• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Shiang's take on the debates: No knockout punches but Obama beat himself.

S

shiang

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
937
Reaction score
159
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I agree with the popular consensus. Romney did a little better, but no knockout punches.

I thought overall the the debate was rather boring. There's nothing big, nothing new. Romney did a good job presenting a solid debate on his platform and distancing himself from his bad image. It's depressing to see Obama there. He seemed exhausted, dispirited, unconfident, and frankly ill prepared. If it you looked at just what they said and their policies it would've been closer to a draw, but who would've thought Romney would be more articulate and better at connecting with people. Bottom line Romney seemed more energetic and prepared for a debate. Wouldn't be a stretch to call it a win.

If this was a boxing match, Romney would be the one boxing and throwing punches. Obama was just trying to absorb punches and not get knocked out. Obama seemed to just throw a punch, Romney blocks and punches back, then Obama just flusters when there are perfectly good moves. In short Romney played to win and Obama played not to lose. If you told me Romney paid off Obama to lose I'd believe ya. Romney hardly delivered a perfect debate, there's nothing that really "sticks" or would put the country at it's feet, he made statements that made him vulnerable and could've trapped himself - Obama just didn't do it.

Here's a few key opportunities Obama really missed:


Debt:

When Romney attacked Obama on deficit spending. Obama simply stated that he was handed an extremely bad economy and a high deficit to begin with and that he's saved 1 trillion in waste, and cited a few small examples. In short he pretty much agreed. He would've done much better had he explained that deficit spending was highest in 2009 and has came DOWN every year since then.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

He could've also explained that the 16 trillion number was either the projected debt for the next year, or a reference to the debt ceiling and it's 1 trillion inflated from the actual current debt. He could've also explained what the 15/16 trillion number actually means. Two thirds of the international debt is borrowed on behalf of the private sector, meaning the government is "only" around 5 trillion in debt from it's spending.

Biggest Holders of US Government Debt - Yahoo! Finance
United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by external debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (look at per-capita) - western nations are all borrowing and asian nations are lending.

Obama also made no mention of the 10% increase in GDP (when he inherited a dropping gdp)


Business, Small Business, Jobs

When Romney said if small business pay less in taxes, then they can hire more workers. Obama could've hit it out of the park by agreeing and then following with the fact that when business hire workers, thats corporate spending and is tax deductible in the first place.


Obamacare

Two points Obama should've made.

First, when Romney attacked Obama on having the board and should leave it up to all the doctors in the country. Obama should've said something like "just ask around, most of the doctors in the country say Obamacare is a step in the right direction".

Second, when Romney said lets just leave it to the states. Obama should've jumped on him and said if the federal government didn't do anything then that's just keeping status quo. He should then ask Romney how exactly are all the states suppose to overhaul our medical system and weather he's going to have a federal mandate for the states, and if so, how's that any different/better than just passing national legislation.

Romney exceeded expectations, and Obama was just plain disappointing last night. He had good numbers to back up great statements and just didn't make them.

Grats to Romney I think he should gain a point or two, but won't be taking the lead just yet. I believe in Obama's policies, but if the next 3 debates are like last night's the race will be extremely close. Not sure what the strategy for Obama was coming into this debate, but whatever it is, it didn't seem to work.

A note: Romney was really pushing it when talking over Jim Lehrer, the moderator. He did seem a little desperate to always have the last word.

I hope you guys think this is overall a good assessment of the debates.
 
:roll:

"The debate was boring" is the Democratic partisan-hack media's talking point this morning - and apparently you felt it worth starting a thread for you to repeat it - in which you pretend you are President. Their goal continues to be trying to trivialize the candidates themselves to nothingness and convince voters not to watch the debates and just let them tell people how to vote. It is a talking point you repeat and it sucks!

There was nothing boring about the debate at all. It was EXCELLENT and both candidates deserve our congratulations and praise.

What is boring is your OP in which you pretend you were on the stage. If you were on that stage, given the quality of your OP - it is clear that both Obama and Romney would have stomped you. As for your pro-Obama claims, Romney would have ripped you up - and Obama would have disavowed you.

Your OP of "if I were Obama I would have said" is what is boring and pointless.

It was an EXCELLENT DEBATE BY BOTH.
 
Last edited:
shiang said:
I agree with the popular consensus. Romney did a little better, but no knockout punches.

I thought overall the the debate was rather boring. There's nothing big, nothing new. Romney did a good job presenting a solid debate on his platform and distancing himself from his bad image. It's depressing to see Obama there. He seemed exhausted, dispirited, unconfident, and frankly ill prepared. If it you looked at just what they said and their policies it would've been closer to a draw, but who would've thought Romney would be more articulate and better at connecting with people. Bottom line Romney seemed more energetic and prepared for a debate. Wouldn't be a stretch to call it a win.

