2012 Presidential Debates

countingbeans · October 5, 2012, 4:34pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
but they must feel like there is no hope for them and government is the only way.

Simple.[/quote]

This is the key. It isn’t really important how much you do or don’t have, if you buy into the “evil rich people” and the “system is rigged” commentary, you could make a fortune and still give the thanks to the government that gave you the chance, and ignore the hard work you put in.

That is why the “you didn’t build that” stuff is so important. Warren in Mass constantly saying “the system is rigged” while miking 300k a year teaching one class… The rich not paying their fair share is a myth, un-supported by any data and a basic understanding of math.

Class warfare has been used since plato. It works.

Do I think obama would give the magic 100k to everyone? Yes, in a heart beat, and then remind them every day his party gave it to them. Gave it. Gave.

Romney would make them mow a lawn or work a register to earn the 100k.

Sloth · October 5, 2012, 4:36pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

And I’m glad I stick around here with you right-wingers too. Keeps me from going full Chris Matthews.[/quote]

Heh. As for the rest, I guess only time will tell. There’s not a whole lot left to speculate on. Someone will write a book later, and maybe it’ll include a blurb about why the 47% thing wasn’t used (if it never gets dropped during the debate).

smh23 · October 5, 2012, 4:38pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I disagree Sloth. That video and his comments will not get enough air play to matter.[/quote]

Sorry Zeb, but I disagree. It’s CNN calling bull-crap on Obama lately, over the attack in Libya. Its CBS reporting on Fast and Furious. Some stories just can’t go away. They’re too big. They’re too incendiary. And with too many people wanting to hear more about them.

Now let a Presidential candidate drop a bombshell story, involving a despicable little man lying his ass off to divide us by race. Bald-faced, lying his ass off, to grossly slander a President, and foment a racially charged (built on lies) atmosphere. Let this Presidential candidate toss out that little grenade, live, in front of many millions of Americans. That’s not a story that can be ignored. Period. The clip would HAVE to finally be shown, throughout the media.

There’s a limit, even for the media. And they aren’t going to pretend the next day that Romney didn’t drop a bombshell in front of millions upon of millions of people (who are then bringing it up to family, friends, and co-workers who missed it). No, sorry, that strains even their reluctance to go after this President.

If Romney dropped this bomb, it would be a widespread story the very next day. For maybe a day you’d hear ‘this is old news’ from a few pundits stupid enough to try it. But then the emails and phone calls would start pouring in. “Dear sirs, this isn’t old news. You never played this clip in the media, though you’ve played ‘safer’ snippets, conveniently enough.”

See, here’s the problem, the audience is going to hear some pundit saying ‘old news,’ but even the liberals at home are going to say something to themselves like, “Hmm, then how in the hell could I have missed something like this? I don’t remember hearing anything about this, and that just seems impossible. I’d remember this dust-up.” The ‘old news’ thing would fall apart in the first 48 hours. Way too many Americans reading blogs these days. And I think most of the mainstream media realizes this. If Romney uses this to offset Obama’s taking advantage of the 47% thing, it’ll be Obama doing damage control for weeks.

Look, you know I agree that the MSLM would love to see this President re-elected, but there’s only so much water they can carry for him. Again, look at the Fast and Furious reporting done by CBS. And even CNN implying that the Administration attempted to cover their ass over the death of an Ambassador. Even CNN is throwing a flag on Obama for pressing the $5 trillion figure on Romney’s tax-plan. There’s only so much they can, and are willing, to do. If Romney counter-punches with this story in a video-clip war on the debate stage, in front of millions upon millions, they will report on it the clip, airing it widespread. Obama wants no part in causing that.
[/quote]

You raise many legitimate points Sloth. But, Romney cannot be the one who brings this story to the public. That can be considered far too racially charged and will boomerang on him. Independents won’t like it and women will hate it. Those are two groups he needs to win more f in order to win the election. Others have to do it and they won’t. What date did you first see this video? I saw it about 4 days ago. So far I’ve read nothing in the liberal press and have seen it played only one time on Sean Hannity. Soon it will drift back into the closet.

