Presidential debate thread

[stevemcqueen1]

Romney impressed me last night. I expected Obama to do much better but he was really off.

I am voting for Romney, only as an anti-Obama vote but last night made me feel a bit of confidence in him. He looked sharp and came off as much more likable and not as robotic. People looking for substance? Well, how much detail can you go into in just a few minutes each question?

I guess it really comes down to the undecideds in Oh, VA, PA and CO and if he did enough to sway them.

Any level of detail would be better than what Romney gave, which was none.

The problem is that, without any indication of a realistic plan, you have no idea what Romney really stands for. Without giving details about his plan, you have to make assumptions over what Romney's plan could realistically be, like the Tax Policy Center did in it's study. And that paints a picture of Romney either exploding the deficit, or sticking it to the middle class.

[twa]

We're a nation of mouthbreathing morons.

~Bang

I would argue, but we did elect Obama so you might have a point.

Perhaps he should skip debate and stick to the View and the golflinks

[mojo]

Final score
Style- 55
Substance - 0


Looks like a win for the American people, who get just what they want.
Honestly, by listening to the post-debate chatter. I really do believe that most Americans are now so ****ing stupid as to believe this hogwash over who "won" based on how they APPEARED.

Did you glean much useful information from 2 suits standing up there, eaching citing manipulated "studies" in their favor only to be rebuked by other and their selective facts?

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Yes, I'd greatly appreciate that.

I can not send you the message because your inbox is full.

[Bang]

Do you think it's that? Or that we're a nation scared to vote how we really feel/believe? I truly believe that a majority of Americans is unhappy with how Obama's last 4 years has gone but they don't want Romney in office, so they'll vote for lesser of two "evils".

And I think a large group of Americans don't like Romney and his ideas, yet they sure as heck don't want Obama in office, so they'll vote for the lesser of two "evils".

Actual differences between the two is probably minimal, but through PR, media and talking points, it's felt that they are worlds apart.

Yes, i really think that./Overall, individually, people can be very smart. Individually, people can be a lot of things.

But as a group,.. we get led around like a bull with a ring in his nose.

seriously,, LISTEN to the buzz today.
Romney LOOKED more together.. LOOKED more prepared,, Obama LOOKED off kilter.

did Romney actually answer any questions with actual real details about how he intends to do everything he promises?

Nope.

but he LOOKED like he did, and this is what people are talking about today.

This is a debate, in which answers must be provided.. and there really wasn't much by way of actual substance to that.

Renegade 7 made a beautiful comment above in which they listened on the radio, and are getting a different impression than many who watched it on TV.
On the radio the words matter.


but your typical American doesn't care.. because today your typical American is consumed with who APPEARED to win.
And i hate to use that "typical American" terminology,, because it's so broadbrushed...but damn,, the internet does allow us to see what a lot of typical people think... and what I see is a line of sheep who are believing it when our absolute circus of a media is telling them that style is more important than substance. A whole hell of a lot of REAL people who make a lot of REAL comments in a lot of public places seem to view this as something like Pro Wrasslin'.
Lookit! Git im Obama! Git im Mitt!

Unfortunately, it's not too hard to get people to act this way. We've always been style over substance in many ways as it is... and now our shallow self absorption of the last 40 or so years is catching up.

I'm disgusted this morning. Sorry if I'm not expressing what i mean very well. Sometimes I am not sure of the words. I am not even worried about the debate itself, and I don't care who won or lost.. that isn't what drives my irritation. It's the WHY's who won and lost that are being accepted. Why did he win? He LOOKED like he did. Why did he lose? He LOOKED off balance...

People accept this,, wallow in it. We used to make jokes about the Dumbing Down of our society, but it's not funny anymore.
it's real, people let it actually happen.


~Bang

[spjunkies]

FOX news can't be serious with this "bias" B.S. I don't think I've seen them post a positive article about Obama in the last 3 months. What a joke of a news service.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...e-performance/

[alexey]

I will create jobs and make those wage go up. Economists cannot say that my tax plan will add to the deficit because I say that I will make it make it not add to the deficit.

[Teller]

HOF44 made what I thought was an excellent point on my fb wall last night. He said, essentially, that presidential debates are like a Rohrshack test. People see what they want to see.

