Funny moment of Presidential Debate

[Ringer]

Mitt Romney told Obama

"You're entitled as the president to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts,"

Now is it just me or is that comedy gold coming from a man with his tendency of holding on to his own reality. Not to mention his Vice President.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ringer

[JustinW]

Huh? What do mean? Is there something I missed, or is everybody supposed to get what seems like an inside joke? The truth of that debate was that Obama was off his game and Romney jumped on it.

 

I particularly enjoyed the exchange in which Obama claimed that Romney was getting a tax break for moving companies over seas. Romney was correct in denying that. Not that he wasn't getting a tax break for moving companies, but with the way Obama worded it, he was correct in denying it. When looked at a little closer, Romney does recieve tax breaks for moving a company, but what the left would have you believe is that it is only a break for moving a company overseas, when in reality the break comes from moving a company anywhere, whether domestically or internationally the tax break is the same. This is why when Obama said it was a break for moving a company overseas, Romney was correct in saying that in his 20 plus years of being in business that he had never heard of such a thing. Another thing that struck me as negative by Obama was his reprimand of the moderator, saying that he would have had 5 more seconds if he wasn't interuppted, then proceeded to take 20 more seconds to finish. It just seemed a little pompass to me. All in all I would say that Romney came out on top in that debate, although I would have to agree with most of the commentators that I've heard, and say that it was by no means a game changer.

[rigney]

Huh? What do mean? Is there something I missed, or is everybody supposed to get what seems like an inside joke? The truth of that debate was that Obama was off his game and Romney jumped on it.

 

I particularly enjoyed the exchange in which Obama claimed that Romney was getting a tax break for moving companies over seas. Romney was correct in denying that. Not that he wasn't getting a tax break for moving companies, but with the way Obama worded it, he was correct in denying it. When looked at a little closer, Romney does recieve tax breaks for moving a company, but what the left would have you believe is that it is only a break for moving a company overseas, when in reality the break comes from moving a company anywhere, whether domestically or internationally the tax break is the same. This is why when Obama said it was a break for moving a company overseas, Romney was correct in saying that in his 20 plus years of being in business that he had never heard of such a thing. Another thing that struck me as negative by Obama was his reprimand of the moderator, saying that he would have had 5 more seconds if he wasn't interuppted, then proceeded to take 20 more seconds to finish. It just seemed a little pompass to me. All in all I would say that Romney came out on top in that debate, although I would have to agree with most of the commentators that I've heard, and say that it was by no means a game changer.

I agree that the debate wasn't a game changer. Obama was simply caught with his pants down around his knees. Believe me, he will be more than ready for the next face-off. Edited October 5, 2012 by rigney

[ecoli]

Romney needs to wipe that smarmy, self-satisfied grin off his face when he's not talking. Also he needs to stop blinking so much. At one point I counted 64 blinks per minute. Who needs to blink that much?!

[rigney]

Romney needs to wipe that smarmy, self-satisfied grin off his face when he's not talking. Also he needs to stop blinking so much. At one point I counted 64 blinks per minute. Who needs to blink that much?!

Evidently with that rapt interest you found in his eyes, you didn't listning to much of the debate. And would you have rather he scowl as Obama began to do after about five minutes into the session? 'course if I was getting my ass kicked as Obama was, I'd begin to scoul myself. Or was that an awkward look of amazement to think that someone would challange His Lordship? Edited October 5, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Romney needs to wipe that smarmy, self-satisfied grin off his face when he's not talking. Also he needs to stop blinking so much. At one point I counted 64 blinks per minute. Who needs to blink that much?!

 

 

A liar?

[rigney]

A liar?

Or listen in amazement to a 4 year old B.S. story.

[Phi for All]

I thought it was funny (odd) that Romney mentioned right off the bat that he was going to strangle Big Bird. Considering that Bain Capitol owns 850+ radio stations, I thought attacking public broadcasting would've shown a clear conflict of interest.

 

Overall though, especially since I thought Romney was going to get all tripped up by his many recent gaffes, I thought he did very well against an incumbent president. I'm guessing the president had a lot of restrictions given to him by his debate advisers, like don't mention Libya, don't mention airplanes, don't mention how Congress has been blocking you (that one I can sort of see, it's completely true but could be taken as a sign that he can't get them to work with him). It sucks that Congress can be so partisan but it's the president who looks bad if he complains about it.

