VP Debate: 10/11/2012

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CNN - Forty-eight percent of voters who watched the vice presidential debate think that Rep. Paul Ryan won the showdown, according to a CNN/ORC International nationwide poll conducted right after Thursday nightÃ?¢??s faceoff. Forty-four percent say that Vice President Joe Biden was victorious…By a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.
[/quote]

Did you see that? This is not a FOX poll but a CNN poll.

So, it’s good that the wacky far left enjoyed mean Joe Biden’s performance. Hey after the ass kicking that Obama suffered they needed something. But the rest of us sat there in jaw dropping silence as the Vice President carried on with his rude antics. By the way Joe when you call someone “friend” the way you did last night that is taken as sarcasm by the general voting populace. And it’s one more thing that the far left drooled over but the rest of the country disapproved of.

[/quote]

And it’s why I say it’s a clear win for Ryan. Ryan especially was supposed to be the ogre in the Romney/Ryan ticket. Even some on the right wondered if Ryan could be vilified too easily. Biden’s approach made Ryan likeable, moreso than himself. Don’t get me wrong, Biden was much better than Obama in the simple fact that he actually looked like he wanted to be there. But I think his performance was a case of preaching to the choir (the base), while letting Ryan come out looking like a respectable and likeable guy. Ryan was supposed end up being the bogey-man.

122

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

My only comment - Joltin’ Joe put an adrenaline needle into the heart of my party, and into the campaign.

This will change the outcome, even if it’s only because it shoots life back into the President.

Hats off Joe. You put a big-ass dent in the Panzer tank that is the GOP Machine last night.[/quote]

You really should follow current events - Biden’s comments on Benghazi are already causing problems.

123

Other problems: Obama/Biden want to paint Romney/Ryan as the lying liars who lie, but off the top of my head:

-Biden said he didn’t vote for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because we couldn’t afford them. That is fasle.

-Biden inisted that the Romney plan would cause a $5 trillion hole. That is false, and Obama’s own campaign staff have conceded that such a claim is false.

-Biden also claimed that the Bush tax cuts and deficit spending were a cause of the recession. That is false, there is no evidence to suggest that, and it doesn’t make sense any way.

And perhaps worst of all:

-Biden said they didn’t know the Libyan embassy wanted additional security. I think this has to be false, but I suppose this could be true, but it doesn’t really matter.

124

I’ll add one. The intel assessment. I’m having a hard time believing that if the initial assessment included the protest possibility that it also didn’t include the possibility of a straight up terror attack. We’re talking about Libya, where multiple terror attacks/attempts had already been made…Edit: I’d have to dig up the article which listed some of these attempts and attacks, but they were part of the reason for the security requests.

I’m having a real hard time believing that within 24 hours that initial assessment wasn’t updated to now strongly favor a terrorist attack. The State Department monitored the attack in real time…

I find it impossible to believe that the intel community hadn’t all but ruled out the protest scenario within the first 48 hours.

And I’m absolutely perplexed, that if there was any question about the events at Benghazi, why this Administration would have even led with the protest/video story? If there was any confusion, any questions, any possibilities still left open, why favor the protest story? Why favor any story? Why not say flat out, with no qualifying, no giving one explanation more time than the other, “we are determining if this attack was a spontaneous protest turned tragically ugly, or if it was pre-planned attack by a terror group.”

125

Has Petraeus been up to the hearings yet? Because Biden has most definitely made it necessary. How many assessments were given, when, and what ALL did they contain.

126

Haven’t seen the debate yet, but from what you all are saying and what others I have talked to have said, it sounds like it went as expected-Biden came out aggressive but Ryan held reasonably strong. I personally think Biden had to be aggressive (maybe not quite to the extent he did) to show the campaign still has life and to really play to his strength as.an experienced debator.

Another low energy, lackluster performance would have been a huge issue moving forward for Obama. By being aggressive (even overly so IMO) Biden showed there is a lot of fight left which just shifts focus to the next presidential debate. Also worth noting that his aggressiveness both serves as a pilot for Obama to study to find the happy medium between his first debate where he let Romney dominate the time/moderator and Biden going over the top.

All in all, I don’t expect this to be a factor when all is said and done-it just sets the table for the next debate. I will be very interested to see how that one goes down.

