2012 Presidential Debates

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.

As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.

I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.[/quote]

You might be on to something. It is the hardest job on earth, and I don’t think he realized that along with glory comes hard damn work.

A bunch of people are railing about why he didn’t bring up the 47% issue. My take is that if you don’t think romney has a responce (good or bad) ready and raring to go, you are insane. Why on earth would obama bring it up and give romney a chance to a) solidify his base that already agree with him and b) possibility (small chance but still) turn it into a homerun.[/quote]

I thought the same thing. Bringing it up in the debate would open up an opportunity for Romney to perform damage control. The basic point that Romney was making is that there is a vast client state that is dependent upon government who are most likely to vote for whoever will give them the most giveaways which is the democrats.

The vulnerability for Obama is that opening that issue up for discussion means, Romney can turn it against him by pointing out that if the economy sucks, putting more people on welfare, that will grow the client state and that favors democrats. In other words if a sizable portion of the forty seven percent are able to get off of the government tit, that will be bad for democrats.

Obama is the one who really doesn’t care about them. All he cares about is keeping them on Uncle Sam’s Plantation so he can buy their vote with taxpayer money.

182

No not talking about mittens. I’m talking about Obama lack of performance.

Mitt did well but Obama helped him out.

183

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’ll be shocked if the next debate goes the same way[/quote]

I hope it does, solely to see the fantastic creative excuses that fly.

This is like watching starwars, lol.

“The media told me for months how evil Mitt is and how he is wrong, no way he could have won because he kicked ass. The actual president failed. Yeah that’s it. obama could have won if he wanted to.”

lol

Romeny, you didn’t win that, somebody else made that happen.

lol

184

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I definitely think he lost the debate but I think it was due to him not having his A game for some reason.

The reasons cited by most here are just Outlandish IMO.

[/quote]

So, “Mitt did a better job” is outlandish? Or the lapdog excuses we keep linking to are outlandish?[/quote]

Yeah, I am also wondering what these outlandish reasons are.

185

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Obama is the one who really doesn’t care about them. All he cares about is keeping them on Uncle Sam’s Plantation so he can buy their vote with taxpayer money. [/quote]

Picture me standing up and clapping at this post.

187

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I definitely think he lost the debate but I think it was due to him not having his A game for some reason.

The reasons cited by most here are just Outlandish IMO.

[/quote]

So, “Mitt did a better job” is outlandish? Or the lapdog excuses we keep linking to are outlandish?[/quote]

Yeah, I am also wondering what these outlandish reasons are.
[/quote]

Read point 2) of Jewbacca’s post. There’s a couple more but it’s bed time for me.

188

[quote] Jewbacca wrote:

  1. Obama did not prepare well because he does not know how to work hard. Jobs get “done” with that last 3 days haze of caffeine and nicotine. Muscles get built with that last rep and puking in the alley after squats. Obama doesn’t know how to do this.

Always enjoy your input, JB.[/quote]

Yes… Obama has no idea how to work hard.

192

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.

As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.

I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.[/quote]

You might be on to something. It is the hardest job on earth, and I don’t think he realized that along with glory comes hard damn work.

A bunch of people are railing about why he didn’t bring up the 47% issue. My take is that if you don’t think romney has a responce (good or bad) ready and raring to go, you are insane. Why on earth would obama bring it up and give romney a chance to a) solidify his base that already agree with him and b) possibility (small chance but still) turn it into a homerun.[/quote]

I thought the same thing. Bringing it up in the debate would open up an opportunity for Romney to perform damage control. The basic point that Romney was making is that there is a vast client state that is dependent upon government who are most likely to vote for whoever will give them the most giveaways which is the democrats.

The vulnerability for Obama is that opening that issue up for discussion means, Romney can turn it against him by pointing out that if the economy sucks, putting more people on welfare, that will grow the client state and that favors democrats. In other words if a sizable portion of the forty seven percent are able to get off of the government tit, that will be bad for democrats.

Obama is the one who really doesn’t care about them. All he cares about is keeping them on Uncle Sam’s Plantation so he can buy their vote with taxpayer money. [/quote]

I disagree. The polls have shown without much room for skepticism that the 47% remark did serious damage to Mitt Romney. I’m speaking from a purely political standpoint here.

