• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2012 Debates

Caper said:
Then you are simply not looking at it objectively. It has to be a significant victory though.
Click to expand...
That's just dumb. So R.Mackey evaluates the debate differently than you do so he is not objective? Really? Maybe YOU are the one not being objective.

In fact, neither one of you is objective. But don't feel bad, neither is anyone else. This is politics and a cry for objectivity is just naive. It's much better to put your biases on the table so other's opinions can be evaluated in that light. (The "your" in that sentence is the general you, not the specific you.)
 
SezMe said:
That's just dumb. So R.Mackey evaluates the debate differently than you do so he is not objective? Really? Maybe YOU are the one not being objective.

In fact, neither one of you is objective. But don't feel bad, neither is anyone else. This is politics and a cry for objectivity is just naive. It's much better to put your biases on the table so other's opinions can be evaluated in that light. (The "your" in that sentence is the general you, not the specific you.)
Click to expand...



Actually I think R.Mackey is one of the most intelligent members on the board..... much smarter then I. I just think he is capable of being more objective.

After the 1st debate..... a lot of Obama supporters were borderline hysterical (see Andrew Sullivan). This was actually quite close, but I think Obama won. All the polls support that view.
 
SezMe said:
That's the one that rang my chimes. He could lease every friggin' square inch of the USA on his first day in office and we wouldn't energy independent in eight years. I haven't followed the follow-up but I hope someone brings up this steaming pile of BS and really nailed Romney on it.
Click to expand...

In the long term I think we would be better off conserving as much domestic oil reserves as possible. The faster we tap them now, the less we will have later.

"Energy independence" would be a desirable goal if it came from renewable energy, but untapped reserves of fossil fuels are actually a long-term strategic asset. Trying to increase the rate at which we exploit them just so we can say that we are less dependent on foreign oil (for now) seems short-sighted.
 
Puppycow said:
In the long term I think we would be better off conserving as much domestic oil reserves as possible. The faster we tap them now, the less we will have later.
Click to expand...

No. Clearly the answer is "drill baby, drill." We need that oil NOW in order to power SUVs, not some distant time in the future for things like "livelihood." It's like how tax cuts NOW redistributes the burden to future generations. Screw'em.
 
Caper said:
Actually I think R.Mackey is one of the most intelligent members on the board..... much smarter then I. I just think he is capable of being more objective.
Click to expand...
You missed my point because maybe I didn't express it well. Sure, R.Mackey is intelligent. So are you. So am I (ok, ok ....). But intelligence does not remove bias and subjective assessments of the world around us. We all carry our upbringing, our culture, our education, etc. into an assessment of political views. So not only is there no such thing as objective (meaning, I assume for this discussion, that different people can logically and rationally reach the same conclusion) there certainly is no such thing as "more" objective.

As I suggested, objectivity is not a virtue or a goal here; it is a chimera. I think it is better to admit we all have acknowledged and unacknowledged biases. Better we take that as a given and deal with it realistically rather than seek the illusion of "objectivity".

But this is a bit of a derail. I'll let you have the last say then we can get back to debating the really important stuff like who had the bigger lapel pin.
 
Caper said:
Actually I think R.Mackey is one of the most intelligent members on the board..... much smarter then I. I just think he is capable of being more objective.

After the 1st debate..... a lot of Obama supporters were borderline hysterical (see Andrew Sullivan). This was actually quite close, but I think Obama won. All the polls support that view.
Click to expand...

Look, Mackey's a smart guy, but "one of the most intelligent members..."? C'mon! It's not like he's a rocket scientist. :boxedin:
 
Foolmewunz said:
Look, Mackey's a smart guy, but "one of the most intelligent members..."? C'mon! It's not like he's a rocket scientist. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

On our local talk radio station we have a lot of 9/11 conspiracy caller.... even today. They had Richard Gage on last year. The radio host doesn't believe in any of the conspiracy's, but constantly gets rolled over by truthers skilled on the art of woo. I am going to try... maybe next sept 11 to get someone like Mackey on the station to take calls for a segment.
 
SezMe said:
You missed my point because maybe I didn't express it well. Sure, R.Mackey is intelligent. So are you. So am I (ok, ok ....). But intelligence does not remove bias and subjective assessments of the world around us. We all carry our upbringing, our culture, our education, etc. into an assessment of political views. So not only is there no such thing as objective (meaning, I assume for this discussion, that different people can logically and rationally reach the same conclusion) there certainly is no such thing as "more" objective.

