The First US Presidential Debate Discussion

[~JCGJ~]

How did each candidate do in the debate?

Discuss.

P.S. I didn't think about this until about halfway through the debate tonight, but next week, durring the debate, I will try to be in the chatroom, and I would love to discuss the debate as it happens. Who's up for that?

[ique]

It wasn't a very interesting debate, really.
I guess I'm not sure what to say about it. I wish more was specified in terms of "if I win this election THIS policy will affect THIS and THIS" as opposed to Romney's usual "if I'm elected, I'll create a billion jobs and replace obamacare with my perfect unspecified healthcare plan and everything will be better". This applies to both of them — hearing more specific stuff in debates would be cool, especially because I'm not really interested in politics so if I actually do happen to tune into a debate it would be great if they actually said WHAT they were going to do, literally, so I could at least get a vague idea about their respective plans.
Maybe that's not how these things work. I dunno.

question about something said: why was Romney upset that Obama had put 90 million into green jobs?

Sorry if I seem like I'm picking on Romney; I can't really remember much of anything Obama said. He was kind of boring actually.
If we're going to rate the debate in terms of excitement, Romney was definitely more spirited, but he also said more things that brought up questions for me.

[The Top Crusader]

question about something said: why was Romney upset that Obama had put 90 million into green jobs?

Because they all went bankrupt after we wasted monies on them. >_>

[Sherlock]

I think the lesson to be learned here is that the only really effective retirement plan is to found a solar panel/wind energy company, get the government to inject a few billion, and then quietly skip out to the Caymans before the IRS shows up.

Anyways, I watched the debate. I really, REALLY didn't want to, but it was like taking fish oil: you do it because you think it'll benefit you at some point in the distant future. >_> Anyway, when it came to overall presentation and preparedness, I thought Romney was better on delivery. My impression was that the President seemed like he'd rather be anywhere else on earth than on that stage, though he did seem to sort of warm up towards the end.

On the substantive issues, I thought both candidates were pretty meh. I mean, obviously, you're getting the ultimate spin from both sides, so you really have to take platform statements and campaign promises with a major grain of salt. That said, I liked that Obama mentioned eliminating the tax incentives for offshoring. That's something we should have done long ago. I liked that Romney said we should close the loopholes - again, something we should have done long ago. I liked the mention of cutting PBS funding, though arguably there are a lot of other more wasteful expenditures that should go first. National Endowment for the Arts can get cut until we're solvent, IMO. I don't think a bankrupt nation needs to be throwing millions into cowboy poetry.

On healthcare, I thought they were both terrible, and I think both plans would end up driving up insurance rates and taxes, whether it's Obamacare or Romney's voucher plan. I thought Romney was dumb not to bring up the individual mandate (which would adversely affect a lot of people who already can't afford the cost of insurance), and I thought Obama was dumb not to jump on the Romneycare thing harder, (since it would have forced Romney into a corner on policy). They both lost the opportunity to score any points, and I was left thinking both plans were ill thought out and we'll still have a lot of uninsured people under both.

They both sounded like idiots when it came to education. No one wants to say anything negative about teachers, because there's this stupid assumption in this country that all teachers are 100% competent, so if students aren't learning, it must be because the textbooks are old or kids don't have enough computers. Really. >_> Romney's comment about using the Solyndra money to hire a million teachers was equally idiotic. The answer isn't MORE teachers, it's BETTER teachers. Quality, not quantity. But education is apparently a sacred topic, so both candidates were treading on glass.

Lol, at Romney's slip on "poor" er.... "low-income" people. That was his one gaff, it made him look out of touch, especially since he's already getting criticized for being the out-of-touch rich dude. And lol at Obama's "maybe we should change the subject". I'm going to use that from now on when I don't want to talk about something.

Anyway, enough for now. Just some random jumbled thoughts.

[Kait]

My impression was that the President seemed like he'd rather be anywhere else on earth than on that stage...

Well it WAS his 20th wedding anniversary, after all.