Now if one particular network or cable outlet would show it and make a big story out of it THEN and only then do you have something that may harm Obama. But who is going to do it? Do you think CNN is going to pound this story daily? Think again.

As I said before I hope you are correct that video made me sick to my stomach. But there needs to be a vehicle where it can be launched from and absoltely Mitt Romney cannot play that role. It would be the kiss of death for his campaign. The only way he may be able to mention it is in defense of his leaked 47% tape. And that is why Obama didn’t mention the 47% tape and will not.

So…where does this story go?

Nowhere.[/quote]

Here’s the deal, Romney should simply sit on it. Absolutely, he should not simply drop it out of thin air. But, Obama knows it’s there. We both know Romney’s debate team has prepped for introducing it if need be. And we both know Obama’s team also understands this. Smh as asked the right question, why didn’t Obama explicitly work in the 47% clip? Because the point of doing so would be to paint Romney as divisive, while Obama is the alternative. The Uniter. One problem, it then opens it up for Romney to challenge Obama’s own ability to unite Americans.

"President Obama, with all due respect, I’m not sure you’re the one to be giving lectures about divisiveness, or on unity among Americans. Certainly caricatures of Americans clutching to their guns and bibles, because they’re not your supporters, doesn’t help. Or, the steamrolling through of Obamacare, an astonishingly partisan event, standing as shining example of bi-partisan problem-solving. Etc. Etc. “And Mr. President, while I may have despaired at the willingness of Americans to recognize the financial cliff this government’s own actuaries and accountants have warned us about, their response to my campaign has rekindled my faith in the spirit of the American people. I regret my doubts. But, I wonder Mr. President, do you regret your own comments in another video clip, which features you stating half-truths, outright lies, and even engaging in hypocrisy, in order to divide people by race and color? Slandering a President in the process? Do YOU regret your statements, Mr. President?”

Searches for the clip in question would top google. News outlets on every channel would play it.
[/quote]

You’ve laid out the absolute best way for Romney to go about it, if he were to choose to do so. Well said.

I still don’t believe Romney’s handlers would be willing to take the risk. And I don’t think it would come out this eloquently or neutral under the harsh lights of a debate stage.

And even if I’m wrong about that–I could well be–I still see it as politically silly for Obama to shy away from every attack his campaign has been making for the past God-knows-how-long. His case against Romney is substantially more effective than his case for himself, as we all saw so clearly on Wednesday night.

lanchefan1 · October 5, 2012, 5:02pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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 disagree Sloth. That video and his comments will not get enough air play to matter. And when it does it will be described as “old news” which means nothing. This is where the MSLM does it’s best work for Obama. They convince the masses that they are not seeing what in fact they are seeing.

Of course I hope that you are correct.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you on that one Zeb.

Here in Colorado any commercial with that statement is in HEAVY rotation (I by that I mean constantly).

Watching a football game here is stupid at the moment, thank God for my DirecTV DVR!

Sloth · October 5, 2012, 5:05pm

But it is an interesting question, as most people assumed the 47% thing would be worked in. It’s absence was jarring, even. At some point, even by the halfway mark, the President had to have understood that Romney was running away with the debate. So, why not try to bring Romney back down to earth? Why not put him on the defensive? If he’s going to risk looking mean-spirited and negative, it would be in a debate he had to know he was getting pummeled in. It’s not something you, as the President, want to be personally engaged in unless you feel the debate slipping away. He had to have felt it slipping away. So what happened?

Let’s say he feels like he’s putting in a solid enough debate performance during the second debate. Well, I doubt we’ll see it played then, either. Starting a mud-slinging match is not going to happen if he feels he might be pulling off a win in that debate. So, I doubt we’d see it’s introduction in that scenario. But, if he’s losing, again? I don’t see it. He, and his team, must feel it’s simply too big of a risk. Otherwise, he would’ve played that card in the first debate, where he flat out let Romney back into the game by not doing something, anything, to put the brakes on a fantastic Romney performance.

