Second Presidential Debate Discussion Thread

@Ocean_H said:

@EpicSteve said:

@Turambar: The military's focus now in regards to training revolve around Pacific operations now. I'm sure running a Navy is much more costly than giving some grunts some trucks and guns. But I do not know where this 2 trillion dollars is going specifically. I'm not an economist, I'm just giving an example at the costs of a low-budget first-world Army.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

The US Military doesn't need more equipments.

I'm not going to argue weither or not the military needs more equipment. I personally don't know. I have my grocery list, but my needs as an individual soldier aren't expensive. But that article is specific to the armor division, I don't think it's clear if that proposal is part of said 2 trillion dollars. Is it cheaper to keep Lima up and running and to reopen when tanks need updated/a new war? Maybe.

@MrSpaceMan: CNN is not liberal at all (you want the liberal station go visit MSNBC)

@EpicSteve By multiple measures, the economy is way less screwed up than it was in 2007 and 2008. I really don't think you and other people realize just how much capital was DESTROYED by the crisis where it was a very fortunate blessing the US economy was large enough to absorb the damage just to start growing at the pace it has today.

@Toxin066 said:

My favorite part was where they both stuttered for about an entire minute.

It's a debate, the stakes are high. Their brains are racing to pick and choose the right words for the right answers, so sometimes they stutter.

@EpicSteve said:

@Turambar said:

@Animasta said:

GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS

GOVERNMENT. DOES NOT. CREATE. JOBS.

what am I doing here

Obama saying he does not believe government create jobs as part of his closing statement was very much a "what the fuck" moment.

I work for the government, so that's a false statement.

It does technically create jobs, but it's better for job creation to be limited to the private sector.

@SathingtonWaltz said:

@Toxin066 said:

My favorite part was where they both stuttered for about an entire minute.

It's a debate, the stakes are high. Their brains are racing to pick and choose the right words for the right answers, so sometimes they stutter.

I'd rather a politician be thoughtful about his words than trying to outrace the other guy to the word "the."

Thoughts: Bad debate all around to be honest. Tie...I guess. Unless you feel that Obama simply showing up is a victory, which is a mighty low bar to have for a Presidential Candidate.

It was pretty much a tossup. Both candidates did pretty well. Obama likely stopped the bleeding from the last debate, but Romney really didn't produce any big gaffes that might have shifted momentum. Romney's answer on women was his worst moment I thought. The lady asked him to expound on how he would address women's issues and inequality and he just went on about the one time he tried to get a few women in his cabinet as governor back in 2003. OK. That's nice.

I thought Obama's gangbanger comment when talking about illegal immigrants was a little weird, and it was also painful to watch the two of them repeatedly butcher that hispanic girl's name.

Other than that, it was just a mostly well executed debate with little substance but about as much as you can expect, a lot of conversation pivoting, and lots of bad facts.

I just get consistently frustrated with how often Romney says "I know what's gonna bring new jobs, I know how we are gonna fix the economy, I've got a plan to do this, etc etc etc," but we never get ANY DETAILS on how he plans on doing this, he just keeps saying he can. At least when Obama is answering questions he gives specifics and actual ideas to help fix problems. Romney is the definition of talking the talk and not walking the walk.

"Obama had 4 years and didn't do anything" Wasn't Romney governor for 4 years and then came 47th in job creation in his state?

I lost it when Romney told us about his EIGHT year energy plan and how Obama doesn't deserve another 4 lol.

i watched it and forgot how much i hate politicians.

question "how do you propose we deal with ______?"

answer "blah blah blah, im talking about something completely unrelated and dont even answer the question!"

the fuck?! a majority of the questions werent even answered. the whole debate felt like an unsatisfying handjob

After thinking more about how Crowley fact checked Romney on the Libya comment I realized that my dream about fact checking candidates partly came true.

"Yes this. The media has failed miserably in simply relaying what someone said instead of analyzing what was said with facts. It would be a dream of the moderator had a crack team on hand to immediately confirm or deny something a candidate is saying during the debate. If both candidates are simply going to go for he said she said then who are you going to believe?"

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic/31/this-vice-presidential-debate-is-getting-really-heated/563675/?page=6

@Draxyle said:

@zoozilla said:

I was kind of surprised that the issue of gay marriage still hasn't come up.

It looked like Obama had an opening with the woman issues, when he began talking about equality as a core belief of his. He didn't take it, though - is gay marriage still really so controversial that it could cost him the election?

