is that the Romney policy would very well cost 5 trillion over 10 years...but that leaves out "assumed" revenue and cost deduction, readjusting the tax brackets...whatever.

the problem for Romney is that he has no details as to what he will do about that, and the only thing that doesn't make his policy cost 5 trillion is that analysts have to make assumptions as to how it will most likely not cost 5 trillion. And that is true, I think--but we're only stuck with something Romney is not detailing, and what outside analysts assume will have to happen to make it not cost that much.

 

[Munky]

White depictions are race-neutral. You probably haven't taken a racial sensitivity course in a while.

You mean he hasn't taken a liberal brainwashing course in a while. And probably hasn't taken wymyns studies in "blame everything on the men" either.