If this was a boxing match, Romney would be the one boxing and throwing punches. Obama was just trying to absorb punches and not get knocked out. Obama seemed to just throw a punch, Romney blocks and punches back, then Obama just flusters when there are perfectly good moves. In short Romney played to win and Obama played not to lose. If you told me Romney paid off Obama to lose I'd believe ya. Romney hardly delivered a perfect debate, there's nothing that really "sticks" or would put the country at it's feet, he made statements that made him vulnerable and could've trapped himself - Obama just didn't do it.

Here's a few key opportunities Obama really missed:


Debt:

When Romney attacked Obama on deficit spending. Obama simply stated that he was handed an extremely bad economy and a high deficit to begin with and that he's saved 1 trillion in waste, and cited a few small examples. In short he pretty much agreed. He would've done much better had he explained that deficit spending was highest in 2009 and has came DOWN every year since then.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

He could've also explained that the 16 trillion number was either the projected debt for the next year, or a reference to the debt ceiling and it's 1 trillion inflated from the actual current debt. He could've also explained what the 15/16 trillion number actually means. Two thirds of the international debt is borrowed on behalf of the private sector, meaning the government is "only" around 5 trillion in debt from it's spending.

Biggest Holders of US Government Debt - Yahoo! Finance
United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by external debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (look at per-capita) - western nations are all borrowing and asian nations are lending.

Obama also made no mention of the 10% increase in GDP (when he inherited a dropping gdp)


Business, Small Business, Jobs

When Romney said if small business pay less in taxes, then they can hire more workers. Obama could've hit it out of the park by agreeing and then following with the fact that when business hire workers, thats corporate spending and is tax deductible in the first place.


Obamacare

Two points Obama should've made.

First, when Romney attacked Obama on having the board and should leave it up to all the doctors in the country. Obama should've said something like "just ask around, most of the doctors in the country say Obamacare is a step in the right direction".

Second, when Romney said lets just leave it to the states. Obama should've jumped on him and said if the federal government didn't do anything then that's just keeping status quo. He should then ask Romney how exactly are all the states suppose to overhaul our medical system and weather he's going to have a federal mandate for the states, and if so, how's that any different/better than just passing national legislation.

Romney exceeded expectations, and Obama was just plain disappointing last night. He had good numbers to back up great statements and just didn't make them.

Grats to Romney I think he should gain a point or two, but won't be taking the lead just yet. I believe in Obama's policies, but if the next 3 debates are like last night's the race will be extremely close. Not sure what the strategy for Obama was coming into this debate, but whatever it is, it didn't seem to work.

A note: Romney was really pushing it when talking over Jim Lehrer, the moderator. He did seem a little desperate to always have the last word.

I hope you guys think this is overall a good assessment of the debates.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you assess the Role of the Federal Government question?
 
Boring because there's nothing really new and nothing I didn't already know.

Not to mention almost everything was extremely twisted by both sides and half the time was devoted to "yes you did" "no i didn't".
 
Last edited:
what should be evident is that john kerry is NOT the fellow to prep Obama for the debates. why use a fellow who is an awful speaker/thinker as your practice coach

in contrast, romney had as his debate 'opponent' rob portman, a republican who would himself have been a better candidate than the fellow he was coaching
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Why didn't you assess the Role of the Federal Government question?
Click to expand...

I didn't pick the debate apart, I just went by memory and wrote what I remembered I was thinking at the time I was watching the debate.

I'm not sure exactly what the two candidates really believe (least not from that debate), and on that topic they "dodged" the direct question. But I would say this is what I believe. Since the debate was on domestic issues, I think the federal Government's job is this. Create a system that promotes prosperity and protection for it's citizens. Do things that are best done on a national level and leave the rest to the people and the state. If something is done best on a state level, require the states to do it with conditions if necessary. This includes passing legislation that creates a good education system, provide good and affordable healthcare, provide financial support for it's citizens during periods of tough times.

The question is so broad and vague that I can talk days about it, unfortunately the candidates didn't have days and I don't intend to spend days here. I hope your satisfied with the summary of my answer.
 
justabubba said:
what should be evident is that john kerry is NOT the fellow to prep Obama for the debates. why use a fellow who is an awful speaker/thinker as your practice coach

in contrast, romney had as his debate 'opponent' rob portman, a republican who would himself have been a better candidate than the fellow he was coaching
Click to expand...

Was Kerry the dummy for Obama's practice sessions? THAT would explain a lot.
 
shiang said:
Boring because there's nothing really new and nothing I didn't already know.
Click to expand...