Also, Romney's anecdote about specifically seeking women for his cabinet - yeah, that's called "affirmative action."

I think the final debate is supposed to pertain more towards issues like that.

Either way, saving the issue of gay marriage for the end would be smartest thing for Obama to do. They can disguise it as traditional marriage all they want; exposing the GOP's desire to ban gay marriage in the last debate would be huge for the constituency of the democrats. Obama has already publicly come out in favor of gay marriage just a couple months ago, so I doubt he would have any reservations on bringing it out here.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's true. The first debate is supposed to be about domestic policy. The third is about foreign policy.

So get ready to watch these guys try to out war-hawk each other even more.

Mitt "Two Face" Romney is such a flip flopping liar.

Although I'd say Romney probably won the first debate, he really got his ass whupped here.

As some of you might know, I'm not much of an Obama fan; nevertheless, Romney scares me a lot more than him, so I'm staying Democratic this time around.

@zoozilla said:

I was kind of surprised that the issue of gay marriage still hasn't come up.

It looked like Obama had an opening with the woman issues, when he began talking about equality as a core belief of his. He didn't take it, though - is gay marriage still really so controversial that it could cost him the election?

Also, Romney's anecdote about specifically seeking women for his cabinet - yeah, that's called "affirmative action."

Yes, alot of people will say they are for gay marriage even in internet forums, but once they are in the polling booth their true colours shine. I hope Obama just says fuck it in his second term and pass all the shit he wants and leave Hillary to deal with it in 2016 elections.

@Aegon said:

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

That made my day

@Ocean_H said:

@golguin said:

Romney trying to misquote Obama and getting shut down in front of everyone there to applause is an elbow from the sky.

Haha, I felt like Mitt Romney planted that guy in the audience for his big zinger of the night and back fired hard.

Mitt Romney makes me lol, his comments regarding illegal immigration in particular. Go to war, if you survive, you win a Greencard! LMAO

Obama lost. Simple as that.

@golguin said:

After thinking more about how Crowley fact checked Romney on the Libya comment I realized that my dream about fact checking candidates partly came true.

"Yes this. The media has failed miserably in simply relaying what someone said instead of analyzing what was said with facts. It would be a dream of the moderator had a crack team on hand to immediately confirm or deny something a candidate is saying during the debate. If both candidates are simply going to go for he said she said then who are you going to believe?"

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic/31/this-vice-presidential-debate-is-getting-really-heated/563675/?page=6

I can't wait until we reach a moment where we can finally have a fact checking panel on screen at all times during the debates so we can see just how full of shit these guys are.

This will have to do for now I guess. http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/

@Flawed_System said:

Obama lost. Simple as that.

did you just watch the first debate again?

well whatever have your dumb opinion I've given up on arguing with you people

@Animasta: Responding to inane comments with no substantial reasoning was your first mistake.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@golguin said:

After thinking more about how Crowley fact checked Romney on the Libya comment I realized that my dream about fact checking candidates partly came true.

"Yes this. The media has failed miserably in simply relaying what someone said instead of analyzing what was said with facts. It would be a dream of the moderator had a crack team on hand to immediately confirm or deny something a candidate is saying during the debate. If both candidates are simply going to go for he said she said then who are you going to believe?"

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic/31/this-vice-presidential-debate-is-getting-really-heated/563675/?page=6

I can't wait until we reach a moment where we can finally have a fact checking panel on screen at all times during the debates so we can see just how full of shit these guys are.

This will have to do for now I guess. http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/

Reminds me of that mock debate on The Newsroom.

@Animasta said:

@Flawed_System said:

Obama lost. Simple as that.

did you just watch the first debate again?

well whatever have your dumb opinion I've given up on arguing with you people

That is exactly how I feel.

Whatever I admitted that romney won the first debate so I at least am not delusional

The discussion over gas prices was ridiculous. Do people over there actually believe that a president can affect the price of oil which is, has been and will continue to go up on a global scale? Gas is expensive because there is less and less of it and people want more and more of it. Supply & demand.

@isomeri said:

The discussion over gas prices was ridiculous. Do people over there actually believe that a president can affect the price of oil which is, has been and will continue to go up on a global scale? Gas is expensive because there is less and less of it and people want more and more of it. Supply & demand.

