PDA

View Full Version : US Presidential debates


Jae Onasi
09-26-2008, 01:40 PM
The first of four debates will happen tonight--3 between Obama and McCain, and 1 between Palin and Biden. I would encourage everyone to listen to or watch the debates. There is a lot at stake in any Presidential election, but I feel like this one is particularly important for so many crucial issues, and I am looking forward to what both men have to say.

Feel free to discuss the debates here. This thread might end up getting merged with the Decision '08 thread depending how the discussion goes, but I thought evaluating the debates themselves might be a separate enough topic.

McCain has said he will be in Oxford, MS tonight after all for the debate after suspending his campaign temporarily a few days ago to help work on the bill that's getting hammered out to deal with the financial crisis. While Obama had stated he'd be at the debate, he had also suspended his campaigning to help out on this crisis, and he has resumed his campaign as well.

Achilles
09-26-2008, 02:29 PM
While Obama had stated he'd be at the debate, he had also suspended his campaigning to help out on this crisis, and he has resumed his campaign as well.Could you please tell me where you heard this? I've been following the news pretty closely and this is the first I'm hearing of this.

Jae Onasi
09-26-2008, 03:38 PM
Could you please tell me where you heard this? I've been following the news pretty closely and this is the first I'm hearing of this.
I'd seen on the news he'd gone back to Washington and had canceled planned appearances to work on Capitol hill just as McCain had--it was described on the news as 'suspending his campaign'. Could just be a case of semantics in that case.

I think that was certainly a political move on both their parts, but I think at the same time Washington needed both men to be there to work on this--in November one of them is going to be elected President and one of them is still going to be a Senator, and both will still have roles in this financial mess. They both need to have a solid understanding of what's happening, and being in Washington while major legislation is being hammered out was essential for them in terms of knowledge and making sure their constituency is appropriately represented.

Achilles
09-26-2008, 03:44 PM
Ok, so Obama didn't make an announcement that he was suspending his campaign? Got it.

That assertion struck me as a little odd considering that I saw him making television appearances, etc. Thanks for clarifying.

EDIT: In all fairness, we saw McCain doing those things too, however he did say that he was suspending his campaign (apparently for 48 hours).

Jae Onasi
09-26-2008, 05:45 PM
Ok, so Obama didn't make an announcement that he was suspending his campaign? Got it.No official statement from Obama on that, to my knowledge. I suppose they could have said he canceled appearances to work on this stuff instead of suspending his campaign. Oh well.

EDIT: In all fairness, we saw McCain doing those things too, however he did say that he was suspending his campaign (apparently for 48 hours).Totally not a surprise to see posturing in a presidential campaign. :D

I'd love to hear what everyone's favorite quotes of the debate are, points that stuck out for you as particularly effective or ineffective, things the candidates did well or poorly, what candidates answered particularly well, etc. It's easy to find the gaffes, but I'd also like to see the positives and places were the arguments were well done.

El Sitherino
09-26-2008, 10:47 PM
This is the worst debate ever so far. They keep just talking into the camera.

I want to see blood in their eyes as they tear apart each other's policy.

mimartin
09-26-2008, 10:49 PM
If John McCain is so good at working at cutting spending why didn’t he do that when the Republican had control of Congress and the Presidency?

I believe he needs to remove his rose color glasses, they don’t suite his former maverick status and the American people are not that stupid. Well maybe they are not that stupid.:(

jrrtoken
09-26-2008, 10:55 PM
I see that McCain is practicing his Sidious Snicker in this debate. I'm also noticing that McCain keeps beating 'round da Bush in several of his questions. This debate has been pretty boring so far, but I have my hopes for the VP debate; I can't wait for Palin to expose herself as a witch.

Litofsky
09-26-2008, 11:00 PM
This is the worst debate ever so far. They keep just talking into the camera.

I want to see blood in their eyes as they tear apart each other's policy.

Quote for truth. This debate is extraordinarily boring and, as mentioned, I'm eager for the VP Debate. I really want to see Biden rip Palin to shreds. But that might be wishful thinking on my part. :p

mimartin
09-26-2008, 11:10 PM
We talk and give money to Pakistani where Al Qaeda is, but threaten Iran.

Makes perfect sense to me. :nut:

Very good points by Obama about who is at fault for embolden Iran.

Litofsky
09-26-2008, 11:16 PM
The debate sounded like it heated up for a moment. Currently, Obama and McCain are on the topic of Iran and unconditionally speaking with its leader(s). I wonder if the Middle East is viewed as a major (issue) anymore? Or has the economic crisis taken precedence?

mimartin
09-26-2008, 11:34 PM
Is McCain so stupid? Why does his answer to every question include Iraq?

Senator, would you like cream with your coffee?
McCain: Well when I was in Iraq…

It is like he is trying to lose the election.

McCain is too use to talking in sound bites. We just heard Obama say the surge worked, but according to McCain Obama never said that. Is McCain saying I’m stupid or deaf?

Jae Onasi
09-27-2008, 12:14 AM
Interesting debate--I was expecting some kind killer comment that defined this debate and it never really happened. I enjoyed that both men had a spirited exchange but were still civil to each other. There were moments when both men were on the offensive, both on the defensive. Obama clearly won the domestic aspects, I think, and his plan of tax cuts for the middle class is going to be undeniably popular. McCain did not refute Obama's points that McCain would cut taxes on the wealthiest and put a tax on healthcare. Obama did not hem and haw and take a long time to get to his answer as he had in some other debates. He got to the point more quickly with his answers tonight, and he really needed to do that. I agreed with what I heard from Obama on healthcare, though I missed the first section of the debate and part of that discussion, unfortunately. McCain clearly won the foreign side of the debate--his emphasis on where he's traveled and leaders he's spoken with only highlighted Obama's inexperience. He was far more knowledgeable on the military, as I expected from a military man.

McCain needed a clear win in this debate and I don't know if he got that. Obama needed only to come to a draw, and I think he achieved at least that.

I think Charles Krauthammer's comment about each camp's response after the debate was priceless: "It reminds me of the headline in the Harvard Crimson--'Harvard beats Yale 29-29!'"

Achilles
09-27-2008, 12:15 AM
If John McCain is so good at working at cutting spending why didn’t he do that when the Republican had control of Congress and the Presidency?

I believe he needs to remove his rose color glasses, they don’t suite his former maverick status and the American people are not that stupid. Well maybe they are not that stupid.:(QFE

Rev7
09-27-2008, 01:12 AM
I did watch tonights debate, and I found it quite interesting. I really don't know all that much on politics and whatnot but one major thing that I picked up on was that Obama said, along the lines of, we need someone in office that nows how to use the military. Along those lines. I don't know the exact quotes, but if you too watched the debate you should probably know what I am talking about. Back to what I was saying, who do you think would handle the military better, someone who was in the military or someone who has not been in the military. Those we the exact words out of my mouth at the time that Obama said that.

It is evident that John McCain has a lot more military knowledge and a lot more experiance than Obama. That is one of the things that I picked up during this specific debate.

Another thing that I think that I should bring up, or one of the things that I thought really, is Obama's thinking on what he think should happen if we knew that Bin Laden and high ranking leaders of Al-Qaeda were in Pakistan or some other middle eastern country. I believe that he said that he would attack them. I don't quite remember if he said whether or not if he had permission by that country or not. If not, would that not put us at risk of going into another war?? Remember, I am no expert at these things....;)

I do have to say that Obama is a very good speaker. However, my personal opinion is that McCain was stronger tonight.

Please do correct me if I am inaccurate with anything that I have said. Please...

mimartin
09-27-2008, 01:38 AM
who do you think would handle the military better, someone who was in the military or someone who has not been in the military.
In my personal opinion, the one that will handle the military the best is the one that will use the military as last resort and not as the first option.

I believe Franklin Delano Roosevelt had no military experience yet oversaw the country in a successful war effort.

Again, my personal opinion, I would rather have someone that listened to the commanders on the ground rather than have military experience that prevents them from seeing reality of what is happening on the ground. Saying everything is safe when you are surrounded by 100 troops is not exactly the reality of the war zone.

Rev7
09-27-2008, 01:47 AM
In my personal opinion, the one that will handle the military the best is the one that will use the military as last resort and not as the first option.

