** Official Presidential Debate #2 Thread **

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Well smart people like to wait until all the data is in before making judgments especially when dealing with international affairs. I would expect the right to understand that though because it goes against their gut.

the white house knew it was an attack when it was happening, hell there was a drone flying over the safe house beaming video of it back to the white house.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
See, this is what you just don't get you tone-deaf motherfucker: This is a losing issue for the Republicans but they don't see it because they are blinded by their hate.

I remember when I first heard the news; the U.S. consulate attacked, the ambassador and three others killed. It was deeply upsetting. I completely expected Republicans to respond as Democrats had in 2001, and even if they didn't want to rally behind the president in the middle of the campaign season, at least talk about unity and our shared resolve.

But that's not what happened. The right immediately started criticizing the president. It was shocking, actually. I remember thinking 'wow, either the president really did something heinous here, or the republicans are trying to politicize a tragedy.'

So now that we have the benefit of 5 weeks of hindsight, what is the perception of the administration's performance? I think it is that they made some bad mistakes. They didn't beef up security at the consulate before the attack, and they were too quick to blame the video after. I think those are probably now widely held opionions.

But what about Romney, Fox news, and the right wing response? The spectacle of Romney holding a press conference the day after the attacks to criticize the administration was just stunning. The continued criticism of the administration lacks nuance and objectivity, and any sense of perspective. When Paul Ryan calls the attacks the unravelling of the Obama foreign policy it just reeks of political opportunism.

I think that's why Obama calling Romney's characterization of his behavior "offensive" was so powerful last night. It is offensive. It's embarssingly offensive. And when he stood in front of the moderator arguing about semantics and who said what on which date, he looked like a losing partisan, desperate for a zinger, desparate to make something stick, rather than offering a thoughtful critique of what happened and suggesting what he would have done differently.

So keep your offensive avatar, mocking Obama supporters as a bunch of toothless imbeciles. Your attitude is sadly shared by many on the right, and alienating to the majority of Americans that don't see BHO as some anti-christ with half the nation fooled.

Romney better adjust his attitude and approach fast. If he tries the same shit in the third debate, he'll get crushed, and brushed aside on the 6th.
thank you. solid post!
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,044
33,087
136
With all the focus on the consulate attack I think it's interesting that people have largely lost sight of Romney's bellicose positions on Syria, Iran, and even the Russians. The implications there make this dust up look like a fart in a wind.

I for one would very much like not to have another boots on the ground ME war + decade long occupation please.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
It's embarssingly offensive. And when he stood in front of the moderator arguing about semantics and who said what on which date, he looked like a losing partisan, desperate for a zinger, desparate to make something stick, rather than offering a thoughtful critique of what happened and suggesting what he would have done differently.

Trying to figure out who you are talking about here, as it is a good description of both last night.Both bumbled around, trying to score points, get their "zingers", but one thing that NEITHER of those buffoons did last night, was act Presidential.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Simplify the tax code? Is it that difficult to fill out a 1040-EZ form?
you'd be surprised.






the primary term of a federal oil and gas lease is 10 years. i wonder what leases have been sat on for 20 or 30 years like obama claimed?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,222
14,911
136
you'd be surprised.






the primary term of a federal oil and gas lease is 10 years. i wonder what leases have been sat on for 20 or 30 years like obama claimed?

He said, 10, 20, 30 years. Some of the leases are oil and others are for other minerals which would be my guess as to what he was referring to.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
I had an oil well on my property when I bought it. It had been sitting there since the 1940's but hadn't been pumping oil for years. They'd fenced it off and moved the derrick long before I got there but they still had the rights/lease to the land. I had to go through a lot of bureaucracy before getting them to come in, pull out the pipes, cap it, and cement it shut. I can't remember how long their lease was but they were simply sitting on it just in case it became profitable to pump again. I had to get them out of there so I could use the property and it was quite a bit of work.

Was an amazing insight into that industry. The whole process took about a year. They pulled out pipe 4-5 days a week for a couple months. If I was ever the captain of a pirate ship I would recruit these men to be my crew. They were some of the most vulgar and vile people I have ever met. I had to actively keep my customers away from them since they were so disgusting, rude, sexist, and ill mannered. Never seen anything like it. Hopefully never see it again.

It really doesn't surprise me that there are lots of leases out there that aren't being used. They only want to deal with the most profitable ones first but one day non-profitable ones will become profitable again.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,592
29,221
146
Mittens got taken to the woodshed and beaten ruthlessly in terms of the foreign policy discussion, especially as it pertains to the Benghazi issue.

Obama properly lambasted him for turning that incident into his campaign's woefully misguided attempt to turn it into an opportunity to score political points. Calling his behavior regarding a US tragedy "insulting" was completely apt, and a shameful public moment for a man who as zero chance of winning over the president when it comes to foreign policy. That much is know, and very much accepted by the public.


That being said, Mitt is a very strong, very capable man when it comes to these debate formats. He comes across as extremely competent, if a bit bullying--but I don't think that bothers many people.

I think this was a clear "victory" for Obama, in that Romney ended up making a larger fool of himself--"government doesn't create jobs!" "I will create jobs!", his tax vagueries being more adequately exposed and undefended, and the Benghazi discussion. (Yes--Obama brought him down on that; I daresay even the most partisan hack would deny that...but these forums are in no way surprising in that regard)
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,176
2,041
126
Obama is the worst president of the 21st century. There is no way that man gets reelected. :thumbsdown:
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
Looking objectively at this debate as an independent it reminded me a lot of high school class president debates. They both looked terrible. Romney especially. Although I think Obama won the debate by a slight margin it really was more Romney losing. These debates really are pathetic since nobody is "winning" them. They're just losing.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
He said, 10, 20, 30 years. Some of the leases are oil and others are for other minerals which would be my guess as to what he was referring to.

OBAMA: Here's what happened. You had a whole bunch of oil companies who had leases on public lands that they weren't using. So what we said was you can't just sit on this for 10, 20, 30 years, decide when you want to drill, when you want to produce, when it's most profitable for you. These are public lands. So if you want to drill on public lands, you use it or you lose it.

nothing in that really leads to the assumption that other minerals were being discussed.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Excellent article on Benghazi... mostly agrees with what I posted.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/the-benghazi-embarrassment/263735/

Very good. There would be so 'scandal' if this weren't so close to the election. Any crisis is going to have a microscope on it. Fact is a bunch of bad guys were able to do some bad things in a dangerous place in the world--Obama doesn't (and shouldn't) spend a lot of time overseeing micro details such as embassy security procedures.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
CBS News tonight just stated that Obama did not say the Libya attack as terrorist attack in the context at the Rose Garden speech.

I am sure Romney will bring it up at the next debate.