The debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched about 5 minutes. I was curious about Romney and how he carries himself as I have never seen him on TV. Nice hair cut, a bit thinner than I expected. Not sure what his plans are other than to do away with government mandated health care. Obama seemed a bit awkward. But same old typical pandering to the multitudes.
 
My take on the debates was that Romney was able to articulate himself very well. Better than even I expected. Obama was on the defense about 80% of this debate - perhaps the reason he appeared awkward. Romney made it very concisely clear where he stood on the issues - especially medicare. he was challenged a few times about this by Obama - and Romney was able to "debunk" the challenges in a very polite and gracious manner.

However, we will see how the next two debates go. I am sure Obama will learn from this and polish up his presentation for the next debates.
 
ambrosia said:
Wow you do?? For some reason I didn't think they bothered sending the signal anymore since they made everyone go digital. But no I don't have one. Maybe I should just find someone I know who's watching it and invite myself over lol.
Click to expand...

Just get digital TV at cheaper price or buy converter box for analog-digital.

authentic said:
First 5 minutes of debate, Romney and Obama smiling each other and I went to :zzz:
Click to expand...

Yup, I just lost the interest because a lot of lies in debate.
 
You guys are going to squeak in a political discussion aren't you? It's kind of irresistible, like sex candy (I kid) As Op I'm probably supposed to to get on you guys about not getting my thread locked. I got the aswer to my question though so really I don't care lol. If you can't beat em join em right?
TXgolfer said:
Yeah Romney always does the winking thing. I think it is an issue the stage lights but I am not sure. It is annoying. He also needs to do something about the way he looks at Obama when Obama is speaking. It think he is just paying attention but he comes off smug.

Obama looked nervous to me. Looked like he didn't want to be there.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Smug, that was my take. Romney definitely dominated so he had reason to feel smug. Just think maybe he shouldn't have looked so smug. He did very well though.
 
Foxrac said:
Just get digital TV at cheaper price or buy converter box for analog-digital.



Yup, I just lost the interest because a lot of lies in debate.
Click to expand...

I have a digitial tv, I just don't want cable, not right now anyway. It's okay though I found a site online I could watch it with captions :) CSPAN, it's up there somewhere
 
ambrosia said:
You guys are going to squeak in a political discussion aren't you? It's kind of irresistible, like sex candy (I kid) As Op I'm probably supposed to to get on you guys about not getting my thread locked. I got the aswer to my question though so really I don't care lol. If you can't beat em join em right?

Smug, that was my take. Romney definitely dominated so he had reason to feel smug. Just think maybe he shouldn't have looked so smug. He did very well though.
Click to expand...

It is not uncommon to see president candidate (not incumbent) doing well with first debate, however a lot of lies turned me off.
 
ambrosia said:
I have a digitial tv, I just don't want cable, not right now anyway. It's okay though I found a site online I could watch it with captions :) CSPAN, it's up there somewhere
Click to expand...

Just buy antenna, that all you need to get local channels.
 
TXgolfer said:
Yeah Romney always does the winking thing. I think it is an issue the stage lights but I am not sure. It is annoying. He also needs to do something about the way he looks at Obama when Obama is speaking. It think he is just paying attention but he comes off smug.
Click to expand...
more like twitching. and he was blinking a lot which is typically a sign of either stress or lying.

TXgolfer said:
Obama looked nervous to me. Looked like he didn't want to be there.
Click to expand...
more like contempt and frustrated.

TXgolfer said:
:dunno:
Click to expand...
precisely why I said you won't find it. they are trained to lie :lol:

don't need to look for facial expression, body language or whatsoever to see if they're lying or not. they are both lying to a degree anyway :lol:

the fact that, for example, Romney was not answering a simple question, staying on topic, and deflecting is simple enough to know he's either lying or just bullshitting along because he doesn't have the answer :lol:

and the fact that, for example, Obama was pausing and stuttering/mumbling for a quick moment there (seems to be doing after "....and...." several times) in deficit/tax subject is a clear sign that he's weak (or clueless) in that subject. Romney clearly knows money better than Obama but I disagree with his view.
 
