2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Major Robert Dump]

Just asking is racist, you racist.

Those two videos you posted are old, but still hilarious.

This is going on in (where else?) Florida.

I LOVE IT

SOCIALISTIC MUSLIM

[Lemur]

I think we can all agree that some people take national politics entirely too seriously. Exemplum gratum:

Virginia Man Kills Family, Self Over Prospect of Obama Reelection

Albert Peterson, a defense contractor from Virginia, shot his wife, Kathleen, and two children, Matthew and Christopher, before turning the gun on himself. None survived.

Peterson had recently lost a beloved uncle to suicide, and reportedly battled mental illness himself – including severe paranoia – for years. His acquaintances claim that in addition to those personal struggles, Peterson had become increasingly concerned with the state of the country and the prospect of President Barack Obama’s reelection as of late. He talked often of his worries that his two teenage sons would inherit the massive debt of an “irresponsible” government. A family friend revealed to the Daily Mail that he had begun sending frequent political emails that were increasingly paranoid, sometimes more than once per day.

Apparently, Peterson had also told this friend that he was under a lot of pressure at work. As a defense contractor, he felt that Obama’s reelection would lead to a drastic reduction of defense spending, which he feared would cause him to lose his job. The defense industry is facing half a billion dollars worth of cuts thanks to a bipartisan sequestration measure that cuts a percentage of each department if Congress cannot reach a budget agreement. [...]

A small percentage of mentally ill persons have the propensity for shocking acts a violence; it’s a reality that is unavoidable without proper and accessible care. But is amped up negative political coverage adding fuel to the fire?

[Major Robert Dump]

Aw, poor little guy lives in a capitalist society, hims job is through the government, which conservatives want to reduce (except defense of course) and he cannot live by the same rules he expects all the others to live by (adapt or die)....

Seriosuly, though, the dude sounded delusional and the politics probably just gave him an outlet. He sounds like the Japanese women throwing their babies of Suicide Point in Guam, brainwashed into thinking of what bad things were going to come.

I don't think ou can blame the election etc. If it weren't that, it would have been something else, like a book or an event or an encounter with a neighbor

[Hax]

In sixty years, we'll be saying that Republicans committed mass suicide in the prospect of a Obama re-election (cf. Wall Street suicides).

[Fragony]

In sixty years, we'll be saying that Republicans committed mass suicide in the prospect of a Obama re-election (cf. Wall Street suicides).

It isn't like Obama's staff isn't all Wall Street after all

[Kralizec]

In sixty years, we'll be saying that Republicans committed mass suicide in the prospect of a Obama re-election (cf. Wall Street suicides).

Republicans won't do that because they're all God fearing christians, and suicide is a no-no. So instead they'll move to Canada in an attempt to escape socialized healthcare and liberalism.

[Lemur]

Did you know the Obomination's mother was a PORN STAR? (Can't find link to raw video, but skip to 1:29 to see content instead of comment.)

[The Stranger]

1) so what.
2) few naked pics dont make a pornstar. many women have erotic photoshoots
3) this is really bad television

[Lemur]

It certainly feels like a desperation play. Found a little more detail here; apparently the DVD was sent to approx. 1.5 million voters, mostly in Ohio.

[rvg]

It certainly feels like a desperation play. Found a little more detail here; apparently the video was sent to 1.5 million voters, mostly in Ohio.

I suppose that puts the birther argument to rest then.

[Montmorency]

It would have been remiss of them not to send a copy to the White House. Did they?

A GOP plant on his staff could be used to devastating effect.

[Hooahguy]

Wow, Mitt actually seems to know what he is talking about. If the debates continue like this, I think Romney will be considered the winner.

EDIT: Though cutting funding to PBS wont go over well.

[rvg]

Mitt is overplaying his love for the middle class imho. Then again, that just might be my perception, since I don't like him.

[Hooahguy]

Romney clearly won that debate.

[Xiahou]

Romney clearly won that debate.

That seems to be the early consensus. I'm surprised it seems to be such a unanimous decision. No thrills running up the leg of Chris Matthews tonight.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I thought Romney did well, but I think Obama is so vulnerable on the economy that I guess I expected more.

[Hooahguy]

I thought Romney did well, but I think Obama is so vulnerable on the economy that I guess I expected more.

Thats probably why. As for the next debates, Im expecting Ryan to crush Biden, and who knows about the presidential debates 2 & 3?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Thats probably why. As for the next debates, Im expecting Ryan to crush Biden, and who knows about the presidential debates 2 & 3?

Lol, you think Biden is as passive as Obama?

Get off the podium.

[Hooahguy]

I didnt say that Biden was as passive as Obama was, but I do think Biden a terrible speaker and that Ryan will mop the floor with him.

[Xiahou]

Lol, you think Biden is as passive as Obama?

Get off the podium.

Actually, I think Ryan runs the risk of being seen as mean if he's too hard on Biden. It'll look bad if he's seen as picking on a senile old man. Biden can't seem to open his mouth without sticking his foot in it.

I'm not sure whether I get more of a kick out of Chris Matthews or Andrew Sullivan's debate analysis... both are completely beside themselves.

10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually, I think Ryan runs the risk of being seen as mean if he's too hard on Biden. It'll look bad if he's seen as picking on a senile old man. Biden can't seem to open his mouth without sticking his foot in it.

Biden is a good ole boy from the past. He talks very loosely in private ("this is a big ******* deal!") and in moments of legitimacy, but brings the guns to the table when the time comes to fight in public.

Ryan is a smooth talker but he brings no substance, only talking points. He can't even explain his policies because "it would take too long" or something. He is the John Edwards of the GOP, a golden boy who is at heart extremely hollow and fake to the core.


Hooahguy is just being a cheerleader, and that is understandable but I come here for more than that.

[Cecil XIX]

1. Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the best job in the
debate -- Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Obama 25%
Romney 67%

2. Did Barack Obama do a better or worse job than you expected?
Better 21%
Worse 61%

3. Did Mitt Romney do a better or worse job than you expected?
Better 82%
Worse 10%

8. Overall, did tonight's debate make you more likely to vote for Barack Obama or more likely to
vote for Mitt Romney, or did tonight's debate not affect how you are likely to vote?
More likely to vote for Obama 18%
More likely to vote for Romney 35%

So, how about that debate?

[woad&fangs]

I read the transcripts instead of watching the debate and I have to say I am surprised most people think Romney won. Romney lied a lot. Obama did too but not to nearly as great an extent. The tax numbers Obama quoted in the beginning turned out to be true (based off of Romney's plan to extend the Bush tax cuts and give everyone another 20% cut). Obama mopped the floor with him in that section based off of facts. Both were very rude to the moderator.

The healthcare debate was a toss up. Romney did a good job articulating his ideas of what medicare/healthcare should be. However, his insistence on implying the $716 billion medicare cut hurt seniors was grating and implied something that has been debunked for a while. Part of the cut was negotiated by hospitals and insurers because it would be made up for by increased demand and part was diverting money from an inefficient private version of medicare. I also loved him bringing back the "death panel" meme :eyeroll:. Sooooo 2009.

[Major Robert Dump]

Facts are not important in a debate. Dating back to the very first televised debate, it is all about how you carry yourself and when you unload the zingers. Romney engaged Obama, and Obama seemed to be disinterested and dodgy. He should have stared the man down. He's the president FFS. I wonder if this is how he behaves when he meets with world leaders behind closed doors

[SoFarSoGood]

Answer is yes.

[Lemur]

Didn't catch the debate, too much work, but I did appreciate this amusing hair swap. Who you gonna vote for now, huh? Follow the hair ...

[Hooahguy]

I wonder if this is how he behaves when he meets with world leaders behind closed doors

Thats what worries me. I wonder how he holds himself around Putin.

[a completely inoffensive name]

After sleeping on it, I have decided that the worst performance was by Lehrer. Whether you agree with Romney or not, the comes a point where the moderator has to say, no be quiet we have to move on to the next subject. Romney won because he forced his way into having the last line on the every single topic. Plain and simple. Obama wasn't really timid, he was calm and took time to say what he wanted to say. He only looks bad in comparison to Romney's rapid fire points and his determination to win the rhetorical positioning. This is not to say that Obama didn't blunder, because his big blunder was in allowing Romney to be the only one pushing Lehrer around for an extra 10 seconds.

All in all, I think this type of debate is toxic and should be abandoned. MRD takes the cynical route once again and misses the distinction between past and present. Debates used to be held by the League of Women voters who generally did the job of moderating properly. As in all debates, it is more of how you say it than what you are saying, that much is true. However, before we would have a synthesis of common facts and personal rhetoric blended to create two opposing view points that essentially gave interpretations from differing political ideologies. Now we have reached the point where the moderator is just a mouth to ask a question, and each candidate is entitled not just to their own opinion, but their own facts. The first 30 minutes of the debate can be summed up as:

Obama: Here are my numbers.
Romney: Here are my numbers.
Obama: Those numbers are wrong.
Romney: Your numbers are wrong.
Obama: No your numbers are wrong.
Romney: No, yours.

Repeat ad nauseum.

I might not even watch the third debate since it is in the same set up as the first. The second debate based on a town hall style might provide a more constructive outcome for the public discourse, but all the questions will be screened, so I doubt it.

[Xiahou]

I think overall, Lehrer did a fair job- although he did give Obama slightly more time overall. (Obama spoke for 4.5 minutes longer than Romney in total).

I think, in general a good moderator will let the candidates speak. I find it so silly when they employ bells, whistles, gongs, ect. to try to hold a candidate. How can they demand everything be boiled down to a soundbite while bemoaning the lack of details? (Again, Obama went beyond his 2 minute allotment more often than Romney.) Both candidates constantly offered platitudinous talking points and anonymous "studies" in place of detail- and Leher's biggest mistake is not pressing either candidate for specifics. I think the format itself also lacked structure- but I don't know that was Leher's call.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

After sleeping on it, I have decided that the worst performance was by Lehrer. Whether you agree with Romney or not, the comes a point where the moderator has to say, no be quiet we have to move on to the next subject. Romney won because he forced his way into having the last line on the every single topic. Plain and simple. Obama wasn't really timid, he was calm and took time to say what he wanted to say. He only looks bad in comparison to Romney's rapid fire points and his determination to win the rhetorical positioning. This is not to say that Obama didn't blunder, because his big blunder was in allowing Romney to be the only one pushing Lehrer around for an extra 10 seconds.

Lehrer did just fine, the moderation was just like most debates except the candidates had more time to talk. He's being unfairly scapegoated.

Obama had 4 more minutes of speaking time.

The first 30 minutes of the debate can be summed up as:

Obama: Here are my numbers.
Romney: Here are my numbers.
Obama: Those numbers are wrong.
Romney: Your numbers are wrong.
Obama: No your numbers are wrong.
Romney: No, yours.

Here's a microcosm of the debate:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ROMNEY: No, it can become out of date. And what's happened with some of the legislation that's been passed during the president's term, you've seen regulation become excessive, and it's hurt -- it's hurt the economy. Let me give you an example.

Dodd-Frank was passed. And it includes within it a number of provisions that I think has some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that's been given to -- to New York banks I've ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There've been 122 community and small banks have closed since Dodd- Frank.

So there's one example. Here's another. In Dodd-Frank...

LEHRER: Do you want to repeal Dodd-Frank?

ROMNEY: Well, I would repeal and replace it. We're not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world. You need transparency, you need to have leverage limits for...

LEHRER: Well, here's a specific...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: But let's -- let's mention -- let me mention the other one. Let's talk...

(CROSSTALK)

LEHRER: No, let's not. Let's let him respond -- let's let him respond to this specific on Dodd-Frank and what the governor just said.

OBAMA: I think this is a great example. The reason we have been in such a enormous economic crisis was prompted by reckless behavior across the board.

Now, it wasn't just on Wall Street. You had loan officers were -- that were giving loans and mortgages that really shouldn't have been given, because the folks didn't qualify. You had people who were borrowing money to buy a house that they couldn't afford. You had credit agencies that were stamping these as A1 great investments when they weren't.

But you also had banks making money hand over fist, churning out products that the bankers themselves didn't even understand, in order to make big profits, but knowing that it made the entire system vulnerable.

So what did we do? We stepped in and had the toughest reforms on Wall Street since the 1930s. We said you've got -- banks, you've got to raise your capital requirements. You can't engage in some of this risky behavior that is putting Main Street at risk. We've going to make sure that you've got to have a living will so -- so we can know how you're going to wind things down if you make a bad bet so we don't have other taxpayer bailouts.

OBAMA: In the meantime, by the way, we also made sure that all the help that we provided those banks was paid back every single dime, with interest.

Now, Governor Romney has said he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank.

And, you know, I appreciate and it appears we've got some agreement that a marketplace to work has to have some regulation. But in the past, Governor Romney has said he just want to repeal Dodd- Frank, roll it back.

And so the question is: Does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of Wall Street? Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate. But that's not what I believe.

ROMNEY: Sorry, but that's just not -- that's just not the facts. Look, we have to have regulation on Wall Street. That's why I'd have regulation. But I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That's one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn't thought through properly. We need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks. They're getting hurt.

Let me mention another regulation in Dodd-Frank. You say we were giving mortgages to people who weren't qualified. That's exactly right. It's one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we had. And so Dodd-Frank correctly says we need to have qualified mortgages, and if you give a mortgage that's not qualified, there are big penalties, except they didn't ever go on and define what a qualified mortgage was.

It's been two years. We don't know what a qualified mortgage is yet. So banks are reluctant to make loans, mortgages. Try and get a mortgage these days. It's hurt the housing market because Dodd-Frank didn't anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. It's not that Dodd-Frank always was wrong with too much regulation. Sometimes they didn't come out with a clear regulation.

I will make sure we don't hurt the functioning of our -- of our marketplace and our business, because I want to bring back housing and get good jobs.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz28M2Dc69T

Romney makes his statement about regulation etc. Obama ignores everything romney said and goes into his pre-planned speech, the kind of thing that sounds great to his supporters when he's at a rally "does anyone believe the problem was too much regulation?" etc. He isn't able to counter Romney....why not contest romney's criticism of the dodd-frank act? That's why Romney seemed to get the last word a lot, not because of bullying, but because obama had nothing else to say, because his position was very shallow, and he wasn't up to debating. Call it "keeping calm and saying what he wanted to say" if you want.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The amount of time in itself doesn't mean much. It is obvious that Obama just speaks at a slower rate than Romney does. The problem of structure and not pressing either candidate is directly Lehrer's fault and I can't see why you would think he did a fair job. It was about 25 min or so that Lehrer tries to move on from taxes, claiming that he has already cut out a 15 minute segment due to the candidates taking too much time. Romney just goes right ahead and says "Obama was first to speak, I am going to be the last to speak." and then tries to end on an accusation that Obama can't let go uncontested, and thus the cycle continues and Lehrer just sits there.

Having a long back and forth is nice, but only viable when you have established from the beginning 1 or 2 narrow subjects will be discussed. You can't have a 90 minute debate try to cover both the economy and health care and then try to subdivide each subject into 15 minute chunks. That is what prompts politicians to make fast talking points. If the entire debate was about the economy from the start, more details and nuance and on the spot fact checking can occur and a constructive back and forth will be had.