Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As the self-appointed political moderator of SVR, I encourage you all to participate in this immediate analysis of the points and counterpoints during the first of 3 Presidential Debates starring President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Who won?? Who lost?? Was your vote swayed or confirmed?? Who do you trust more to lead the United States for the next 4 years?? And who said a whole lot of nothing but smoke and mirrors??

Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)

The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

Available online just click below
==> Live Stream @ 8pm
Speak your unbiased and uncensored opinions in SVR's first...



Nexus242
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
Point of Information and Objection: I heard a CBC story last night about the Presidential Debate Commission. Sounds official, don't it? "Commission" sounds governmental, dudn't it? It ain't. It's really a pretty nifty takeover of what the League of Women Voters used to organize independently. But it's really a cabal between the Democratic and Republican parties whose goal seems to be the maintenance of shared power between, (you guessed it) the Republican and Democratic parties. They negotiate format terms to exercise control over what gets asked, (e.g. moderator has to screen all "town hall" questions from audience members) how confronational the candidates are allowed to be (direct questions of each other? No thank you.) etc. It's not quite scripted, but there are no third party candidates allowed into the debate club. So there will be no topics of questions which the candidates' campaigns have not pre-approved. One might argue that the agreement between the parties itself is a violation of the Sherman Act.

It is, like many things about our poliitcal process, a simulacrum of democracy, not democracy in action.

[Oh, and apropos of the pic: "Jeff, you ignorant s l u t !":lmao:]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Yes it will be interesting to see the debate, I'll be watching it tomorrow due to work however it's almost like an open book test for the two. Both will know nearly all the questions that will be asked with only the follow up questions spurred by the initial questions answers to be unknown.

I don't think this will be a debate of answers but more of catchy one liners, facial expressions and looks of discomfort. I'd say the coaching and debate prep going on in both camps rivals that of the best acting coaches in Hollywood. But a winner will be declared by both parties and neither will be the same person.











@Fatass -
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,333 Posts
I understand a couple sponsors pulled out cause they didn't include Gary Johnson
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
I understand a couple sponsors pulled out cause they didn't include Gary Johnson
Ther person who was interviewed on the CBC show I heard was with a group that;s been complaining about the closed debate process for a while. Their efforts have resulted in some sponsors withdrawing.
 

·
MOTORADOR
Joined
·
10,954 Posts
Try to watch this without laughing

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,333 Posts
I'll watch parts of it, catch up on it with NPR in the morning (yes, I'm a closet liberal), but I'd be more inclined to watch it if it were more like the debate from Man of the Year.
I was listening to NPR on my way home in my truck and learned about this


they were also interviewing someone that had recorded clips of both candidates TV adds and both Romney & Obama are saying the same things word for word almost
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,108 Posts
I watched but missed a few minutes here and there. Overall, I thought Romney did an excellent job of creating the impression that Obama has failed to dramatically improve the economy in the last four years and will be perceived to have "won" the debate. Obama seemed tired and bored, unenthusiastically highlighted his significant accomplishments, and failed to address several important allegations that required explanations, as in the case of Medicare cuts and Romney's overstatement of the number of unemployed. Obama scored on the issue of Romney's lack of specifics but was kind of tepid in taking him to task on the math of his tax proposal. Overall, probably a win for Romney, clearly the aggressor, and will likely give him a boost in the national polls.

The debate certainly did not change my intent to vote for Obama despite his weak performance last night. I think he has done an excellent job under the circumstances and deserves another term.
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
I thought Romney was successful at looking at-ease, competent and human. Apparently standing next to another Harvard J.D. makes Mitt feel more at ease than standing next to the line of loonies he shared the stage with during the "Let him die!" Republican primary debates.

