• 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 the VP Debate?

Who won?


  • Total voters
    109
See, and I think the fact that the current clown didn't get smoked hurts Ryan immensely. I think that the current clown went overboard on the clownishness in order to expose Ryan's overall weakness.

I have to qualify that, though, since I often give people more credit than they deserve for sneakiness of that sort which I would employ if I was in their position. Even if it was accidental, though, and Biden really is that much of a clown, the results are the same. Ryan looks weak because he could not dominate a clown.

I thoroughly disagree. What kind of sane individual pushing 70 regards "clownishness," much less going "overboard" with it, as an appropriate demeanor?

A Republican said to me this morning that she was disappointed that Ryan didn't "take it" to Biden. That's not how I see it at all. I think Ryan realized--I certainly did--that he was going to be continually interrupted.

Ryan was prepared and dignified. He looked Presidential to me.

He didn't act the fool. Biden did with all his eye-rolling and smirking. I've never seen such a performance. Clownishness during a national debate?
 
See, and I think the fact that the current clown didn't get smoked hurts Ryan immensely. I think that the current clown went overboard on the clownishness in order to expose Ryan's overall weakness.

I have to qualify that, though, since I often give people more credit than they deserve for sneakiness of that sort which I would employ if I was in their position. Even if it was accidental, though, and Biden really is that much of a clown, the results are the same. Ryan looks weak because he could not dominate a clown.

What if Ryans plan was to let Biden hang himself? Which I would say he did. No one neutral could have watched that and had respect for Biden after his childish behavior. Thus Ryan wins simply by not appearing to have decidedly lost.
 
yep, Donna Brazille claimed Obama won as she did with Biden. That is sort of like saying Hiroshima stomped the Enola Gay

Ryan was hardly a nuclear bomb.
 
I suppose I'm a bit more of a formalist in regard to the debates.

I steer away from the "he sabotaged himself to hurt the other" arguments; I think such impugns the character of the one being apologized for and is, thus, self-defeating.

I think the proof is in the pudding. Even while acting like a clown, Biden didn't get smoked. If anything, he helped his ticket.

I really think that Ryan should have been able to smoke Biden. I just don't think there's any excuse for his failure to do so.
 
What if Ryans plan was to let Biden hang himself?

then it was an exceptionally ****ty plan on Ryan's part because that just didn't happen. You even prove that it didn't happen by having to say "Ryan wins simply by not appearing to have decidedly lost."

If Ryan really was letting Biden hang himself, then Ryan would have decidedly WON.

No one neutral could have watched that and had respect for Biden after his childish behavior.

From what I can tell, there was very little respect for Biden before the debate. On the respect meter, we're looking at little to no change, IMO.
 
I thoroughly disagree. What kind of sane individual pushing 70 regards "clownishness," much less going "overboard" with it, as an appropriate demeanor?

A Republican said to me this morning that she was disappointed that Ryan didn't "take it" to Biden. That's not how I see it at all. I think Ryan realized--I certainly did--that he was going to be continually interrupted.

Ryan was prepared and dignified. He looked Presidential to me.

He didn't act the fool. Biden did with all his eye-rolling and smirking. I've never seen such a performance. Clownishness during a national debate?

It would have been so easy to take command of that stage without having to act the fool, without having to raise your voice, and without having to display emotions. Ryan didn't do it, and that's why it was even close. It was right there for the taking and Ryan failed to grab it, IMO.
 
I think most people saw it as two dems vs one Republican and it was a draw. that's pretty good

Shouldn't you be in the Conspiracy forum?
 
Ryan was prepared and dignified. He looked Presidential to me.
Oh, come on. Just like Obama looked unprepared and annoyed during the first debate, Ryan looked the same during this one. Ryan also looked a little boy. As Bill Maher (who I hate 99% of the time) said, "Call 911, there's an old man beating up a small boy on CNN." To say that he looked presidential is, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of what it means to be the President. That's not to say that Biden behaved like a President, either, keep in mind.

Another point is that there were plenty of liberals calling Romney a "bully" and "rude" during the first debate just as there are plenty calling Biden "rude" and a "clown" now. In both of those cases, the critics miss the point that part of being in a debate is being dominant even if people think that your dominance crosses whatever artificial line they have drawn. That said, I don't think that a debate should be only about looks. It should be about a combination of appearance and substance. However, faulting any candidate for being dominant misunderstands debate like this and it misunderstands what is at stake in any election.
 
It would have been so easy to take command of that stage without having to act the fool, without having to raise your voice, and without having to display emotions. Ryan didn't do it, and that's why it was even close. It was right there for the taking and Ryan failed to grab it, IMO.

