Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Duh Debates (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Duh Debates
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

Bush II was no Reagan/JFK. Banking "deregulation" that positions lenders to write junk mortgages with quasi-federal guarantees not only fails to empower individual initiative, it set up a mass default for homeowners that lacked a sense of their financial limits.

Regarding other extravagances that financial institutions engaged in during the pre-crash buildup, individual empowerment demanded that *individuals* bear the burden of their misjudgements. Intervention to prevent the collapse of some banks was justified. Saving the careers of individual managers was not. Uninsured investment houses that could not weather the collapse should (and a few big names did) go out of business. The freedom to fail is part of individual liberty.

Pyrtolin,

I would normally skip your comments, but the assertion that the ambassador requested status quo security is just plain false. Watch media coverage in the coming days.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Yes, I read the same nuance into it. Biden really is a holdover from the days when the Senate was a collegial place with adversarial but not aggressively hostile positioning. Reagan and Tip O'Neill argued vehemently against each other in the daytime and got together for cigars and poker in the evenings. Given the opportunity Biden would sit down with anyone who was willing to work in that same bi-partisan spirit, while never yielding his personal principles.

For me the most telling comment was about abortion, where he avowed his personal consent and commitment to his Church, but made it clear that he couldn't make that decision for anyone else.

We're all very relieved that Biden won't be personally having abortions. So long as he doesn't make the decision to force other people to sponsor abortions.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where do you see the he or Obama have advocated that?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"According to polling data, Ryan pulled out a narrow "win""

Care to share with us exactly what polling data you're referring to? And is that a single poll or do you think that was a widespread finding?

C'mon, G3, you can talk to us like adults. Tell us where you get your information from, or is it secret...

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm surprised this wasn't a bigger talking point for Republicans. I can't stand Paul Ryan but I still thought he was getting poor treatment from the moderator. (I noticed her try to call out Biden once, which he ignored. Ryan seemed to be getting called out a lot more.)"

If you watch it again, she was trying, but Biden was not going to be headed off. Ryan shut up instantly every time she even looked at him.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, I won't clip any of what you wrote because I didn't understand a word of it. Try rephrasing?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"According to polling data, Ryan pulled out a narrow "win""

Care to share with us exactly what polling data you're referring to? And is that a single poll or do you think that was a widespread finding?

I'm pretty sure he's referring to a CNN poll.

Yeah. It's the CNN poll. If I remember correctly, it was a poll of voters overall though, rather then undecided voters. Biden won the undecided voter poll.

Lies, durned lies, and powls

[ October 12, 2012, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More data from CNN
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant, from the CNN site (not the Washington Times that you cited):
quote:
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 night's faceoff. Forty-four percent say that Vice President Joe Biden was victorious. The Republican running mate's four point advantage among a debate audience that was more Republican than the country as a whole is within the survey's sampling error.
...
One-third of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans, with 31% identifying themselves as Democrats, and 34% identifying themselves as independents.

"That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is more Republican than an average of recent CNN polls of all Americans," adds Holland.

A CBS poll of undecided voters were decidedly the other way:
quote:
A CBS News poll of uncommitted voters using an online panel found that both candidates made solid impressions, but that more of those voters felt that the debate was a win for Biden. The survey found that 50 percent thought Biden won, 31 percent that Ryan won, and 19 percent that the debate was a tie.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter, since few people are influenced by the GOP candidate. An exception is the 2008 election, where Palin hurt McCain at the voting booth.

[ October 12, 2012, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the link Grant. I wonder if the other 8% thought it was a tie...
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Thanks for the link Grant. I wonder if the other 8% thought it was a tie...

From what I remember this morning: yes.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
In the end, it probably doesn't matter, since few people are influenced by the GOP candidate. An exception is the 2008 election, where Palin hurt McCain at the voting booth.

So, you're saying that you believe that Ryan is not exactly the same type of "stone around the neck" that Palin was?
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
I would normally skip your comments, but the assertion that the ambassador requested status quo security is just plain false. Watch media coverage in the coming days.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/173153311.html

quote:
The embassy request for an extension of the security team through August was in a February memo to department officials, obtained by the AP from a government official who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to release the document.

...

