***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Coupé It]

Why do you keep thinking that these things have winners?

On top of that, how could Romney have won, even if there WAS a winner? 

I just don't understand that at all. 

Ya'll take what the TV says and just go with it. Then you say one guy won, but the other guy had better arguments. 

 
I just can't fathom how that cognitive dissonance registers. 

1) Bro, you keep telling me I'm getting this from "TV" when you're continuously posting videos from MSNBC and ABC news - Hypocrite

2) Go back to the beginning of this thread when the debate was on live, look at the comments, the News didn't tell liberal NTalkers and I that Romney was winning the debate. No news programs were on during the debate, stop blaming the media put still referencing them - especially a scum organization like MSNBC.

3) If you don't understand how political debating works for the American people, or better yet, if you don't like it - not my issue. If you dont understand why Romney is up 4 points in 5 days, or why 66 percent of the American population believe Romney won the debate (most importantly 72% of Independents) - I'm not going to continue with this, either you get it or you don't, I've tried many times to explain whats important and I specifically predicted this.

Romney (even with the lies) did exactly what he needed to do to re-energize the base (which leads to more campaign money), appealing to more Independent voters, and most importantly making this a tighter race. After that 47% video, no one thought he'd be this close again.

 

[bandit country]

Why do you keep thinking that these things have winners?


Ya'll take what the TV says and just go with it.

...

You keep posting clips from television.

 

[futuremd]

Why do you keep thinking that these things have winners?

On top of that, how could Romney have won, even if there WAS a winner? 

I just don't understand that at all. 

Ya'll take what the TV says and just go with it. Then you say one guy won, but the other guy had better arguments. 

 
I just can't fathom how that cognitive dissonance registers. 

1) Bro, you keep telling me I'm getting this from "TV" when you're continuously posting videos from MSNBC and ABC news - Hypocrite
 

Thats why Lawrence O'Donnell and Paul Krugman ( a guest) both disagree with you, right?

2) Go back to the beginning of this thread when the debate was on live, look at the comments, the News didn't tell liberal NTalkers and I that Romney was winning the debate. No news programs were on during the debate, stop blaming the media put still referencing them - especially a scum organization like MSNBC.

See this is what I'm talking about.

I'm interested in the arguments themselves. I don't care who has the argument, but WHAT the argument says matter.

I don't care if Lawrence ODonnell stole your lunch money, he knocked his point out of the park. 

3) If you don't understand how political debating works for the American people, or better yet, if you don't like it - not my issue. If you dont understand why Romney is up 4 points in 5 days, or why 66 percent of the American population believe Romney won the debate (most importantly 72% of Independents) - I'm not going to continue with this, either you get it or you don't, I've tried many times to explain whats important and I specifically predicted this.

I don't care. 

Its not my responsibility to care how americans accept ridiculous arguments ONLY on the premise that you "look" better.

Romney (even with the lies) did exactly what he needed to do to re-energize the base (which leads to more campaign money), appealing to more Independent voters, and most importantly  making this a tighter race. After that 47% video, no one thought he'd be this close again.

Makes me think these "undecided" aren't the bastions of intellect that they portray themselves to be.

 

[twozerosix]

...
You keep posting clips from television.

 

[utvol23]

Future you can have your opinion that no one can win a debate but if Romney was trailing by large numbers before the debate and is now very close or even ahead. His campaign would consider that a win.

Also in college and high school with Debate champions so obviously to be named a the champion would hence imply that you won the debates.

 

[luckyp824]

This dude is still in here saying Mitt didn't win the debate? Just stop. Please, just stop. 

 at this exchange. It's just too stupid to be real. Are you doing this as a joke? Like why'd you specifically clip that part his quote and reply with that? Your response to him calling you a hypocrite is saying that Lawrence O'Donnell agrees with you?

Ya'll take what the TV says and just go with it. Then you say one guy won, but the other guy had better arguments. 

1) Bro, you keep telling me I'm getting this from "TV" when you're continuously posting videos from MSNBC and ABC news - Hypocrite
 

Thats why Lawrence O'Donnell and Paul Krugman ( a guest) both disagree with you, right?