Also Beans-your bias isn’t a huge factor here, some of my liberal friends felt Biden was a bit over the top too (but still feel he won). I think what you feel is probably similar to how I felt (obviously this one to a greater degree than my example as objectively I think Biden was a bit more exaggerated) watching Romney-I was pissed at his mannerisms, fflipness, and looseness with facts in some cases but my conservative parents/friends (like my lib friends now) we’re split between “He owned it!” and “He won…but was a bit rude”. Also I’m really impressed you are willing to admit a bias-I honestly don’t think I’ve ever run into someone other than myself who seeks out the other side’s opinion to help take off the blue/red tinted glasses. Kudos hombre!

Sent from “moderately intelligent” phone-apologies for any typos

127

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll add one. The intel assessment. I’m having a hard time believing that if the initial assessment included the protest possibility that it also didn’t include the possibility of a straight up terror attack. We’re talking about Libya, where multiple terror attacks/attempts had already been made…

I’m having a real hard time believing that within 24 hours that initial assessment wasn’t updated to now strongly favor a terrorist attack. The State Department monitored the attack in real time…

I find it impossible to believe that the intel community hadn’t all but ruled out the protest scenario within the first 48 hours.

And I’m absolutely perplexed, that if there was any question about the events at Benghazi, why this Administration would have even led with the protest/video story? If there was any confusion, any questions, any possibilities still left open, why favor the protest story? Why favor any story? Why not say flat out, with no qualifying, no giving one explanation more time than the other, “we are determining if this attack was a spontaneous protest turned tragically ugly, or if it was pre-planned attack by a terror group.”[/quote]

There are a lot of holes in their entire approach to the Benghazi tragedy. Romney will be all over this in their next debate. Obama better have an air tight story or he’s going to get owned on that one. And that one point is large enough to turn a debate one way or the other. There are plenty of areas of attack, bad decision making, tragic loss of life, shear incompetence and an out right cover up.

It seems to me that Obama is either going to have to admit many mistakes, thus looking incompetent, or he’s going to be nailed with a cover up.

How do you guys see it?

128

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Haven’t seen the debate yet, but from what you all are saying and what others I have talked to have said, it sounds like it went as expected-Biden came out aggressive but Ryan held reasonably strong. I personally think Biden had to be aggressive (maybe not quite to the extent he did) to show the campaign still has life and to really play to his strength as.an experienced debator.

Another low energy, lackluster performance would have been a huge issue moving forward for Obama. By being aggressive (even overly so IMO) Biden showed there is a lot of fight left which just shifts focus to the next presidential debate. Also worth noting that his aggressiveness both serves as a pilot for Obama to study to find the happy medium between his first debate where he let Romney dominate the time/moderator and Biden going over the top.

All in all, I don’t expect this to be a factor when all is said and done-it just sets the table for the next debate. I will be very interested to see how that one goes down.

Also Beans-your bias isn’t a huge factor here, some of my liberal friends felt Biden was a bit over the top too (but still feel he won). I think what you feel is probably similar to how I felt (obviously this one to a greater degree than my example as objectively I think Biden was a bit more exaggerated) watching Romney-I was pissed at his mannerisms, fflipness, and looseness with facts in some cases but my conservative parents/friends (like my lib friends now) we’re split between “He owned it!” and “He won…but was a bit rude”. Also I’m really impressed you are willing to admit a bias-I honestly don’t think I’ve ever run into someone other than myself who seeks out the other side’s opinion to help take off the blue/red tinted glasses. Kudos hombre!

Sent from “moderately intelligent” phone-apologies for any typos
[/quote]

To me the fact that Biden needed to step in and give Obama a boost is exactly the reason Obama shouldn’t be President. It just shows how weak Obama really is, not just as the President, but as a man.

Biden has even said he wasn’t the best choice for VP and he has to do what Obama couldn’t? I can’t vote for someone without a spine I don’t care what his stance is on anything.

