Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,959

09 Oct 2012, 8:33 pm

marshall wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
This is my point of view. I thought Obama was calm, cool and collected. He seemed logical in the things he said. Romney seemed like he was a raging bulldog. Romney seemed like he was very aggressive in his approach. Romney seemed like he did not give any substance to his answers or if he did I did not grasp it and he seemed evasive. Even Obama asked for specifics. From my perspective, Obama won the debates but most people seem to think that Romeny did.

From my point of view, Obama seemed to feel disbelief at what Romeny was saying. To me, Obama was in Shell Shock. Here is another thing. Romney kept interupting the moderator. To me, Obama was trying to follow the rules of the debate laid forth by the moderator named Jim Lehrer. From my perspective, it seemed like Romeny had no regard for the rules of debate whatsoever. Yet the American people see Romeny as presidental and Obama who tried to follow the rules but could not as non-presidental. Why do the American people see Romeny as presidental when he came across to me as an aggressive school yard bully and seemed evasive and deceptive as well? I do not grasp this logic whatsoever. It seemed like he was forceful with his points. Yelling, being a bully, being arrogant and being a bulldog does not make your logic sound and what you say are facts and truth.

Why do Americans see this as being presidental and the hallmark of an excellent statesman? I don't get this. If Romeny has disregard for the rules of the system of debate what other rules does Romney have disregard for? Would this man disregard the constitution? Isn't one of the hallmarks of anti-social personality disorder a gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. Aren't the rules of debate part of our rules, obligations, and social norms? Yet, this man is seen as presidental. How, I ask? How is this man presidental?


Americans think being a belligerent bully makes you a strong leader. I say screw it. Fight fire with fire. Let Alan Grayson sit in for Obama in the debates. He knows how to be an a**hole but unlike Romney or Ryan he can do it while telling the truth and sticking to a position.


I got to get the hell out of this craziness.



Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 09 Oct 2012, 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

09 Oct 2012, 8:52 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Quote:
Obama is just a poor debater and overrated speaker in general. Romney isn't great either but he came in prepared and had the advantage of being able to attack the incumbent's indefensible record. Maybe they were expecting the "conservative" Mitt from the primaries to show up? In the end, Romney and Obama have very little policy differences so the actual substance of the debate doesn't really matter. Perhaps they were going to go after Romney for not giving details and were taken by surprise by Romney rattling them off.


How does being a bulldog and violating the rules of debate make a great debater? This, I do not follow.


I specifically said Romney isn't a great debater, Obama is just a bad one. He doesn't think well on his feet, shies away from confrontation, and show little emotion thus coming off detached. He's just very wooden. The "Obama cool" doesn't come off very well in debates. Romney is good at deflecting attacks and yammers on until the moderator stops him. It's hard to nail the guy down on something since he's changed his position so many times.Obama lost every debate to Hilary too for what it's worth, it's just not a format he's good in.

Romney wasn't the only one breaking the debate "rules" either tho, Obama went over his fair share too. Obama actually had more speaking time IIRC.

Debates rarely inform, it's all just political theater as was previously stated.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,959

09 Oct 2012, 10:00 pm

Quote:
I specifically said Romney isn't a great debater, Obama is just a bad one.


Oh crap!! ! You did. I feel embarrassed. Sorry about that. Sometimes I read faster than I comprehend and process. It's like moving the mouse faster than the computer can read and process. I don't know why I do this.

Quote:
He doesn't think well on his feet, shies away from confrontation, and show little emotion thus coming off detached. He's just very wooden. The "Obama cool" doesn't come off very well in debates. Romney is good at deflecting attacks and yammers on until the moderator stops him. It's hard to nail the guy down on something since he's changed his position so many times.Obama lost every debate to Hilary too for what it's worth, it's just not a format he's good in.


This is where I do not understand people that well. Why must one show emotion and why must one be confrontational? I don't grasp this. Will you please explain.

Quote:
Romney wasn't the only one breaking the debate "rules" either tho, Obama went over his fair share too. Obama actually had more speaking time IIRC.


Yes, but my impression was that it was a reaction to what romney did. The whole thing broke down because of Romney so IMHO Obama couldn't follow the rules anymore.