 

[futuremd]

This dude is still in here saying Mitt didn't win the debate? Just stop. Please, just stop. 

 at this exchange. It's just too stupid to be real. Are you doing this as a joke?

Ya'll take what the TV says and just go with it. Then you say one guy won, but the other guy had better arguments. 

1) Bro, you keep telling me I'm getting this from "TV" when you're continuously posting videos from MSNBC and ABC news - Hypocrite
 

Thats why Lawrence O'Donnell and Paul Krugman ( a guest) both disagree with you, right?

Please tell me.

How do you win a debate like this, and how did Mitt win when every media source (including fox) simultaneously says that he lied about most of what he said.

 

[bandit country]

You're on the Rorschach, 'never compromise, even in the face of annihilation' steez right now.

 

[Coupé It]

 

[KMante]

Okay, what's the big deal with FutureMD's stance? How is he really wrong?

You guys clearly have different definitions of "winning" a debate on the Presidential stage. 

The Lakers played the Spurs and the score was Spurs 101, Lakers 95.

It's not like Future is saying that the Spurs didn't win the game, because Kobe didn't play, so it doesn't count. 

To win a basketball game, you have to outscore your opponent when the game is over. Period.

The idea of who won a Presidential debate is completely subjective. 

 

[futuremd]

Okay, what's the big deal with FutureMD's stance? How is he really wrong?

You guys clearly have different definitions of "winning" a debate on the Presidential stage. 

The Lakers played the Spurs and the score was Spurs 101, Lakers 95.

It's not like Future is saying that the Spurs didn't win the game, because Kobe didn't play, so it doesn't count. 

To win a basketball game, you have to outscore your opponent when the game is over. Period.

The idea of who won a Presidential debate is completely subjective. 

THE TV SAID THERE WAS A WINNER....SO THERE MUST BE A WINNER AND HIS NAME IS MITT ROMNEY

*30 minutes later in the same broadcast on almost all major networks and main talking heads*

MITT ROMNEY LIED ON ALMOST EVERYTHING HE SAID

*cut to commercial break*

MITT ROMNEY WON BECAUSE HE LOOKED BETTER.

See, the problem here is that people assert who the "winner" is as if you can "win" these things, and on top of that, the winner is apparently the guy whose teeth shine brightest. Damn what you actually have to say to people.

I'm sorry for having an unattainable standard for my level of political discourse. 

How silly of me to ask that they treat me like i'm not stupid. 

 

[Betonblck]

FutureMD, I thought you were going to leave this discussion alone on who won the debate. Obama lost the debate, that cannot be disputed. There is a winner of the debate, otherwise there is no point in having Obama and Romney in the same room. Obama didn't call him on the lies and flip flopping and as a result lost.

The debate is a competition. Romney lied, that's like cheating. You can cheat in sports and win. Does it tarnish the win, yes, but you can still win in sports by cheating.

 

[essential1]

 

[futuremd]

FutureMD, I thought you were going to leave this discussion alone on who won the debate. Obama lost the debate, that cannot be disputed. There is a winner of the debate, otherwise there is no point in having Obama and Romney in the same room. Obama didn't call him on the lies and flip flopping and as a result lost.

The debate is a competition. Romney lied, that's like cheating. You can cheat in sports and win. Does it tarnish the win, yes, but you can still win in sports by cheating.

It can be disputed that you can "win" a debate in the first place if there is no method to determine a winner. Polling citizens about who they liked doesn't matter because it doesn't answer a question that the rules of the debate and design of the debate did not introduce. Jeopardy says you win when you have the most money after 3 rounds. You win survivor when you're the last person standing to do all the challenges set before you. You win a war when the other team says that you win the war in a surrender.

Where in the rules of the debate does it say that a winner is granted? Show them to me. Look for yourself. They're not there.

If the TV says that "there was a winner" do you not think that people will do whats on the TV and say "welp, i guess that guy won"...does that mean he won, or does that mean the TV is telling you who won?

Thats my point here. 

These debates are not crafted with methods to "award" winners. I keep trying to tell you that.

Even if Obama has a better performance than Romney next time, you have to understand that you can't WIN these debates. These are debates of competing ideas. The major networks have over time turned this into something that its not. 