The State Department official said that after the team remained through August, it was replaced by an equal number of personnel with the same skill sets. Had the security support team still been in Tripoli at the time of the attack in Benghazi, it wouldn't have made any difference, the official said.

"They had nothing to do with Benghazi, zero," the official said. "They were based in Tripoli and they were not a quick reaction force jetting around the country."

The "additional security" requests for for an additional extension on the deployment of that SST team in Tripoli. Not a detachment of Marines or any additional forces. Not to mention that withdrawing that particular team didn't even result in a net loss of manpower because they were replaced with fresher, similarly skilled security personnel.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Way too much noise to signal in the whole Libya thing. I don't know who to believe.


quote:
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

quote:
Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." It was unclear whether he was talking about Nordstrom.
More CNN
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Freudian slip! I meant "In the end, it probably doesn't matter, since few people are influenced by the VP candidates.

"So, you're saying that you believe that Ryan is not exactly the same type of "stone around the neck" that Palin was?"

Right.

[ October 12, 2012, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think one of the biggest improvements for the democrats this time was they did not try to characterize their oponent's plan. Always better to use what they say right then against them. Not to argue against what you interpret to be their unstated position.

Better as far as "winning" a debate goes at least.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looking at CNN's instant poll suggesting 48% of viewers thought Ryan won this debate, as opposed to 44% who thought Biden won, I concluded such a near tie made no difference. If 20% of viewers thought Obama won the first debate, it is safe to say most Democrats thought Biden won this one. That was Biden's mission: to convince Democrats their side was being put forth strongly, as they were disappointed by Obama's performance in the first debate. The CBS poll of uncommitted voters suggests Biden scored a win except among Republicans, which is what he needed.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... few people are influenced by the VP candidates."...

Normally I would agree. There are two problems in applying this generalization to Biden. First, he was sent in to compensate for a weak showing by his boss. In other words, it was the intent of the Obama campaign to offer him up as the adult face of a novice executive.

Second, Biden wrote some checks that Barry is incapable of cashing. The embassy security debacle is just the beginning. Shifting blame for the deaths of a U.S. ambassador, and embasy staff to Ryan, and then excusing the mischaracterization of a *terrorist* attack to lapsed intelligence reports, is the ultimate Bart Simpson defense.

The buck stops at Barry, but Biden has created a situation that would be unmanageable even for the most proactive executive.

[ October 12, 2012, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You do have a point noel but the "times are tough but my opponent’s plan is either delusional or a lie" narrative Biden and Obama are putting forth is to me an immensely effective tactic given how the opposition reacts (or fails to react) to it.

Ryan's line of "if you have no good option make the voters run FROM your opponent" is a good line. But even if I believed his assertion I would still want something to run TO.

When you are pushing up hill and unsatisfied with the speed you are moving you COULD turn around. You would certianly move a lot faster...

[ October 12, 2012, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W.,

The tactic could be effective if the messenger was seen as credible. It would otherwise be interpreted as "malarkey".

If Biden failed to instantly blow himself up, he did succeed in pulling the pin on a political grenade.

[ October 12, 2012, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As far as I could tell, Biden made only one mistake, but it was a big one. He should have dressed up like Big Bird so the 47% watching could have better identified with him.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
As far as I could tell, Biden made only one mistake, but it was a big one. He should have dressed up like Big Bird so the 47% watching could have better identified with him.

I was hoping that he would have ripped his shirt off and challenged Ryan to a wrestling match. The Bird Bird suit would have been good too.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll agree noel that he put himself in danger. I don't think the detonation is guaranteed however. What is a certainty however is that you must provide a plausible alternative to accompany criticism.

Ok, “must” is probably wishful thinking. I do think that Biden’s aggressiveness painted that picture better than Obama’s exasperation. The Romney campaign’s economic plan is either wishful thinking, self delusion or a lie until they present details which prove it is possible to achieve their goals without any of the negative side effects they have assured us it will avoid. The methods don’t even have to be likely to pass to appease me. But show me the math is at least possible.

It may be but the message from the Obama campaign that it’s not does not have the ring of “malarkey” given dodging of substance Romney and Ryan have done.

[ October 12, 2012, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, thank you for your response. Replies below:

quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
[QB] Chael,

I respect your sincere effort to assume the best of people's motives. It is clear to me that the details for a Romney economic recovery will not be delivered with the detail/clarity that you would like for a very simple reason; cutting taxes has not been useful to a liberal agenda since JFK.