Quote:
Debates rarely inform, it's all just political theater as was previously stated.


If this is so then why have them? They have no bearing on what the facts are. How does one's theatrics determine facts? What does this tell me? Could I say with passion and intensity that it is raining and people will believe it when it is really sunny?

I feel a high sense of revulsion and contempt at all of the double-speak, emotional manipuation, and deceptions. I feel like doing a head bang right now.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

09 Oct 2012, 11:23 pm

The reason why the 1st debate complete upended the race is due to all the negative ads bashing Romney. Voters were given the impression that Romney was some kind of rich ogre that hated people, but when they saw him during the 1st Debate they instead saw a very reasonable individual that actually cared about people, the $100 million+ ad blitz by Obama fell completely apart in those 90 minutes.



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

09 Oct 2012, 11:53 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
The reason why the 1st debate complete upended the race is due to all the negative ads bashing Romney. Voters were given the impression that Romney was some kind of rich ogre that hated people, but when they saw him during the 1st Debate they instead saw a very reasonable individual that actually cared about people, the $100 million+ ad blitz by Obama fell completely apart in those 90 minutes.


I was wondering when you'd show up to class the thread down. Tell me, do you have any good reason Romney went back on so many of his positions, or is that not in your shill script?


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

10 Oct 2012, 12:53 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Quote:
I specifically said Romney isn't a great debater, Obama is just a bad one.


Oh crap!! ! You did. I feel embarrassed. Sorry about that. Sometimes I read faster than I comprehend and process. It's like moving the mouse faster than the computer can read and process. I don't know why I do this.

Quote:
He doesn't think well on his feet, shies away from confrontation, and show little emotion thus coming off detached. He's just very wooden. The "Obama cool" doesn't come off very well in debates. Romney is good at deflecting attacks and yammers on until the moderator stops him. It's hard to nail the guy down on something since he's changed his position so many times.Obama lost every debate to Hilary too for what it's worth, it's just not a format he's good in.


This is where I do not understand people that well. Why must one show emotion and why must one be confrontational? I don't grasp this. Will you please explain.

Quote:
Romney wasn't the only one breaking the debate "rules" either tho, Obama went over his fair share too. Obama actually had more speaking time IIRC.


Yes, but my impression was that it was a reaction to what romney did. The whole thing broke down because of Romney so IMHO Obama couldn't follow the rules anymore.


Quote:
Debates rarely inform, it's all just political theater as was previously stated.


If this is so then why have them? They have no bearing on what the facts are. How does one's theatrics determine facts? What does this tell me? Could I say with passion and intensity that it is raining and people will believe it when it is really sunny?

I feel a high sense of revulsion and contempt at all of the double-speak, emotional manipuation, and deceptions. I feel like doing a head bang right now.


Well the answer to your first is basically what my last statement there says. It's not about actually informing the public, it's basically a competition of rhetorical skills and body language. They have them because they can change the race but I'm not sure they really provide the public any good 90% of the time.

In 1960 Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy had the first televised debate, people that watched the debate on TV overwhelmingly thought JFK won and people that listened to it on radio thought Richard Nixon won. We celebrate that.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,959

10 Oct 2012, 6:44 am

Inuyasha wrote:
The reason why the 1st debate complete upended the race is due to all the negative ads bashing Romney. Voters were given the impression that Romney was some kind of rich ogre that hated people, but when they saw him during the 1st Debate they instead saw a very reasonable individual that actually cared about people, the $100 million+ ad blitz by Obama fell completely apart in those 90 minutes.


There is only one problem with your logic. I've never seen the anti-Romney nor any anti-obama ads before the debate. My wife and I don't even have a tv at all. We were able to watch it on our computer. How would I have derived this bias, pre-conceived notion, or impression?

Quote:
but when they saw him during the 1st Debate they instead saw a very reasonable individual that actually cared about people,


Inuyasha, how did they see him this way? I saw Romney as an Ogre who was aggressive, a bully, and a bulldog. Do you see him the same way as well. Do other aspies see it the way I see it or is it just me? Why do I see something different that others do not see and vice versa?

When I read the body language and non-verbal language of both of them I see a completely different picture.

This does make me wonder about something about myself. I thought I went on facts alone myself but I think I may go by non-verbal and body language as well but mine is different. Because of these debates I'm going to have to re-think some assumptions I have had of myself and the way I think.



Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 10 Oct 2012, 6:55 am, edited 2 times in total.

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,959

10 Oct 2012, 6:47 am

Jacoby wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Quote:
I specifically said Romney isn't a great debater, Obama is just a bad one.


Oh crap!! ! You did. I feel embarrassed. Sorry about that. Sometimes I read faster than I comprehend and process. It's like moving the mouse faster than the computer can read and process. I don't know why I do this.

Quote:
He doesn't think well on his feet, shies away from confrontation, and show little emotion thus coming off detached. He's just very wooden. The "Obama cool" doesn't come off very well in debates. Romney is good at deflecting attacks and yammers on until the moderator stops him. It's hard to nail the guy down on something since he's changed his position so many times.Obama lost every debate to Hilary too for what it's worth, it's just not a format he's good in.


This is where I do not understand people that well. Why must one show emotion and why must one be confrontational? I don't grasp this. Will you please explain.

Quote:
Romney wasn't the only one breaking the debate "rules" either tho, Obama went over his fair share too. Obama actually had more speaking time IIRC.


Yes, but my impression was that it was a reaction to what romney did. The whole thing broke down because of Romney so IMHO Obama couldn't follow the rules anymore.


Quote:
Debates rarely inform, it's all just political theater as was previously stated.


If this is so then why have them? They have no bearing on what the facts are. How does one's theatrics determine facts? What does this tell me? Could I say with passion and intensity that it is raining and people will believe it when it is really sunny?

I feel a high sense of revulsion and contempt at all of the double-speak, emotional manipuation, and deceptions. I feel like doing a head bang right now.


Well the answer to your first is basically what my last statement there says. It's not about actually informing the public, it's basically a competition of rhetorical skills and body language. They have them because they can change the race but I'm not sure they really provide the public any good 90% of the time.

In 1960 Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy had the first televised debate, people that watched the debate on TV overwhelmingly thought JFK won and people that listened to it on radio thought Richard Nixon won. We celebrate that.


Why does this competition exist? Why does the political theatre exist? What is its purpose? This is what I am asking.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 121
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

12 Oct 2012, 8:33 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92BsgpJrzbU&feature=g-all-u[/youtube]



g2
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 216

12 Oct 2012, 9:17 pm

Don't set much store by the debates, as said, political theater. Obama didn't seem well prepared, Romney did. Didn't change my opinions at all.



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

13 Oct 2012, 4:59 am

This election is like a bad movie that doesn't end. Then again, most elections are like that.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Oct 2012, 5:56 am

The next presidential debate will take the form of a town hall meeting, which is more of Obama's style. I suspect things are going to go the President's way this time.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Oct 2012, 6:02 am

Inuyasha wrote:
The reason why the 1st debate complete upended the race is due to all the negative ads bashing Romney. Voters were given the impression that Romney was some kind of rich ogre that hated people, but when they saw him during the 1st Debate they instead saw a very reasonable individual that actually cared about people, the $100 million+ ad blitz by Obama fell completely apart in those 90 minutes.


Romney didn't need any negative adds from Obama to make him look like a rich, hateful ogre. That he accomplished more than enough on his own with that cell phone recording during that private meeting with his rich buddies, when he said he wasn't going to represent the half of the country who are made up of the poor, the disabled, the elderly, etc.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

13 Oct 2012, 8:40 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
The next presidential debate will take the form of a town hall meeting, which is more of Obama's style. I suspect things are going to go the President's way this time.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I agree it's more his style but it's a format that I think will be tough to reverse the momentum of the race on. It's going to be on foreign policy which isn't very relevant to most voters right now and town hall meetings don't lend themselves to back and fourths. They'll be answering questions from the audience so they'll likely won't just talk over the moderator or interrupt each other, at least if the candidates are smart they won't since that alone could lose them the debate. It appears right now that election day is going to be very close so I think the plan will be more to maintain what they have and not take any undue risks.

Obama should have the advantage on foreign policy since the American public agrees with the lip service he pays to being against war over the completely discredited ideology that is neoconservatism.