I believe Franklin Delano Roosevelt had no military experience yet oversaw the country in a successful war effort.

Again, my personal opinion, I would rather have someone that listened to the commanders on the ground rather than have military experience that prevents them from seeing reality of what is happening on the ground. Saying everything is safe when you are surrounded by 100 troops is not exactly the reality of the war zone.
I do agree with you in most respects. And this really does heavily rely on your opinion.

You see, you could say that it has been proven that presidents with no military experiance can win a war, but they are two different people, with two different beliefs. They are not going to be the same.

Does not McCain listen to what the commanders on the ground say? He praised Gen. Petraeus numerous times during tonights debate on his tactics.

Well, IMO, I would much rather have someone that has had military experiance to accurately use the military over someone that hasn't. Experiance...

mimartin
09-27-2008, 02:10 AM
Yes, he praised Gen. Petraeus, but he also said Iraq was safe before the surge. I really don’t consider praising the General a reason to vote for McCain.

Your right about FDR and Obama being two different people and no military experience does not guarantee military success or failure, but neither does military experience. Look at the Korean War both Harry Truman and Dwight D Eisenhower had military experience or look at the Vietnam War both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had military experience.

If a president that greatly help ensure victory as a General in World War could not succeed in Korea, I really cannot see how a Captain in Vietnam will guarantee victory in Iraq or more important (IMO) in fighting Al-Qaeda.

At least Obama seems to remember the enemy that attacked us 09/11/2001 was Al-Qaeda and not Iraq.

Corinthian
09-27-2008, 05:49 AM
Not to nitpick, but I don't really see how the United States lost the Korean War. It wasn't a victory, but I don't see how it was a defeat.

mimartin
09-27-2008, 08:20 AM
Not to nitpick, but I don't really see how the United States lost the Korean War. It wasn't a victory, but I don't see how it was a defeat.
Not to nitpick, but where did I say we lost the Korean War?

I wrote it was a failure and not a defeat. If Iraq ends, the same way I will considered it a failure too. What else can you call a war that ended in not peace, but with a 55-year-old cease-fire? A cease-fire that is so frail that it still requires American troops to defend foreign soil to this day.

Arcesious
09-27-2008, 10:37 AM
There is no dishonor in retreating from a war such as in the middle east... The war cost is hurting the economy, and it's making everyone pretty mad at us. Besides, I don't think (this part is opinion -> ) that the middle east is an effective place to take on these terrorists. Islam is everywhere... I really don't have anything against what people beleive anymore, since I'm now moderately libertarian, but seriously, if you look at the statistics of Islam's effects as it gains popularity in countries; and the arguments against Islam, it would be better if Islam as a religion didn't exist... Now I don't have anything against these people's beleiving this- but the effects it has are not positive in any way for anyone. Child abuse, suicide, violations of women's rights, encouragement to hate and attempt to murder (homicide) your fellow human if he/she beleives anything else...

I'd continue on that, but I'd be straying to far off topic.
IMHO, we need to pull out from the middle east and increase our homeland defenses, whilst still trying to get the new world-wide arms race to end.

ForeverNight
09-27-2008, 11:47 AM
The thing that really stuck out for me during this debate was Obama going: "Uh, ah, ooh, eh" when he was thinking... but I really don't know why.

But, as for who's going to use the Military more responsibly, I'd say McCain, if only because he served in the Air Force as an Officer, and he was the son of an Admiral. I'm not trying to say that he's going to have all the skills of an Admiral, but one would think that he'd have learned something from his father...

Your right about FDR and Obama being two different people and no military experience does not guarantee military success or failure, but neither does military experience. Look at the Korean War both Harry Truman and Dwight D Eisenhower had military experience or look at the Vietnam War both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had military experience.

If a president that greatly help ensure victory as a General in World War [2] could not succeed in Korea,

Well, Vietnam was very political, we really didn't want to tick them off... even though we were at war...

Korea, we really weren't into it... not only that, but we never fought to Win. we jst fought to keep the Status Quo in place...

Both of those Wars were mismanaged and the wrong people were kept in charge... we've changed that in Iraq and, hopefully, we'll be able to actually Win this...

... or not...

Yar-El
09-27-2008, 01:14 PM
This is the worst debate ever so far. They keep just talking into the camera.

I want to see blood in their eyes as they tear apart each other's policy. I'm with you on that one. I was looking for some sort of TKO. There were moments where I said, "Come on! Take those gloves off and start hitting!" McCain did throw the most jabs and punches, but he didn't deliver any bloody noses.

My opinion -- (<--- We are taught to just say what we mean, so I'm just going to leave that phrase out for now on.)

Obama looked like he was squirming. McCain's refusal to look at him was all strategic. Obama likes being at the center of attention, and he gets comfort in giving lectures. McCain just played on Obama's inability to become comfortable. I keep hearing that Obama had won more points, but the debate didn't seem to come off that way. Obama looked more like a follower than a leader. McCain's experience really did shine. I feel more confort in knowing that he may become our president. Obama seemed to be caught off guard, for he didn't have any actual experiences to fall back upon.

What I can't figure out is, why Obama on a good day cannot beat McCain on a bad day. McCain wasn't really at his best, and the debate still felt 50/50. Obama did have a better ending, but that doesn't mean much overall.

We have two more debates, and the presidency is still up in the air. I cannot believe that we are still split 50/50.

Is McCain so stupid? Why does his answer to every question include Iraq?

Senator, would you like cream with your coffee?
McCain: Well when I was in Iraq…

It is like he is trying to lose the election.

McCain is too use to talking in sound bites. We just heard Obama say the surge worked, but according to McCain Obama never said that. Is McCain saying I’m stupid or deaf? Did we see the same debate? Iraq was no doubt in the forefront. You can't leave out Iraq when talking about foriegn policy. Iraq and Afghanistan are now one war. If we were talking about this three to four years ago, I can see how people may believe they are two different wars. Our enemy is fighting on two grounds.

Obama originally said at press confrences that the surge wouldn't work. McCain was just pointing out Obama's sudden change in support.

Obama's campaign was all about how McCain was a reflection of Bush. After watching the debate last night, Obama and McCain are more alike on certain issues. Experience is going to be the major difference for fifty percent of the voters. Last night was a reminder of how much more experience McCain has.

McCain had ideas, experiences, and historical details. Obama had ideas.

Rev7
09-27-2008, 03:38 PM
There is no dishonor in retreating from a war such as in the middle east... The war cost is hurting the economy, and it's making everyone pretty mad at us. Besides, I don't think (this part is opinion -> ) that the middle east is an effective place to take on these terrorists. Islam is everywhere... I really don't have anything against what people beleive anymore, since I'm now moderately libertarian, but seriously, if you look at the statistics of Islam's effects as it gains popularity in countries; and the arguments against Islam, it would be better if Islam as a religion didn't exist... Now I don't have anything against these people's beleiving this- but the effects it has are not positive in any way for anyone. Child abuse, suicide, violations of women's rights, encouragement to hate and attempt to murder (homicide) your fellow human if he/she beleives anything else...

I'd continue on that, but I'd be straying to far off topic.
IMHO, we need to pull out from the middle east and increase our homeland defenses, whilst still trying to get the new world-wide arms race to end.
It sounds to me like you are being ethnocentric, Arc. Islam is everywhere, but lets look at the facts (http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-religion-map.htm). I don't think that you should be bashing Islam like that. Yeah, I myself don't agree with it, but Islam itself isn't violent. It is the extremists that are. Not all muslims are extreme, guys....just had to say that. :)

I am definately looking forward to the other debates...

Astor
09-27-2008, 03:48 PM
But, as for who's going to use the Military more responsibly, I'd say McCain, if only because he served in the Air Force as an Officer, and he was the son of an Admiral. I'm not trying to say that he's going to have all the skills of an Admiral, but one would think that he'd have learned something from his father...

As I keep saying, simply being in the military isn't enough to lead a war. Yes, he may have some expert knowledge about the military - but War doesn't just involve the military.

There's the politicians, the economic side of things, the diplomatic side, and the general public to consider as well with war.

He may have knowledge of a few of these things, but it doesn't necessarily mean he can lead a war.

But then again, that doesn't make Obama the right person either.

As i've said in another thread, we don't know how effective a President either of them will be until they are actually in the Oval Office.

