Presidential Debate - Why do Americans Allow This?

[jshore]

Here’s the graphic to go along with that. Does anyone think we could have realistically stopped the hemorrhaging much more quickly than we did?

[chargerrich]

@Gangster_Octopus

I think we are not responding correctly to the OP. The OP isn’t asking why candidates do it, but why we seem to let it go unchallenged. First of all, 90% of Americans are not looking for the truth, they are looking for affirmation of their beliefs. That’s why conservatives watch Fox and liberals watch MSNBC. The other folks are a small minority and tend to be made up folks who are easily swayed or extremely disinterested. Sure there is a small group of pure truth-seekers, but they hardly move the needle.

Yes my question was more based on why we put up with such obvious manipulation and I guess I knew the answer, it just seems so unintelligent. We root for “our team” like its a football league, but this (unlike a game) really impacts our future and - at least to me - both candidates appear shady and dishonest.

I have a feeling that a lot of people who are tired of the two party system like myself feel more like I do. Whereas if you are a dyed in the wool republican or democrat then you just want “your guy” to win, no matter how (just ask the Kennedy family). :eek:

[corkboard]

I’d like, just once, a candidate to actually answer the question. As in, “Thank you for your question- the answer is yes, and here’s why…” I suspect a candidate that gave straightforward answers to the questions instead of precanned soundbites and policy-speak would get a lot of votes, even if the voters didn’t like the answer. They’d know that that guy is straightforward, honest and doesn’t shovel a ton of bullshit like the other guy & expect me to buy it.

[Terr]

@corkboard

I’d like, just once, a candidate to actually answer the question. As in, “Thank you for your question- the answer is yes, and here’s why…” I suspect a candidate that gave straightforward answers to the questions instead of precanned soundbites and policy-speak would get a lot of votes, even if the voters didn’t like the answer. They’d know that that guy is straightforward, honest and doesn’t shovel a ton of bullshit like the other guy & expect me to buy it.

Ron Paul failed quite convincingly, so, no, straightforward answers don’t seem to get a lot of votes.

[Ravenman]

@corkboard

I’d like, just once, a candidate to actually answer the question. As in, “Thank you for your question- the answer is yes, and here’s why…” I suspect a candidate that gave straightforward answers to the questions instead of precanned soundbites and policy-speak would get a lot of votes, even if the voters didn’t like the answer. They’d know that that guy is straightforward, honest and doesn’t shovel a ton of bullshit like the other guy & expect me to buy it.

Some answers are full of spin, sure, but what isn’t straightforward about these Q&As?

@Obama

QUESTION: In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?

OBAMA: Well, Katherine, that’s a great question. And, you know, I was raised by a single mom who had to put herself through school while looking after two kids. And she worked hard every day and made a lot of sacrifices to make sure we got everything we needed. My grandmother, she started off as a secretary in a bank. She never got a college education, even though she was smart as a whip. And she worked her way up to become a vice president of a local bank, but she hit the glass ceiling. She trained people who would end up becoming her bosses during the course of her career.

She didn’t complain. That’s not what you did in that generation. And this is one of the reasons why one of the first – the first bill I signed was something called the Lily Ledbetter bill. And it’s named after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court said that she couldn’t bring suit because she should have found about it earlier, whereas she had no way of finding out about it. So we fixed that. And that’s an example of the kind of advocacy that we need, because women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family. This is not just a women’s issue, this is a family issue, this is a middle-class issue, and that’s why we’ve got to fight for it.

@Romney

QUESTION: Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter, because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration.

Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?

ROMNEY: Let me come back and – and answer your question.

President Bush and I are – are different people and these are different times and that’s why my five point plan is so different than what he would have done.

I mean for instance, we can now, by virtue of new technology actually get all the energy we need in North America without having to go to the – the Arabs or the Venezuelans or anyone else. That wasn’t true in his time, that’s why my policy starts with a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America – become energy secure.