Specifics will not be presented because they would be disagreed on or attacked by ideological opponents?

quote:

It is politically dangerous to plainly state that individuals have more power over their economic welfare than a paternalistic national government.

No, principles are in evidence--as you go on to state in your next paragraphs. They are plain enough. If espousing certain principles is politically dangerous, then Romney and Ryan are in political trouble.

quote:

The "details" can be inferred, much as the socialist aspects of the 2008 campaign were clear to read in Obama's "non-mandated, tax free" health care plan. Character, and ideology are much better indicators than specific details.

I would prefer not to infer when I can simply know instead. However, this is not an option available to me in this election year, like most other election years, so I will have to make myself content with wisps and whimsies instead.

Would you not feel more secure in your knowledge of Romney's character if he actually presented specifics? If nothing else, it would show that he had deeply considered the matter, and was not just saying what he thought others would like to hear!

quote:

First- Biden blamed the first successful terrorist attack upon sovereign soil in eleven years on Ryan's non-vote for $3,000,000 in embassy security upgrades. Evidently, the ambassador's request for a detachment of Marines was fiscally excessive in the opinion of this Administration.

I did not interpret their exchange in this way. Ryan claimed that not sending in a detachment was a signal of the administration's priorities or incompetence; Biden brought up Ryan's past votes as a counter, a 'you didn't put your money where your mouth is.' You may not find it an adequate counter, but it does not mean that Biden was blaming Ryan.

(Others have already addressed the attack in Libya--I am insufficiently informed to add more.)

quote:

Third- The same intelligence community that Biden hung out to dry is the source for his *certainty* that Netanyahu is wrong on his timeline for an Iranian bomb.

Ignoring the fact that there will be different people working in different areas of impact, this begs the question: so do you think they are competent or not? You seem to think they are; the tone of your previous paragraph implies that you believe Biden was wrong to "hang them out to dry." If they are competent, why should we not trust their assessment?

Furthermore, Netenyahu's timeline was constructed around the premise that we should be concerned about Iran having sufficient quantities of enriched uranium, not about them actually having a physical bomb ready. It's about earlier prevention. Biden is not arguing that Netenyahu is wrong in his summation of their readiness (and indeed, he seems to be partially depending on Israeli intelligence); he is arguing for a different metric of concern.

quote:

Fourth- Biden appears to have forgotted that he voted for the authoriztion of force in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Can you elaborate?

(Edited for grammar. [Wink] )

[ October 12, 2012, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The Romney campaign's economic plan is either wishful thinking, self delusional or a lie."...

... Or something else.

While you may (reasonably) expect to see the math, we have recent evidence that hope, and change alone will suffice for the majority of the electorate. I do agree with you that some of the effects will be seen by a significant number of "moderates" as negative.

There were fewer sacred cows to gore when JFK did it.

[ October 12, 2012, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
6) No substantive disagreement on Syria--so why were they arguing?
Because the Romney/Ryan campaign is implying otherwise.

The Republican narrative has been that the Obama foriegn policy is a failure due to the appearance of weakness Obama projects. If Romney/Ryan want to maintain the same policies as Obama then how will they not be projecting the same weakness?

Biden is correct to ask if Romney / Ryan want another ground war in the Middle East.

I completely agree with everything you said, and in fact that was my point. The Romney/Ryan campaign is implying that the current stance is one of weakness, but when pressed Ryan says that of course he would not want to put soldiers on the ground there under the current circumstances.

If he is to be taken at his word, this is empty posturing; there is no substantive disagreement. So I wish they would stop.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The "Or something else" Was my point noel. I want to hear what else that is! It is unlikely to change my vote so maybe it’s not worthwhile? The lack of another option is what is going to hurt the Romney campaign the most. This is what I’ve heard so far between the debates.

R: This performance is horrible; we will do a better job.
D: Listen we know things are tough but we’re moving in the right direction. Besides we’ve seen your policies before and they won’t help!
R: No you haven’t we’re going to do things different.
D: How?
R: We’ll reduce the deficit, create jobs and not raise taxes.
D: Those are objectives not methods…
R: It’s an outline, it’s how things are done <eye roll>
R: Bottom line, people aren’t happy with you, they should vote for us. Quit trying to scare them.
D: But you don’t have an alternative that is possible! That IS scary!
R: Of course we do. But you and the public just wouldn’t get it. Trust me! I mean not like we could do worse.