Please tell me,  who were the formal judges of the debate?

AND, if there was a method to award a winner then you're going to have to assert that lying doesn't matter either but that having a beauty contest is the best manner to determine who "won."

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Republican attitude over the last 30 years...

 

[utvol23]

It can be disputed that you can "win" a debate in the first place if there is no method to determine a winner. Polling citizens about who they liked doesn't matter because it doesn't answer a question that the rules of the debate and design of the debate did not introduce. Jeopardy says you win when you have the most money after 3 rounds. You win survivor when you're the last person standing to do all the challenges set before you. You win a war when the other team says that you win the war in a surrender.

Where in the rules of the debate does it say that a winner is granted? Show them to me. Look for yourself. They're not there.


If the TV says that "there was a winner" do you not think that people will do whats on the TV and say "welp, i guess that guy won"...does that mean he won, or does that mean the TV is telling you who won?

Thats my point here. 

These debates are not crafted with methods to "award" winners. I keep trying to tell you that.

Even if Obama has a better performance than Romney next time, you have to understand that you can't WIN these debates. These are debates of competing ideas. The major networks have over time turned this into something that its not. 

Please tell me,  who were the formal judges of the debate?


AND, if there was a method to award a winner then you're going to have to assert that lying doesn't matter either but that having a beauty contest is the best manner to determine who "won."

Again I ask you then how is it that Debate Champions are awarded for college and high school debate teams? TO be called the debate champion would imply that you won the debates would it not.

Instead of a formal set of judges the american people were the judges.

 

[champcruthik]

Only point I'd like to make politically is that the first debate could be a blessing in disguise for the Obama campaign. Here's how, Barack's back is somewhat against the wall with adjusted polling post-debate. Little to lose, more to gain. Obama must take a more aggressive approach and launch a stronger stance against Romney's vagueness. Continue to paint Mitt as smug, dis-genuine, and vague on key policy points. Delivery and approach can make more of a different than content to the average American voter, unfortunately.

 

[Coupé It]

Only point I'd like to make politically is that the first debate could be a blessing in disguise for the Obama campaign. Here's how, Barack's back is somewhat against the wall with adjusted polling post-debate. Little to lose, more to gain. Obama must take a more aggressive approach and launch a stronger stance against Romney's vagueness. Continue to paint Mitt as smug, dis-genuine, and vague on key policy points. Delivery and approach can make more of a different than content to the average American voter, unfortunately.

Disagree brotha, Obama has everything to lose. It's the presidency man. Romney is the one who had nothing to lose, thats why he went so hard last week.

In most Presidential races, the debate usually doesn't matter. Whoever goes into October winning the polls usually wins the election. As sad as it is, this year may be the exception. The way the polls drastically fluctuated in 5 days is totally embarrassing to Obama and his campaign. If he loses this race, it will be the biggest collapse in our generation.

 

[scarsorscabs]

The idea of a winner of a debate in this instance basically boils down to whose performance the voting public is most swayed by. Even if at that time, only half of what that person states is true, if his opponent doesn't refute it, the public's perception is that one was stronger than the other.

It doesn't make it okay if he was lying (not that everything Obama stated was accurate either) but Romney at least appeared to have a much stronger debate. It influences the public, right or wrong.

Obama did not impact the public in this debate like he did in 2008. He didn't seem as prepared, for whatever reason. I think he'll come back much stronger but whether you consider those who fell for Romney's words, as well as his demeanor, to be unintelligent, sheep, foolish, etc, Romney won over more people.

Obviously things are much different but it even goes back to the JFK-Nixon debate where those listening on the radio generally felt Nixon won whereas those who watched the televised debate were in favor of JFK. Unfortunately, style > substance in this country. I think to some extent it benefitted Obama in 08.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Only point I'd like to make politically is that the first debate could be a blessing in disguise for the Obama campaign. Here's how, Barack's back is somewhat against the wall with adjusted polling post-debate. Little to lose, more to gain. Obama must take a more aggressive approach and launch a stronger stance against Romney's vagueness. Continue to paint Mitt as smug, dis-genuine, and vague on key policy points. Delivery and approach can make more of a different than content to the average American voter, unfortunately.

