• 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.

Presidential Debate 16 Oct 2012

She should never be the moderator for a political debate ever again.

Well, that's pretty reasonable. She was totally in the tank for Obama. But blaming the moderator looks petty. It will only backfire as a Romney tactic.
 
Harshaw, I am simply not interested in your baseless rejection of my well reasoned argument. And ultimately you will be proven wrong, in a matter of weeks. :shrug: It's not trolling, it's just facts. Sorry you can't handle the facts, your emotions are clearly running pretty hot. But you could try to suppress it and discuss the facts, if you like. It won't change anything, your argument will still be wrong, but at least you will achieve some modicum of politeness and civility.

What I reject is that 1) you're objective, and 2) anyone who disagrees with you is "emotional."

If you're serious, well, this is what Biden would call "malarkey." But you're probably just trying to get a reaction, so that's the definition of "troll."

If Obama wins, it doesn't mean you're proven correct or that you're prescient. Right now, it's about 50/50. It could go either way. If it goes your way, so be it, but it only means your guess panned out. It doesn't mean it was the only outcome possible by "objective" fact, any more than if you call a coin toss correctly.

You have a long-standing habit of substituting your opinion for "fact" and insisting things are so just because you declare them "obvious." This is no different.
 
Moderator's Warning:
cAPS and Guy - knock it off.
 
It appears perhaps someone has realized Obama might not win, and thus is having a bit of a breakdown...

What it ultimate boils down to is this tiresome exchange:

Me: Logic.
You, Zyphlin, Harshaw, etc: Emotion.
Me: Logic.
You, Zyphlin, Harshaw, etc: Emotion!
Me: Logic, please.
You, Zyphlin, Harshaw, etc: EMOTION!

Pardon me if that gets a bit tedious. I find one of the strongest indicators that I am right to be the fact that the bookmakers agree with me.

Here's a rehashing of my well reasoned, correct argument.

1. Evangelicals are lukewarm to him because they don't view him as Christian.
2. Blue collar Republicans are lukewarm to him because they are alienated by his Bain experience and generally callous attitude towards the poor.
3. He has high expectations on him for the next two debates, but instead he's going to spend them trying to reconcile the lies he told in the first debate with the past two years of campaign promises (usually politicians wait until they are in office before they go back on their campaign promises; Mitt didn't even make it through the first debate).
4. Obama's liberal base have their ire up now, are are paying even closer attention, which will translate into higher voter turnout on the left; Obama cannot afford to have his base think this is in the bag or they will spend election day at home with their bongs.
5. Romney has to go on the attack now, which makes him even less likeable. When Obama attacks, he does it in such a cool way that it makes him more likeable. Romney is now stuck in quicksand, and all Obama has to do is not get pulled in too.

This election is Obama's to lose, and he is too careful and masterful at his craft to botch it. The election is over. QED
 
It appears perhaps someone has realized Obama might not win, and thus is having a bit of a breakdown...

You seem like a good person with a firm grasp of logic and reason. You should thus reread my posts and apply your obviously firm grasp of logic and reason this time around, and you will soon realize your mistake.

Have a wonderful evening!
 
What it ultimate boils down to is this tiresome exchange:

Me: Logic.
You, Zyphlin, Harshaw, etc: Emotion.
Me: Logic.
You, Zyphlin, Harshaw, etc: Emotion!
Me: Logic, please.
You, Zyphlin, Harshaw, etc: EMOTION!

Pardon me if that gets a bit tedious. I find one of the strongest indicators that I am right to be the fact that the bookmakers agree with me.

Here's a rehashing of my well reasoned, correct argument.

1. Evangelicals are lukewarm to him because they don't view him as Christian.
2. Blue collar Republicans are lukewarm to him because they are alienated by his Bain experience and generally callous attitude towards the poor.
3. He has high expectations on him for the next two debates, but instead he's going to spend them trying to reconcile the lies he told in the first debate with the past two years of campaign promises (usually politicians wait until they are in office before they go back on their campaign promises; Mitt didn't even make it through the first debate).
4. Obama's liberal base have their ire up now, are are paying even closer attention, which will translate into higher voter turnout on the left; Obama cannot afford to have his base think this is in the bag or they will spend election day at home with their bongs.
5. Romney has to go on the attack now, which makes him even less likeable. When Obama attacks, he does it in such a cool way that it makes him more likeable. Romney is now stuck in quicksand, and all Obama has to do is not get pulled in too.

This election is Obama's to lose, and he is too careful and masterful at his craft to botch it. The election is over. QED

I really don't know where you think you're seeing "emotion" in my posts (and this post of yours is a trolling call-out), but your assessments of the Republican base (your points 1-3) are pure wishful thinking, and you vastly overestimate the level of Democrat enthusiasm.

Once again, you simply declare things so and expect everyone to accept that they're so merely because you say they are. And if anyone points this out, according to you, it's from "emotion."
 
Back
Top Bottom