[ique]

Well it WAS his 20th wedding anniversary, after all.

oh wow, that sucks. =(

[Sherlock]

Haha, that's the downside of being the leader of a nation. You have to rearrange your priorities, which I am sure the President was well aware of when he originally signed up for the job.

Nevertheless, the award goes to Al Gore for his altitude theory.

[~JCGJ~]

Who'll join me in the chat room durring the debate tonight?

[Anemone]

Well it WAS his 20th wedding anniversary, after all.

I'm not giving Obama any slack just because it was his wedding anniversary. Romney beat him plain and simple.

[Kait]

Well it WAS his 20th wedding anniversary, after all.

I'm not giving Obama any slack just because it was his wedding anniversary. Romney beat him plain and simple.

I never said Romney didn't beat him. I was specifically replying to Sherlock's statement that Obama looked like he'd rather be anywhere else...no duh. It was a major milestone anniversary! I certainly wouldn't want to be on a debate date with Romney on my 20th Anniversary.

I'm not sure where you get the idea I was implying Obama still won or that it excused his lackluster debate performance.

[Anemone]

Well it WAS his 20th wedding anniversary, after all.

I'm not giving Obama any slack just because it was his wedding anniversary. Romney beat him plain and simple.

I never said Romney didn't beat him. I was specifically replying to Sherlock's statement that Obama looked like he'd rather be anywhere else...no duh. It was a major milestone anniversary! I certainly wouldn't want to be on a debate date with Romney on my 20th Anniversary.

I'm not sure where you get the idea I was implying Obama still won or that it excused his lackluster debate performance.

Let me provided you with a little information on Obama and how dangerous he really is. So, lets clear the air once and for all, and reveal the agenda nobody cares to see. First off, I am most certain that Obama's anniversary had nothing to do with his lack of interest in this nation. He always looks uninterested and almost always dodges the point. Though, I will agree Obama is a good speaker. He's also a fuzzy speaker. If you haven't noticed, during the debate Obama dodged the majority of Romney's attacks, which disturbed me in more ways than one. It is interesting to note that Mitt Romney referred to the constitution and the bill of rights at one point during the debate. Obama in contrast, did not. Again, I was disturbed. It concerns to me that Obama refuses to even mention our founding documents, the backbone of our government. Obama said that he was going to cut the deficit in half. I don't care what they say, this was lie number one. For those who pay attention, it has been four years now and he has done just the opposite by doubling the nations debt!

Here are two, of the multitude, of concerns I have toward Obama: 1. He stands for abortion. Despite what Obama says, a baby is a living human being. I believe that the law says that one must have liable accusations in order to put the accused to death though capital punishment. This question speaks for itself: if we show criminals that type of courtesy, how come we aren't showing the babies, who are the just (NOT criminals), that type of courtesy? The 2nd thing, Obama only stands for same sex marriage, not because he's trying to save the "oppressed," but rather, he only supports it because the gays support him and donate huge amounts of money. Anyone who is willing to compromise marriage, one of the key foundations we Americans celebrate, for just a few votes is a very dangerous person. That only shows you that he's not out to help America - he's out to help his own agenda.

And lastly, people are all mad that jobs are being shipped over seas to China. Jobs are only being shipped over seas because the democrats put so many regulations on businesses that they simply can't get started. Simply put, Obama believes in expanding the government, that it should run everything, and have total control over society. Here's why that's dangerous: "When you have a government that can give you everything you want, you also have a government that can take everything you have." ~Ronald Reagan

[The Top Crusader]

[Kait]

Well it WAS his 20th wedding anniversary, after all.

I'm not giving Obama any slack just because it was his wedding anniversary. Romney beat him plain and simple.

I never said Romney didn't beat him. I was specifically replying to Sherlock's statement that Obama looked like he'd rather be anywhere else...no duh. It was a major milestone anniversary! I certainly wouldn't want to be on a debate date with Romney on my 20th Anniversary.

I'm not sure where you get the idea I was implying Obama still won or that it excused his lackluster debate performance.