Obama spent the debate biting his lip. I never heard about "47%" or Republican obstructionsim. It will be interesting to see whether he lands a few body blows during the next debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
I want to see a real debate, where they counter what the other has said with their personal beliefs/knowledge. What I saw last night was two guys reiterating a bunch of talking points we've all heard a dozen times already this week. He says I want to do this, but that's not true. He said I did that, but that's not true. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

That, or I'd settle for a shouting match, followed by sudden death overtime with whatever mystery weapons were hidden in their podiums ahead of time. :magpie:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,333 Posts
I want to see a real debate
you won't, as long as the "Presidential Debate Commission" (read Democrat/Republican organization to prohibit 3rd parties and only have scripted and agreed questions & issues) runs the debates

it was bad enuf when League of Women Voters was running the debates, now its a total joke and waste of time & money

tweedle dee, tweedle DUMB, listen to a Romney ad or Obama ad, they both say the same thing word for word

we need to create more jobs
we need to sell more products overseas
we need more affordable healthcare
we need to reduce the federal debt

what did I miss
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Reviewing the debate as I type and having read some reviews and news stories (from the main stream liberal media) it would seem clear that Romney was sharp and well prepped on the topics. His recent GOP debates have given him some good training points and skills that Obama hasn't had in over 4 years. They both had prep "real life" examples of how each other is negatively effecting the country and economy.

Romney is speaking about what he wants to do to do this and create that and replace that but I think he's under the assumption that if he is elected the next 4 years will be a cake walk where he'll get the support from the Democrats on all his plans and bills.

I think Obama scored the most points and best hits when his went after the specifics in Romneys plans. There seemed to be a lack of substance and actionable plans in what Romney says he'll do or when it will be done.

I'd like to hope that at some point a free form and unscripted debate format can happen. As being well prepped with all the talking points and rehearsed answers isn't how being a real President works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
But it's really a cabal between the Democratic and Republican parties whose goal seems to be the maintenance of shared power between,
Agreed. Just don't forget to include media in this little charade.

I understand a couple sponsors pulled out cause they didn't include Gary Johnson
Well, the instituted a rule years ago to prohibit any candidate not polling at least 20% (or was it 15%... I forget now) in the national polls. Ross Perot is the only guy who has been able to force his way into one in ages.

This is where the media is complicit, though. The media refuses to cover anybody who's not one of the big two. It's not journalism's job to decide who can and cannot win an election. And, not giving ALL candidates in any race that the media is covering equal time is a violation of current federal law.

Now, you could argue that the government has no authority to impose such a law, and you'd be correct. But, the law is in effect none the less yet goes unenforced election after election unless one of the two main parties cries foul.

Unless the two parties are getting together and BUYING the TV time and running it as a political advertisement, then the media has an obligation to include all candidates running for that office, both in coverage and in debate time.

I thought Romney was successful at looking at-ease, competent and human. Apparently standing next to another Harvard J.D. makes Mitt feel more at ease than standing next to the line of loonies he shared the stage with during the "Let him die!" Republican primary debates.
Well, I could just as easily argue that it's more intimidating sharing the stage with people who have actually accomplished something in their lives.

I'm not familiar with the "let him die!" comment though. Could you elaborate, please?

Obama spent the debate biting his lip. I never heard about "47%" or Republican obstructionsim. It will be interesting to see whether he lands a few body blows during the next debate.
Neither is in his best interests. Ever since the Romney tape came out there have been a number of audio and video tapes of Obama saying things just as bad. It's why the media has more or less dropped the story.

And, ever since the Univision group slammed Obama for trying to use Republican obstructionism as an excuse for not keeping his promises to Latinos they've been pretty careful about how much they use that. It's too easily refuted.

I want to see a real debate, where they counter what the other has said with their personal beliefs/knowledge. What I saw last night was two guys reiterating a bunch of talking points we've all heard a dozen times already this week. He says I want to do this, but that's not true. He said I did that, but that's not true. BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Sadly, this is what debates have become. The moderators don't bother to ask anything that hasn't been in their talking points, so talking point responses is all you get.

The problem for Obama is that his talking points don't get challenged by media. He's been given a virtual free ride by the press for the last 8 years and he clearly doesn't respond well to criticism. We've seen numerous examples of that during town halls and last night was no different.

He knew enough to try and avoid being snippy, which is his typical response to being challenged, but he replaced snippiness with crawling into a corner.

When a candidate tells a moderator to move on to another subject, you know it's not going well.
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
I'm not familiar with the "let him die!" comment though. Could you elaborate, please?
During one of the debates the moderator posed a healthcare access/funding question about a young man in a hospital with no insurance. The moderator asked Ron paul if he'd just let hin die, as Paul was saying "well . . no . . . " someone in the audience shouted "yeah!" and received a loud cheer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,333 Posts
Agreed. Just don't forget to include media in this little charade.