Rev7
09-27-2008, 03:52 PM
As I keep saying, simply being in the military isn't enough to lead a war. Yes, he may have some expert knowledge about the military - but War doesn't just involve the military.

There's the politicians, the economic side of things, the diplomatic side, and the general public to consider as well with war.

I don't think that you quite understand the question. Who would use the military better.

There are more sides to war, on the homefront mostly, but war is war on the frontlines.

Yar-El
09-27-2008, 03:55 PM
As i've said in another thread, we don't know how effective a President either of them will be until they are actually in the Oval Office. You have a point there. We have hired some with and without military experience, and everything has turned out alright. However, we are in a different world. Military tactics and strategies are important more now than ever. We need someone who can use diplomacy and war when necessary. Negotiating with the enemy without preconditions is a waste of time. McCain understands that all too well.

I don't think that you quite understand the question. Who would use the military better.
There are more sides to war, on the homefront mostly, but war is war on the frontlines. McCain's experiences in war will make him flexible. Being in a war that was considered unpopular gives McCain a unique perspective. He will be sympathetic to the men and women on the ground, and McCain will know how to use tact for a responsible resolve.

Astor
09-27-2008, 03:57 PM
I don't think that you quite understand the question. Who would use the military better.

There are more sides to war, on the homefront mostly, but war is war on the frontlines.

Oh no, I understood it perfectly. :)

My point still stands - the candidate's experiences (or lack of) of the military doesn't mean they know how to use it better.

The question should really be do either of them have the wisdom to use it better?

Jae Onasi
09-27-2008, 05:17 PM
McCain had training at the Naval Academy in Annapolis and was a commissioned officer from 1958 to 1981 when he retired. He was a fighter pilot for a number of years. He attended the National War college and commanded a squadron in addition to serving as the Navy's liaison to the Senate. As squadron Commander he improved safety and readiness to the point where the squadron got a meritorious unit commendation. If he had not made improvements I could see where his ability to use the military might be in question, but that's not the case. There's no question that McCain understands the military's ins and outs far better than Obama ever will, since Obama has not served in the military. I am not saying Obama can't learn, but he cannot match 23 years of military experience.

Inyri
09-27-2008, 05:24 PM
So since my Uncle was an officer in the navy does that mean he can be president too?

Litofsky
09-27-2008, 06:02 PM
So since my Uncle was an officer in the navy does that mean he can be president too?

Does he meet the requirements set forth by the Constitution? :xp:

Seriously, I realize that while McCain was tied to the military for a significant portion of his life, that does not, in of itself, make him fit to lead a nation. As Jae said, McCain may understand the military better than Obama, but that doesn't mean that McCain is any more fit to lead the nation than Obama. It just means that one was in the military, and one wasn't.

Inyri
09-27-2008, 06:08 PM
Yes he does. My point is I don't see how it's really all that relevant. Being in the military certainly gives you an insight, but unless you're something equivalent to a 4-star General you don't have the experience to claim you know everything about how the military works on the large scale.

Sure, he was a Captain. That doesn't make him any more qualified to be president than Obama. Or my uncle.

Litofsky
09-27-2008, 06:17 PM
Yes he does. My point is I don't see how it's really all that relevant. Being in the military certainly gives you an insight, but unless you're something equivalent to a 4-star General you don't have the experience to claim you know everything about how the military works on the large scale.

Sure, he was a Captain. That doesn't make him any more qualified to be president than Obama. Or my uncle.

Which is what I said. :p

Astor
09-27-2008, 06:24 PM
Sure, he was a Captain. That doesn't make him any more qualified to be president than Obama. Or my uncle.

That's exactly what i've been trying to get at. Sure, he commanded a squadron. But that Squadron is just one aspect of a Military comprised of three different elements (Army, Navy and Air Force).

Which still isn't enough for anyone to effectively gauge who would be the better option.

Jae Onasi
09-27-2008, 07:19 PM
So since my Uncle was an officer in the navy does that mean he can be president too?

The question was who could use the military best, Obama or McCain, and experience in the military is going to give McCain a substantial advantage in that particular department. I can't speak to your uncle's military experience and how it would affect his ability to serve as President, and it's irrelevant to the conversation anyway.

Arcesious and Astor--the topic is the debate, not Islam--please discuss Islam in the appropriate thread(s). Thanks.

Arcesious
09-27-2008, 07:26 PM
The Palin - Biden debate should prove to be even more interesting than the Mccain - Obama one was...

Achilles
09-27-2008, 07:44 PM
I'm sorry, if Palin is getting her butt consistently handed to her in softball interviews, she's going to get eaten alive by Biden.

Yar-El
09-27-2008, 08:30 PM
I'm sorry, if Palin is getting her butt consistently handed to her in softball interviews, she's going to get eaten alive by Biden. After last night's debate between McCain and Barrack, I think everyone will be stepping up the defences. I don't call Palin out yet. It doesn't look good, but I wouldn't count her out.

Darth333
09-27-2008, 08:46 PM
The Palin - Biden debate should prove to be even more interesting than the Mccain - Obama one was...
Judging from Palin's interview by Katie Couric it should prove at least entertaining... :nutz3:

I can't believe there is a possibility this person could one day have access to the Nuclear Football..."oh...what does this button do?" :xp:


* D3 goes back to watching the Canadian political circus*

Litofsky
09-27-2008, 11:49 PM
I'm sorry, if Palin is getting her butt consistently handed to her in softball interviews, she's going to get eaten alive by Biden.
I hope she does. I mean no disrespect to Palin (well, maybe a little), but unless you can handle the 'baptism by fire,' I'm not sure you've got the guts to lead the country.

Astor
09-28-2008, 07:06 AM
I'm sorry, if Palin is getting her butt consistently handed to her in softball interviews, she's going to get eaten alive by Biden.

In every interview i've seen, she's avoided all the questions, with vague answers or answers that don't make sense - being able to see the Russian Coast is apparently important when considering the Georgia Situation, after all.

And that interview she did the other day was just as bad. I've never seen Biden in an interview, but if he can at least answer questions in a clear way, then Palin's sunk.

mimartin
09-28-2008, 07:22 PM
Did we see the same debate? Iraq was no doubt in the forefront. You can't leave out Iraq when talking about foriegn policy. When you are running for President under your party’s banner and the incumbent President stated a unpopular war, you do not bring it up every 5 seconds if you want to win the election. McCain still seems to be under the impression that the American people believe the Iraq War was a good idea. Iraq and Afghanistan are now one war. I disagree, the war in Afghanistan is a war fighting those that attacked us on 9/11/2001. The war in Iraq is our own creation. It started as a giant Easter egg hunt where there were no hidden eggs and has turned into a quagmire. Who really believes when we pull the surge back the Shia and Sunni people are going to suddenly start acting like long lost brothers? Probably only the same people that thought the Iraqi people would welcome us like liberators instead of invaders. Obama originally said at press confrences that the surge wouldn't work. McCain was just pointing out Obama's sudden change in support. Yes Obama did, but at the debate Obama also stated the surge worked. Yet, McCain said he had not admitted that even though everyone that watched the debate knows Obama did (with the expectation of those wearing the ever popular Republican rose color glasses). Last night was a reminder of how much more experience McCain has. As my 73 mother pointed out to me the debate did point out John McCain’s experience. It also pointed out to her his age. With the inexperience of his running mate, McCain’s age worries her. Since John McCain is only one year my Mother’s junior she has a real issue with his age considering his running mate. So yes, I believe experience will be a factor, but I believe how that translates into votes depends of the voters perspective. If John McCain would have picked a running mate with experience he could have locked up the experience issue, yet he did not.

So my original point stands, is McCain trying to lose the election? He has the experience and expertise (not counting his apparent lack of knowledge on the difference being the different Muslims) in foreign affairs, yet he continually reminds the American people of his support of an unpopular war. He has the experience to be commander and chief, yet he picks a running mate with very little experience.

Litofsky
09-28-2008, 07:32 PM
So my original point stands, is McCain trying to lose the election? He has the experience and expertise (not counting his apparent lack of knowledge on the difference being the different Muslims) in foreign affairs, yet he continually reminds the American people of his support of an unpopular war. He has the experience to be commander and chief, yet he picks a running mate with very little experience.

While it may appear that way, I believe that McCain seriously believed that choosing Palin would help him. Perhaps he thought that she would siphon off angry Hillary voters? By any standard that's an unsure, unstable path. I guess we'll see the extent of McCain's choice at the upcoming debate.

Again, I think McCain took an unwarranted risk, and we'll see what it'll cost him.

Achilles
09-28-2008, 08:37 PM
McCain still seems to be under the impression that the American people believe the Iraq War was a good idea.Meh. I understand what he's doing, but I don't agree with it.

I'm probably reading more into this than what should be considered "normal", but I think it's important to focus on the underlying narrative of each candidate's position. McCain's narrative is that American's aren't quitters (and if you vote for the other guy, then you're saying that we are. See: false dichotomy). Republicans are very good at tapping into these messages (see: yellow ribbons, American flag pins, jingoism, etc).

So does McCain know deep down in his heart that the war is unpopular. I'd like to think that he's smart enough that the answer would be yes. So why continue to bring it up? Because (if you notice) when he talks about the war, he doesn't talk about the war: he advertises the narrative (not accepting defeat, defending democracy, etc). Next time you see McCain confronted about Iraq, watch how quickly he runs and hides behind his talking points (and refuses to come out). One of those fun little things that once you notice it, it's pretty obvious.

Yar-El
09-28-2008, 09:15 PM
McCain still seems to be under the impression that the American people believe the Iraq War was a good idea. Watch the polls. Aproximately 50% do agree with the Iraq war. I may not agree with the original intell, but I absolutely agree that it was the right thing to do.

Why are people ignoring the polls? McCain and Barrack are only seperated by the margin of error. Estimated 50% for McCain and 50% for Barrack.

Jae Onasi
09-28-2008, 09:41 PM
While it may appear that way, I believe that McCain seriously believed that choosing Palin would help him. Perhaps he thought that she would siphon off angry Hillary voters? By any standard that's an unsure, unstable path. I guess we'll see the extent of McCain's choice at the upcoming debate.

Again, I think McCain took an unwarranted risk, and we'll see what it'll cost him.

I think he picked her for several reasons.
a. Female, when the Dems rejected Clinton as even VP.
b. From an oil state
c. Conservative to appeal to that side of the party.
d. She's not Romney, who McCain clearly could not stand.
e. She apparently doesn't have serious skeletons in her closet.
f. She can speak in front of crowds articulately. TV is a very different matter, obviously--she clearly has a difficult time with that.

Seeing what she's done on TV lately, I think Biden is going to win the debate, unless she really pulls herself together and Biden says something really stupid.

Achilles
09-28-2008, 09:46 PM
a. Female, when the Dems rejected Clinton as even VP."The Dems" didn't reject her. Obama did.
e. She apparently doesn't have serious skeletons in her closet.Trooper-gate?
f. She can speak in front of crowds articulately. TV is a very different matter, obviously--she clearly has a difficult time with that. No teleprompter in interviews :dozey:

Q
09-28-2008, 10:07 PM
I think he picked her for several reasons.
a. Female, when the Dems rejected Clinton as even VP.
b. From an oil state
c. Conservative to appeal to that side of the party.
d. She's not Romney, who McCain clearly could not stand.
e. She apparently doesn't have serious skeletons in her closet.
f. She can speak in front of crowds articulately. TV is a very different matter, obviously--she clearly has a difficult time with that.
g. MILF.

Fixed. :D

And, yes, it is relevant to this discussion as it was most likely a factor in his choosing her. ;)

Tyrion
09-28-2008, 10:19 PM
I think he picked her for several reasons.
a. Female, when the Dems rejected Clinton as even VP.
b. From an oil state
c. Conservative to appeal to that side of the party.
d. She's not Romney, who McCain clearly could not stand.
e. She apparently doesn't have serious skeletons in her closet.
f. She can speak in front of crowds articulately. TV is a very different matter, obviously--she clearly has a difficult time with that.
g. Milf.
h. Milf.
i. Milf.
j. Milf.
k. Milf.
l. Milf.
m. Milf.
n. Milf.
o. Milf.
p. Milf.
q. Milf.
r. Milf.
s. Milf.
t. Milf.
u. Milf.
v. Milf.
w. Milf.
x Milf.
y. Foreign experience with numerous exotic lands, in particular Idaho.
z. Milf.


Fixed for emphasis.

mimartin
09-28-2008, 10:20 PM
Watch the polls. Aproximately 50% do agree with the Iraq war. I may not agree with the original intell, but I absolutely agree that it was the right thing to do.

Why are people ignoring the polls? McCain and Barrack are only seperated by the margin of error. Estimated 50% for McCain and 50% for Barrack. Why are people ignoring the polls?

According to the latest poll number taken by CBS/New York Time 09/21/2008 – 09/24/2008 when asked: "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

39% said it was the “Right Thing”

55% said we should of “Stayed Out.”

6% said they were “Unsure.”

Call me old fashion, but when I was in school 21 years of my life, 55 was a bigger number than 39. Thing may have change, but I’d still rather have 55 dollars than 39 dollars. :D

As to the Presidential polls, I see a relative unknown African-American, first term Senator with 50% of the vote while John McCain, an American hero and senior Senator, with only 44% of the vote. 6 points is beyond the margin of error and a huge lead in a country so divided. I also see that the poll number have widen since the debate. Again, IMO these numbers have nothing to do with McCain and everything to do with President Bush and the fact he is a Republican. It is an economic issue. It is still an eternity of time in a campaign, but unless McCain distances himself from the current administration, I do not see him winning. Bush’s job rating was 66% disapproval as of 09/23/2008.

...and Biden says something really stupid.
This, if Biden’s past history is any indication, is highly probable, of course Palin saying something stupid will not shock me either.

Jae Onasi
09-28-2008, 10:58 PM
"The Dems" didn't reject her. Obama did.
If the Dem leadership really wanted to press the issue they could have. In any case, Clinton isn't on the ticket.
Trooper-gate? Fired for insubordination. It's also not a serious election-busting skeleton like catching her in an orgy or smoking meth.
No teleprompter in interviews :dozey:That's why I didn't say 'interviews'. She's way out of her element on TV interviews.

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"This is not the same question as 'Should we finish what we started in Iraq', which will give very different numbers.

I also see that the poll number have widen since the debate.
I don't know that it was the debate that did it, because I don't think McCain did poorly. I think the banking crisis is making people say to themselves 'this happened on Bush's watch, McCain's a Republican, I don't want another Republican in office'. I'd like to see some study/poll asking if the debate or the banking crisis had more of an influence on the poll change.

Palin saying something stupid will not shock me either.If the past week has been any indication, I won't be shocked either.

Does anyone think either of them will do really well, or do we expect both of them to say something really stupid? I'm leaning more to the 'stupid' expectation.

Astor
09-29-2008, 03:13 AM
Watch the polls. Aproximately 50% do agree with the Iraq war. I may not agree with the original intell, but I absolutely agree that it was the right thing to do.

Why are people ignoring the polls? McCain and Barrack are only seperated by the margin of error. Estimated 50% for McCain and 50% for Barrack.

The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us?

Achilles
09-29-2008, 04:41 AM
If the Dem leadership really wanted to press the issue they could have. In any case, Clinton isn't on the ticket.So they're guilty because they were complicit with his decision (it being his decision and all)? I'm having a great deal of difficulty making sense of this argument, Jae.

Fired for insubordination."Innocent until proven guilty" would have been much more persuasive. Considering that she's stonewalling the investigation (after agreeing to cooperate), I don't see how you can determine the outcome.

It's also not a serious election-busting skeleton like catching her in an orgy or smoking meth.Interestingly, some of us consider abuse of power and cronyism more important than private issues or a prior drug conviction.

That's why I didn't say 'interviews'. She's way out of her element on TV interviews. Yep, because she doesn't have a teleprompter. :)

If I have two instances of someone speaking and one is favorable and the other is not and one of the main variables is the presence of a teleprompter, I'm going to begin making some very broad assumptions about said person's ability to speak "articulately".

Yar-El
09-29-2008, 08:45 AM
The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us? Watch the evening news.

