• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Thursday's Debate: Discussion Thread

I skipped the debate because baseball was on, and this thread is way to long to dig through. (I tried jumping in the middle and there was a fight about grades and how much money people make, and that's where I gave up.) So I'm gonna be lazy and just ask, did I miss anything interesting?


12.2o029.pod1C--300x300.jpg
 
Biden has had a long very illustrious career. He still acted like a jackwagon last night, and I still wouldn't want him as commander and chief.
 
Biden has had a long very illustrious career. He still acted like a jackwagon last night, and I still wouldn't want him as commander and chief.

Ryan is not close to being ready to be POTUS. AND if he became the top dog, his economic policies would destroy our country. They are batshit crazy for everyone who doesn't make $250,000+/year. That means it's crazy 97% of our nation.
 
Stopped reading after this completely stupid comment. Only person intimidated by Mittens is his dog.

LOL. Look, you don't have to agree, but I wouldn't chalk it up as strictly partisan bullshit. Some people have that quality to their force of personality. Many of us have worked under people like that. I noticed it first in the Pub debates. These debates are full of politicians, who by definition have strong personalities. They have to be in order to get elected and do what they do. Yet in debate after debate, regardless of substance, I saw very forceful personalities shrink when it came to dealing with Romney. They just wilted like parched flowers in the sun. It was something I had long suspected as being possible, but the debate with Obama confirmed it, IMO.
 
Ok, that's reasonable, I watched all of those Pub debates as well. I don't agree that Obama's intimidated, and I think you will find that out on Tuesday. Romney's a wildcard. He says whatever it takes, and throws his opponent off because he is on both sides of every issue.

LOL. Look, you don't have to agree, but I wouldn't chalk it up as strictly partisan bullshit. Some people have that quality to their force of personality. Many of us have worked under people like that. I noticed it first in the Pub debates. These debates are full of politicians, who by definition have strong personalities. They have to be in order to get elected and do what they do. Yet in debate after debate, regardless of substance, I saw very forceful personalities shrink when it came to dealing with Romney. They just wilted like parched flowers in the sun. It was something I had long suspected as being possible, but the debate with Obama confirmed it, IMO.
 
Ok, that's reasonable, I watched all of those Pub debates as well. I don't agree that Obama's intimidated, and I think you will find that out on Tuesday. Romney's a wildcard. He says whatever it takes, and throws his opponent off because he is on both sides of every issue.

Romney may have many qualities. The ability to intimidate is not one that I've seen. he was not intimidating during the first debate. He did a good job, though. He was definitely not intimidating, nor did he do a particularly good job, during the 47 republican debates.
 
I can't believe Ryan used the "government takeover of healthcare" line - in his prepared closing statement no less. Hard to take him seriously when he says shit like that, just a step away from calling him a communist. Maybe if the polls widen again he'll treat us to that next...
 
Romney may have many qualities. The ability to intimidate is not one that I've seen. he was not intimidating during the first debate. He did a good job, though. He was definitely not intimidating, nor did he do a particularly good job, during the 47 republican debates.

I don't think that Romney is "intimidating" as a debater, but he does a good job of molding lines of argument with various facts/figures, and he comes across as reasonable and authoritative. I disagree that he didn't do a good job in the Republican debates. My general takeaway from the ones I remember watching was that Newt was always good for the best "red meat" lines and that Romney was the only one who came anywhere near being presidential (though it is hard not to when you're sharing a stage with the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, and Herman Cain).
 
Ryan and Romney simply don't care how often they fail at fact check after the fact, rightly understanding that sounding good in the moment will have a greater overall effect. It's a truly breathtaking indifference to intellectual honesty, and it works. I can appreciate that tack as an election strategy, while simultaneously finding the men who employ it totally awful. Brazen lying is a very tough thing to combat in a debate. I hope Obama is ready, because Romney is again going to say whatever he thinks people want to hear in the next two rounds, and Obama has the heavy work of exposing the bullshit.
 
Ryan and Romney simply don't care how often they fail at fact check after the fact, rightly understanding that sounding good in the moment will have a greater overall effect. It's a truly breathtaking indifference to intellectual honesty, and it works. I can appreciate that tack as an election strategy, while simultaneously finding the men who employ it totally awful. Brazen lying is a very tough thing to combat in a debate. I hope Obama is ready, because Romney is again going to say whatever he thinks people want to hear in the next two rounds, and Obama has the heavy work of exposing the bullshit.

Oh please. Biden wasn't exactly Mr. Facts last night. And in any case, candidates rarely argue "facts" anymore-- they simply cite some study they agree with and chalk that up as a fact.
 
Politifact had a few half-true ratings for Biden which was as bad as he got. They had 4 items rated as false, mostly false, or an outright lie for Ryan. They weren't in the same zipcode of each other as far as factual information is concerned.
 
Politifact had a few half-true ratings for Biden which was as bad as he got. They had 4 items rated as false, mostly false, or an outright lie for Ryan. They weren't in the same zipcode of each other as far as factual information is concerned.

And Ryan was a boy scout compared to his running mate's debate.
 
Politifact had a few half-true ratings for Biden which was as bad as he got. They had 4 items rated as false, mostly false, or an outright lie for Ryan. They weren't in the same zipcode of each other as far as factual information is concerned.

I can guarantee you without a shadow of doubt that Biden's opening segment about Libya was an outright lie. He made the claim that intelligence told them it was a riot. We have the best intelligence in the world, and EVERY other intelligence source was labeling it a terrorist attack before we came out in the press and finally recanted our story. Take off your blinders. Biden was full of crap just as much as Ryan.
 
Politifact had a few half-true ratings for Biden which was as bad as he got. They had 4 items rated as false, mostly false, or an outright lie for Ryan. They weren't in the same zipcode of each other as far as factual information is concerned.

I assume that the esteemed Politifact is not done assessing the various points made in the debate. If they are, then they cherry picked it pretty good.
 
We do not have the best intelligence in the world. And speaking of blinders, nobody else here said that the pick of Paul Ryan sealed our vote for Romney.
 
By the way, it needs to be said that in flipping the channels around, Megyn Kelly looked absolutely the most smoking I have ever seen her look. I almost whipped it out and jerked off right there, but they cut to Krauthammer.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top