• 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!

Who Won?

Who won tonight's debate?


  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
0bserver92,
ab9924,
AliBaba,
gavinfielder,
Pinkie,
straykatz,
waas

Seriously, people? How on earth do you think Obama won this debate?

Even the Obama campaign is tacitly admitting they lost the debate. They likely just don't like ROmney
 
Obama is not stupid. But those Obama slurpers who claim he is a genius are morons or have a man crush so heavy they cannot see straight. the smartest presidents in the last 75 years were

Nixon, Bush I, and Clinton. Obama is not in that group. Romney might be

Holy cow, those are three I'd never pick -- especially Clinton!
 
Even the Obama campaign is tacitly admitting they lost the debate. They likely just don't like ROmney

Meh, I'm not going to vote for Romney unless Obama drops dead of a heart attack. I just don't like him, his POVs, his VP or his background.
 
Holy cow, those are three I'd never pick -- especially Clinton!

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Just because he was unwise does not mean he was unintelligent.
 
Although I don't like either candidate, and I don't REALLY believe anything they promise or say, I think it is only fair to say that Romney did a better job during the debate, other than his odd facial expressions, but Obama had some odd ones too, so they break even in the making weird and uncomfortable-looking faces category.
 
In my case, confirmation bias. Romney seemed disrespectful and haughty to me.

Really, what else is this but performance art? It isn't as if I watched, waiting for some erudition on either man's positions.

I certainly agree about the demeanor of Mittens last night. But that is irrelevant next to the massive coverage he is getting as the winner of this debate. It does not matter that he lied. It does not matter that he was rude at times. It does not matter than he seems to shed personna's more than a snake sheds his skin. As long as the crowd believes he sawed the lady in half - he did it.

In the game of electoral politics on the TV screen - perception is reality.
 
I agree, but what should be and what is are two different things altogether.
I haven't said any different.

You seem to take the position that we should have higher expectations for the general electorate. I'm not really all that optimistic - you can call it complacent if you want, but it's simply how I view the realities of group behavior. I think it's absolutely unrealistic to expect the general electorate to judge a debate based on facts and strength of arguments rather than style points.
Eh, my point thus far has been that I have higher expectations for myself and that I reject the notion that I should judge a debate by how the majority judges it which is what Tucker's original criticism of my argument was. Like I said originally, when we see a problem, we can either become a part of it or become the change we wish to see. It seems like most people here think that the superficiality of how debates are judged is a problem, but it seems like everyone's just going along with it and saying, "well, this is just how it is." Well, that's not how it's going to be for me and I suspect that might sound arrogant or that I'm trying to put people down, but that's not where it's coming from. I just think that if you see a problem, you should try to fix it rather than become a part of it.
 
I don't know who won the debate...but in the end...the American people are the losers...regardless of which one is elected.

Neither is capable or willing to work toward fixing the systemic problems with government and political parties...because they are all beholding to factions or special interests that they won't betray.
 
I don't know who won the debate...but in the end...the American people are the losers...regardless of which one is elected.

Neither is capable or willing to work toward fixing the systemic problems with government and political parties...because they are all beholding to factions or special interests that they won't betray.

And if what you say is accurate, what then is the solution?
 
I don't think anyone with an IQ above say 115 believes that Obunny is smarter than Romney


LOL well nothing to do with politics but it wouldnt be the first time you were wrong ;)

also id have to look it up but doesnt 117 disqualify about 75% of the country ?

from what ive read and seen I definitely think Obama is smarter.
also on a side note smarter is not an equal translation for better president. (not saying you said that just making a general statement)
 
Ya, "trickle down government" was genius.

I don't think it was all that good. I can see how his base loved it though.
 
And if what you say is accurate, what then is the solution?

Uhmmmmm...drop back 20 and punt?

How about having "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on all ballots regardless of what level office is being sought. If a candidate gets "over" 51% then that would override all "none of the above" votes. If nobody takes the prize...then a new ballot will be create with new candidates who weren't in the top 2 running for an office...which both failed to get the significant number of votes. That would sure make it rough on all of the special interest groups who usually buy elections.
 
0bserver92,
ab9924,
AliBaba,
gavinfielder,
Pinkie,
straykatz,
waas

Seriously, people? How on earth do you think Obama won this debate?

Partisan blindness... to an extreme level.
 
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Just because he was unwise does not mean he was unintelligent.

I've always wondered about that. Nothing whatsoever that he did that I know of OTHER than win that prize indicates an IQ above room temperature.
 
I don't think it was all that good. I can see how his base loved it though.

Certainly better than "Obamaphone". Romney has run an epically bad campaign.

If I were a conservative of his ilk, I'd be alarmed that this signals he will fail at the presidency, if elected.
 
I've always wondered about that. Nothing whatsoever that he did that I know of OTHER than win that prize indicates an IQ above room temperature.

IQ doesn't measure anything other than your score on an arbitrary test. It's been debunked many times.

Yet people still talk about it as if it actually matters in the real world.
 
IQ doesn't measure anything other than your score on an arbitrary test. It's been debunked many times.

Yet people still talk about it as if it actually matters in the real world.

How true.

What I want in a president is emotional intelligence; I want him to be able to create cooperation and be persuasive. Granted, I want him or her to share my POVs, too, but it is frustrating to have someone in office with the right ideas who just can't pull the trigger.
 
I've always wondered about that. Nothing whatsoever that he did that I know of OTHER than win that prize indicates an IQ above room temperature.

the most articulate, incisive politician of our era
don't think you would want to match wits with him
 
the most articulate, incisive politician of our era
don't think you would want to match wits with him

Not sure why you think matching wits with him would be challenging. Or golf game. No doubt he is a skilled politician. I've said it before and still believe it...I'd take him back as president over the two current candidates in a heartbeat. However there are plenty of things in his history to indicate he may be very smart, but he is also extraordinarily foolish.
 
Back
Top Bottom