ForeverNight
09-29-2008, 09:33 AM
That, and even Approximate numbers give ideas as to where the race is currently leaning. No poll is going to be 100% accurate, that's just impossible since the survey group size is going to have to be ~300M, not the usual ~1000-2000 crap the media shoves down our throats as "fact".

So, just as long as its disclaimered as an Estimate, I'll take it as an estimate for where the race is at... after all, its the best we can do so far.

mimartin
09-29-2008, 09:39 AM
The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us? First I personally don't think polls are that important and a poll that involves a question of race is questionable because people may lie so they do not appear racist. That should be taken into account by the margin of error, but I do not know how idealist those that took the statistics were. Therefore, I take all polls, especially those in this Presidential election with a grain of salt. I would say I only trust the election count, but since the election of 2000, I know that is flawed too.


Gallup 09/28/2008 - Obama 50% to McCain 42% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110740/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-50-42-Lead.aspx)

Real Clear Politics - Poll Averages 9/21/2008 - 9/28/2008 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)

PollingReport.com (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm)

Astor
09-29-2008, 10:03 AM
Watch the evening news.

As much as i'd like to, I'm not on the same continent.

El Sitherino
09-29-2008, 11:20 AM
Watch the evening news.

No.

And polls are not important.:lol:

Yar-El
09-29-2008, 11:38 AM
No.

And polls are not important.:lol: Bad kitty! :lol:
You are most likely right though.

GarfieldJL
10-01-2008, 11:46 PM
In my opinion if you actually knew the facts and had been following things with sources other than the "mainstream media" McCain clearly won, but he didn't utilize several opportunities to blow Obama out of the water.

Like the Fact the earmark for ACORN being in the bailout bill.

mimartin
10-02-2008, 12:03 AM
In my opinion if you actually knew the facts and had been following things with sources other than the "mainstream media" McCain clearly won, but he didn't utilize several opportunities to blow Obama out of the water.. So Gallop (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110779/Debate-Watchers-Give-Obama-Edge-Over-McCain.aspx) is the “mainstream media”? :¬:

Jae Onasi
10-02-2008, 12:08 AM
Pundits gave the edge to McCain in terms of points won. The average person watching thought Obama won, and there are more 'average people' than pundits voting.

Arcesious
10-03-2008, 09:27 AM
Palin started off strong, but quickly began to lose the debate, IMHO. She eventually stopped making convincing counter arguemnts, whilst Biden seemed very savvy with knowledge on all of the topics... I heard 'I beleive' and 'I think' and and many imperatives about Mccain from Palin. Palin's 'energy independence' and 'mccain knows how to win a war' and 'Maverick blah blah blah' statements didn't prove anything. Biden completely explained his positions and backed them all up quite well. Also, at the end, it turns out Biden knew what the VP did and Palin misunderstood what powers that position would give her.

If only we could have had Biden as our Democratic POTUS Candidate... He would make a pretty good POTUS. Much better than Obama.

I asked my parents who they like the best, and they, being very conservative republicans, admitted that they like Joe Biden the best... :D
Maybe they will vote for Obama this year...

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 10:18 AM
I think they both did well. Palin and Biden both did what it was suggested they do. Biden was to not concentrate on Palin. Keep the focus on McCain and his "failed Bush policies" and to talk about Obama and his plan.

And Sarah to well be the Sarah people saw during the 2006 Alaskan governor election. At least that's what I've heard.

Now there has been some speculation about Biden saying some factually incorrect statements. I think we need to get the VP candidates' statements and compare with facts. Maybe something from fact checker.

But all in all I did not see any big blunders from either that would appear on you tube the next day. They both got done what they were suggested to do, they both seemed relaxed, and I think it went quite well.

ChAiNz.2da
10-03-2008, 10:26 AM
Now there has been some speculation about Biden saying some factually incorrect statements. I think we need to get the VP candidates' statements and compare with facts. Maybe something from fact checker.

They seem to have gotten this one out rather quick. :)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

Personally I thought the VP debates were somewhat uneventful (in a watching a car race and no accidents kind of way :xp: ). Though I do agree that it went quite smoothly. Over all, not bad, it's just unfortunate this is the only one for VP's. :indif:

Arcesious
10-03-2008, 10:56 AM
I recall some funny parts of the debate...


Biden: Charact- char char character act characterization.
Palin: Soccer moms (blah blah blah)
Palin: My kids get extra credit for watching this debate

Oh, and the times when Biden smiled really big a whole lot and sometimes laughed as he became more and more aggravated with Palin's weak arguements...

Stewart and Colbert are going to love making a show out of those things today...

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 10:57 AM
They seem to have gotten this one out rather quick. :)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

Personally I thought the VP debates were somewhat uneventful (in a watching a car race and no accidents kind of way :xp: ). Though I do agree that it went quite smoothly. Over all, not bad, it's just unfortunate this is the only one for VP's. :indif:

Thank you. I'll have to check that link o꺳ut. But yeah it went well. Yeah like you've said I wish there were more VP debates. Even Sarah at the end said she enjoyed it and wished they could have more debates.

I do have a complaint about both Biden and Palin though. Is it just me or did Biden have plastic surgery on his upper eye lids? I mean looking down he looked normal, but when he was looking into the camera he looked like he had cat eyes. lol. Not trying to be a superficial guy, it's just did anyone else notice the top lids like I did?

Also Sarah needed to push the hair out of her face. Of course there is the other side that's going to say that hair in the face is an appealing look. I respectfully disagree. lol.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 03:17 PM
I watched the debate in its entirety, and Governor Palin hit it out of the park.

First Senator Biden said some things that were not only indisputably factually incorrect, but some things are things he has absolutely no excuse in messing up.

Such as when he said the Executive branch is Article I of the Constitution, when it is Article II that is the Executive Branch. Article I is the Legislative branch ie the House and the Senate.

He also lied about votes that Obama, McCain, and himself have made. Including votes on supporting the troops, votes on taxes, etc.

Senator Joe Biden and Senator Barack Obama voted for raising taxes on families earning $42,000 dollars a year, while Senator McCain voted against it. Senator Biden tried to paint a different picture but the facts are the facts.


Governor Palin ran circles around around him the entire debate, even with the moderator actively trying to throw the debate to Senator Biden. Did anyone else catch Senator Biden giving the moderator hand signals to cut Governor Palin off and give him extra rebuttals. He was also making faces, the whole nine yards.

You could tell that the moderator was not impartial (putting it mildly) and despite that Governor Palin still won the debate handily.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 04:20 PM
ChAiNz have a good source in my opinion in what both of the VPs either lied(Biden) or made a mistake on (Palin).

If I may I'l like to give reference to it again: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

I agree she did real wel in her speach for someone who hasn't done this for a long time like Biden. I think that says something great about her that she can match him and in some areas correct Biden on where he was wrong.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 04:27 PM
ChAiNz have a good source in my opinion in what both of the VPs either lied(Biden) or made a mistake on (Palin).

If I may I'l like to give reference to it again: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

I agree she did real wel in her speach for someone who hasn't done this for a long time like Biden. I think that says something great about her that she can match him and in some areas correct Biden on where he was wrong.

Correction: Okay didn't read through the entirety, apparently that tax thing was for individuals making $42,000 a year.

Fact Check says McCain didn't support legislation for more oversight until the crisis was well underway and that isn't true.

Senator McCain supported a bill in 2005-2006 that would have fixed this, if they are going after the second bill fine, but he was calling for reform long ago.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 04:47 PM
Correction: Okay didn't read through the entirety, apparently that tax thing was for individuals making $42,000 a year.

Fact Check says McCain didn't support legislation for more oversight until the crisis was well underway and that isn't true.

Senator McCain supported a bill in 2005-2006 that would have fixed this, if they are going after the second bill fine, but he was calling for reform long ago.

Alight then. If Fact Checker is wrong, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they an un biased fact producing source? But if they are wrong do you have a fact source that shows the candidates comments with comparison to facts?

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 05:13 PM
Alight then. If Fact Checker is wrong, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they an un biased fact producing source? But if they are wrong do you have a fact source that shows the candidates comments with comparison to facts?

They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003.

Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary.

Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 05:18 PM
They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003.

Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary.

Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate.

Listen, I believe you. But for the benefit of everyone here and also if Fact Checker is wrong I'd like to have a better source about which candidate was factully wrong on what. Meaning do you have a source, as in a link please? Also if Fact Checker was incorrect, are they not supposed to be an un biased fact producing site?