Well, the instituted a rule years ago to prohibit any candidate

????

the rule was not instituted by anyone

the "Presidential Debate Commission" has nothing to do with the federal government, it is a private organization (much like a super pac) made up exclusively of the Democratic and Republican parties to promote the two party system

air time for the debates is purchased by the Democrat & Republican parties

Ross Perot bought his way into the debate

before 1987, the debates were run by the League of Women Voters, Wallace was in the debates in 1968, Anderson was in the debates in 1980


3rd parties don't show in the polls cause their names are not included in the polls. when a pollster calls your house and asks who you favor, they give you 3 choices, Romney, Obama and Undecided, when you tell them your for Johnson, they pretend they've never heard of him
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
During one of the debates the moderator posed a healthcare access/funding question about a young man in a hospital with no insurance. The moderator asked Ron paul if he'd just let hin die, as Paul was saying "well . . no . . . " someone in the audience shouted "yeah!" and received a loud cheer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao
Ahh, ok. I do remember that debate where Paul was asked that. Didn't remember the crowd reaction, though.

Not sure what that had to do with the candidates, though.

????

the rule was not instituted by anyone

the "Presidential Debate Commission" has nothing to do with the federal government, it is a private organization (much like a super pac) made up exclusively of the Democratic and Republican parties to promote the two party system
Understood. My point is that they were getting a lot of criticism because they didn't plan to let Perot take part in the 92 election. How Perot got into the mix I can't say other than the fact that for at least part of the race he was leading in the polls over either Bush or Clinton.

4 years later, when Perot decided to run again, he was only polling at about 12%. They stated that the debates would be closed to anybody who wasn't polling at least 15%, knowing that the odds of it happening again weren't good.

My real point, though, was that it's a promise they'll never have to worry about keeping because the news media doesn't uphold the law to provide equal time to all candidates in their news broadcasts.

So, unless you are somebody like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader or Donald Trump... people who have the pubic clout and/or cash to force their way in, you're never going to get anywhere.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,333 Posts
Ahh, ok. I do remember that debate where Paul was asked that. Didn't remember the crowd reaction, though.

Not sure what that had to do with the candidates, though.



Understood. My point is that they were getting a lot of criticism because they didn't plan to let Perot take part in the 92 election. How Perot got into the mix I can't say other than the fact that for at least part of the race he was leading in the polls over either Bush or Clinton.

4 years later, when Perot decided to run again, he was only polling at about 12%. They stated that the debates would be closed to anybody who wasn't polling at least 15%, knowing that the odds of it happening again weren't good.

My real point, though, was that it's a promise they'll never have to worry about keeping because the news media doesn't uphold the law to provide equal time to all candidates in their news broadcasts.

So, unless you are somebody like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader or Donald Trump... people who have the pubic clout and/or cash to force their way in, you're never going to get anywhere.
Perot had no party = no threat to 2 party system, and he had a LOT of money


Polls lie, they are only as valid as the skewed questions they ask, I can understand, not listing every obscure 3rd party candidate in a poll, they don't even ask if your gonna vote "other" than one of the 2 parties
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
I made the same comment about polls in one of the other threads a couple of days ago. I wasn't suggesting they mean anything, I was simply saying that the parties created a litmus test for inclusion that they knew very few people could meet.

Again, the parties can do whatever they want. My problem, and the point I was making all along, is that the media is complicit in the scam.

There aren't that many people running for President. You're lucky you if you have more than 2 or 3 choices beyond the two main party candidates in any election cycle. They have no valid reason to exclude coverage on anybody. They simply choose to because their own personal views are already represented by one of the two parties.

Now, some might fear that if the media doesn't do what the two parties want that they'll get shut out of the process. That has to be, by far, the most absurd reason they could possibly come up with.

Media is the life's blood of politics. You can only buy so much time. Both parties rely heavily on the news media to get their message out.

It always amazes me the extent to which the media realizes it has the power to shape an election and then throws it all away by being subservient to the existing parties.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top