US Presidents Debate.

In the real world

US Presidents Debate.

Postby Teaos » Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:47 am

Anyone here watch the debate?

Everyone was calling it a win for Romny which it certinly seemed that way. But looking at it today, I think Obama was purposfully meak and held back so Biden and his other peeps could call Romney out on his BS. I see a lot of TV adds being made out of Romneys sound bites and the Dems calling BS on them.
User avatar
Teaos
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14670
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Behind you!

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Graham Kennedy » Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:42 pm

From what I've heard, Obama never really does the whole "attack the opponent" thing. In the debates last election he never attacked McCain as such, he just tried to look like he was above the negativity and insults and able to talk about the issues in a smart, informed way. Whether that's because he's just not very good at the whole attacking thing or because he wants to take a step back from the fray and try and appear like the reasonable one, it seems to work for him.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8284
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Mikey » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:41 pm

That's generally seemed to be Obama's tactic - and usually he's more of an orator than a debater. Let's look at some key points from both sides:

Obama claims to have "proposed" a $4 trillion deficit-reduction program. Truth is, half of that is from legislation that's already been done. Under his administration, sure, but it certainly can't be called part of a new proposal.

Romney went back to the old Sarah Palin attack on single-payer "death panels," though he did stop short of using that term while still claiming that an advisory board would dole out restrictions on health care. #1 - it's not true, as Obama's law specifically prohibits such a board from rationing care; #2 - it's still better than the private carriers rationing care to fit their P&L statements.

Romney stated that there are currently 23 million Americans out of work. The actual number is 12.5 million. He also stated that under Obama, half of new college graduates can't find work - the truth is that the number is about one-quarter.

Obama said that we can now use for internal matters some of the money we're "saving" by winding up a couple of wars. In truth, those wars were paid for by already-extant defense budgets, and by borrowed money - ending them isn't going to free up a dime in the budget.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Jim » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:38 pm

I din't really care to see which guy was going to lie better... so I didn't watch.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Captain Seafort » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:45 pm

Mikey wrote:Romney stated that there are currently 23 million Americans out of work. The actual number is 12.5 million.


Depends on your definition. I suspect Romney's right about the numbers out of work, while you're talking about the numbers of unemployed.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15016
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Mikey » Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:06 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:
Mikey wrote:Romney stated that there are currently 23 million Americans out of work. The actual number is 12.5 million.


Depends on your definition. I suspect Romney's right about the numbers out of work, while you're talking about the numbers of unemployed.


I understand the distinction, but even if we were to ignore the semantic trickery it still doesn't add up to make Romney's numbers accurate. The fine point you mention - i.e., out of work and no longer looking for work - only accounts for 2.6 million. He also included 8 million folks who ARE working, but just want better jobs (preceding numbers from AP.) If you include all three groups then you DO get 23.1 million; but all three groups can't really be included in that statement.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Captain Seafort » Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:18 pm

Mikey wrote:He also included 8 million folks who ARE working, but just want better jobs (preceding numbers from AP.)


Define "better". Simply "better paid" or "I'm only working 12 hours a week and I want a full-time job"?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15016
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty


Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Mikey » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:49 pm

Teaos wrote:All of the above.


Indeed. At least partially, and important statistic to be sure; but to include it in a compilation of "unemployment," especially as the statistic is typically used in political conversation, is just as dishonest as the rest of the examples I gave.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Captain Seafort » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:59 pm

Mikey wrote:Indeed. At least partially, and important statistic to be sure; but to include it in a compilation of "unemployment," especially as the statistic is typically used in political conversation, is just as dishonest as the rest of the examples I gave.


I wouldn't call it dishonest - statistics for the unemployed and underemployed are frequently combined, so he's got plenty of reason to do. Imprecise, certainly, and something to be avoided, but not dishonest. At least no more so than any politician.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15016
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Mikey » Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:08 pm

"Not more dishonest than any other politician" is like saying "not more Catholic than the pope." It was clear that Romney was intending for people to read "unemployed" as "employable job-seekers who are not working," as it is so commonly used in the colloquy of American politics.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby McAvoy » Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:01 am

I still think a homeless guy can do just as good.

So somebody prove me wrong about Mr. Homeless Guy.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Praeothmin » Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:58 pm

Mikey wrote:Obama said that we can now use for internal matters some of the money we're "saving" by winding up a couple of wars. In truth, those wars were paid for by already-extant defense budgets, and by borrowed money - ending them isn't going to free up a dime in the budget.


But you will no longer require borrowing more money, thus adding to the deficit and the debt, if you stop them, thus making you richer in the long run...
What's the first step in getting out of debt?
Stop spending more than you make by borrowing more money...

It was clear that Romney was intending for people to read "unemployed" as "employable job-seekers who are not working," as it is so commonly used in the colloquy of American politics.


I agree that was his message by the way it was stated...
And this is dishonest, IMO, as you are bending the truth to fit your agenda...
Had he been honest, he would have specified that within those 23 million, some already had jobs but wanted better ones, some were not looking for work, and that over half that number were unemployed...
The truth always depends on which side of the fence you're standing... ;)
User avatar
Praeothmin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Teaos » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:10 pm

I dont agree, in a debate with limited time your not going to expand and perfectly define each one of your talking points.
User avatar
Teaos
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14670
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:00 am
Location: Behind you!

Re: US Presidents Debate.

Postby Mikey » Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:25 pm

Teaos wrote:I dont agree, in a debate with limited time your not going to expand and perfectly define each one of your talking points.


True - but in this case, the context determined a commonly-accepted colloquial definition, which Romney knowingly exploited even though it didn't match his commentary.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Next

Return to Politics and Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest