***Official Presidential Debate thread - Part II****

[SUXBNME 1,583]

How about something from a source I've heard of? You know, for the sake of credibility.

Why are you even wasting your time with him or the Honcho chick?

 

At least Worms, MDC or any of our resident Franks can engage in a decent / better computer ink* debate than these two fish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* - Nikki coined term. For me, at least.

[mmmmm...beer 814]

So Romney's lowest point in the dabate is when the moderator focking opened her fat focking mouth and lied for the president.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs

 

Oh... uhh sorry I lied... even though the focking damage was done. WTF? It's them talking... why the fock are you even opening your hole at that moment? Also someone post that video and make it work.

[Reality 3,121]

So Romney's lowest point in the dabate is when the moderator focking opened her fat focking mouth and lied for the president.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs

 

Oh... uhh sorry I lied... even though the focking damage was done. WTF? It's them talking... why the fock are you even opening your hole at that moment? Also someone post that video and make it work.

 

Agreed, the damage was done. Pretty focked up actually.

[Gepetto 1,417]

It's because she and CNN want Obama to be elected for another 4 years. Completely liberal biased news station.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Apparently Jon Kerry has been playing Romney in practice. I guess they looked around and said "where can we find an empty suit rich d-bag stiff impesonator... oh wait..."

[SUXBNME 1,583]

It's because she and CNN want Obama to be elected for another 4 years. Completely liberal biased news station.

Meh...CNN is a hell of a lot closer to the middle ground then MSNBC.

Plus, I might be wrong on this, but I thought that Romney knew who the mods would be (and said no problem)a long time ago.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Crowley NOW says she was wrong on her Libya remark to save her cred.

 

I will also say that On Libya Romney blew it!!!!! He had a big opening and allowed himself to be thrown by Obama's Rose Garden comment he totally missed a GIANT chance -- I think that was where he "lost" the debate and Crowley helped him.

 

When did Crowley say she was wrong? I mean, he DID call it an act of terrorism. Watch the video yourself:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi

 

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

 

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

[mmmmm...beer 814]

When did Crowley say she was wrong? I mean, he DID call it an act of terrorism. Watch the video yourself:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs

[IGotWorms 4,060]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=athcyCTnTTs

 

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/cnns-candy-crowley-on-moderating-second-presidential-debate/

 

Both are true. Obama did say it was an act of terrorism. But he didn't say for two weeks that there wasn't a riot outside of the embassy, which Crowley also acknowledged.

 

But the main point, and the one the president got a slam dunk on, is that it's shameful to try to score political points in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of a terrorist attack, when the nation should be presenting a united front to its enemies.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,538]

What cracked me up the most was the two differences in CNN and Fox's immediate after coverage of who won, who lost, and truth/fact finders report. When they both discussed the oil comments from each candidate, Fox put up the fact that Obama signed oil and gas leases were down a third under the last three years during Obama's stint compared Bush's last three years, CNN pointed to facts that oil and gas production was up under less leased land compared to Bush's last three years.

 

That's all you need to know about both channels and the fact that the media is so fawked up that they feel the need to protect either dooshes in the aftermath of a good debate.

 

Pathetic and sad by all accounts. The media has failed and fallen. Fawking shame.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

What cracked me up the most was the two differences in CNN and Fox's immediate after coverage of who won, who lost, and truth/fact finders report. When they both discussed the oil comments from each candidate, Fox put up the fact that Obama signed oil and gas leases were down a third under the last three years during Obama's stint compared Bush's last three years, CNN pointed to facts that oil and gas production was up under less leased land compared to Bush's last three years.

 

That's all you need to know about both channels and the fact that the media is so fawked up that they feel the need to protect either dooshes in the aftermath of a good debate.

 

Pathetic and sad by all accounts. The media has failed and fallen. Fawking shame.

 

It's been that way for years now. They don't even try to be objective anymore. You've got Fox News on one side and then MSNBC on the other. And you think I would like MSNBC, but no, I don't. I'll flip to it every now and then and they've got focking Al Sharpton on there. AL SHARPTON. Are you kidding me? Talk about total lack of credibility.

 

There was a time that you absolutely were not allowed to look biased in the media. Now liberals and conservatives have their own "news" channels. I agree, it's a sad state.

[naomi 360]

Yeah Crowley didn't say she was wrong but conceded (in effect) that she shouldn't have interjected. If I remember right Obama sort of prompted her to after he observed that she was looking through her notes and may actually have a specific enough idea of what was said, so I do understand why in the heat of the moment she wound up chiming in.

 

That youtube video cuts off before the meat of what she says:

 

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Yeah Crowley didn't say she was wrong but conceded (in effect) that she shouldn't have interjected. If I remember right Obama sort of prompted her to after he observed that she was looking through her notes and may actually have a specific enough idea of what was said, so I do understand why in the heat of the moment she felt compelled to chime in.

 

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. She went on to say that her instinct forced her to correct Romney even though his “thrust” was correct.

 

I think it's unfortunate that she interjected, because now people are going to get all bogged down in this while missing the broader point, which is that it does not be-fit a man who wants to be commander-in-chief to try to score political points from a terrorist attack on the very same day said attack occurred. That's not what you do. Imagine if democrats had been out there on the day of 9/11 saying Bush dropped the ball.

[Strike 5,846]

I think it's unfortunate that she interjected, because now people are going to get all bogged down in this while missing the broader point, which is that it does not be-fit a man who wants to be commander-in-chief to try to score political points from a terrorist attack on the very same day said attack occurred. That's not what you do. Imagine if democrats had been out there on the day of 9/11 saying Bush dropped the ball.

 

You have to be kidding me. What do you think the two week cover up of the terrorist links to the Libya incident were? They were a political move.

[naomi 360]

I think it's unfortunate that she interjected, because now people are going to get all bogged down in this while missing the broader point, which is that it does not be-fit a man who wants to be commander-in-chief to try to score political points from a terrorist attack on the very same day said attack occurred. That's not what you do. Imagine if democrats had been out there on the day of 9/11 saying Bush dropped the ball.

 

I think what I saw from Romney was actually the day after, but I agree there. It was off putting.

 

It's an interesting discussion why the idea that an anti-America protest-spawned attack because of the anti-Islam video was forwarded, which is where Romney was going with his larger point.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,538]

I think it's unfortunate that she interjected, because now people are going to get all bogged down in this while missing the broader point, which is that it does not be-fit a man who wants to be commander-in-chief to try to score political points from a terrorist attack on the very same day said attack occurred. That's not what you do. Imagine if democrats had been out there on the day of 9/11 saying Bush dropped the ball.

 

What's "unfortunate" is that she was allowed to host and moderate a debate in which she has a vested interest in.

 

Too funny.

[drobeski 3,061]

I think it's unfortunate that she interjected, because now people are going to get all bogged down in this while missing the broader point, which is that it does not be-fit a man who wants to be commander-in-chief to try to score political points from a terrorist attack on the very same day said attack occurred. That's not what you do. Imagine if democrats had been out there on the day of 9/11 saying Bush dropped the ball.

So creating and running with a blatant lie is not a political move ?

[Mike Honcho 5,345]

Why are you even wasting your time with him or the Honcho chick?

 

At least Worms, MDC or any of our resident Franks can engage in a decent / better computer ink* debate than these two fish.

 

 

 

* - Nikki coined term. For me, at least.

 

Why are you quoting Strike replying to Don and bringing up my name, are you drunk?

[Gandalfs Fireworks 2]

I'm calling collusion on that part of the debate where Romney was ripping Obama on the Libya embassy attack and the moderator broke in and contradicted Romney and had that transcript of Obama's press conference. They (Obama and Crowley) had that planned in advance and therefore the entire debate is a fcking sham.

 

Why the F would that chick have had a transcript? Did you seee how fast Obama went to her with "Go to the transcript Candy"?!!?

 

No doubt in my mind they worked that out in advance.

[drobeski 3,061]

I'm calling collusion on that part of the debate where Romney was ripping Obama on the Libya embassy attack and the moderator broke in and contradicted Romney and had that transcript of Obama's press conference. They (Obama and Crowley) had that planned in advance and therefore the entire debate is a fcking sham.

 

Why the F would that chick have had a transcript? Did you seee how fast Obama went to her with "Go to the transcript Candy"?!!?

 

No doubt in my mind they worked that out in advance.

[Bert 1,128]

I broke down and actually watched this abortion. The idiot moderator was the only thing worse than these two 13 year old jack offs talking over each other.

 

If you think either Romney or Obama won this debate you are ignorant or blinded by bias. We are so screwed.

[MDC 7,652]

[kutulu 1,692]

I'm calling collusion on that part of the debate where Romney was ripping Obama on the Libya embassy attack and the moderator broke in and contradicted Romney and had that transcript of Obama's press conference. They (Obama and Crowley) had that planned in advance and therefore the entire debate is a fcking sham.

 

Why the F would that chick have had a transcript? Did you seee how fast Obama went to her with "Go to the transcript Candy"?!!?

 

No doubt in my mind they worked that out in advance.

 

They planted the guy who asked the question in the first place, as well.

[MDC 7,652]

They planted the guy who asked the question in the first place, as well.

 

Hofstra University is also a movie stage donated by Hollyweird to help Obummer.

[JT 137]

What's "unfortunate" is that she was allowed to host and moderate a debate in which she has a vested interest in.

 

Too funny.

 

Who doesn't have a vested interest in who becomes the next President?

[NewbieJr 541]

Republicans are hilarious!!!! They think the whole world is stacked against them. They have an excuse for everything. Gotta love a good inferiority complex.

[Bert 1,128]

Republicans are hilarious!!!! They think the whole world is stacked against them. They have an excuse for everything. Gotta love a good inferiority complex.

 

Republicans = the entire media is against me!

 

Democrats = its all Bush's fault!

[KSB2424 3,153]

What I find troubling is that everyone is talking about two things: which guy 'won' or who 'lost' or they are talking the moderator and her stupid injection into the debate. Hardly anyone is talking about what exactly they said and if it made sense, if it was accurate and if it struck a chord with the voting public. I understand why, but its unfortunate.

 

Romney, just like last debate was prepared, spoke well, answered the questions asked and more than held his own. I didn't like when he got into uber agressive mode and kept asking Obama direct questions. That didn't come off well and I would prefer if Romney would have not been that agressive. Other than those two or three instances, Romney did great if you are strictly looking at how he performed in that debate. When a question was asked, he walked to the middle and answered the question very well. You may not agree with the answer or think he's fudging numbers or whatever but he was prepared and did well.

 

Obama commanded the stage much better this time. He was more engaged and looked more like the Obama of 08' than two weeks ago. He seemed to not get quite as into the pissing match or personal attack as Romney did which is what I liked. He also took personal accountablitly for Lybia which I admired (even though he didn't answer the guys question). What I didn't like is what I just said, Obama seemed to use the peoples question to make general comments on the topic of the question, not actually answer the question which I found rather annoying while watching.

 

In the end neither told us anything about themselves earth shattering. I don't think (on a macro level) last night really moved the needle for either candidate much at all. It was entertaining, but a draw or split decision at best.

[kutulu 1,692]

What I didn't like is what I just said, Obama seemed to use the peoples question to make general comments on the topic of the question, not actually answer the question which I found rather annoying while watching.

 

I think they both did this and wasn't surprised at all that they did.

[MDC 7,652]

What I didn't like is what I just said, Obama seemed to use the peoples question to make general comments on the topic of the question, not actually answer the question which I found rather annoying while watching.

 

I thought both candidates did this nonstop all night long.

 

The townhouse style really sucked, since the candidates generally know the kinds of questions they're going to be asked and prepared canned little speeches as a reply. Either that or just disregard the question and say what they wanted to say anyway.

 

My favorite was at the end when some guy said "I think this is a really tough question" before asking the candidates how they feel they've been mischaracterized by their opponent.