[stevemcqueen1]

Honestly, by listening to the post-debate chatter. I really do believe that most Americans are now so ****ing stupid as to believe this hogwash over who "won" based on how they APPEARED... We're a nation of mouthbreathing morons.

~Bang

I understand your frustration. And at times I feel a similar frustration over how easy the public seems to be duped, how readily they accept a prepackaged narrative from the media on these events because of the demand for instant analysis and snap judgments.

But I believe it's not because people are stupid. I think if you sat the average person down and put forth an issue in clear terms they could fully understand, they would be able to make decisions based on their rational self interest.

But humans have cognitive limitations which force people to make decisions based on pre-rational analysis like impression and emotion. Read: our attention spans are too limited, our verbal communication too limited, for us to take candidates at their words. Without a good deal of familiarity with the policies in question going into the thing, we aren't capable of understanding what they're talking about. How many even know what Simpson-Bowles is much less all that it entails?

We can't be reasoned with, and it's not because we're stupid, it's that words are not the best communicator for ideas, and we can't hold enough information in our head at once to properly synthesize all of the data presented and rapidly perform rational analysis.

So what we do instead is take impressions and read body language on a simplistic level. "This guy seems earnest and passionate, I should trust him." "This guy seems frustrated and disinterested and talks too slowly and is too pedantic, he's not the one I should believe."

And when that's done with, we seek out the analysis of "experts" we already know we trust--people who are supposedly versed in the policy we don't really understand. They will give us the reasons to justify the way we already feel, ex post facto.

[Renegade7]

I can not send you the message because your inbox is full.

Try now.

To Bang's point, it is our fault American politicians are talking to us like we're idiots. We have to demand more, but our voice is being drowned out by what the media is telling us we want to hear. The corporations are trying to program us and take our country through divide and conquer. And it's becoming more and more difficult for regular people to get into politics, especially when you look at the money that has to be raised.

Talking to my uncle last night in the city about DC politics, the people see what's happening, but they can't get anyone into office that will actually do their job. Too many are following the policies of Anthony Williams or getting caught up in scandals to really look out for the people of DC that were already there. A lot of people are just giving up now...

[stevemcqueen1]

I can not send you the message because your inbox is full.

Can you send it to me as well? I'd seriously like to read what the options for closing tax loopholes to raise tons of revenue could be, because the issue worries me. Without specifics, I can only assume Romney is making that up and that there are no such loopholes and his claim about keeping his tax cuts revenue neutral is a lie. The Tax Policy Center's study concluded there were not those kinds of loopholes sufficient to raise enough revenue to cover the 5 trillion dollars spent on the new cuts and make Romney's new cuts revenue neutral.

[Beygo]

Do you think Romney was coached to continually stare at Obama? And Obama barely looked in Romney's direction. This whole dynamic along with the inane chatter was making me anxious. I've seen plenty of presidential debates but this one was strange.

[Bang]

To answer many thoughts from a lot of you without quoting all..

I don't think we're stupid people.. as i said,, individually we're smart, highly educated for the most part.. but collecively,, we let the dumbest mother****ers among us yell and holler and push actual idiocy into the narrative,, and we accept it!

The point Renegade made about the radio is a damn good one,, wouldn't it be awesome if somehow we could keep TV out?
(Never happen,, but I bet we'd hear the difference pretty damn quickly!)
This isn't new,, the Kennedy Nixon debates "changed politics forever" as they say, and this is the inevitable conclusion of that trip.

Not only do we not demand better, we willingly go along with the garbage.

~Bang

[Skinz4Life12]

Do you think Romney was coached to continually stare at Obama? And Obama barely looked in Romney's direction. This whole dynamic along with the inane chatter was making me anxious. I've seen plenty of presidential debates but this one was strange.

it was strange. Romney just kept staring at Obama with a **** eating grin and Obama didn't look in Romeny's direction much at all

[renaissance]

FOX news can't be serious with this "bias" B.S. I don't think I've seen them post a positive article about Obama in the last 3 months. What a joke of a news service.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...e-performance/

Seriously, all Fox News does is report on the news that other agencies are producing.