ChAiNz.2da
10-03-2008, 05:33 PM
They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003.

Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary.

Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate.
By all means, I welcome any and all fact-checking services... but I'm more in tune to believe something with viable sources.

"the bill", "2005-2006 bill" and " 2007 bill" = :words: Specifics please.
I don't discount what you're saying, but at least I can find source links with FactCheck :)

Here's another site other may find of interest. :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

However I can't really ascertain how legitimate it is since they also take in user articles/submissions :giveup: If anyone else has any experience with the site, feedback would be welcome. :)

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 05:40 PM
Listen, I believe you. But for the benefit of everyone here and also if Fact Checker is wrong I'd like to have a better source about which candidate was factully wrong on what. Meaning do you have a source, as in a link please? Also if Fact Checker was incorrect, are they not supposed to be an un biased fact producing site?

That's really hard to find these days, I can't think of anyone that is unbiased really. However, I'd find the conservative leaning sources to be better at actually telling the truth.

NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, Associated Press, Reuters, my home Newspaper, New York Times, ABC, Newsweek, etc. all are actively supporting Barack Obama.

Hell my home newspaper has actually outright lied on at least one story to in order to explain why Obama did poorly in the Saddleback showdown.


Conservative Sources: Fox News, Washington Post, a few other smalltime papers.

I'm not including commentators, but you see the mismatch.

Concerning the Bill:
Letter to the Editor:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/23/mccain-was-warned-financial-debacle/

Will try to find some other sources, there were a few on you tube but they were deleted.

Some sources that are quoting McCain I had some others but need to hunt them down.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-co-sponsored-reforms-fannie-freddie
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/democrats-blocked-financial-reforms-that-mccain-and-gop-proposed-in-2005/

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 05:52 PM
By all means, I welcome any and all fact-checking services... but I'm more in tune to believe something with viable sources.

"the bill", "2005-2006 bill" and " 2007 bill" = :words: Specifics please.
I don't discount what you're saying, but at least I can find source links with FactCheck :)

Here's another site other may find of interest. :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

However I can't really ascertain how legitimate it is since they also take in user articles/submissions :giveup: If anyone else has any experience with the site, feedback would be welcome. :)

I agree. I did the same thing. I'd make comments and not back them up with facts when I said such and such is a fact. Oh by the way if you guys didn't see it I did my source finally on the Universal Health Care topic. Check it out if you want to see the comparison articles.

Thanks ChAiNz for the source plug.

That's really hard to find these days, I can't think of anyone that is unbiased really. However, I'd find the conservative leaning sources to be better at actually telling the truth.

NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, Associated Press, Reuters, my home Newspaper, New York Times, ABC, Newsweek, etc. all are actively supporting Barack Obama.

Hell my home newspaper has actually outright lied on at least one story to in order to explain why Obama did poorly in the Saddleback showdown.


Conservative Sources: Fox News, Washington Post, a few other smalltime papers.

I'm not including commentators, but you see the mismatch.

Concerning the Bill:
Letter to the Editor:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/23/mccain-was-warned-financial-debacle/

Will try to find some other sources, there were a few on you tube but they were deleted.

Some sources that are quoting McCain I had some others but need to hunt them down.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-co-sponsored-reforms-fannie-freddie
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/democrats-blocked-financial-reforms-that-mccain-and-gop-proposed-in-2005/

Good you've now given your source. That's all we wanted. Yeah these days even credible sources can be biased. It's a shame. But also understandable. It's hard for people to not interject their views they believe in so to the core. So in the end all you can do is give your source and let people decide what they think is right. People will say that source is biased, wrong, spin it, or take things out of context. So again you simply have to let others make their own minds up.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 06:13 PM
Yeah, I also had a source that actually had the actual bill in question and am still trying to find it.
Thank you for taking the time to search/post some sources :) - Cz

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 06:16 PM
Can't wait to see it. :)

ET Warrior
10-03-2008, 06:52 PM
I think it is a telling sign of how abysmally low the bar was set for Sarah Palin when anyone can say something like 'She hit it out of the park'.

Perhaps we were watching different debates, but I saw a woman who had memorized less than half a dozen talking points and absolutely refused to stray from them no matter the question at hand. The one time she did talk outside of her main points was when the topic of gay marriage came up, and she was visibly out of her element. She was nervous, edgy, and talked in circles until she could get back to talking about energy or taxes.

She also came across as exceptionally fake. Her smirk and cutsie attitude never wavered, even in the face of Joe Biden's extremely humanizing and meaningful "I understand" portion of the debate. After him nearly breaking into tears on stage recounting the painful loss of family Palin responded with more chipper "Maverick" talk, not the least beat empathetic to what was by FAR the most emotional and humanizing moment in the entire debate.

Sarah Palin proved that she is able to recite material. That is not an important quality for a Vice President. Joe Biden knew more about everything and was able to answer both hers and the moderators questions while she admitted in the opening of the debate that she had decided on her own format for the debate. ("I talk about whatever I want to talk about. WEEEEEE"). I am afraid that since a great number of people are more interested in style over substance they will be swayed by her folksie snarky demeanor, but I for one have had enough of leadership who I can 'really identify with'.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 06:53 PM
Okay here is another source:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

I'm still trying to find stuff, so Palin was right and Biden was wrong.


Here's another one:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/

Bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190

Page:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
click on show co-sponsors.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 07:22 PM
I think it is a telling sign of how abysmally low the bar was set for Sarah Palin when anyone can say something like 'She hit it out of the park'.
ET Warrior]Perhaps we were watching different debates


No. I simply believe we are biased in who we think won and who we were rooting for regardless. They say that statement because she was considered the underdog in this debate. And I think she did rneal well against a guy who has a heck of a lot more Washington experience than her.

I saw a woman who had memorized less than half a dozen talking points and absolutely refused to stray from them no matter the question at hand.

All candidates during debates have talking points memorized. Even Biden did. There is strategy in that. And your right it is bette when a candidate speaks more from the heart rather than from memorized statements. But she did not stick with them regarless of the question as you said. Maybe we were watching two different debates because I saw many times when she'd use her own words. So did Biden.

The one time she did talk outside of her main points was when the topic of gay marriage came up, and she was visibly out of her element. She was nervous, edgy, and talked in circles until she could get back to talking about energy or taxes.

I'll have to look back at the video sometime, but if she was nervous during that time it must have been the only time. I think she seemed relaxed and had good combacks. She would go back to a prevous topic when she wanted to rebut Biden and correct them. And I think she did it very well. And at the end she was so chipper and upbeat and even wanted and said she wished there could've been more of these VP debates soon. She had good zingers and I thought that helped her to look more real and down to earth.

She also came across as exceptionally fake. Her smirk and cutsie attitude never wavered, even in the face of Joe Biden's extremely humanizing and meaningful "I understand" portion of the debate. After him nearly breaking into tears on stage recounting the painful loss of family Palin responded with more chipper "Maverick" talk, not the least beat empathetic to what was by FAR the most emotional and humanizing moment in the entire debate.

lol. Well thanks ET for your spin on it.

Like I said I believe they had both of their talking points down, neither seemed nervous, and they both looked like they had a good time.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 07:30 PM
I didn't realize Biden normally makes faces at people.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 07:34 PM
I didn't realize Biden normally makes faces at people.

It could also be the fact he's had plastic surgery on his top eye lids that makes him look like he's making faces. I mean he when looking at the camera looks either like cat eyes or a little like a Klingon. lol.

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 07:44 PM
..little like a Klingon. lol.

well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 07:47 PM
well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon.

They're still finding gaffs made by Biden.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 08:06 PM
They're still finding gaffs made by Biden.

When you have a source please provide them.

well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon.

I said or a cat's eyes, but I can't be sure. I should rephrase my statement about klingon eyes. I mean he has the klingon eyes only. No ridges, muscles, hair lol, and has droopy baggy lower lids. Not a very scary klingon if you ask me. More like a old klingon with massive hair loss. Interesting to find a star wars guy who likes trek too. I do too. We both seem to have a contradiction in comon.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 08:17 PM
Here is something I'm looking for another source:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2154

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-03-2008, 09:03 PM
Here is something I'm looking for another source:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2154rightpundits.com I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 09:38 PM
rightpundits.com I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design.