The attached image is from Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight model.

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.

193

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.

As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.

I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.[/quote]

You might be on to something. It is the hardest job on earth, and I don’t think he realized that along with glory comes hard damn work.

A bunch of people are railing about why he didn’t bring up the 47% issue. My take is that if you don’t think romney has a responce (good or bad) ready and raring to go, you are insane. Why on earth would obama bring it up and give romney a chance to a) solidify his base that already agree with him and b) possibility (small chance but still) turn it into a homerun.[/quote]

I thought the same thing. Bringing it up in the debate would open up an opportunity for Romney to perform damage control. The basic point that Romney was making is that there is a vast client state that is dependent upon government who are most likely to vote for whoever will give them the most giveaways which is the democrats.

The vulnerability for Obama is that opening that issue up for discussion means, Romney can turn it against him by pointing out that if the economy sucks, putting more people on welfare, that will grow the client state and that favors democrats. In other words if a sizable portion of the forty seven percent are able to get off of the government tit, that will be bad for democrats.
[/quote]

I have to say, that sounds very insightful to me. It’s so clear now I don’t understand how I hadn’t thought of that.

195

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.

As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.

I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.[/quote]

You might be on to something. It is the hardest job on earth, and I don’t think he realized that along with glory comes hard damn work.

A bunch of people are railing about why he didn’t bring up the 47% issue. My take is that if you don’t think romney has a responce (good or bad) ready and raring to go, you are insane. Why on earth would obama bring it up and give romney a chance to a) solidify his base that already agree with him and b) possibility (small chance but still) turn it into a homerun.[/quote]

I thought the same thing. Bringing it up in the debate would open up an opportunity for Romney to perform damage control. The basic point that Romney was making is that there is a vast client state that is dependent upon government who are most likely to vote for whoever will give them the most giveaways which is the democrats.

The vulnerability for Obama is that opening that issue up for discussion means, Romney can turn it against him by pointing out that if the economy sucks, putting more people on welfare, that will grow the client state and that favors democrats. In other words if a sizable portion of the forty seven percent are able to get off of the government tit, that will be bad for democrats.
[/quote]

I have to say, that sounds very insightful to me. It’s so clear now I don’t understand how I hadn’t thought of that.
[/quote]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but this is part of the reason people keep bringing up Cloward-Piven.

I don’t think Obama is trying to “destroy” the country. But the more poor there are, and the more people that can be convinced they are ‘poor’ the better off for the democrats in the polls.

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?

196

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.[/quote]

I’m telling you, this footage of Obama actively engaging in racially divisive pandering, based on outright lies and even hypocrisy, has taken it off the table.

197

[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< I don’t think Obama is trying to “destroy” the country. But the more poor there are, and the more people that can be convinced they are ‘poor’ the better off for the democrats in the polls.

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?[/quote]I’ve been saying this forever. Exactly right and blacks were the perfect target for it with a legitimately unjust past and it’s commensurate ripeness for an entitlement mindset. “you are owed and we will see to it that they pay if you vote for us.” Whoever “they” exactly are. The result has been the seduction of a large % of an entire demographic into a voluntary bondage worse than slavery itself. Detroit is an object lesson. This has nothing to do with being black and everything to do with being human. African ethnicity situationally incidental. Anybody would fall for people handing them other people’s stuff all the time. I would. Which is why I will not take it. Ever.

198

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This has nothing to do with being black and everything to do with being human. African ethnicity situationally incidental. Anybody would fall for people handing them other people’s stuff all the time. I would. [/quote]

Couldn’t agree with you more.

For the same reasons TV commercials work, this shit works. Political thinkers are not stupid at all. (Another reason the rope-a-dope notion is retarded.)

Everyone can be manipulated, and politics is just that.

199

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.[/quote]

I’m telling you, this footage of Obama actively engaging in racially divisive pandering, based on outright lies and even hypocrisy, has taken it off the table.[/quote]

I don’t believe so. Innuendo is difficult to quote in a sharp way during a debate. “Obama implied that…” is nothing like “Romney said that…”

200

related, lol