[ October 12, 2012, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I completely agree with everything you said, and in fact that was my point. The Romney/Ryan campaign is implying that the current stance is one of weakness, but when pressed Ryan says that of course he would not want to put soldiers on the ground there under the current circumstances.

If he is to be taken at his word, this is empty posturing; there is no substantive disagreement. So I wish they would stop.

The Republicans have been running against a straw man version of Obama since 2008. All Obama's actions are interpreted in that light. The "weak leader who is not respected abroad and lacks the will to stand up to our enemies" is part of that meme. They are not going to drop it because, no matter how wrong it may be in fact, it sells.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Biden threw the intelligence community under the bus in explaining Obama's two week delay in acknowledging that this was, in fact, a 911 anniversary terrorist attack, and not a "spontaneous protest" against a Youtube critique of Mohammed.
What I heard Biden explain was that their response changed as the intelligence changed. The intelligence community are not mind readers and in the light of the attacks in Egypt the initial response was perfectly reasonable.

I suppose your interpretation might be salablle as certain people will cling to any interpretation of events that cast their opponent in a poor light. More likely, as in the "threw grandma under the bus" meme the idea will simply be embraced by people who dislike Obama no matter what he does and wouldn't have voted for him in the first place.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He placed the blame, if any is warranted squarely on the intelligence community. If nothing else he should have been inclusive grouping them with the administration if not taken more of the burden. Something like this would have been much more appropriate.

We released the best information we had available at the time given the intelligence reports available to us. As contradictory information was brought to us we wanted to properly vet it to avoid the need for additional clarifications. As is obvious any change of information can be interpreted as nefarious by some.

That said I still don’t expect the blow up to be as grandiose as republicans are hoping for. Then again as VL pointed out they are eager to paint Obama as weak on foreign policy. This MAY be one drop in the water so the sharks begin to circle. Or is that lamprey?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chael,

"Specifics will not be presented because they would be disagreed on or attacked by ideological opponents?"...

Yes.

Recall that Biden's parents are among the 47% (which I do not doubt for a moment). It shows in his politics, and makes for great theatre.

"No, principles are in evidence."...

... But not character, which is where the rubber meets the road.

"I would prefer not to infer when I can simply know."...

... As would we all. It just does not work that way, even in honest expression of intent.

"Would you feel more secure in your knowledge of Romney's character if he actually presented specifics?"...

... Yes, and I would also suspect him of political naivete. Our's is not a particularly thoughtful electorate. I guess you could argue that people get the government which they deserve. I would be forced to agree with you.

"Biden brought up Ryan's votes as a counter... it does not mean that Biden was blaming Ryan."...

... I viewed Biden's comment twice to verify his statement, and the underlying premise. Given that the three million dollar appropriation would have *zero* correlation to point defense requests from embassy security in Benghazi, I can only read Biden's retort as blame-shifting.

"Do you think they are compentent or not?"...

... When the stakes are high, I would error on the side of "not". They did, after all, miss the collapse of the USSR.

"Can you elaborate (on Biden's forgetfulness)?"...

Sure, he postured as an opponent of war with Iraq, and Afghanistan during the debate, but voted in the Senate to authorize the use of force by Bush II (in contrast to his boss).

[ October 12, 2012, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
According to polling data, Ryan pulled out a narrow "win" as Biden came off as the braying, drunk uncle who's primary response to anything is "I was there!". I'm not sure rude, arrogant, condescending and general jackassery was the goal for a national audience (Biden locked up the hyena vote) but it plays well to the liberal base so Biden seems to have stemmed the hemorrhaging from Obama's first debate debacle which would make this a success for Biden and Obama. Jesus, Biden is such a buffoon.

Speaking of Barry, he was the personification of the Dunning–Kruger effect wasn't he? Barry thought he won, took a full 24 hours for him to realize he stepped on his crank and lost in one of the worst debate performances evah! It's always amazing to see these things actually occur.

Interesting, according to other polling data Biden wiped the floor with Ryan (70 to 30 at Wapo) and he came off like a teenager surprised and dismayed to be debating a grown man.

