Who Won the Biden vs Ryan US Vice Presidential Debate?

@Tackchevy said:

You have to look at it in terms of objective. Even The Prez himself said he lost some cred in the last debate, and most polls have him tied or very very slightly behind. Biden's goal was to come out forceful and liven up the base. He accomplished his mission. Ryan was there to look all official and stuff. He did that. Will this change the result or polls at all? No. No one won this debate. Anyone telling you otherwise is in the bag already for one side or the other.

Well you certainly seem to have everything completely figured out. Alright, lets just look at one single point amongst many.

On the abortion issue, Ryan went on record to say that he would ban abortion other than in cases of incest, rape and health of the mother. This essentially overturns the current Supreme Court ruling. Do you think that will impact the female demographic rather heavily, particularly when their percentages shifted a bit from Obama to Romney after the initial presidential debate?

I'm not precient, but even I can predict that a voting bloc who was just swayed from one side to another, can be swayed back immediately after by clear delineations on a position that impacts their personal choices, especially when one of the two sides would be changing the current legal status.

I voted for Biden in the poll but I really don't think it was as cut and dry as the Obama/Romney debate in terms of winners and losers. But if there's one thing that is cut and dry, it's that the VP debates will be far more entertaining than the Presidential ones.

@ThePickle: That was the one and only VP debate.

Everything is a competition.. EVERYTHING...

@Turambar said:

@ThePickle: That was the one and only VP debate.

Aw man.

Ryan. Biden laughed like a drunken monkey and ranted like a heroin addict.

@Turambar said:

@Animasta said:

@Turambar said:

@astrotriforce: Two points. One, don't libertarians fall closer to the conservative camp than anything else? Ron Paul is still a registered Republican after all. Second, that quote seem pretty vague. What exactly does it, and you by extension, mean by the "traditional course"?

it means outlawing abortions and banning gay marriage obvs

You're not helping.

I think that's still very relevant though. Besides this ambiguously vague idea of fiscal conservatism the Right likes to tout, there's not much difference between Left and Right now, with the huge glaring exception of specific social issue (i.e. abortion and gay rights). It's a big difference (probably the biggest) and an important issue.

@Turambar said:

@Animasta said:

@Turambar said:

@astrotriforce: Two points. One, don't libertarians fall closer to the conservative camp than anything else? Ron Paul is still a registered Republican after all. Second, that quote seem pretty vague. What exactly does it, and you by extension, mean by the "traditional course"?

it means outlawing abortions and banning gay marriage obvs

You're not helping.

I think that's still very relevant though. Besides this ambiguously vague idea of fiscal conservatism the Right likes to tout, there's not much difference between Left and Right now, with the huge glaring exception of specific social issue (i.e. abortion and gay rights). It's a big difference (probably the biggest) and an important issue.

@Turambar said:

@PillClinton said:

@Turambar said:

@Animasta said:

@Turambar said:

@astrotriforce: Two points. One, don't libertarians fall closer to the conservative camp than anything else? Ron Paul is still a registered Republican after all. Second, that quote seem pretty vague. What exactly does it, and you by extension, mean by the "traditional course"?

it means outlawing abortions and banning gay marriage obvs

You're not helping.

I think that's still very relevant though. Besides this ambiguously vague idea of fiscal conservatism the Right likes to tout, there's not much difference between Left and Right now, with the huge glaring exception of specific social issue (i.e. abortion and gay rights). It's a big difference (probably the biggest) and an important issue.

That's not the point. I want to hear @astrotriforce make his own case. The reason congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of the US currently is not because of their positions on social or economic issues, but rather because they are currently incapable of discourse. I'd prefer if we didn't reproduce that problem in microcosm, and proudly reproduce it at that.

Well, he seemed to make his case as clearly as he intends to. It didn't satisfy me personally, but that's his prerogative. And if "that's not the point," what's the relevance of Congress' approval rating here exactly? You originally asked what the "traditional course" meant. I attempted to explain my interpretation of it.

@PillClinton said:

@Turambar said:

@PillClinton said:

@Turambar said:

@Animasta said:

@Turambar said:

@astrotriforce: Two points. One, don't libertarians fall closer to the conservative camp than anything else? Ron Paul is still a registered Republican after all. Second, that quote seem pretty vague. What exactly does it, and you by extension, mean by the "traditional course"?

it means outlawing abortions and banning gay marriage obvs

You're not helping.

I think that's still very relevant though. Besides this ambiguously vague idea of fiscal conservatism the Right likes to tout, there's not much difference between Left and Right now, with the huge glaring exception of specific social issue (i.e. abortion and gay rights). It's a big difference (probably the biggest) and an important issue.

That's not the point. I want to hear @astrotriforce make his own case. The reason congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of the US currently is not because of their positions on social or economic issues, but rather because they are currently incapable of discourse. I'd prefer if we didn't reproduce that problem in microcosm, and proudly reproduce it at that.

Well, he seemed to make his case as clearly as he intends to. It didn't satisfy me personally, but that's his prerogative. And if "that's not the point," what's the relevance of Congress' approval rating here exactly? You originally asked what the "traditional course" meant. I attempted to explain my interpretation of it.

If you want to speak to the potential definition of "traditional course", do note that he is deriving that phrase from a quoted immigrant family who stated the country's "traditional course" was their reason for emigration. That strikes me a very economics minded reason, hence why reducing the idea to simply "abortion rights" doesn't help, nor is it the point as I want to hear @astrotriforce present his own case.

China won it...

...and they don't care.

Seriously, these debates are nothing more than two clowns jestering around with bullshit spewing from their mouths. I'm waiting for someone to ask Obama if he's getting a Wii U when it launches and ask Romney if he thinks Bert and Ernie are gay. As for Ryan and Biden, I could give a fuck less what they say. It's just filler for the Obamney cake.

I'm still writing in Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

@JasonR86 said:

@Animasta said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Animasta said:

I can't wait until you spin it so Ryan won

maybe talking about how Biden was rude and assertive huh, because that seems to be the only thing Fox news is saying

Which you are you specifying? Not that I'm self-conscious or anything. Cause I'm not. I'M NOT!!!

astrotriforce, of course; last thread he was really biased towards Romney

Ok, cool. I asked because, though I'm a moderate and actually voted for Obama last time, I've been leaning more towards Romney when these threads come up and I'm vain and think everyone notices what I do.

@PeasantAbuse said:

I don't see how anyone could possibly think that Ryan did better than Biden.

I think he was way more likable then Biden. But Biden was more well prepared and had a larger stable of facts to rely on. So, like I said, C) neither.

Such as how he didn't vote for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in spite of him actually voting for both?

@Turambar said:

@PillClinton said:

@Turambar said:

@PillClinton said:

@Turambar said:

@Animasta said:

@Turambar said:

@astrotriforce: Two points. One, don't libertarians fall closer to the conservative camp than anything else? Ron Paul is still a registered Republican after all. Second, that quote seem pretty vague. What exactly does it, and you by extension, mean by the "traditional course"?

it means outlawing abortions and banning gay marriage obvs

You're not helping.

I think that's still very relevant though. Besides this ambiguously vague idea of fiscal conservatism the Right likes to tout, there's not much difference between Left and Right now, with the huge glaring exception of specific social issue (i.e. abortion and gay rights). It's a big difference (probably the biggest) and an important issue.

That's not the point. I want to hear @astrotriforce make his own case. The reason congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of the US currently is not because of their positions on social or economic issues, but rather because they are currently incapable of discourse. I'd prefer if we didn't reproduce that problem in microcosm, and proudly reproduce it at that.

Well, he seemed to make his case as clearly as he intends to. It didn't satisfy me personally, but that's his prerogative. And if "that's not the point," what's the relevance of Congress' approval rating here exactly? You originally asked what the "traditional course" meant. I attempted to explain my interpretation of it.

If you want to speak to the potential definition of "traditional course", do note that he is deriving that phrase from a quoted immigrant family who stated the country's "traditional course" was their reason for emigration. That strikes me a very economics minded reason, hence why reducing the idea to simply "abortion rights" doesn't help, nor is it the point as I want to hear @astrotriforce present his own case.

That quote means almost nothing to me. It's vague rhetoric, and the same exact thing I can hear listening to Fox News or rewatching the debates. Help or not, reducing it to the social issue differences (which are about two or three in total) is relevant, as it appears to be one of the biggest defining planks of the platform that people are basing their votes on, not to mention one of the biggest actual differences. If you still want to hear astrotriforce present a clearer explanation of his stance, fine, I'm not going to dispute that--I'd like to hear it as well, but I don't really think it's going to illuminate anything we don't already know. What exactly are we arguing about again?

Ryan didn't want to make a doddering old fool look silly and came off as dramatically more mature. Biden was his usual sub-moronic self with an, at best, cursory acquaintance with factual accuracy. And nice of the moderator to allow Ryan to be interrupted, on average, every 21 seconds. Good times.

@MikeinSC: I love how factual accuracy has become almost subjective. There are facts and there are non-facts, i.e. untruths, or lies, if you will. In total, Romney/Ryan have told so many more than Obama/Biden in these last two debates. That's objective. You can look it up.

@MikeinSC said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Animasta said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Animasta said:

I can't wait until you spin it so Ryan won

maybe talking about how Biden was rude and assertive huh, because that seems to be the only thing Fox news is saying

Which you are you specifying? Not that I'm self-conscious or anything. Cause I'm not. I'M NOT!!!

astrotriforce, of course; last thread he was really biased towards Romney

Ok, cool. I asked because, though I'm a moderate and actually voted for Obama last time, I've been leaning more towards Romney when these threads come up and I'm vain and think everyone notices what I do.

@PeasantAbuse said:

I don't see how anyone could possibly think that Ryan did better than Biden.

I think he was way more likable then Biden. But Biden was more well prepared and had a larger stable of facts to rely on. So, like I said, C) neither.

Such as how he didn't vote for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in spite of him actually voting for both?

It's all about perception with these debates dude. If we want to discuss fact checking in the debates we can but that's almost a totally different discussion. I'm personally under the assumption that all politicians lie when in a debate. But, just in terms of his appearance, Biden looked like he knew more and was more well informed with pertinent facts.

Think Ryan seemed like a person without personality, while I found Biden brusque but likeable.

Also, I do not believe that conservatism is the way for America to become the greatest nation on earth again, you really need to renew yourself in order to stay on top. You cant just go back to ye good ol' and think all will be swell...

America.

@JasonR86 said:

@MikeinSC said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Animasta said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Animasta said:

I can't wait until you spin it so Ryan won

maybe talking about how Biden was rude and assertive huh, because that seems to be the only thing Fox news is saying

Which you are you specifying? Not that I'm self-conscious or anything. Cause I'm not. I'M NOT!!!

astrotriforce, of course; last thread he was really biased towards Romney

Ok, cool. I asked because, though I'm a moderate and actually voted for Obama last time, I've been leaning more towards Romney when these threads come up and I'm vain and think everyone notices what I do.

@PeasantAbuse said:

I don't see how anyone could possibly think that Ryan did better than Biden.

I think he was way more likable then Biden. But Biden was more well prepared and had a larger stable of facts to rely on. So, like I said, C) neither.

Such as how he didn't vote for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in spite of him actually voting for both?

It's all about perception with these debates dude. If we want to discuss fact checking in the debates we can but that's almost a totally different discussion. I'm personally under the assumption that all politicians lie when in a debate. But, just in terms of his appearance, Biden looked like he knew more and was more well informed with pertinent facts.

...except he wasn't. He couldn't get BASIC facts correct. The only thing worse than a guy who knows he's lying is one who is convinced that he ISN'T. Biden is a long-known liar (plagiarizing life stories, lying about his educational successes, lying about his votes on key issues, etc) who "won" because he simply came across as a jackass and not as a completely retarded jackass.

In total, Romney/Ryan have told so many more than Obama/Biden in these last two debates. That's objective. You can look it up.

If it was "objective", you'd present those facts. Like how I mentioned that Biden actually voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. You know, because he did and all.

I love this insane "Romney won't give details" meme. Because Obama's plan to turn around his $1T+ deficits every single year of his Presidency are in detail. Really, they TOTALLY are.

@JackG100 said:

Think Ryan seemed like a person without personality, while I found Biden brusque but likeable.

Also, I do not believe that conservatism is the way for America to become the greatest nation on earth again, you really need to renew yourself in order to stay on top. You cant just go back to ye good ol' and think all will be swell...

We've tried spending into oblivion. Didn't work out well for Greece, Spain, or ever increasing countries in Europe. Isn't working well in assorted cities in the US or states like IL and CA with so much in unfunded debt that they cannot hope to actually pay for it.

@evanbower said:

America.

Democracy.

@MikeinSC said:

@JackG100 said:

Think Ryan seemed like a person without personality, while I found Biden brusque but likeable.

Also, I do not believe that conservatism is the way for America to become the greatest nation on earth again, you really need to renew yourself in order to stay on top. You cant just go back to ye good ol' and think all will be swell...

We've tried spending into oblivion. Didn't work out well for Greece, Spain, or ever increasing countries in Europe. Isn't working well in assorted cities in the US or states like IL and CA with so much in unfunded debt that they cannot hope to actually pay for it.

Technically, Greece, Spain, etc spent like the US trying to use "tricks" refined by the US. The problem is that neither Greece, Spain, etc manage their own monetary policy. Another problem is they have a fraction of the GDP the US has.

If you want to get reductionist: Those countries (and the US) was screwed up by following unchecked capitalism. The US has a large and diverse enough economy to absorb the huge amount of destruction of capital that happened while individual countries in the EU can not due to inflexible monetary policy. Ireland is a funny case where the public government decided to wholly take over failing banks which is frankly the right way to do it but the scale was larger than they thought. It wasn't that Ireland was spending like crazy on socialistic projects but they simply bailed out their failing banks. Iceland was a vicitim of an economy that is so tiny but was so swept up in currency speculation outside the country. One day the world was telling them their currency is hot and sought after even though no one wasy buying anything from Iceland, the next day they were trading it back. When Iceland went to creditors pointing this out, they didn't care so Iceland flipped them the bird so this is kind of the opposite case of the US where it is such a small economy they could handle it.

If you want to get reductionist again: The countries not in trouble rejected following unchecked capitalism. Canada, Germany, etc all have heavy government involvement in finance and largely avoided nasty things like bailouts.

You are right that one side clearly did the right thing here but I think you got the wrong side. As for the US, the money supply is as much of a strategy asset is weapons and oil. Do you honestly expect any country, let alone the US, to not step in and protect it?

@EXTomar:

I don't really feel like getting into this conversation(your obviously) not economists but just felt like correcting you, Germany did bail out Deutsche bank, just because money is not direct through asset repurchasing doesn't mean it wasn't bailed out, they basically gave them 0 interest rate loans.

@MikeinSC: Dunno why you bother arguing with the people on here. They're like a line of parrots, each repeating what they heard the other say and ganging up on you like a mob of rabid dogs. God be with you :P

@EXTomar said:

@MikeinSC said:

@JackG100 said:

Think Ryan seemed like a person without personality, while I found Biden brusque but likeable.

Also, I do not believe that conservatism is the way for America to become the greatest nation on earth again, you really need to renew yourself in order to stay on top. You cant just go back to ye good ol' and think all will be swell...

We've tried spending into oblivion. Didn't work out well for Greece, Spain, or ever increasing countries in Europe. Isn't working well in assorted cities in the US or states like IL and CA with so much in unfunded debt that they cannot hope to actually pay for it.

Technically, Greece, Spain, etc spent like the US trying to use "tricks" refined by the US. The problem is that neither Greece, Spain, etc manage their own monetary policy. Another problem is they have a fraction of the GDP the US has.

If you want to get reductionist: Those countries (and the US) was screwed up by following unchecked capitalism. The US has a large and diverse enough economy to absorb the huge amount of destruction of capital that happened while individual countries in the EU can not due to inflexible monetary policy. Ireland is a funny case where the public government decided to wholly take over failing banks which is frankly the right way to do it but the scale was larger than they thought. It wasn't that Ireland was spending like crazy on socialistic projects but they simply bailed out their failing banks. Iceland was a vicitim of an economy that is so tiny but was so swept up in currency speculation outside the country. One day the world was telling them their currency is hot and sought after even though no one wasy buying anything from Iceland, the next day they were trading it back. When Iceland went to creditors pointing this out, they didn't care so Iceland flipped them the bird so this is kind of the opposite case of the US where it is such a small economy they could handle it.

If you want to get reductionist again: The countries not in trouble rejected following unchecked capitalism. Canada, Germany, etc all have heavy government involvement in finance and largely avoided nasty things like bailouts.

You are right that one side clearly did the right thing here but I think you got the wrong side. As for the US, the money supply is as much of a strategy asset is weapons and oil. Do you honestly expect any country, let alone the US, to not step in and protect it?

Thing is, the EU tricks aren't working. They keep kicking the can down the road, but all of these countries still have the issues and leaks are appearing more and more. France is going to end up in trouble inside of 2 years. Germany is likely safe for a while, but only if they decide to simply STOP the bailouts completely and protect themselves.

In no alternate universe do the countries having issues have a problem with "unchecked capitalism". The US has a HEAVILY regulated economy (badly regulated isn't the same as unregulated). Hell, to be blunt, Canada regulates corporations less than the USA does. The belief that more bad regulations (since the regulations almost universally are bad and done solely to keep small players out of the market since it's easier to regulate a few large entities rather than a lot of small ones) will fix prior bad regulations seems to be the victory of optimism over logic. Dodd-Frank basically locked in several banks as being too large and vital to fail. That is a regulation that is simply horrendous and will do nothing to benefit people. We have a wealth of options to deal with disasters --- but we've had a long streak of them for the last few decades. The government cannot avoid the problems that the economy has. Nobody can. To try and do so is a waste of time and energy.

The US money supply is bloated as is and, quite bluntly, there will be the inevitable failed bond sale. Given that the biggest buyer of our bonds has been the Federal Reserve, we have issues. When that happens, the economy crashes. We cannot continually print money with nothing to back it up. In many ways, the US debt is a bigger problem than even the terrible debt of Spain, etc.

People who save their money are already getting screwed over 6 ways from Sunday. An economy with a currency that nobody wants to take tends to become nightmares (see Germany 1923, Zimbabwe today, Hungary WWII - 1946).