Let me provided you with a little information on Obama and how dangerous he really is. So, lets clear the air once and for all, and reveal the agenda nobody cares to see. First off, I am most certain that Obama's anniversary had nothing to do with his lack of interest in this nation. He always looks uninterested and almost always dodges the point. Though, I will agree Obama is a good speaker. He's also a fuzzy speaker. If you haven't noticed, during the debate Obama dodged the majority of Romney's attacks, which disturbed me in more ways than one. It is interesting to note that Mitt Romney referred to the constitution and the bill of rights at one point during the debate. Obama in contrast, did not. Again, I was disturbed. It concerns to me that Obama refuses to even mention our founding documents, the backbone of our government. Obama said that he was going to cut the deficit in half. I don't care what they say, this was lie number one. For those who pay attention, it has been four years now and he has done just the opposite by doubling the nations debt!

Here are two, of the multitude, of concerns I have toward Obama: 1. He stands for abortion. Despite what Obama says, a baby is a living human being. I believe that the law says that one must have liable accusations in order to put the accused to death though capital punishment. This question speaks for itself: if we show criminals that type of courtesy, how come we aren't showing the babies, who are the just (NOT criminals), that type of courtesy? The 2nd thing, Obama only stands for same sex marriage, not because he's trying to save the "oppressed," but rather, he only supports it because the gays support him and donate huge amounts of money. Anyone who is willing to compromise marriage, one of the key foundations we Americans celebrate, for just a few votes is a very dangerous person. That only shows you that he's not out to help America - he's out to help his own agenda.

And lastly, people are all mad that jobs are being shipped over seas to China. Jobs are only being shipped over seas because the democrats put so many regulations on businesses that they simply can't get started. Simply put, Obama believes in expanding the government, that it should run everything, and have total control over society. Here's why that's dangerous: "When you have a government that can give you everything you want, you also have a government that can take everything you have." ~Ronald Reagan

Yeah I'm not even going to reply to all of this.

But I will say that in regards to your first paragraph, that describes every politician, Romeny included. Not just Obama. You just have to be willing to let go of your confirmation bias and stop listening to everything Fox News says in order to see it. And it's pretty hilarious that you are "disturbed" that Obama didn't reference the constitution in a debate. Guess what? Romney hasn't referenced the constitution or bill of rights in every single debate he's taken part of. Nor in every single speech. Just as Obama has referenced the constitution and bill of rights in plenty of his speeches, and probably in plenty of his 2008 debates.

[snubs]

I guess you just like to be irritating, Top. >_>

[snubs]

You are a moron.

Don't call my sister a moron. If you don't have anything of substance to say, don't say anything at all.

[Azariah Ben Yaakov]

Do you believe in the constitution?

[Marvin D.]

Do you believe in tact or politeness Ryan?

[Woody]

You are a moron.

Seriously? That was majorly uncalled for.

[Anemone]

Well it WAS his 20th wedding anniversary, after all.

I'm not giving Obama any slack just because it was his wedding anniversary. Romney beat him plain and simple.

I never said Romney didn't beat him. I was specifically replying to Sherlock's statement that Obama looked like he'd rather be anywhere else...no duh. It was a major milestone anniversary! I certainly wouldn't want to be on a debate date with Romney on my 20th Anniversary.

I'm not sure where you get the idea I was implying Obama still won or that it excused his lackluster debate performance.

Let me provided you with a little information on Obama and how dangerous he really is. So, lets clear the air once and for all, and reveal the agenda nobody cares to see. First off, I am most certain that Obama's anniversary had nothing to do with his lack of interest in this nation. He always looks uninterested and almost always dodges the point. Though, I will agree Obama is a good speaker. He's also a fuzzy speaker. If you haven't noticed, during the debate Obama dodged the majority of Romney's attacks, which disturbed me in more ways than one. It is interesting to note that Mitt Romney referred to the constitution and the bill of rights at one point during the debate. Obama in contrast, did not. Again, I was disturbed. It concerns to me that Obama refuses to even mention our founding documents, the backbone of our government. Obama said that he was going to cut the deficit in half. I don't care what they say, this was lie number one. For those who pay attention, it has been four years now and he has done just the opposite by doubling the nations debt!

Here are two, of the multitude, of concerns I have toward Obama: 1. He stands for abortion. Despite what Obama says, a baby is a living human being. I believe that the law says that one must have liable accusations in order to put the accused to death though capital punishment. This question speaks for itself: if we show criminals that type of courtesy, how come we aren't showing the babies, who are the just (NOT criminals), that type of courtesy? The 2nd thing, Obama only stands for same sex marriage, not because he's trying to save the "oppressed," but rather, he only supports it because the gays support him and donate huge amounts of money. Anyone who is willing to compromise marriage, one of the key foundations we Americans celebrate, for just a few votes is a very dangerous person. That only shows you that he's not out to help America - he's out to help his own agenda.

And lastly, people are all mad that jobs are being shipped over seas to China. Jobs are only being shipped over seas because the democrats put so many regulations on businesses that they simply can't get started. Simply put, Obama believes in expanding the government, that it should run everything, and have total control over society. Here's why that's dangerous: "When you have a government that can give you everything you want, you also have a government that can take everything you have." ~Ronald Reagan

Yeah I'm not even going to reply to all of this.

But I will say that in regards to your first paragraph, that describes every politician, Romeny included. Not just Obama. You just have to be willing to let go of your confirmation bias and stop listening to everything Fox News says in order to see it. And it's pretty hilarious that you are "disturbed" that Obama didn't reference the constitution in a debate. Guess what? Romney hasn't referenced the constitution or bill of rights in every single debate he's taken part of. Nor in every single speech. Just as Obama has referenced the constitution and bill of rights in plenty of his speeches, and probably in plenty of his 2008 debates.

(Note: If you respond to this, I will not respond back. Not because I can't, but because it is meaningless if nobody learns anything. Thank you for replying. It was nice talking/debating with you. I hope you will take the things I have said into account as I have yours. And to all you other people reading this conversation, if you're going to post a comment, have some class by not calling people names.)

First off, I don't get my information from Fox News, because I never watch it. I get my information from the lips of Obama and from the observance of his actions. Meaning, I speak from facts. Secondly, I'm not bias just because I don't like Obama as this nation's president. The word "biased" means to have an unfair preference toward something. I don't have an unfair preference. Everything I've said about Obama is truth. The things I listed previously either came from Obama or were a direct result of his actions. Just because I don't favor Obama doesn't mean I'm biased. America has given him a chance - four years worth. And the fact is, he didn't do a good job. Obama's slogan during his first election was that we need to "change," and I agree, America does need to change. But, the only thing Obama's really changed is this nation's deficit. And that's the truth.

In conclusion, to all you people out there: stop accusing people of being racist or biased just because they don't agree with Obama! I'm not calling you people racist or biased just because you may not like Mitt Romney. So, stop saying that I am! If anything is unfair, it's unfair to reelect someone who as doubled the nations debt, is destroying the integrity of marriage (an institution created by God), doesn't mind putting babies to death, flip-flops his views on Christianity to get a majority vote, and, lastly, someone who thinks expanding government involvement to the four corners of society is a good idea. If anything, to put someone like that back into office is insanity! Complete insanity! And as I said before, putting someone in office who is stuck on expanding the government to all areas of private citizens is not a good idea. I say again, "When you have a government that can give you everything you want, you also have a government that can take everything you have." ~Ronald Reagan

[Kait]

I said you had "confirmation bias" which means that when filtering information, you tend to only see things that already conform to your worldview. Which is exemplified by the example I already gave: "Romney hasn't referenced the constitution or bill of rights in every single debate he's taken part of. Nor in every single speech. Just as Obama has referenced the constitution and bill of rights in plenty of his speeches, and probably in plenty of his 2008 debates." Because you have a particular worldview, your "confirmation bias" tends to only see things that confirm what you already believe. Also, I never called you a racist.