Steinhauer said:
My take on the debates was that Romney was able to articulate himself very well. Better than even I expected. Obama was on the defense about 80% of this debate - perhaps the reason he appeared awkward. Romney made it very concisely clear where he stood on the issues - especially medicare. he was challenged a few times about this by Obama - and Romney was able to "debunk" the challenges in a very polite and gracious manner.

However, we will see how the next two debates go. I am sure Obama will learn from this and polish up his presentation for the next debates.
Click to expand...

articulated? well - sure he talked strong and lucidly. but do you really know what's he talking about? do you really know what he said was truthful? I guarantee you that you have absolutely no idea what he just said. and that's ok!

it's a classic fast talk 101 aka quibbling. :lol: it's very simple and effective. majority of audience doesn't know tax/deficit/money subject very well but does it matter? all you have to do is just throw in lot of numbers, fancy terms, and claims in one long sentence just enough to boggle your opponent even if you're lying or wrong and it will still look good for you in front of audience.
 
ambrosia said:
You guys are going to squeak in a political discussion aren't you? It's kind of irresistible, like sex candy (I kid) As Op I'm probably supposed to to get on you guys about not getting my thread locked. I got the aswer to my question though so really I don't care lol. If you can't beat em join em right?

Smug, that was my take. Romney definitely dominated so he had reason to feel smug. Just think maybe he shouldn't have looked so smug. He did very well though.
Click to expand...

I am not surprised. It comes off bad for sure. I think a lot of people felt he looked smug.
 
Jiro said:
articulated? well - sure he talked strong and lucidly. but do you really know what's he talking about? do you really know what he said was truthful?

it's a classic fast talk 101 aka quibbling. :lol: it's very simple and effective. majority of audience doesn't know tax/deficit/money subject very well but does it matter? all you have to do is just throw in lot of numbers, fancy terms, and claims in one long sentence just enough to boggle your opponent even if you're lying or wrong and it will still look good for you in front of audience.
Click to expand...

If you had studied economics, you wouldn't be relegated to quibbling on the subject.
 
impaired said:
If you had studied economics, you wouldn't be relegated to quibbling on the subject.
Click to expand...

but it's politic. it doesn't matter what they're expert in. they just have to quibble around to score some points.

economics is not an easy subject to comprehend. what's the point of speaking in economics to audience if majority of audience is clueless in economics?
 
Jiro said:
articulated? well - sure he talked strong and lucidly. but do you really know what's he talking about? do you really know what he said was truthful? I guarantee you that you have absolutely no idea what he just said. and that's ok!

it's a classic fast talk 101 aka quibbling. :lol: it's very simple and effective. majority of audience doesn't know tax/deficit/money subject very well but does it matter? all you have to do is just throw in lot of numbers, fancy terms, and claims in one long sentence just enough to boggle your opponent even if you're lying or wrong and it will still look good for you in front of audience.
Click to expand...

Okaaaaaay :roll:

Mr. Expert - both parties are in agreement that Romney won this debate.

Chris Matthews Freaks Out At Obama: "What Was He Doing?" | RealClearPolitics

"What was Romney doing?" Matthews asked. "He was winning."
Click to expand...


I understood exactly what Mitt Romney was saying. Perhaps you did not? :dunno:
 
Steinhauer said:
Okaaaaaay :roll:

Mr. Expert - both parties are in agreement that Romney won this debate.

Chris Matthews Freaks Out At Obama: "What Was He Doing?" | RealClearPolitics
Click to expand...
*shrug* that's fine. I don't dispute that. however - we both know Romney has a snowball chance in hell of winning the seat :lol:

Steinhauer said:
I understood exactly what Mitt Romney was saying. Perhaps you did not? :dunno:
Click to expand...
I'd like to believe you but your frequent blinking is giving me a doubt :lol:
 
Foxrac said:
He entitled his opinion, not factually win.

It is no football match to win.
Click to expand...

He won the first debate as a fact- yes, it was a match. 100% of debates are. Not a football match, but yes, it is a "competition".
 
Steinhauer said:
He won the first debate as a fact- yes, it was a match. 100% of debates are. Not a football match, but yes, it is a "competition".
Click to expand...

Not really, there is no factually win or lose, so you fail to understand about definition of fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top