Disagree brotha, Obama has everything to lose. It's the presidency man. Romney is the one who had nothing to lose, thats why he went so hard last week.

In most Presidential races, the debate usually doesn't matter. Whoever goes into October winning the polls usually wins the election. As sad as it is, this year may be the exception. The way the polls drastically fluctuated in 5 days is totally embarrassing to Obama and his campaign. If he loses this race, it will be the biggest collapse in our generation.

Overreaction, bro.

 

[crcballer55]

It can be disputed that you can "win" a debate in the first place if there is no method to determine a winner. Polling citizens about who they liked doesn't matter because it doesn't answer a question that the rules of the debate and design of the debate did not introduce. Jeopardy says you win when you have the most money after 3 rounds. You win survivor when you're the last person standing to do all the challenges set before you. You win a war when the other team says that you win the war in a surrender.

That's exactly how they choose the winner in Survivor. It's the person they either like the most, or dislike the least at the end.

Even if Obama has a better performance than Romney next time, you have to understand that you can't WIN these debates. These are debates of competing ideas. The major networks have over time turned this into something that its not. 

AND, if there was a method to award a winner then you're going to have to assert that lying doesn't matter either but that having a beauty contest is the best manner to determine who "won."

These debates have NEVER been about substance. Going back to the very first televised one with Nixon & Kennedy. Nobody remembers what the issues discussed were. They only remember that Kennedy looked better. Same goes for Reagan's one liners, Bush 41 looking at his watch, Ducaucus with his nonchalant answer to the death penalty question and Gore yawning. I challenge anyone to remember any of the candidates statements during any of those debates. Despite that fact, the poles swung convincingly after those performances.

The funny thing is... Romney's "gaff" about Big Bird might actually be one of the first times something like that has actually worked in the candidate's favor.

 

[Coupé It]

Overreaction, bro.

So if you're an Obama supporter you're not concerned? Obama had an average 4 point lead last week man on October 1st, now he's down on average 1.5. He lost 5.5 points in a week.

I don't remember a 5 point swing from a debate happening in my lifetime, have you? If Obama gets rolled over in the next debate again what do you expect? Should this not be reason for concern?

 

[boys noize]

The 'winner' is going to be decided on November 6th. All this extra stuff is just noise.

 

[futuremd]

It can be disputed that you can "win" a debate in the first place if there is no method to determine a winner. Polling citizens about who they liked doesn't matter because it doesn't answer a question that the rules of the debate and design of the debate did not introduce. Jeopardy says you win when you have the most money after 3 rounds. You win survivor when you're the last person standing to do all the challenges set before you. You win a war when the other team says that you win the war in a surrender.

Where in the rules of the debate does it say that a winner is granted? Show them to me. Look for yourself. They're not there.


If the TV says that "there was a winner" do you not think that people will do whats on the TV and say "welp, i guess that guy won"...does that mean he won, or does that mean the TV is telling you who won?

Thats my point here. 

These debates are not crafted with methods to "award" winners. I keep trying to tell you that.

Even if Obama has a better performance than Romney next time, you have to understand that you can't WIN these debates. These are debates of competing ideas. The major networks have over time turned this into something that its not. 

Please tell me,  who were the formal judges of the debate?


AND, if there was a method to award a winner then you're going to have to assert that lying doesn't matter either but that having a beauty contest is the best manner to determine who "won."

Again I ask you then how is it that Debate Champions are awarded for college and high school debate teams? TO be called the debate champion would imply that you won the debates would it not.

Instead of a formal set of judges the american people were the judges.

Those aren't the rules of the debate.

Thats like you going to a pop warner game and expecting your kid to win the Lombardi trophy at the end.

Thats not a part of the contract.

Calling it a "debate" doesn't mean you get to make up rules or stipulations where there are none.

You've let the media decide where you should stand by perpetuating this talking point of "winners and losers" instead of focusing on the arguments themselves.

Everytime you repeat that, you show how little you actually care about holding the system accountable. 

And no, there were no american people as judges. There only people who were asked what they thought. 

 

[david bowman]

The point of the debate is to sway voters. The polls show romney gained more votes than obama. Therefore he won