But apparently we (USA) are sitting on a lot of oil but we just can't drill due to environmental and other policies. So if they would allow us to drill on our own soil, that would at least lower prices in the US, right? I mean, I think we already to get most of our oil from ourselves but if we got all of it from our own land, that would help prices because we'd control them... Right? So they could potentially lower the price of gas.

@Flawed_System said:

@Animasta said:

@Flawed_System said:

Obama lost. Simple as that.

did you just watch the first debate again?

well whatever have your dumb opinion I've given up on arguing with you people

That is exactly how I feel.

How did he lose exactly? Please explain since it is so simple.

@Jams: the real reason were not drilling for oil here is simple. why use your own up when you can use others. eventually we will have all the oil left and they will be fucked and begging for it from us. i watched a video about that somewhere. i wish i could find it again.

anyone that thinks in 20-30 years we wont still be using oil is being silly. We will be using it for at least another 100 years. sure other energy will also be used but oil wont go anywhere until were out of it. if not for gasoline cars we will still use it for factories and electricity.

@Jams said:

@isomeri said:

The discussion over gas prices was ridiculous. Do people over there actually believe that a president can affect the price of oil which is, has been and will continue to go up on a global scale? Gas is expensive because there is less and less of it and people want more and more of it. Supply & demand.

But apparently we (USA) are sitting on a lot of oil but we just can't drill due to environmental and other policies. So if they would allow us to drill on our own soil, that would at least lower prices in the US, right? I mean, I think we already to get most of our oil from ourselves but if we got all of it from our own land, that would help prices because we'd control them... Right? So they could potentially lower the price of gas.

Norway is one of the largest producers of oil in the world, and gasoline still costs roughly 10 dollars a gallon there. The only way for a government to bring down the price of gas is to have the oil companies owned totally or largely by the government, like in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. A government can also help lower the price of gas is to subsidize oil companies, like in the United States. This is why your gas is so cheap.

If you let companies drill more in the US, the companies will sell that oil to those who pay the most for it. Domestic oil supplies do provide some shielding against global fluctuations, but only some. If a conflict in the Middle East for example would halt oil production there, gas prices would still rise in the US because global demand would let US companies raise prices for everyone.

Whatever I admitted that romney won the first debate so I at least am not delusional

@tunaburn said:

@Jams: the real reason were not drilling for oil here is simple. why use your own up when you can use others. eventually we will have all the oil left and they will be fucked and begging for it from us. i watched a video about that somewhere. i wish i could find it again.

anyone that thinks in 20-30 years we wont still be using oil is being silly. We will be using it for at least another 100 years. sure other energy will also be used but oil wont go anywhere until were out of it. if not for gasoline cars we will still use it for factories and electricity.

It is true that the world will likely not run out of oil in the next 100 years. But it is unlikely that people will continue to use oil for fuel when it becomes more rare and expensive. Those last barrels of crude will be genuine collectors items.

@Animasta

Whatever I admitted that romney won the first debate so I at least am not delusional

This is pretty typical ultra-conservative behavior. Never give the President any credit for anything. Blame him for gas prices going up (which he has no control over) but when they go down don't give him credit (he shouldn't get credit but by their logic he controls prices from the Oval Office). Blame him for the attack in Benghazi but pretend he didn't order the attack on Bin Ladens compound. Assholes like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have seen to it to brainwash their viewers into simultaneously blaming Obama for everything bad but give him no credit for anything good. Even when he does things they once agreed with, it's now socialism because President Obama is the one who does it. But that's fine. The Tea Party isn't long for this world now that people realize that all the Tea Party did when elected was cause a stalemate in Congress that created the least productive Legislative Branch in history. That's a record I'm sure they feel proud of.

Why is it okay to say that Mitt Romney is the Anti-Christ, but people want to shank you when you say the same about Obama?

Why is it okay to say that Mitt Romney is the Anti-Christ, but people want to shank you when you say the same about Obama?

I think Barack Obama will win the election in 2012, meaning he will be president until 2016. Then in 2016 a new person will come, but it won't be Mitt Romney. Thank you.

@CaLe said:

I think Barack Obama will win the election in 2012, meaning he will be president until 2016. Then in 2016 a new person will come, but it won't be Mitt Romney. Thank you.

that's a bold statement, sure you're ready to take ownership of that?