Number two, trade – I’ll crack down on China, President Bush didn’t. I’m also going to dramatically expand trade in Latin America. It’s been growing about 12 percent per year over a long period of time. I want to add more free trade agreements so we’ll have more trade.

Number three, I’m going to get us to a balanced budget. President Bush didn’t. President Obama was right, he said that that was outrageous to have deficits as high as half a trillion dollars under the Bush years. He was right, but then he put in place deficits twice that size for every one of his four years. And his forecast for the next four years is more deficits, almost that large. So that’s the next area I’m different than President Bush.

And then let’s take the last one, championing small business. Our party has been focused too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That’s why everything I’ll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. I want to keep their taxes down on small business. I want regulators to see their job as encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it.

And the thing I find the most troubling about Obama Care, well it’s a long list, but one of the things I find most troubling is that when you go out and talk to small businesses and ask them what they think about it, they tell you it keeps them from hiring more people.

My priority is jobs. I know how to make that happen. And President Bush has a very different path for a very different time. My path is designed in getting small businesses to grow and hire people.

Seems pretty clear to me that Obama answered the question about pay equity by signing the Lilly Leadbetter Act, and Romney names five ways why he thinks he’s different than Bush. They both answered the question posed. Do both candidates get your vote since they each answered one question directly?

[BwanaBob]

@Gangster_Octopus

I think we are not responding correctly to the OP. The OP isn’t asking why candidates do it, but why we seem to let it go unchallenged. First of all, 90% of Americans are not looking for the truth, they are looking for affirmation of their beliefs. That’s why conservatives watch Fox and liberals watch MSNBC. The other folks are a small minority and tend to be made up folks who are easily swayed or extremely disinterested. Sure there is a small group of pure truth-seekers, but they hardly move the needle.

This it the saddest statement I’ve ever read on the Dope. Sad because it’s true. People must really have fragile egos if they constantly need their “beliefs” validated.

[BigT]

@panache45

“Allow”???

What would you have us do, haul them off to jail if they don’t speak the truth? (a partially rhetorical question)

As U.S. citizens, they are “allowed” to say whatever they please, and we are “allowed” to believe them.

Option 1: Just make a big enough stink about it. Care enough that the news organizations, to get views, will have to throw a big stink about it, too. Since they provide the moderators, they’ll want to provide one that will actually call people out on this behavior.

Option 2: when a candidate actually does campain on being plain spoken–which happens a lot, surprisingly–actually support that candidate. The other candidates then have to modify their tactics to get votes.

[Boyo_Jim]

Ron Paul’s plain spoken. But he’s nuts. I would rather have Romney than Paul, and I say this knowing that I might die from unstoppable projectile vomiting if Romney wins.

[gamerunknown]

@Boyo_Jim

Ron Paul’s plain spoken. But he’s nuts. I would rather have Romney than Paul, and I say this knowing that I might die from unstoppable projectile vomiting if Romney wins.

Other than the decriminalisation of marijuana, how will you appeal to black people? Would your ideal cabinet include any African Americans, women, homosexuals or non-millionaires? Will you seek a federal ban on gay marriage and abortion? Will you ultimately seek to abolish Social Security? Will you seek to overturn the civil rights act? Can you name a country the Us could emulate in terms of policy?

All of those questions I’d expect evasion on. The last he may respond with Andorra, Monaco, Jersey, Luxembourg…

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

When you get right down to it, politicians don’t lie all that often. But I don’t classify wishful thinking, unrealistic promises. statements of intention, or even factual but lightly spun statements as lies. Nor errors in fact, initially. Nor statements to which no truth value can be meaningfully applied.

Almost any instance anyone comes up with of a politician supposedly lying, particularly about something substantive, will fall into one of those categories (or it may be something that’s true, but the person doesn’t believe it for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence presented).

[John_Mace]

@Boyo_Jim

Ron Paul’s plain spoken. But he’s nuts. I would rather have Romney than Paul, and I say this knowing that I might die from unstoppable projectile vomiting if Romney wins.

I agree. RP adds some comic relief to the campaign, and I love having him in there. But as president? He’d be a disaster.