I call BS on that. The left has been going on and on about Romney being 'right'... how that's not good for our country. The problem is, they have been wrong the whole time, Romney isn't a right-winger, never has been. He let some of that show last night. But far be it for the the partisan leftists to even notice it as their hate and rage has been so focused on Romney for so long.
 
shiang said:
Was Kerry the dummy for Obama's practice sessions? THAT would explain a lot.
Click to expand...

but that speaks to one of Obama's huge weaknesses. he is no judge of talent. as a result, his political appointees have failed him - and us
 
Arbo said:
I call BS on that. The left has been going on and on about Romney being 'right'... how that's not good for our country. The problem is, they have been wrong the whole time, Romney isn't a right-winger, never has been. He let some of that show last night. But far be it for the the partisan leftists to even notice it as their hate and rage has been so focused on Romney for so long.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. Romney did well avoiding the radical rhetoric he follows on his campaign trail, and did a good job for the first time presenting himself to the LEFT of where he really is, reaching more to the middle. Something he should do more often.

I honestly thought Romney was much better in the debates than John McCain and Obama was much worse than he was four years ago.
 
I didn't think Obama did that badly. Of course Romney did a better job, but Obama did defend his ideas reasonable well.

But I am a little biased cause I can see through a lot of Romney's lies. For instance Obama talked about Romney's 5 trillion in tax cuts, which is estimated cuts in rates from his tax plan. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/obama-says-romneys-plan-5-trillion-tax-cut/
Romney then said he did not plan to increase taxes that would increase the deficit. You see, he never denied that his plan proposes 5 trillion in tax cuts in rates.

Obama did the fatal mistake and assumed voters would trust him more than Romney on Romneys tax plan. Hence he made himself look like a fool for the average Joe in the beginning by repeating the same statement over and over again. Obama should have been way more specific in the beginning. But, I don't feel much symphaty as Obama mislead on how much he has cut in deficit. Also Romney was very strong on energy, and Obama chose to not respond.

Apart from that I didn't listen more than 30 minutes. I think the rest of the debate was kind of boring.
 
Last edited:
I thought Romney did better than I expected. But what surprised me more is Obama came off timid and weak, he just wasn't being himself. Sure it wasn't "terrible", but he's capable of so much more, both his oratory skills and his record.

Romney's Smile pretty much summed up the debate.

Hopefully in the next two debates they can touch back on the economy and Obama is put in a position to play for a win and we can see some real fireworks from both sides :).
 
Last edited:
"Shiang's take on the debates"

Really? Referring to yourself in the third person?
 
Harshaw said:
"Shiang's take on the debates"

Really? Referring to yourself in the third person?
Click to expand...

i look forward to seeing from you why that should be found inappropriate
 
shiang said:
I didn't pick the debate apart, I just went by memory and wrote what I remembered I was thinking at the time I was watching the debate.

I'm not sure exactly what the two candidates really believe (least not from that debate), and on that topic they "dodged" the direct question. But I would say this is what I believe. Since the debate was on domestic issues, I think the federal Government's job is this. Create a system that promotes prosperity and protection for it's citizens. Do things that are best done on a national level and leave the rest to the people and the state. If something is done best on a state level, require the states to do it with conditions if necessary. This includes passing legislation that creates a good education system, provide good and affordable healthcare, provide financial support for it's citizens during periods of tough times.

The question is so broad and vague that I can talk days about it, unfortunately the candidates didn't have days and I don't intend to spend days here. I hope your satisfied with the summary of my answer.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I quote you here: " Do things that are best done on a national level and leave the rest to the people and the state." That's pretty close to the 10th Amendment.

Then: " If something is done best on a state level, require the states to do it with conditions if necessary." If it is a state responsibility, then it is not the place of the Federal Government to require it. You don't seem to trust the states to do things the "right" way.

I generally agree with what you wrote, but I would reduce it to promote good and affordable healthcare instead of providing it. Also, I would say provide support for it's citizens who are unable to provide for themselves. Tough times is too broad and vague.

Using the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as justification for what he believes the role of the federal government was Romney's strongest answer and the President's weakest.
 
justabubba said:
i look forward to seeing from you why that should be found inappropriate
Click to expand...

:shrug: You get it or you don't. I'm sure most people get it.
 
shiang said:
I thought Romney did better than I expected. But what surprised me more is Obama came off timid and weak, he just wasn't being himself. Sure it wasn't "terrible", but he's capable of so much more, both his oratory skills and his record.

Romney's Smile pretty much summed up the debate.

Hopefully in the next two debates they can touch back on the economy and Obama is put in a position to play for a win and we can see some real fireworks from both sides :).
Click to expand...

Take a look at the debates in 2008. It wasn't Obama's superior debating skills that let him beat McCain. It was the fact that McCain did not challenge Obama. In fact when Obama criticized him, he just took it and talked about something else. Also, there was no record to criticize him on and McCain wasn't very good speaker.