@tunaburn said:

@Jams: the real reason were not drilling for oil here is simple. why use your own up when you can use others. eventually we will have all the oil left and they will be fucked and begging for it from us. i watched a video about that somewhere. i wish i could find it again.

anyone that thinks in 20-30 years we wont still be using oil is being silly. We will be using it for at least another 100 years. sure other energy will also be used but oil wont go anywhere until were out of it. if not for gasoline cars we will still use it for factories and electricity.

There is some pretty break through stuff happening in how to amplify energy, it just needs a big car maker to really step outside the box. 100 more years of burning fosil fuels into our atmosphere will be hazardous just look how much we have destroyed this earth in the last 100 years and thats just the smallest of blips on Earths timeline.

@Bourbon_Warrior: That's freaking amazing. We should drop everything we're doing and work on making that a thing.

@isomeri: Yeah, it's funny how an administration can be praised/blamed for all sorts of things it didn't really have control over.

What is Bush going to be remembered for? 9/11. Was that a result of his actions? No.

Obama might be remembered for having to deal with the Recession. Did he cause it? No. Did Bush cause it? Not very directly. It was mostly ridiculous risk-taking on Wall Street.

Many of the events that "define" a presidency have very little to do with who's actually in office.

@Jams: No ones saying drop oil for a prototype technology but to think that we will still be heavily relying on oil in 30 years is absurd. Technology is moving at a rapid pace the last 30 years. Quantum Levitation is still very much in a prototype state but the posibilities are pretty amazing, being able to put little energy into something and get so much more energy output is pretty sweet.

@golguin said:

@MarkWahlberg said:

@TheFreeMan said:

@ShadowConqueror said:

Having children before marriage somehow leads to providing AK-47's to drug lords. Or something.

Yeah, the fuck was that about? The misquote was real brutal, too. Funny, but painful.

See, I have a hard time watching these debates because a lot of it is just them reciting their stump speeches 2 minutes at a time - instead of an actual debate - but then I miss weird shit like this. Hopefully someone will post the good bits on youtube....

My internet connected cut off twice. Once was during the women's healthcare talk and the other was during the assault weapons ban. I missed that part so I'll have to check it out to hear for that because that sounds insane.

Romney was just completely insane.

Women's equality.

"Binders full of women"

Gun control

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Jams: No ones saying drop oil for a prototype technology but to think that we will still be heavily relying on oil in 30 years is absurd. Technology is moving at a rapid pace the last 30 years. Quantum Levitation is still very much in a prototype state but the posibilities are pretty amazing, being able to put little energy into something and get so much more energy output is pretty sweet.

If I learned anything from XCOM is that a prototype only takes 3 days to make something legit.

@Animasta said:

Whatever I admitted that romney won the first debate so I at least am not delusional

The majority of the left admitted Romney won that first debate--it's pretty indisputable. The right, on the other hand, simply will not yield to a 'loss' (in quotes as it is ultimately subjective, I suppose), and I personally find that inability to recognize a defeat quite amusing, as it likely stems from a lack of confidence in their outmoded world view.

@Bourbon_Warrior: thats pretty sweet. to bad noone funds it. we need to put money into this!

@Jams said:

@isomeri said:

The discussion over gas prices was ridiculous. Do people over there actually believe that a president can affect the price of oil which is, has been and will continue to go up on a global scale? Gas is expensive because there is less and less of it and people want more and more of it. Supply & demand.

But apparently we (USA) are sitting on a lot of oil but we just can't drill due to environmental and other policies. So if they would allow us to drill on our own soil, that would at least lower prices in the US, right? I mean, I think we already to get most of our oil from ourselves but if we got all of it from our own land, that would help prices because we'd control them... Right? So they could potentially lower the price of gas.

Uh, no, unless the government decides to nationalize the oil industry. As long as its private corporations doing the drilling, they have no obligation to sell it directly to us for less than market price. More likely, they would simply sell it on the world market at market price. The direct benefits of increased drilling would come more from fees for leasing out federal land and manufacturing and commerce generated by these new dig sites.

What happened? Was playing the drinking game if taking a shot every time Romney says the word "economy" and I must have passed out 15 mins into it...

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

Mitt Romney makes me lol, his comments regarding illegal immigration in particular. Go to war, if you survive, you win a Greencard! LMAO

Ye, found that point sorta strange too. While it makes sense in a certain way, it's a very medieval-like mentality.

@Ocean_H: The best part is that the whole binders full of women wasn't his idea at all. It was yet another lie.

It doesn't matter, they won't keep their promises anyway.