 

What I thought was funny (depressing) was the comments afterwards about how both men threw around too many numbers and got too detailed about some of their policies. It's sad that the majority wouldn't want to know more about these things.

[Moontanman]

Or listen in amazement to a 4 year old B.S. story.

 

 

Or trying to keep from busting out in laughter from trying to assert a 30 year old fairy tale concerning pissing on people and calling it rain...

 

 

Trickle down economics my ass...

[akh]

I really wish there was some sort of instant fact checking during the debates that would allow the moderator to revist the response to a question if the canidate lies or throws ficticious numbers around. Maybe a panel of neutral researchers that could verify claims during the debate. It should be easy enough to do in the modern age of information. That way, both parties would need to be factually accurate during the debate, and not just throw feces at each other to see who can make the biggest stink.

[iNow]

^Romney would have been silenced if that were allowed, akh. His lies were rampant, and even conceded as such by his own campaign on more than one issue.

[ecoli]

Evidently with that rapt interest you found in his eyes, you didn't listning to much of the debate. And would you have rather he scowl as Obama began to do after about five minutes into the session? 'course if I was getting my ass kicked as Obama was, I'd begin to scoul myself. Or was that an awkward look of amazement to think that someone would challange His Lordship?

 

 

Come on, man, look at this smirk:

[akh]

I think Obama did poorly in the debate. But I feel he was more factually correct, or at least not as far off in his statements. Obama really looked like he was bitting his tongue a bit.

[swansont]

Disclosure: I didn't watch that much, though I did see as far as Romney threatening to whack Big Bird.

 

I think Obama was expecting Romney not to lie about his own policy proposals. Lying about Obama, sure, but about his own tax plan? So when Obama started with his rehearsed comments ($5 billion in tax cuts), Romney pretended he'd never heard of such a plan. If you've been advised that calling your opponent a liar tends to backfire, you're kinda stuck.

 

And the irony about saying you're not being entitled to you own facts? Wow. Romney was near a lie-per-minute. (Using the Ryan marathon clock he would have had a better pace)

[Phi for All]

Come on, man, look at this smirk:

That's not a smirk. This, THIS is a smirk:

 

 

This one is patented, I think. It says, "Nobody cares about lies in politics, not from Republimicans anyway."

[Moontanman]

That's not a smirk. This, THIS is a smirk:

 

 

This one is patented, I think. It says, "Nobody cares about lies in politics, not from Republimicans anyway."

 

 

Looks more like "What? Me worry?"

Edited October 5, 2012 by Moontanman

[dimreepr]

This seems to fit the bill

[Ringer]

Huh? What do mean? Is there something I missed, or is everybody supposed to get what seems like an inside joke? The truth of that debate was that Obama was off his game and Romney jumped on it.

 

I just thought it was rather funny a man who believes he can say he didn't work for a company because he 'retroactively retired' can, in all seriousness, tell someone they are not entitled to their own reality. I wonder if he believes the president is not entitled to his own reality, but Romney is because he earned his own reality.

 

 

 

 

 

[john5746]

I really wish there was some sort of instant fact checking during the debates that would allow the moderator to revist the response to a question if the canidate lies or throws ficticious numbers around. Maybe a panel of neutral researchers that could verify claims during the debate. It should be easy enough to do in the modern age of information. That way, both parties would need to be factually accurate during the debate, and not just throw feces at each other to see who can make the biggest stink.

 

I feel the opposite. I flipped between CNN and PBS while watching the debate. PBS showed each candidate full screen, while CNN had a split screen and a stupid graph on the bottom. Split screen makes for better TV and one could argue that at the live debate, you would also see both candidates. I feel that it is a distraction and I felt the graph was trying to tell me what to think or how to feel. Less is better for me. It is up to the candidates to make their points in a debate. Fact checking and commentary comes afterwards.

 

While watching PBS, I felt Obama was doing OK, but was on the defense, which makes sense. The economy sucks, that's reality. Even Romney couldn't etch-a-sketch that one. I think Obama was caught off-guard from the beginning with taxes. He didn't expect Romney to completely back track on that. It would be like Ron Paul getting up there and saying he would not make any spending cuts that would result in someone losing their job.

 

I think Obama will do better in the town hall format, plus there is a better chance that Romney will need to defend some of his statements or social positions. But Romney really doesn't have to defend much, because he hasn't been doing anything for so long. He can etch-a-sketch statements to fit the situation. I look for Obama to start hitting him on that, rather than specifics. In the final debate on foreign policy, if Romney looks unprincipled, people will turn away.