It seems that without Batman helping him Robin just couldn't beat the Joker.

CNN-ORC post-debate poll of Registered Voters: 48% said Ryan won. 44% said Biden won. 70 to 30? really? You don't even remotely question such lopsidedness?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This wasn't a poll for who you would vote for. That I would expect to be close. A pole for who won a debate can be totaly lopsided. I found this to be a Ryan loss at least as definitively as the Obama loss in the first debate.

I will say however that Obama bears full responsibility for his loss. Ryan is only partly responsible for his.

[ October 12, 2012, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Then again as VL pointed out they are eager to paint Obama as weak on foreign policy."

That's incredibly foolish of them. Obama was born and raised in that briar patch. There's never been a Republican president as tough on foreign policy as Obama.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed. I'm pretty deep in the Obama camp but from where I sit Romney is in striking distance. The problem is his campaign's tactics are totaly wrong.

Err, their problem, not THE problem. [Big Grin]

[ October 12, 2012, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
This wasn't a poll for who you would vote for. That I would expect to be close. A pole for who won a debate can be totaly lopsided. I found this to be a Ryan loss at least as definitively as the Obama loss in the first debate.

Meh. If you believe Al's theory that vice presidents and their debates have little or no relation to how one votes (and some smart people agree with him on that) then the only thing that Ryan had to do last night was not come off as someone the press could label as idiotic or completely draconian, etc. So far the story on Sith Apprentice Ryan is that he is "wonkish" or "nerdy" or even "religious/crazy/hates women".

In this respect, I think that Ryan succeeded. He didn't sink the Romney ship.

Same thing goes for Biden. Dispite all the confidence going into the debate by the democrats, I think there was a little trepidation that suddenly, the fate of President Obama's reelection campaign seemed to fall on the sholders of.... Joe Biden. And last night and this morning, they all love the guy, cause he came through for them. But there have been times that the democrats have wanted to place Biden in a closet and throw away the key.

The VP had the bigger task last night. He had to stop the bleeding and rally the troops. He did that, if the reactions of our resident democrats are any proof. As far as I know, Chris Matthews did not become a flaggelant on national television last night, but apparently he did not appear to desire to disembowl himself as he did after the first debate.

Both guys just had to come out and NOT #^@& UP. They did that. But Biden's was the more critical role, so he wins.

From what I've gathered, the debate last night was basically a game of chicken. After the first debate, the VP had to do just one thing to do well. Show energy. Be combative. Be agressive. Be everything that the President was not.

The flip side to all that is that agressive and combative is an invisble cliff. It's great but if you go too far, it's going to backfire on you.

Ryan had to maintain the energy that Romney had brought. He did so, but he did not have as much to loose, so he didn't push as hard.

Biden did push hard. He dared, and he won, because from what I can tell, though he was aggressive, he was not too aggressive.

You want to know who won the debate? Find someone around you who doesn't know a lick of english. Make them watch the debate. They will tell you who won. Because what they have to say means almost nothing, it's how they say it. Otherwise we could have the debates in print.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W.,

Individuals will measure "winning" differently.

Frankly, the Cheshire Cat grin that Biden wore throughout the debate conveyed 73 years of cumulative dementia more than sage experience.

The instant polling that I saw fell more along the lines that G-3 cited. Give it five days if you want a stable number. Better yet, watch Barry twisting in the wind at the next debate from the aftermath.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The instant polling that I saw fell more along the lines that G-3 cited. Give it five days if you want a stable number. Better yet, watch Barry twisting in the wind at the next debate from the aftermath.
What are we talking about? I thought the 48/44 number G3 cited was who won the debate. Was the 48/44 number a poll on who people would vote for after seeing the debate? That's a much different poll.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant I think Ryan did a fine job given the tactical decisions of his campaign. You are right. He didn't have as much at stake. He played it safe. As a result he didn't "win". Playing it safe may not harm his campaign in the overall race. If he had been as aggressive as Biden it may have backfired. I don't know if trying harder to win the debate would have been good electoral tactics or not.

He certainly did not sink the Romney ship. That success does not translate into a win by any measure. Biden’s dementia or sage condescension aside noel. [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Was it worth seeing?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1