That's just it. HHe didn't take the bait. He did take command just by sitting there and being the grownup at the table.
 
you mean because the two democrats kept interrupting him?

the biggest loophole is half the country being able to engage in voting to jack up taxes they do not pay

Lame excuse is lame. So only the wealthy should vote on taxes? I see that working out.
 
Biden... There is no doubt in my mind that Biden won.
 
you mean because the two democrats kept interrupting him?

the biggest loophole is half the country being able to engage in voting to jack up taxes they do not pay
I find it absolutely hilarious how the "personal responsibility" right is blaming Ryan's failures on Biden and the moderator. This is why I don't ever buy the personal responsibility talking point that comes from the right because they only ever apply it to other people - never themselves. Wait, I take that back, they apply it to themselves when they succeed, but never when they fail. In that case, everyone else is to blame. :lol:
 
That's just it. HHe didn't take the bait. He did take command just by sitting there and being the grownup at the table.

Simply being the grownup at the table is not taking command, especially when the children at the table are going ape**** having a food fight.
 
you mean because the two democrats kept interrupting him?

the biggest loophole is half the country being able to engage in voting to jack up taxes they do not pay

So you buy in to the 'makers and takers' rhetoric? :confused:
 
Regardless of who won the debate, I don't condone the behavior put on display by Joe Biden last night. He CLEARLY showed disdain and held a Holier than Thou attitude throughout the debate. As I said before, this is unbecoming of both a politician and a person.

It makes him look good to the blue collar base he has to win votes from. And that's all that matters.
 
So you buy in to the 'makers and takers' rhetoric? :confused:

those who are dependent on the government don't want the government to cut back handouts and those not paying income taxes really don't care if others have to pay more and they do care if tax cuts means they get less handouts
 
You're a socialist. Makers and takers defines your ideology. I make, you take.

Baiting isn't exactly helpful to your case. Please find out what my political views are before making a post like that.

Thanks :bright:
 
those who are dependent on the government don't want the government to cut back handouts and those not paying income taxes really don't care if others have to pay more and they do care if tax cuts means they get less handouts

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the primary way to create jobs is for businesses to make enough money to expand and grow. Raising taxes, especially upon the rich, holds companies back. Tax cuts are meant to surge the consumers with extra money which in turn gets spent at businesses which can then grow and hire more people, leading to more money for those people. All of that also generates more income tax revenue for the government. It's not an instant thing but nor is it hard to understand.

Raising taxes on the rich who live here won't help to the magnitude in which it needs to. They will either find new loopholes or simply leave the country and invest elsewhere. I know someone who did this for that very reason. Either way, that's revenue lost because of a tax increase.

Oh, and by the way, the taxes that the rich don't pay wind up coming from the middle class.
 
Baiting isn't exactly helpful to your case. Please find out what my political views are before making a post like that.

Thanks :bright:

You're political views are posted right next to every single one of your posts. "Lean: Socialist".
 
those who are dependent on the government don't want the government to cut back handouts and those not paying income taxes really don't care if others have to pay more and they do care if tax cuts means they get less handouts

Not what I'm asking. Do you believe that some substantial percentage of Americans are dependent on the government? That these people don't hold value to the country? That they're the 'takers' and, as the one of the 'makers' you don't have a responsibility towards them?

I'm just curious. :shrug:
 
Socialism is a very broad term.

But aren't social programs the underlying belief of socialists? Things like food stamps and wellfare programs? From who's pocket do you presume the funds for such programs become available?
 
Not what I'm asking. Do you believe that some substantial percentage of Americans are dependent on the government? That these people don't hold value to the country? That they're the 'takers' and, as the one of the 'makers' you don't have a responsibility towards them?

I'm just curious. :shrug:

Technically, every single American is dependent upon the government, otherwise we would have no military or civil structure. Should I have some responsibility to the poor? No. There is PLENTY of work out there. People are unwilling to do the work that's available. I have no problem helping the people who are helping themselves (in moderation) but until the government filters the circumstances by which people are eligible for social programs, I will not condone paying for people who take advantage of the system.
 
But aren't social programs the underlying belief of socialists? Things like food stamps and wellfare programs? From who's pocket do you presume the funds for such programs become available?

You're correct about the first part. But the most key aspect is an equal playing field, making so that people can find a job no matter what situation they're born in to. Removing the ability for corporations to cause as much harm as they do(while giving the individual worker control over their own livelihood) is also important.

And furthermore, you wouldn't be against paying a small fraction of your to keep Americans fed, now would you? And surely you're not against something like the Civilian Conservation Corps, are you? No. Because, as Americans, we don't just abandon our fellow man. That's not who we are.
 
Back
Top Bottom