Well someone said fact checker was wrong on Biden, so again like I've said facts can be spun, credited/discredited, taken out of context, and said is biased. So again I said it's just what you think is true and right.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 11:25 PM
rightpundits.com I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design.

And the mainstream media is any better, hell the National Enquirer has has higher standard when it comes to sources than the New York Times when it comes to political candidates.

Rogue Nine
10-03-2008, 11:33 PM
And the mainstream media is any better, hell the National Enquirer has has higher standard when it comes to sources than the New York Times when it comes to political candidates.
I don't post here in Kavar's anymore, but I'm pretty sure that you're completely wrong.

As my friend just told me, "The only interest the National Enquirer would have in the political candidates is if one of them is pregnant with an alien child. My money is on McCain."

Of course you need high standard sources for such an important story. :rolleyes:

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 11:45 PM
I don't post here in Kavar's anymore, but I'm pretty sure that you're completely wrong.

As my friend just told me, "The only interest the National Enquirer would have in the political candidates is if one of them is pregnant with an alien child. My money is on McCain."

Of course you need high standard sources for such an important story. :rolleyes:

Actually, the argument is based off an interview with the man that broke the story about Edward's affair with that woman. He was commenting on the bogus story that the New York Times posted on the front cover about Senator John McCain.

The man said that he'd had been fired if he'd had printed something like that with such lousy sources.

SD Nihil
10-04-2008, 12:04 AM
Hey guys I found the first interview they had with Palin after the VP debate. I think that since this interview has to do with how she did the night before and her answering some questions, I thought I'd post this for the topic: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=camren+interviews+palin&search_type=&aq=f

Tommycat
10-04-2008, 12:13 AM
Lets see, Biden's been in politics almost the entire time that Palin's been alive, so for her to hold her own against him is a pretty big feat(yes I know it's an exaggeration). She came off as down home country. Biden came off as a politician(for the most part, but I think he started getting comfy around Palin and became more home townish as the debate went on...)

Haha I really think that for the most part America is really pitting this race as Obama versus Palin. McCain and Biden seem to be along for their ride....

Rogue Nine
10-04-2008, 12:14 AM
Actually, the argument is based off an interview with the man that broke the story about Edward's affair with that woman. He was commenting on the bogus story that the New York Times posted on the front cover about Senator John McCain.

The man said that he'd had been fired if he'd had printed something like that with such lousy sources.
Cuz the Enquirer has better sources. :xp:

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-04-2008, 12:17 AM
Well someone said fact checker was wrong on Biden, so again like I've said facts can be spun, credited/discredited, taken out of context, and said is biased. So again I said it's just what you think is true and right.No. Facts are facts, that's why they're called facts, otherwise they'd be called opinions.

Tommycat
10-04-2008, 12:20 AM
Cuz the Enquirer has better sources. :xp:

When it comes to things like affairs and political scandals, they tend to do a better job than the NYT.... at least when the person happens to be a republican.... sorry, the NYT is quick to blast republicans, but seems to have some difficulty when a Democrat is involved.

SD Nihil
10-04-2008, 09:41 AM
No. Facts are facts, that's why they're called facts, otherwise they'd be called opinions.

Facts come from sources. And those sources though they say they are not biased sometimes they are. Plus facts can be spun, half truths can be given, it can be manipulated. So like I keep saying it simply depends on who and what you think is a credible source. It also cand depend on what fits your way of thinking in your opinion.

Jae Onasi
10-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Lots of posts about Palin-Biden debate were moved from the VP moderator's conflict of interest (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192672) thread to this one. Carry on. :)

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 10:38 AM
If John McCain is so good at working at cutting spending why didn’t he do that when the Republican had control of Congress and the Presidency?

I believe he needs to remove his rose color glasses, they don’t suite his former maverick status and the American people are not that stupid. Well maybe they are not that stupid.:(

mimartin he's been going after his own party too, Tom DeLay was kicked out of the United States Senate due to an investigation McCain headed up.

He also called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign all the way back in 2004, and McCain was the one whom advocated the surge saying we didn't have enough people there and it was going to go to hell in a hand-basket. He's flat out accused the President (a member of his own party) of mismanagement.

His campaign was considered to be dead back in 2007 because of his taking a stand.

Most people know that, hell the media told people about it up till McCain won the Republican primary. Now the "mainstream" press is trying to say he's a Bush clone.

I sincerely, doubt most people will be dumb enough to believe he's just another Bush term.

Web Rider
10-06-2008, 02:55 PM
Now the "mainstream" press is trying to say he's a Bush clone.

The mainsteam press doesn't have to tell us anything John McCain won't say himself. The people he's courting, the things he's advocating, the actions he's taken, the whole reason the Republican voter base was wary of him was because he was a VERY moderate Republican, up until he was the REpublican pick for president.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 03:43 PM
The mainsteam press doesn't have to tell us anything John McCain won't say himself. The people he's courting, the things he's advocating, the actions he's taken, the whole reason the Republican voter base was wary of him was because he was a VERY moderate Republican, up until he was the REpublican pick for president.

He still is a moderate Republican, just the media is now trying to vilify him because he's the nominee for President, seriously most of the media has been in the tank for Democrats for decades.

But it is far worse this year to the point that Sean Hannity has said, "This is the year journalism has officially died in America."

Astor
10-06-2008, 05:06 PM
He still is a moderate Republican, just the media is now trying to vilify him because he's the nominee for President,

The same way that you, and 'news' outlets such as Fox have been out to villify to Obama because he's candidate for President?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 05:32 PM
The same way that you, and 'news' outlets such as Fox have been out to villify to Obama because he's candidate for President?

Well problem with that argument is that Fox News sourced where they got their information and the sources check out, unlike the hit pieces against McCain using people like Tom DeLay saying he'd never vote for McCain. (without pointing out that McCain headed up the investigation that got Senator DeLay kicked out of office)

There is a difference between vetting someone and villifying them, everything Fox News has brought up (and don't start about the Muslim stuff because that was the Hillary Campaign not Fox News), has turned out to be true thus far.

Obama isn't this new style of politician unless you're saying that someone being of the lunatic fringe or having judgement that makes President Bush an excellent judge of charecter in comparison.

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 06:17 PM
Hey, villifying Obama makes sense to me. Some of those connections he's got creeps me out. Domestic Terrorism is kind of a bad thing, you know.

Yar-El
10-07-2008, 11:27 PM
Debate - McCain vrs. Obama II
Wow! McCain has fallen flat. I couldn't count how many times he talked in circles, but this debate was very annoying. I didn't know if I wanted to hit the tv, or if I wanted to throw my tv out the window. Republicans should see this as a wake up call, and begin the next presidential election right now. McCain is not going to be president. I hate to admit this, but he is just not the right Republican.

My thoughts on Obama will be in another post. I just wanted to vent.

Ravnas
10-07-2008, 11:49 PM
I'd like to mention that Tom Brokaw is the worst moderator I've ever seen. The whole debate format is bad, but Obama at least got his points across.

mimartin
10-07-2008, 11:56 PM
I thought the format was the terrible part. Why anyone would choice that format is beyond me.

Overall, I say it was a tie. I am getting tired of John McCain not listening to Obama answers. John McCain, Obama said the surge worked!

Yar-El
10-08-2008, 12:04 AM
This election feels flat for some reason. Both men are not thinking straight, and they are avoiding the serious questions about the economy and war. Both debates were anticlimatic, and no one is taking the gloves off. Where are the heavy hitting answers, and where did the pop go that people have seen in both men? They got to the debates and they both flatlined.

McCain is a weak Republican. Why isn't Obama able to make a bloody nose? Obama is an uneperienced Senator. Why is McCain not able to put him down? Both men are weak. This is the second draw.

Rev7
10-08-2008, 12:05 AM
Yeah. The moderator was the worst that I have seen in these debates. By far.

They really were just going in circles. This 'debate', I personally wouldn't even call it that, really didn't answer anything new. Unfortunately. The only new issuse that was discussed really was the question about what which canidate would do if Israel was attacked by Iran.

I liked how both McCain and Obama used the phrase, "in the history of the world". That honestly made me laugh.