666Rich · October 5, 2012, 5:11pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I have always thought that this line of thinking is getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory. And it is a seriously heavy charge to level against someone–that they directly and by nefarious design impoverish a group of people in order to keep themselves in power. Such an accusation requires some kind of actual proof, beyond “well it makes sense.”

Does anyone actually believe that if a genie were to appear before Barack Obama today and promise to raise every American’s income to at least $100,000…does anyone believe he’d refuse?
No, because presidents–more than anything else–want to be looked upon kindly by posterity.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” Sounds to me like Mitt Romney intends to more or less maintain the status quo. If he changed nothing, and I mean really nothing, I doubt he’d be accused of the kinds of things Obama’s accused of around here.[/quote]

He also doesn’t come from a background of street organizer and racial rabble rouser. Nor, has he ever been friends with a former terrorist, or attended a racist church, or been a member of a socialist group while attending College.

Everything Obama does should be open to question.

[/quote]

Are you implying that Barack Obama is consciously happy that millions of Americans are poor and is actively trying to keep them there?

And if Romney plans to change nothing re:the safety net, will he not be guilty of the exact same thing?

This kind of accusation needs some serious substantiation, that’s my point.[/quote]

To use the term “happy” is one thing, but if you dont think politicians take advantage of the fact that people are poor and ignorant, and in turn benefit from it, I would say you dont know politics. This has gone on since the dawn of time, entertain the poor masses with scraps from your table (gladitorial games in Rome) and they are content without realizing their own subjugation. The bigger the populace in those circumstances, the more clout it has. This happens in any local political game, as well as national. On both sides.

Ever wonder why you dont see instruction in Economics covered in any detail in Public Schools?

MaximusB · October 5, 2012, 5:13pm

Why did Obama bomb the debate ?

Simple.

He thinks this whole idea of debates is beneath him.

He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, and everyone else is moving at a snail’s speed while he is at warp speed.

Obama looked much sharper against McCain because McCain came off as a crotchety old man, yelling while looking like an old grumpy grandpa who shit his diaper.

If you muted the debate, and watched it for body language alone, you could tell Obama would rather have a root canal than be there with Mitt.

MaximusB · October 5, 2012, 5:18pm

Pretty massive shift in the Rasumussen Polls…

Ohio - Obama 50%, Romney 49%

Florida - Obama 47%, Romney 49%

Virginia - Obama 48%, Romney 49%

thunderbolt23 · October 5, 2012, 5:28pm

More on the Obama “bubble”, and while the press is certainly to blame, don’t forget about the man himself:

[i]In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesdayâ??s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too. And, especially since Rahm Emanuelâ??s departure, Obama is surrounded by a large number of yes men who arenâ??t likely to get in his face. [/i]

Some people love the rough-and-tumble of having their views challenged, they love the debate, they love the challenge to taking on comers and explaining why their ideas are better.

Obama does not. He didn’t do it in the first debate. He didn’t do it in connection with the passage of Obamacare - to the contrary, he tried to short-circuit debate on it and demanded that it be passed prior to August recess. He doesn’t let the media challenge him (specifically those who might, see Jake Tapper).

What Obama likes are soaring, prepared speeches to the faithful - i.e., his adoring supporters. He doesn’t go into the lion’s den well, and he doesn’t want to. And all this talk about how “competitive” the President is more false projection - it’s nonsense.

He’ll be more ready for the confronation next time, but not because he relishes it, because he has to to try and keep his job.

smh23 · October 5, 2012, 5:52pm

[quote]666Rich wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

I have always thought that this line of thinking is getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory. And it is a seriously heavy charge to level against someone–that they directly and by nefarious design impoverish a group of people in order to keep themselves in power. Such an accusation requires some kind of actual proof, beyond “well it makes sense.”

Does anyone actually believe that if a genie were to appear before Barack Obama today and promise to raise every American’s income to at least $100,000…does anyone believe he’d refuse?
No, because presidents–more than anything else–want to be looked upon kindly by posterity.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” Sounds to me like Mitt Romney intends to more or less maintain the status quo. If he changed nothing, and I mean really nothing, I doubt he’d be accused of the kinds of things Obama’s accused of around here.[/quote]

He also doesn’t come from a background of street organizer and racial rabble rouser. Nor, has he ever been friends with a former terrorist, or attended a racist church, or been a member of a socialist group while attending College.

Everything Obama does should be open to question.

[/quote]

Are you implying that Barack Obama is consciously happy that millions of Americans are poor and is actively trying to keep them there?

And if Romney plans to change nothing re:the safety net, will he not be guilty of the exact same thing?

This kind of accusation needs some serious substantiation, that’s my point.[/quote]

To use the term “happy” is one thing, but if you dont think politicians take advantage of the fact that people are poor and ignorant, and in turn benefit from it, I would say you dont know politics. This has gone on since the dawn of time, entertain the poor masses with scraps from your table (gladitorial games in Rome) and they are content without realizing their own subjugation. The bigger the populace in those circumstances, the more clout it has. This happens in any local political game, as well as national. On both sides.

Ever wonder why you dont see instruction in Economics covered in any detail in Public Schools?
[/quote]

I agree with what you’re saying, except for that last sentence (the notion that there is some sort of elite conspiracy to keep economics classes out of high schools in the hopes that the poor stay that way is ludicrous).

This doesn’t speak to my point. I was addressing the insinuation that Obama is actively trying to increase poverty in order to increase his share of votes. This has little do do with the general (and generally true) statements you’ve made.

system · October 5, 2012, 6:06pm

Waiting for this the race card is maxed out

countingbeans · October 5, 2012, 6:13pm

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

Waiting for this the race card is maxed out[/quote]

LOL dude @ 30 seconds looks at the camera like “are you serious with this shit?”

countingbeans · October 5, 2012, 6:18pm

Look I’m not saying there isn’t concern that racist people will look down on a black dude for being aggressive in a debate. Of course they would, they are racist.

But this notion that obama couldn’t perform better because he black and America would suddenly hate him for it is irrational.

Yes some people are still stuck in 1835 and hate black people. I think the fact a black man is president, and before him a black woman was SOS, sorta proves that the numbers work in favor of “obama can be himself, most people aren’t going to react to him any differently for being aggresive than they would a white dude.”

This is slightly more retarded than rope-a-dope.

Sloth · October 5, 2012, 6:21pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

Waiting for this the race card is maxed out[/quote]

LOL dude @ 30 seconds looks at the camera like “are you serious with this shit?”[/quote]

This was the same moron who claimed Romney’s use of the word “angry,” to describe the Obama campaign’s negative attacks, was an instance of using racial code words. Yes, he said it was racial code…

Even for pundits, this guy is rabid.

countingbeans · October 5, 2012, 6:35pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

Waiting for this the race card is maxed out[/quote]

LOL dude @ 30 seconds looks at the camera like “are you serious with this shit?”[/quote]

This was the same moron who claimed Romney’s use of the word “angry,” to describe the Obama campaign’s negative attacks, was an instance of using racial code words. Yes, he said it was racial code…

Even for pundits, this guy is rabid.[/quote]

He is nuts.

Look I’m white, as white as can be. No I do not know what it is like. I have been one of the only white dudes in a 3 block radius during college, but I was never uncomfortable, so I can’t pretend to understand.

But I have seen racist people, and I have seen how, why and how much they hate.

ANyone that is going to dislike obama or anyone for being black is going to do it whether or not they are angry or calm. It isn’t like the ignorant switch gets turned off because he smiles…

This is an example of some of the stuff that ruins any chance of our society healing from the democrats in the past for treating blacks like property for all those years…

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 6:45pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

Waiting for this the race card is maxed out[/quote]

LOL dude @ 30 seconds looks at the camera like “are you serious with this shit?”[/quote]

HUH? He doesn’t want to be combatitive? He had no problem attacking George Bush and blaming him for down ward economy that cannot be fixed no matter what, to attacking Hillary during their debates, to being the master mind behind the most vicious Presidential attack ads in years.

That line of thought is as stupid as Al Gore claiming it was the altitude.

Why can’t they just face it, he met up with a better man that night and got beat. Next time he may do better but that night he lost.

Simple.

ZEB · October 5, 2012, 6:49pm