129

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll add one. The intel assessment. I’m having a hard time believing that if the initial assessment included the protest possibility that it also didn’t include the possibility of a straight up terror attack. We’re talking about Libya, where multiple terror attacks/attempts had already been made…

I’m having a real hard time believing that within 24 hours that initial assessment wasn’t updated to now strongly favor a terrorist attack. The State Department monitored the attack in real time…

I find it impossible to believe that the intel community hadn’t all but ruled out the protest scenario within the first 48 hours.

And I’m absolutely perplexed, that if there was any question about the events at Benghazi, why this Administration would have even led with the protest/video story? If there was any confusion, any questions, any possibilities still left open, why favor the protest story? Why favor any story? Why not say flat out, with no qualifying, no giving one explanation more time than the other, “we are determining if this attack was a spontaneous protest turned tragically ugly, or if it was pre-planned attack by a terror group.”[/quote]

There are a lot of holes in their entire approach to the Benghazi tragedy. Romney will be all over this in their next debate. Obama better have an air tight story or he’s going to get owned on that one. And that one point is large enough to turn a debate one way or the other. There are plenty of areas of attack, bad decision making, tragic loss of life, shear incompetence and an out right cover up.

It seems to me that Obama is either going to have to admit many mistakes, thus looking incompetent, or he’s going to be nailed with a cover up.

How do you guys see it?[/quote]

Well, I see that Jay Carney’s defense of Biden’s ‘no security requests’ is that Biden simply meant that he and the President didn’t see them. State Department under the bus. The buck does not stop here. So, ok, if the implication is that, hey, those requests were denied because me and the President don’t see that kind of stuff, State goofed it up…Well, then, it’s time for resignations from the Department. This Charlene Lamb, for instance. By the way, Ryan did miss an opportunity (unless my brain checked out). Charlene Lamb has already testified that they had adequate budget, and budget considerations played NO PART in denying the security requests.

130

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll add one. The intel assessment. I’m having a hard time believing that if the initial assessment included the protest possibility that it also didn’t include the possibility of a straight up terror attack. We’re talking about Libya, where multiple terror attacks/attempts had already been made…

I’m having a real hard time believing that within 24 hours that initial assessment wasn’t updated to now strongly favor a terrorist attack. The State Department monitored the attack in real time…

I find it impossible to believe that the intel community hadn’t all but ruled out the protest scenario within the first 48 hours.

And I’m absolutely perplexed, that if there was any question about the events at Benghazi, why this Administration would have even led with the protest/video story? If there was any confusion, any questions, any possibilities still left open, why favor the protest story? Why favor any story? Why not say flat out, with no qualifying, no giving one explanation more time than the other, “we are determining if this attack was a spontaneous protest turned tragically ugly, or if it was pre-planned attack by a terror group.”[/quote]

There are a lot of holes in their entire approach to the Benghazi tragedy. Romney will be all over this in their next debate. Obama better have an air tight story or he’s going to get owned on that one. And that one point is large enough to turn a debate one way or the other. There are plenty of areas of attack, bad decision making, tragic loss of life, shear incompetence and an out right cover up.

It seems to me that Obama is either going to have to admit many mistakes, thus looking incompetent, or he’s going to be nailed with a cover up.

How do you guys see it?[/quote]

You want to know one of the simplest, but most damning things about this? How does the protest story get pushed if the consulate is not reporting a protest arriving at site? No phone call prior to the attack? “Hey, we’ve got a mob starting to amass outside.” No email at least? “Hey, got a rowdy protest picking up steam here.” Combine that with State monitoring the attack in real time. State, in hearings, saying they NEVER concluded there was a protest, and that “others” would have to explain where the protest story even came from. You’re telling me that for 5-6 days our intelligence never contacted the State Department? Hell with that, within 24 hours? That within 24 hours our intelligence wasn’t at least giving equal time to a terrorist attack scenario? That State hadn’t already told them there WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A PROTEST from prior communications and from actually monitoring the attack? Then get Petraeus, for one, up to testify.

131

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll add one. The intel assessment. I’m having a hard time believing that if the initial assessment included the protest possibility that it also didn’t include the possibility of a straight up terror attack. We’re talking about Libya, where multiple terror attacks/attempts had already been made…

I’m having a real hard time believing that within 24 hours that initial assessment wasn’t updated to now strongly favor a terrorist attack. The State Department monitored the attack in real time…

I find it impossible to believe that the intel community hadn’t all but ruled out the protest scenario within the first 48 hours.

And I’m absolutely perplexed, that if there was any question about the events at Benghazi, why this Administration would have even led with the protest/video story? If there was any confusion, any questions, any possibilities still left open, why favor the protest story? Why favor any story? Why not say flat out, with no qualifying, no giving one explanation more time than the other, “we are determining if this attack was a spontaneous protest turned tragically ugly, or if it was pre-planned attack by a terror group.”[/quote]

There are a lot of holes in their entire approach to the Benghazi tragedy. Romney will be all over this in their next debate. Obama better have an air tight story or he’s going to get owned on that one. And that one point is large enough to turn a debate one way or the other. There are plenty of areas of attack, bad decision making, tragic loss of life, shear incompetence and an out right cover up.

It seems to me that Obama is either going to have to admit many mistakes, thus looking incompetent, or he’s going to be nailed with a cover up.

How do you guys see it?[/quote]

You want to know one of the simplest, but most damning things about this? How does the protest story get pushed if the consulate is not reporting a protest arriving at site? No phone call prior to the attack? “Hey, we’ve got a mob starting to amass outside.” No email at least? “Hey, got a rowdy protest picking up steam here.” Combine that with State monitoring the attack in real time. State, in hearings, saying they NEVER concluded there was a protest, and that “others” would have to explain where the protest story even came from. You’re telling me that for 5-6 days our intelligence never contacted the State Department? Hell with that, within 24 hours? That within 24 hours our intelligence wasn’t at least giving equal time to a terrorist attack scenario? That State hadn’t already told them there WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A PROTEST from prior communications and from actually monitoring the attack? Then get Petraeus, for one, up to testify. [/quote]

I wish more answers could come out under oath prior to the election. My fear is that they’re going to do with this what they did with Fast & Furious, sweep it under the carpet fire a few underlings and move forward.

Which by the way is another good topic when Romney meets Obama again.

132

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Which by the way is another good topic when Romney meets Obama again.[/quote]

The left is convinced it was a Bush program because jesus, oops I mean obama said so.

133

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Which by the way is another good topic when Romney meets Obama again.[/quote]

The left is convinced it was a Bush program because jesus, oops I mean obama said so.[/quote]

Fast & Furious? It may have begun under Bush but it was botched under Obama. Sort of like most things.

134

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Which by the way is another good topic when Romney meets Obama again.[/quote]

The left is convinced it was a Bush program because jesus, oops I mean obama said so.[/quote]

Fast & Furious? It may have begun under Bush but it was botched under Obama. Sort of like most things.[/quote]

Still gives The One a chance to pull out the ‘blame bush’ talking point. Tired for conservatives, and the champion cry for liberals…

135

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Which by the way is another good topic when Romney meets Obama again.[/quote]

The left is convinced it was a Bush program because jesus, oops I mean obama said so.[/quote]

Fast & Furious? It may have begun under Bush but it was botched under Obama. Sort of like most things.[/quote]

Well, Fast and Furious actually started under Obama. It’s my understanding there were similar programs under Bush, but I’m not aware of any reporting on those going wrong. But Fast and Furious is most definitely Obama’s baby. I know ABC called him out on it.

Edit: President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program "Begun Under the Previous Administration" - ABC News

136

Project GunRunner was started under Bush, but continued under Obama as Operation Fast and Furious.

Whether Holder didn’t know about the problems with it, or did know and ignored it, that shit is unacceptable.

137

Pretty much this is what I got out of the debate.

138

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I did check in for a couple minutes and God, I too wanted to punch Biden in the mouth. All that snickering…[/quote]

Do you lean right otherwise?

I only ask because I’m curious how that played with people. I feel he went to far with it, but I’m so biased this year it is hard to tell what is what. when you’re a hammer, everything is a nail.[/quote]
I tend to be more liberal than conservative, depends on the issue. I’m more conservative in the fiscal sense, but in the social sense I tend to be more liberal.

Basically I’m a middle of the road kind of guy as well.

139

Compare that to the big bird ad run after obama’s debate…

This ad works on me. Does it work on independents in swing states?

140

So much worse like this…

This, my friends is shit moderation.