My opinion has not changed.

Yar-El
10-08-2008, 12:10 AM
I'm feeling that this election will fall on 49/51, and the flatness of McCain will make the difference of a small portion. Obama will come out by a very small margin.

Rev7
10-08-2008, 12:13 AM
Or it could be the other way around....

Achilles
10-08-2008, 12:19 AM
Brokaw sucked.

I think that anyone paying attention at all isn't going to fall for McCain's "cool hand at the wheel" rhetoric.

I hope Obama's insistence on a follow-up doesn't become one of those "Presidential debate moments".

The real brass tacks of the matter was that McCain needed a resounding win here and didn't get it. Obama/Biden 08.

Arcesious
10-08-2008, 01:15 AM
Debate - McCain vrs. Obama II

Wait... What now? When did this happen? Meh, reading this thread, it sounds like it wasn't wasn't worth watching...

Now this is worth seeing:

Bigfoot/Nessie 08 - Change we can beleive in! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_4Jc_M3OI)

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 02:03 AM
"Debate: McCain vs Obama 2" thread merged with this thread.

Brokaw sucked.

I think that anyone paying attention at all isn't going to fall for McCain's "cool hand at the wheel" rhetoric.

I hope Obama's insistence on a follow-up doesn't become one of those "Presidential debate moments".

The real brass tacks of the matter was that McCain needed a resounding win here and didn't get it. Obama/Biden 08.
Agree-I got tired of Brokaw saying 'we need to follow your agreed upon rules of 1 minute here'.
If there's any kind of debate moment, I think it's more likely to be McCain's 'that one' which seemed to refer to Obama.
This was supposed to be McCain's preferred method of debating and he didn't quite get the job done that he needed. I thought he actually did better than Obama on some of the domestic issues and Obama did better on a number of foreign issues--that surprised me a bit. It's looking much more likely that Obama will win at this point, but I don't dare count McCain out even this close to the election. Someone who's stared death in the face and survived has nothing to lose, and he has the ability to pull support and fortitude out of absolutely nowhere and somehow make it.

Ravnas
10-08-2008, 02:32 AM
I think with these debates, we should be vying for three minute answers about the general facts, and then give each candidate at least 7 minutes to argue on the details, but I'm not in charge, so what do I know:xp:

Web Rider
10-08-2008, 02:55 AM
Honestly, I think I'd mandate that neither debater could say the other's name. I mean, I'd like to see them talk about the issues, not each other. I can read People for that.

Yar-El
10-08-2008, 11:05 AM
Or it could be the other way around.... Since the emotional impact of both are somewhat mute, you are dead on with your assessment. I don't think the media polls are correct. I keep getting this strange sense of an uninspiring election. Anyone can come out ahead at the last minute. I don't feel motivated to vote for either guy.

I heard R2-D2 may run. I think he has more experience with war and economics. :D

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 11:18 AM
This was supposed to be McCain's preferred method of debating and he didn't quite get the job done that he needed.


For the record this wasn't McCain's favorite style because aside from being able to walk around there was nothing in it that was really town hall style. I've seen town hall debates, and that was at best a mockery because a town hall debate is supposed to be completely unscripted, and debate II was obviously scripted. You actually got more information from the Saddleback Showdown. If you'll note the moderator said he went through the questions beforehand and approved them, if this was a true town hall format the moderator wouldn't even have a clue what was being asked beforehand, except for the e-mailed questions.


Second, if one actually looks at the record, one would find that Barack Obama was lieing about his record repeatedly and McCain even called him on it, and Obama went right back and started lieing again.

The Freddie/Fannie situation is where Obama was lieing for starters about his supposedly contacting the treasury secretary with concerns a few years ago. While there was a letter to the Treasury Secretary, it was Senator McCain and a few other Republicans, not sure if there were any Democrats in the signiture, but I do know Obama wasn't one of the names.

ET Warrior
10-08-2008, 12:09 PM
And McCain was wrong on a lot of points too. Stop cherry-picking errors made by Obama just because you don't like him. It makes you sound dishonest and undermines any credibility in your statements.

Astor
10-08-2008, 12:13 PM
The Freddie/Fannie situation is where Obama was lieing for starters about his supposedly contacting the treasury secretary with concerns a few years ago. While there was a letter to the Treasury Secretary, it was Senator McCain and a few other Republicans, not sure if there were any Democrats in the signiture, but I do know Obama wasn't one of the names.

Are you referring to a few years ago when McCain supposedly warned everyone about what was going to happen?

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 12:26 PM
Are you referring to a few years ago when McCain supposedly warned everyone about what was going to happen?

It's a matter of public record that Senator McCain warned people about it. Senator McCain actually said this was probably going to happen back in 2006 on the Senate Floor.

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
-- Senator John McCain May 25, 2006

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

Achilles
10-08-2008, 01:21 PM
Let's see what the video says (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/17/mccain-anticipate-crisis/)

Also, here's a link to the letter (http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/) that Obama is allegedly lying about.

mimartin
10-08-2008, 01:25 PM
Let's see what the video says (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/17/mccain-anticipate-crisis/)

I'm surprised. Are you surprised? At lest now we know McCain was surprised. :xp:


So is McCain lying now or was he lying back in December 2007?

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 01:36 PM
Let's see what the video says (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/17/mccain-anticipate-crisis/)

Also, here's a link to the letter (http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/) that Obama is allegedly lying about.

And I should believe Obama's campaign that the letter is actually real why? Seriously he's lied about quite a few other things.


That would be like me using the McCain's campaign website as a source...

Achilles
10-08-2008, 01:45 PM
You now have a copy. You're welcome to consider it "fake" if you'd like, however if you're going to be honest, you have to apply the same standards to anything out of the McCain camp (having one set of standards for one candidate and another for the other isn't being objective).

But now that we have that one out of the way, we can move on to the next "lie". Or perhaps you could save us some time and provide a list of all the things that Obama "lied" about. Because just saying that someone lied isn't going to be sufficient.

Other links to Obama's letter: clicky (http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+letter+march+2007). (hint: the content of the letter does not change)

mimartin
10-08-2008, 01:50 PM
That would be like me using the McCain's campaign website as a source...or FoxNews. :¬:

Achilles
10-08-2008, 01:57 PM
In this example, the "source" doesn't matter. The letter could have been posted on howmuchIhateBarackObama.com and it wouldn't have mattered. The source is the letter itself, not the site it's hosted on.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 01:58 PM
Well first of all I thought it was supposed to have been in 2006, second of all, as I've said before why should I believe that Obama sent a letter when he's outright lied about other stuff.

Seriously, it took a pretty long time to come up with the letter.

Achilles
10-08-2008, 02:00 PM
Still waiting for that list of lies. Please realize that if you fail to produce one, we'll be left with no other alternative than to assume that you're just making this up.

...and no it didn't. I saw your post, Googled "Obama letter March 2007" and posted a link. It took no time at all, because I actually knew the letter existed (instead of believing that it was a lie).

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 02:37 PM
His lying about the level of association with Bill Ayers is a good starting point.

Rogue Nine
10-08-2008, 03:05 PM
Ayers wasn't even mentioned last night. Stop mudslinging and please come up with a list of 'lies' that Obama said in the debate so that we don't have to assume that you're just making this all up.

Full Transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/) to get you started.

CommanderQ
10-08-2008, 03:08 PM
Well, in this situation that America is in, we obviously need a strong leader, both parties have the guts to pull us through this crisis, but by now...
It just matters what they stand for, I for one, agree on some of both McCain's policies and Obama's policies. But both have there faults. Then we come to the vice president's candidates, Biden would be a strong vice president, but he probably has something hiding beneath his political smile, he's also not clear on what he stands for, taxes or no taxes{same with Obama}. Palin, she is strong as well, and she has held her own on the last debate, but she doesn't have the experience that Biden might have. But that wouldn't ruin the situation. All the candidates are good, but there standings are all over the place on the economy and how the war should be run, we'll just have to wait and see what the candidates say and stand for.

Reading back on the pages. Obama is off about a lot things he said. Other words, no truth the way I see it. It won't help to have a president who will deny us what is actually happening or happened. But that's politics.

McCain as well, was off on some of the things he said, both candidates have fallen a little short on this last debate. It certainly wasn't like the first one.