 

Good question pal! How about asking them why they'd make such an awesome president next time? That might be a real stumper.

 

I found this debate entertaining but didn't really learn much of anything I didn't already know.

[KSB2424 3,153]

My favorite was at the end when some guy said "I think this is a really tough question" before asking the candidates how they feel they've been mischaracterized by their opponent.

 

Good question pal! How about asking them why they'd make such an awesome president next time? That might be a real stumper.

Those people asking the question were so freaking nervous. The one lady called Romney "Mr.President". The others couldn't look them in the eyes and were trembling. It was tough to watch. I'm not knocking them as hell, I'd be nervous too knowing I was on like 36 news chanells live and a billion people were watching but it still made me giggle a bit.

[Cruzer 1,995]

The President came out swinging and he was better. Of course outside of not showing up at all, it would of been damn near impossible to not be better considering how dreadful he was in PDI. Given the fact Romney spoke less minutes than the Prez and given the fact the he did not have Crowley in his back pocket too I thought he did ok. In fact, as he did in the first debate - Romney came off more Presidential, least to me.... Totally on board with all who say it's frustrating hearing the candidates not address questions directly. I do not need a side story or sentimental passage to ease me into your response - just answer the damn question..... Romney wiffed on a large ass softball with the Lybia standoff - instead of hitting it out of the park you fouled it off of your ass... At the end of the day (as it was last night) it's going to remain hard for the President to run away from what he's done with and the current state of the economy - and now Lybia. I still think he has a slight edge, but the once slam dunk win is now going to go down to the wire.

[MDC 7,652]

The President came out swinging and he was better. Of course outside of not showing up at all, it would of been damn near impossible to not be better considering how dreadful he was in PDI. Given the fact Romney spoke less minutes than the Prez and given the fact the he did not have Crowley in his back pocket too I thought he did ok. In fact, as he did in the first debate - Romney came off more Presidential, least to me.... Totally on board with all who say it's frustrating hearing the candidates not address questions directly. I do not need a side story or sentimental passage to ease me into your response - just answer the damn question..... Romney wiffed on a large ass softball with the Lybia standoff - instead of hitting it out of the park you fouled it off of your ass... At the end of the day (as it was last night) it's going to remain hard for the President to run away from what he's done with and the current state of the economy - and now Lybia. I still think he has a slight edge, but the once slam dunk win is now going to go down to the wire.

 

The economy - sure.

 

I really don't think there's a whole lot to the Libya story. Nobody thinks Obummer personally denied security requests so at the absolute worst, someone in his admin is guilty of negligence and the White House was dishonest about what happened. We're so used to casualties overseas at this point that the attack I just don't see this shocking anyone outside of Republican partisans who are trying very hard to make hay.

 

Maybe I'm wrong about this, it just seems like an issue that very few people care about but Fox and Romney won't let it go.

[OilFieldTrash 0]

Why wasn't the fed printing money brought up?!

[JTB 52]

Philly mention this earlier, Romney had a bit of Biden in his delivery last night.

 

Romney seemed to aggressive for me. He always needed to get the last word in (like a child) and I didn't care for that at all.

 

Now, with that said, I can see why and how Romney has been so successful in life. The same aggressivness I didn't like is what made his so successful.

[MDC 7,652]

Philly mention this earlier, Romney had a bit of Biden in his delivery last night.

 

Romney seemed to aggressive for me. He always needed to get the last word in (like a child) and I didn't care for that at all.

 

Now, with that said, I can see why and how Romney has been so successful in life. The same aggressivness I didn't like is what made his so successful.

 

Romney recovered through the middle / end but he looked flustered and sort of hyper / desperate early on. Unfortunately for him I'm guessing most viewers form their lasting impression of a debate based on the first 30 minutes or so. He ended pretty badly too with his "100 percent" line. Why remind voters of the thing you said that made you sound like a d1ck? It wasn't a homerun for Obummer by any stretch but Romney didn't help himself @ all.

[cbfalcon 827]

The economy - sure.

 

I really don't think there's a whole lot to the Libya story. Nobody thinks Obummer personally denied security requests so at the absolute worst, someone in his admin is guilty of negligence and the White House was dishonest about what happened. We're so used to casualties overseas at this point that the attack I just don't see this shocking anyone outside of Republican partisans who are trying very hard to make hay.

 

Maybe I'm wrong about this, it just seems like an issue that very few people care about but Fox and Romney won't let it go.

 

My thoughts on Benghazi as someone that has paid very little attention to the story until the past 2-3 days:

 

If more security was requested (as it apparently was), then the administration needs to answer as to why that request wasn't approved. I assume the answer will be related to budgets and spending and that they can't approve every request, and I'm fine with that. But they still should be forced to give an answer as where to spend our money is a big part of this election. If Romney wants to say "See, I want to increase defense spending and if I were president, they would have received the extra security requested." then that's the type of information the public needs.

 

However, this issue about whether or not the administration knew immediately that this was organized terrorism as oppose to a demonstration gone out of control? And the "cover up" where the administration isn't clear on which it was and what it knew and when? Not an issue at all to me. I don't hold it against any administration that they didn't know all the details, motives, etc 24 hours after the attacks in the Rose Garden. And in general, I don't see how it being a terrorist act vs a demonstration hurts the administration. At least not in my eyes. Bad stuff happens, it takes awhile to sort it out, and if the message gets confused or some of the info is flat out held back from the public, then I am cool with that in matters related to national security and whatnot.

 

[KSB2424 3,153]

Philly mention this earlier, Romney had a bit of Biden in his delivery last night.

 

Romney seemed to aggressive for me. He always needed to get the last word in (like a child) and I didn't care for that at all.

 

Now, with that said, I can see why and how Romney has been so successful in life. The same aggressivness I didn't like is what made his so successful.

It's because the reaction to the first debate was all about how Romney was more agressive. He was applauded for it. Then Biden took note and he was uber agressive in the VP debate. So both Obama and Romney took more notes. Obama ramped it up and Romney ramped it even more up to where it became rather uncomfortable at times.

 

I think we hit the mark last night of to much agressivness. Biden was teetering on it and Romney hit it last night. It's good to be agressive and make your points but there is a point of diminishing returns when you take it to far. Hopefully the next debate will level out where both are really engaged yet respectful.

[Cruzer 1,995]

Maybe I'm wrong about this, it just seems like an issue that very few people care about but Fox and Romney won't let it go.

I don't know, maybe. But the topic was brought up last night, in a town hall debate, by an undecided voter. The woman stated her name as Kerry Ladka and said, "This question actually comes from a brain trust of my

friends at Global Telecom Supply in Minneola yesterday." No affiliation mentioned of working for Fox News or being employed by the Romney team - so if it is on her mind and her co-workers are talking about it, it must be more of a concern than just with the two mentioned.

[KSB2424 3,153]

My thoughts on Benghazi as someone that has paid very little attention to the story until the past 2-3 days:

 

If more security was requested (as it apparently was), then the administration needs to answer as to why that request wasn't approved. I assume the answer will be related to budgets and spending and that they can't approve every request, and I'm fine with that. But they still should be forced to give an answer as where to spend our money is a big part of this election. If Romney wants to say "See, I want to increase defense spending and if I were president, they would have received the extra security requested." then that's the type of information the public needs.

 

However, this issue about whether or not the administration knew immediately that this was organized terrorism as oppose to a demonstration gone out of control? And the "cover up" where the administration isn't clear on which it was and what it knew and when? Not an issue at all to me. I don't hold it against any administration that they didn't know all the details, motives, etc 24 hours after the attacks in the Rose Garden. And in general, I don't see how it being a terrorist act vs a demonstration hurts the administration. At least not in my eyes. Bad stuff happens, it takes awhile to sort it out, and if the message gets confused or some of the info is flat out held back from the public, then I am cool with that in matters related to national security and whatnot.

 

 

Pretty much spot on.