[akh]

I feel the opposite. I flipped between CNN and PBS while watching the debate. PBS showed each candidate full screen, while CNN had a split screen and a stupid graph on the bottom. Split screen makes for better TV and one could argue that at the live debate, you would also see both candidates. I feel that it is a distraction and I felt the graph was trying to tell me what to think or how to feel. Less is better for me. It is up to the candidates to make their points in a debate. Fact checking and commentary comes afterwards.

 

I am not talking about "stupid graphs". I am talking about a live committee of researchers. The reason is so that the debaters will not feel like they can just throw BS numbers around during the debate. So say a candidate said "You lost 10 million jobs in four years" or whatever and the real number was effectively zero. Then the moderator could step in at a later time, and while citing references, ask the candidate why his numbers are so far off from cited sources. Make them answer on the spot for their BS. The problem with day-after-analysis is that people don't often have the time, energy, and/or resources to fact check let alone watch the original debate. This idea may not work at all, it may not be easy to implement, or it may be too disruptive to the flow of the debate. But what is the point of a debate anyway, if the candidates can just say whatever they want? That is pretty much what Romney did, yet he "won" the debate. Obama was not completely accurate in some cases, but there was way more truth to his comments (according to my research so far). I guess you can say that it is all up to the candidates to be prepared, but its hard to prepare against BS and imaginary figures, so it comes down to who can throw the most and make it stick.

 

 

While watching PBS, I felt Obama was doing OK, but was on the defense, which makes sense. The economy sucks, that's reality. Even Romney couldn't etch-a-sketch that one. I think Obama was caught off-guard from the beginning with taxes. He didn't expect Romney to completely back track on that. It would be like Ron Paul getting up there and saying he would not make any spending cuts that would result in someone losing their job.

 

I think Obama will do better in the town hall format, plus there is a better chance that Romney will need to defend some of his statements or social positions. But Romney really doesn't have to defend much, because he hasn't been doing anything for so long. He can etch-a-sketch statements to fit the situation. I look for Obama to start hitting him on that, rather than specifics. In the final debate on foreign policy, if Romney looks unprincipled, people will turn away.

 

Romney does not have to defend much because he doesn't have any distinct policies or ideas. Even if he did at one point, he would say something completely different at another. I agree, its very difficult for Obama to attack Romney's statements or positions when they change daily. So, the Romney tactic seems to be to go after Obama's last 4 years but remain as amorphous and opaque as possible with his own policies so that Obama does not have a counter point. Thus making Obama appear to be continually on the defensive. Seems to have worked for the first debate.

 

 

 

[iNow]

[John Cuthber]

Fox news will say that he came off better than Obama in that debate.

[iNow]

I have to say that I like this new ad from the Obama campaign.

 

[JohnB]

If that's an example of good political advertising in the US, then you lot are in more trouble than I thought.

 

Almost as funny as the Democrat supporters trying to blame Denvers "high altitude" for Obamas performance.

 

Since airliners, including Air force 1 are pressurised to around the 5-7,000 foot level. I really, really hope that Obama never makes any decisions while flying. How do people who make decisions while flying Business class ever survive?

 

And just as some extra evidence that Cenk from the Young Turks is indeed a brainless dweeb, you can hear him in the background agreeing with Gore.

 

Obama had a bad day. Why not just say so? Why does there have to be a reason why it's not his fault? Sorry but the Dems seem to have a very bad case of Somebodyelsesfaultitis. They never make mistakes or do the wrong thing, it's always the Republicans fault, or something. Why not just admit it, Obama had a bad day and will do better next time.

[john5746]

Obama had a bad day. Why not just say so? Why does there have to be a reason why it's not his fault? Sorry but the Dems seem to have a very bad case of Somebodyelsesfaultitis. They never make mistakes or do the wrong thing, it's always the Republicans fault, or something. Why not just admit it, Obama had a bad day and will do better next time.

 

I agree, although I don't think Obama really had that "bad" of a day. I think it isn't his style to be an attack dog and he doesn't speak quickly. He is "professorial". Since everyone understands the Mitt isn't a dribbling idiot and is capable of talking, the expectations are more realistic now.

 

Just watch a debate between a creationist and a scientist. Its much easier to debate from a place of stupidity than from facts, especially if the audience just wants a dog fight.