|
|
|
While i will give the edge to romany in the debate he did do near enough to change the momentum of the race. He kept himself at least on life support though.
|
On October 04 2012 11:43 CrazedNight wrote: What was up with that moderator....
He let Obama take so much extra time, and let Romney and Obama both talk over him when he tried to switch topics or cut them off.
I was totaling extra time past part 2 (Above 2 minutes) and got Romney : 0:47 extra Obama: 7:02 extra
Yes, I think Romney is the winner of that one.
I'm surprised how well Romney did. I expected Obama to destroy him, given how bad Romney was before this debate. He must have been practicing a lot o.O
Regardless of specific timing, I think we can all agree the moderator was way too passive. He also gave Romney virtually every last word (I say virtually because I probably missed one).
|
That's because Obama just let Romney spin away from what he said, sometimes, days ago. Heck Romney backed away from his own tax plan tonight.
|
Obama just barely touched on Romney refusing to give details, didn't call him out on his on flip flopping fish impression, and didn't even mention 47%. I'm guessing he's pulling his punches until the last debate, so that that ammunition has the biggest effect on polls election day. Well, I'm hoping, anyways. Seeing how the Democratic ad machine has been more concerted and fiery than it's ever been, comparable to the Rebpulican one finally, I'm hoping Obama will have some of that fire the last debate.
edit And StealthBlue makes a good point, Romney flopped so hard on some of his policies tonight, god I hope we see Obama hang him with all the rope he gave him tonight.
|
As an American, I absolutely hate how people judge anyone on TV by the tone of their voice, the passive/aggressiveness of their argument, and their overall composure. I'm listening to the ABC news and it's absolutely appalling at how much people don't even analyze the arguments, but rather the individual and how they speak.
Yes, public speaking and composure does have a presence in the overall debates, but this is ludicrous; all Romney did was give a good performance on his party's lies. Anything in politics is always about who is the better liar, but at least Obama made me feel like I was an adult and didn't imply that his opponent was ill-suited for the job, as Romney did multiple times. The mudslinging and lies needs to be kept to a minimum, and I think Obama did just that.
|
Romney said whatever he wanted to and Obama barely challenged him. To people who don't follow politics every day will think Romney was telling the truth. Hearing Romney say he wasn't going to lower taxes on the rich was hilarious. Ultimately it's up to the people to find out if Obama or Romney was telling the truth or not because the news stations just want a horse race and will do whatever they can to keep that narrative up.
|
Canada11266 Posts
On October 04 2012 11:43 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:39 HazMat wrote:On October 04 2012 11:35 I_Love_Bacon wrote: I still say we institute the British style of floor debate for Prime Minister's Questions type of shit for presidential debates. I'd watch it every day. I say we have the nominees answer questions they're not expected to know and give them points for being interesting. I think Stephen Fry would be a great host for it. With Alan Davies as the side host? Haha I like how there are fans of that show here I would totally watch that. I also don't think Fry would get pushed around quite so much.
|
I'm just listening to a few people analyze the debates so far. Economy, obama won because pointing to past precedents with clinton vs bush and drawing parallels between solutions then and now. The medicare 716 billion thing was something obama didn't seem prepared for, romney pushed that really hard and obama didn't seem to respond all that well to it. The 5 trillion in taxes/taxation was pretty clearly in favour of obama although he didn't push the point too hard. Romney was backtracking on his platform and being vague as far as his plans go. Romney's proclaiming lofty goals but hasn't proven the numbers behind them yet. The aggressiveness of romney kind of shocked me since he tried to just overpower the moderator rather than doing what obama did and cajoling the moderator into letting him get one more point out.
|
I would say Romney did quite well in that debate as well, and he needed to.
Looking forward to xDaunt's post
|
On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:29 MWY wrote:On October 04 2012 11:25 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:24 MWY wrote: grading schools? wtf does he think this will solve... school choice. think amazon.com customer feedback. but for schools. I understood what he wants to do.. but seriously this will never do any good. Bad schools get no kids? Or just the poor kids? Whos rating how?... The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools.
so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to
|
On October 04 2012 11:38 Saryph wrote: Romney did a great job this debate by completely changing his platform from what it was when he was last out on the campaign trail.
Have you actually got Romney's platform from Romney or do you listen to Democrats tell you what Romney's platform is? If you have been doing the latter then obviously you are surprised when you hear him defend himself.
|
Lol, their survey sorts people by their ZODIAC SIGN.
enough said.
|
Obama seemed very meek and hesitant. I found it hard to follow his line of thought sometimes, especially with all the "uh" and "um" he spoke. Romney was making stuff up pretty much everywhere he could, but at least he sounded confident and bold. I was hoping for more mentions of Ronald Reagan + Show Spoiler +May he forever reign on his celestial throne , though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
most sections of the debate are inherently vague with facts. one's philosophy on how to make the economy better won't be swayed by soundbites that already oversaturate.
it all comes down to basic fear instincts. who do you fear the most? which group has the most to fear? etc.
right now romney is down in the pits because some seniors fear him. some of the small business people and soon to retire professionals are also queasy. he did not win the fear issues for healthcare/medicare and there won't be that big of a bounce either way from all this. the debates are mostly for show except when vital interests are engaged.
|
On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:29 MWY wrote:On October 04 2012 11:25 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:24 MWY wrote: grading schools? wtf does he think this will solve... school choice. think amazon.com customer feedback. but for schools. I understood what he wants to do.. but seriously this will never do any good. Bad schools get no kids? Or just the poor kids? Whos rating how?... The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor
I have no clue about the travelling issues in your country. But even if you have 2 schools directly besides eachother, one rated great and one terrible. What do you get? An empty school and a school which is completly filled to the top (--> it will get worse). Despite the fact that those ratings would get faked anyways, whats the point of this? If you put out a prize for the best schools, bad schools will even get worse. If you help only bad schools, the chance of faking shit will even get higher.
|
MSNBC is PISSED. Wow. I can't believe Obama didn't even ATTEMPT to refute the $716 Billion cut to Medicare. Romney called Obama out on every claim Obama made that he didn't like. Obama said their Social Security plans were roughly the same ??? Wow. Nobody can fairly argue that Obama came even close on this one. Anybody that saw this, who is even remotely undecided or swayable will move toward Romney. Not saying they will stay there, but this was enough to move any but the immovable.
Having said this, I have no doubt Stephanopoulos will declare Obama the winner lol.
|
On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:29 MWY wrote:On October 04 2012 11:25 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:24 MWY wrote: grading schools? wtf does he think this will solve... school choice. think amazon.com customer feedback. but for schools. I understood what he wants to do.. but seriously this will never do any good. Bad schools get no kids? Or just the poor kids? Whos rating how?... The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault.
|
It's so nice that both their family got along so swimmingly. Wider grin.. WIDER!!
|
On October 04 2012 11:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: That's because Obama just let Romney spin away from what he said, sometimes, days ago. Heck Romney backed away from his own tax plan tonight.
Obama should not let Romney get away with murder like that ... But how? You can't just point at a guy and say they're full of shit.
Romney has literally said the exact opposite of some of his claims tonight.
|
|
|
|