Romney is not like that. Romney is actually pretty good at debates, and the nomination improved him even further. It wasn't Obama being particularly weak. It was Romney being strong. Obama could say whatever he wants, but Romney sounded a lot better.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Thank you. I quote you here: " Do things that are best done on a national level and leave the rest to the people and the state." That's pretty close to the 10th Amendment.

Then: " If something is done best on a state level, require the states to do it with conditions if necessary." If it is a state responsibility, then it is not the place of the Federal Government to require it. You don't seem to trust the states to do things the "right" way.

I generally agree with what you wrote, but I would reduce it to promote good and affordable healthcare instead of providing it. Also, I would say provide support for it's citizens who are unable to provide for themselves. Tough times is too broad and vague.

Using the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as justification for what he believes the role of the federal government was Romney's strongest answer and the President's weakest.
Click to expand...

Obamacare doesn't actually create a government department responsible for providing health care. It's more of a rules and regulations measure which favor's primary care and preventive care , in an effort to increase efficiency and hence cut cost. I've talked to a few of my doctors, they all seem to like it. Of course I'm not a doctor myself and can't speak for every doctor in the country.

It's not so much I don't trust the state government to be intelligent or capable. But currently the state government ironically tends to do as little as possible while the national government sometimes tries to do too much. Problem is if the national government stopped doing something. The states, at least not all 50, might not pick up the tab so to speak. So I think IF the national and state governments decided something was better done on a state level then the National governments needs to transition slowly and tell all 50 states "you need to get this done, here's the money (cut national taxes and ask states to raise theirs), oh btw here's some rules that should be followed". The reverse should also be true. I think the national government needs to play a bigger role in education, I think education should be managed by both the state and the national government because the national government would be better at coordinating cross state activity, such as sports and math competitions. The national government also has a broader view and can make more comparisons between the current school systems to see where improvements can be made.

One key issue in the debate was whether health care should be handled more by the Federal or the State government. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand the State government might be better with specifics as they can specialize in their own state and tailor better to their citizens. On the other people move from state to state and sometimes require hospitals/medical care from another state. The national government also has more people so they can "bundle" people better and negotiate better, fairer, prices with insurance companies due to the increased bargaining powers. Here Obama actually made a good argument in the debate why he thinks the duality voucher/medicare system would fail.
 
justabubba said:
i look forward to seeing from you why that should be found inappropriate
Click to expand...

Travis says if you dont know why , then Travis says you cant be helped to understand why
 
shiang said:
Obamacare doesn't actually create a government department responsible for providing health care. It's more of a rules and regulations measure which favor's primary care and preventive care , in an effort to increase efficiency and hence cut cost. I've talked to a few of my doctors, they all seem to like it. Of course I'm not a doctor myself and can't speak for every doctor in the country.

It's not so much I don't trust the state government to be intelligent or capable. But currently the state government ironically tends to do as little as possible while the national government sometimes tries to do too much. Problem is if the national government stopped doing something. The states, at least not all 50, might not pick up the tab so to speak. So I think IF the national and state governments decided something was better done on a state level then the National governments needs to transition slowly and tell all 50 states "you need to get this done, here's the money (cut national taxes and ask states to raise theirs), oh btw here's some rules that should be followed". The reverse should also be true. I think the national government needs to play a bigger role in education, I think education should be managed by both the state and the national government because the national government would be better at coordinating cross state activity, such as sports and math competitions. The national government also has a broader view and can make more comparisons between the current school systems to see where improvements can be made.

One key issue in the debate was whether health care should be handled more by the Federal or the State government. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand the State government might be better with specifics as they can specialize in their own state and tailor better to their citizens. On the other people move from state to state and sometimes require hospitals/medical care from another state. The national government also has more people so they can "bundle" people better and negotiate better, fairer, prices with insurance companies due to the increased bargaining powers. Here Obama actually made a good argument in the debate why he thinks the duality voucher/medicare system would fail.
Click to expand...


your post as always is nothing but nonsense and errors,,,, not fact based but pure Obamabot spin...
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
what should be evident is that john kerry is NOT the fellow to prep Obama for the debates. why use a fellow who is an awful speaker/thinker as your practice coach

in contrast, romney had as his debate 'opponent' rob portman, a republican who would himself have been a better candidate than the fellow he was coaching
Click to expand...


Are you serious? Obama used JOHN KERRY as debate coach? OMG, Kerry is academic Zippy Pinhead central station!
 
Travis007 said:
your post as always is nothing but nonsense and errors,,,, not fact based but pure Obamabot spin...
Click to expand...

Travis how do you ignore? ...sorry wouldn't know if you responded =P.
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug: You get it or you don't. I'm sure most people get it.
Click to expand...

but because you cannot explain it that means you don't get it
got it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom