2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[a completely inoffensive name]

long transcript

But in that segment you posted, Romney is not really saying anything either. Saying three talking points without a plan on how he is going to change that other than "this isn't good." is not really a statement. Obama does a really bad job at replying, no doubt. But no one is really bringing up details. Lehrer lets the 122 community banks number slide without any challenge or follow up.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But in that segment you posted, Romney is not really saying anything either. Saying three talking points without a plan on how he is going to change that other than "this isn't good." is not really a statement. Obama does a really bad job at replying, no doubt. But no one is really bringing up details. Lehrer lets the 122 community banks number slide without any challenge or follow up.

The dodd-frank act is thousands of pages long and the question was a general one about "the level of regulation in the economy". He was asked about principles, the only details were to illustrate. And that's what the debates are for...in fact that's almost the entirety of what we elected someone based on. Because we don't know what's going to happen during the presidency, we don't know what situations are going to come up, we don't know what the legislative debate is going to be like, what will be possible and what won't, we don't even know which party will control the houses. Why do you think a debate is the place for detailed explanatory speeches?

My impression is that the debate was a shocker to a lot of the liberal pundits because they were amazed the president knew better than to use their dumb talking points in place where Romney could reply directly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The dodd-frank act is thousands of pages long and the question was a general one about "the level of regulation in the economy". He was asked about principles, the only details were to illustrate. And that's what the debates are for...in fact that's almost the entirety of what we elected someone based on. Because we don't know what's going to happen during the presidency, we don't know what situations are going to come up, we don't know what the legislative debate is going to be like, what will be possible and what won't, we don't even know which party will control the houses. Why do you think a debate is the place for detailed explanatory speeches?

Because debates are worthless otherwise. We already know their principles Sasaki, we already know what they think in general about X law regarding Y. These are not the subjects that should be the highlight of a debate, because only the most clueless, ignorant, undecided voter has no clue about what each candidate stands for and what his principles are.

But then again, the debates are meant for the undecided in the first place. So maybe you are right.

My impression is that the debate was a shocker to a lot of the liberal pundits because they were amazed the president knew better than to use their dumb talking points in place where Romney could reply directly.

I try not to let my view paint how the debate went, I will admit that Obama did a very terrible job in this debate. However, I think also think it was a failure on some level on everyones part as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because debates are worthless otherwise. We already know their principles Sasaki, we already know what they think in general about X law regarding Y. These are not the subjects that should be the highlight of a debate, because only the most clueless, ignorant, undecided voter has no clue about what each candidate stands for and what his principles are.

But it's not about the candidates saying what their principles are. That's all obama did, and that's why he lost. It's about the candidates challenging each other's principles. Candidates state principles all the time and the question is always "do they mean them?" In their regular speeches they can get away with just rhetoric. The media is supposed to challenge them but does a poor job. In the debate they can challenge each other--"if that's really your principle, then..." etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But it's not about the candidates saying what their principles are. That's all obama did, and that's why he lost. It's about the candidates challenging each other's principles. Candidates state principles all the time and the question is always "do they mean them?" In their regular speeches they can get away with just rhetoric. The media is supposed to challenge them but does a poor job. In the debate they can challenge each other--"if that's really your principle, then..." etc.

The only thing that politicians do when challenging each others principles is rhetoric. This isn't a university class where they are using logical arguments to come to conclusions about why the opponents views on X are bad. What good came out of Romney's attacks on Obama's principles (since Obama didn't do the same in return)? We had more talking points, "death panels" came up again, and some blatant lies in regards to Medicare. How is this a good purpose for debates?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The only thing that politicians do when challenging each others principles is rhetoric. This isn't a university class where they are using logical arguments to come to conclusions about why the opponents views on X are bad. What good came out of Romney's attacks on Obama's principles (since Obama didn't do the same in return)? We had more talking points, "death panels" came up again, and some blatant lies in regards to Medicare. How is this a good purpose for debates?

Obama didn't do the same in turn because he couldn't. That was what was shown and that's the good that came out of it and that's why Romney won.

Obama's bland and sweeping "there's a choice between Republicans who are anti-regulation, and me who thinks that some regulation is good" is shallow and doesn't hold up to contact with reality. Romney doesn't have to say much to counter that, all he has to do is say that he supports some regulation, but that x,y,z of such and such are a failure, and that he knows how to have regulations without failures like that. He actually started with that and then Obama came in with his standard bit as a (non) response. Romney's challenge of Obama is claiming that Obama views regulations in a vague way as a cure all without having the know how to see how they play out--and Obama feeds right into that with his bit of narrative history, with his self-congratulatory "toughest reforms since the 1930's" etc.

It's not "just rhetoric" it's rhetoric getting shown up.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Pure genius.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama didn't do the same in turn because he couldn't. That was what was shown and that's the good that came out of it and that's why Romney won.

That is reading into it too much. If Obama can't perform in the next two debates, then yes I will agree with this. However, one debate does not tell us something as general as that. Romney has had his fair share of stumbles this past 3 months, Obama played it way too soft and way too general because he may have been overconfident in his lead in polls or because he underestimated Romney's skills or any number of reasons.

It's not "just rhetoric" it's rhetoric getting shown up.

With more rhetoric. By my count, I am reading three different fact checking organizations throwing flags all over the field on most of Romney's statements. It is not really showing up some rhetoric if what you are saying is false and only sounds good to begin with.

[drone]

I would love to see a debate PTI-style. Topics on the rundown list, discussion timed with buzzers, and most importantly, a "Stat Boy" that points out the lies the candidates tell.