As I suggested, objectivity is not a virtue or a goal here; it is a chimera. I think it is better to admit we all have acknowledged and unacknowledged biases. Better we take that as a given and deal with it realistically rather than seek the illusion of "objectivity".

But this is a bit of a derail. I'll let you have the last say then we can get back to debating the really important stuff like who had the bigger lapel pin.
Click to expand...

Well... even if I kind of still agree with my pot... it was definitely nitpicking.... It was a long boring night shift.
 
angrysoba said:
No. What's the Lily Ledbetter Act and why should he have pointed out that Paul Ryan opposed it?

Remember, you may think me awfully ignorant if you have to explain this but that's what candidates have to remember when they're performing for votes.
Click to expand...

The President explained exactly what it was during the debate.
 
Another question I thought Obama handled better was the one asked of Romney about how he was different from Bush. Romney ducked and weaved and really didn't say much about Bush at all. Obama responded by ticking off several things that Bush did well, and then pointing out that none of them were things that Romney has supported. It really put the muzzle on those who say "Obama blames Bush for everything."
 
angrysoba said:
I didn't watch it. I just wanted to know what it was.
Click to expand...

Did anyone answer this yet? If so, I apologize for repeating.

The Ledbetter act requires that if a group of people are doing the same job, the women have to be paid as much as the men. I don't know the exact wording or the regulatory or enforcement mechanism for compliance.

The origin is that Lily Ledbetter was doing the same job as several other people, all men, in her company. As is usual in corporate America with salaried employees, salaries are kept secret,and are set by individual agreements between the company and an individual employee. She didn't know that the men were making more than her. When she found out, she sued on the grounds of gender discrimination, but lost. The court ruled that it was not her gender that caused the discrepancy, it was simply that she had not negotiated for or demanded a higher salary.

This pattern is very common. Women in these sorts of roles tend to get paid less than men. The reasons could be very complicated, but I prefer a simpler explanation. They pay women lower salaries because they can. Companies will always pay employees as little as possible. The Ledbetter law does something, I'm not exactly sure what, to ensure that women are paid as much as men who are performing the same task at the same company.
 
I thought Obama won the debate, but I did not see the "knock-out" answers. As someone else said he "won on points". Romney's biggest problem was that he kept posing questions to Obama -- questions Obama could answer just fine. That was some bad debate preparation. You don't ask your opponent questions. It makes you look solicitous and gives your opponent the control.

Obama had no major gaffes, and Romney stumbled on Libya (surprisingly) and on the Bush question.

For me, the most interesting part of the debate were seeing how the people asking the questions categorized themselves as "undecided". A lot of them seemed to be of the "I voted for Obama hoping my life would improve and it hasn't. Now I feel betrayed by the Democrats and I don't want to go back to four more years of GOP. WTF, guys?"

There were nine questions asked:
1. A college student fearful there are no jobs waiting for him upon graduation
> I actually think Romney handled this better than Obama. Point to Romney
2. A man asking the President about lower gas prices
> I think Obama caught his stride on this one, standing up to Romney when Romney stupidly asked Obama a question. Point to Obama.
3. A woman worried about losing tax exemptions under a Romney tax plan
> I think this one was a wash. It was also a softball question.
4. A woman asking about gender inequality in the workforce
> I think Obama was better on this one, though Romney wasn't nearly as bad as people on this thread make him out to be. Point to Obama.
5. A man who felt his vote for Obama got him no progress but feared Romney would be like Bush
> I think Romney got hung up on the comparison to Bush and Obama aptly counterattacked. Point to Obama.
6. A woman asking about immigration policy
> I think this one was a wash. No points.
7. A man asking the President about Libya
> I think Romney should have slam dunked this one but he again asked Obama a question, and Obama answered it well. Point to Obama.
8. A question on gun control, to Obama, who said he would ban assault rifles
> I think this one was a wash.
9. A woman asking about outsourcing on jobs, frustrated the tide was not turned on that by Obama
> I actually think Romney hit this better. Point to Romney
Closing arguments
Obama's was slightly better, but not so much it matters.

So in the end I see it as 2-4 in favor of the President. But no knock-outs. I guess the image that people will take from the debate is the President's quip about how he didn't look at his pension fund statements because they aren't as large as Romney's. Which I thought was a weak point which made Obama seem weirdly anti-wealth, but it was quippy and highlights the belligerence between the two debaters so the news shows have been running with that moment to encapsulate the debate. It does, however, serve the purpose of pointing out Romney's big strategic error of the night: posing questions directly to Obama.

In disclosure: I will be voting for Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom