# The second presidential debate: 10/16/2012 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 16, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847 "2012-10-16T04:35:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/701 "2012-10-17T11:50:13Z")
I forgot to add that another big part of the problem is that the Republicans have been trying a throw it against the wall and see if it sticks act for so long that people aren’t sure what we are supposed to be upset about. We thought that in regards to the attacks on the embassies that we were supposed to be upset about the administration sympathizing with the attackers. Of course, that was patently false, just like every other thing that has been thrown against the wall. Try telling the fucking truth about stuff and then people might listen again. When your argument is refuted by a quick look at a transcript (you know, evidence about what actually happened?) it really makes is hard to want to listen to the rest of your overwrought hysterics. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/702 "2012-10-17T11:50:19Z")
I hope you’re right, BLD. While early sentiment (by polls and pundits) does acknowledge that Obama did much better this time, there isn’t much talk of a decisive win on TV this morning (not even on MSNBC). I’ll wait a couple of days for 538’s take on the debate’s effects, though, before I get too worried. On immigration – I was hoping that Obama would say something like this: "When I assumed office four years ago, I quickly found that the Reoublicans in Congress (whether majority or not) would vehemently oppose every damned thing I tried to do, even things they had previously supported. So, I knew that my political capital was limited. I could only successfully tackle One Big Thing in my first four years. The Second Big Thing would have to wait until my second term – again, because of asinine Republican congressional recalcitrance. Two of the Biggest Things facing us for a long time have been problems in our jerry-rigged health care insurance system, and the mismatch between immigration law and reality. I made the tough decision to try and tackle the former problem first, mainly because it effects more people more directly (including many immigrants, legal and illegal). But I look forward to tackling immigration reform in the next four years. I laid the groundwork for establishing a rapport with Republicans, by enforcing existing border patrol laws more vigorously than any president. Very soon, it will be time for them to pay me back, by supporting a full Dream Act. And then, it’s on to comprehensive reform." ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/703 "2012-10-17T11:52:26Z")
Also, I think Romney admitted that he’s going to lower taxes on top-income earners. His exact words were that the top 5% pay 60% of the income taxes, and that won’t change under his tax plan. But if everybody else got a tax cut while those top 5% paid the same amount, their share would end up being somewhat more than 60%. So to keep them at 60% he’ll have to cut their taxes too. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/704 "2012-10-17T12:02:22Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > Something I don’t get: isn’t it playing right into the hands of the terrorists to turn this attack into a big bad act of terrorism? I mean, which of these do you think the perpetrators would rather hear Obama saying to the public after the attack: > > “Indeed, this was a terrible and terrifying act of terroristic terrorism committed by terrorists, and I will not rest until every American is filled with pants-shitting terror over this terrific terrorist act. Terrorism.” > vs. > “Meh. Sounds like some jerks got some sand in their vaginas over a stupid video.” > > The whole point of terrorism is to make a big splash with your big bad act of violence. Why do Republicans insist that we give them the satisfaction? It seems to me that the best strategy would be to downplay it in public and send Special Forces after the perpetrators in private. Unless, of course, you wanted to put on a big showy military strike so that same public thinks you’ve got a big dick, or you want the public to be so scared that they don’t care which brown people you bomb. > > I don’t know that this is Obama’s thinking on the matter, but it makes sense to me. You’re right. Republicans are pushing this issue because they think it gives them advantage. They have no qualms about selling us out at home or abroad because they really only care about winning. That’s all. Winning, so the rich can get richer. Where’s my cite? Dick Cheney and his outing of Valerie Plame is my cite. Fuck Dick Cheney and fuck the Republicans and their narrow, self serving plutocrat agenda. Thanks for reminding me that Republican party of Bush the elder, the party I voted for and supported with no small enthusiasm, is gone, and not coming back. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/705 "2012-10-17T12:03:49Z")
So score this by the various metrics: 1. Energizing respective bases. Obama big score. Wind had been taken out of sails with his last debate performance; this gets his base revved again. This scores big with demographics he needs to come out, women interested in “women’s issues,” Hispanic voters, youth … Romney may maintain his last debate gains among his base but I doubt it. A big reminder of not being able to know what he really thinks. It’s a big loss of Mo for him. And just as his wind from the last debate was already dying down. 2. Undecideds. 538 states the instapolls are demonstrating only a slight Obama nod there. Surprising to me having heard it myself but I have partisan ears. Still at this point even a slight win with them, even just demonstrating this Obama instead of that last one, the next few days of fact checking and advertising Romney’s untruths, are highly significant. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/706 "2012-10-17T12:11:34Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I would love to see the next debate be moderated by some blatantly Fox-y pro-Romney person, because it would be hilarious to watch Obama win anyway. 😉 You won’t. The Dems would never allow a conservative moderator, they prefer the dice loaded their way. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/707 "2012-10-17T12:23:14Z")
[A picture is worth 1000 words.](http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021563556) That pretty well summed up the evening. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/708 "2012-10-17T12:31:15Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > From another angle: terrorism is kind of pointless unless everybody knows it was a terrorist act and who did it, or at least why it was done. So if you really wanted to frustrate the terrorists you’d play up the confusion–“Gee, we really don’t know _what_ happened. We think it may have been just a ragtag bunch of misfits.” > > If you’re lucky in that scenario you might even flush out the leaders as they take responsibility. “This is Abdul al-Abdul al-Bazari, of 203 Death to Infidels Lane, president of Al Qaeda Local 127. We claim responsibility for this strike against the Great Satan and their perpetration of Western decadence and…oh, shit, is that a Navy SEAL? _(stream ends abruptly)_” > > Again, I don’t know that this is the White House’s thinking, but it seems like a better strategy to me than openly shitting the national pants like the GOP wants us to. Yeah, the more you portray terrorists as just common thugs the less effect they have. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/709 "2012-10-17T12:37:34Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > So if you really wanted to frustrate the terrorists you’d play up the confusion–“Gee, we really don’t know _what_ happened. We think it may have been just a ragtag bunch of misfits.” Bad idea; everyone knows that the ragtag bunch of misfits always topples the Evil Empire in the end! ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/710 "2012-10-17T12:44:47Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > You won’t. The Dems would never allow a conservative moderator, they prefer the dice loaded their way. Scheiffer is a conservative. What you won’t hear is whining about it. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/711 "2012-10-17T13:04:17Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > You won’t. The Dems would never allow a conservative moderator, they prefer the dice loaded their way. And away we go. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/712 "2012-10-17T13:38:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Bad idea; everyone knows that the ragtag bunch of misfits always topples the Evil Empire in the end! For an exploration of this idea, read Dean Ing’s _Soft Targets_. It involves a conspiracy to mock terrorists in the media rather than trumpet them. Not a bad read. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/713 "2012-10-17T13:43:45Z")
A couple of minor points that stuck out for me. Romney talks about a “scholarship program” for Massachusetts? Students who pass an academic standard are entitled to education at a state university? Sounds marvy and progressive as all git out. Which causes me to wonder, that was his idea? He led the effort, moved it through? Or is he glomming on to the credit? Like he did for the whole “inclusion of women” thing? And as pleased as I was to hear the Mr Romney is a man of deep faith, I was struck by the line about serving as a missionary, and then as a “pastor”? Mormons have “pastors”? I know for a fact Methodists do, also Lutherans, any number of Protestant denominations do. But Mormons? Is that an effort to make Mormons more “normal”? ---
**Author:** ![slumtrimpet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@slumtrimpet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slumtrimpet)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/714 "2012-10-17T13:44:22Z")
I listened to the debate last night with half an ear (can’t tolerate too much politician blather, it’s bad for my health) while reading this thread. Did I hear this right? [Did Romney say this as per the LA Times?](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-presidential-debate-taxes-deficit-20121016,0,6300634.story) > [@](#): > > And, he said, middle-class taxpayers would no longer pay taxes on dividends, capital gains or savings. Was there some context I missed that would have made this statement less absurd? Is there some reason I shouldn’t have snorted my tea out of my nose? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/715 "2012-10-17T13:44:44Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > You won’t. The Dems would never allow a conservative moderator, they prefer the dice loaded their way. Whereas the Republicans would prefer a moderator who simply lets Romney do whatever he wants, including lie at will? You are aware that Candy Crowley is a journalist, who was _actually present_ when Obama made his comment in the rose garden about the attack in Libya: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” She was THERE. That’s why she knew Romney was lying. She was present, and remembered exactly what Obama said. Good for her that she would not let an obvious lie pass by unmentioned. And the audience was pleased that a moderator would call a candidate on an obvious lie. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/716 "2012-10-17T13:52:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A couple of minor points that stuck out for me. > > Romney talks about a “scholarship program” for Massachusetts? Students who pass an academic standard are entitled to education at a state university? Sounds marvy and progressive as all git out. Which causes me to wonder, that was his idea? He led the effort, moved it through? Or is he glomming on to the credit? Like he did for the whole “inclusion of women” thing? FYI, [Slate.com](http://Slate.com) [dicussses](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/romney_john_and_abigail_adams_scholarship_program_why_merit_aid_backfired.html) the program. They’re not especially impressed, to say the least. > [@](#): > > But research into the Adams Scholarship and the 12 others like it across the country suggests that these programs do little to improve college access because they typically go to students who already plan to attend college. If anything, these researchers say, the scholarships can widen existing income and racial gaps in college attendance. > … > A study released this summer by Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government found that Massachusetts students were likely to use the scholarship to attend a state school with fewer resources than private schools they might have gone to otherwise. The result? Students who use the scholarship actually take longer to graduate—and they are less likely to graduate at all. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/717 "2012-10-17T13:52:36Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > According to Romney, he asked for names of qualified female cabinet members, and got what he asked for: binders full of women. Since this was around the time the equal pay stuff was brought up in the debate (and I thought the question was about equal pay?)… honestly, I took it that he wanted to hire more women so he could reduce the payroll expenses of his administration. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/718 "2012-10-17T13:54:57Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Is the whole freakin’ debate going to boil down to the Libya terrorist remark??? Yes, it is. It reminds me of the Republican who shouted out “You lie!” at Obama during a speech. It steals the moment, and most of the talk afterwards will be about that, not the substance of the debate. The two candidates were debating an issue and the moderator entered the fray to take one of their sides. This would be outrageous even if she was right. But to make matters worse, she was factually incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/719 "2012-10-17T13:55:39Z")
> [@slumtrimpet](#): > > I listened to the debate last night with half an ear (can’t tolerate too much politician blather, it’s bad for my health) while reading this thread. Did I hear this right? > [Did Romney say this as per the LA Times?](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-presidential-debate-taxes-deficit-20121016,0,6300634.story) > Was there some context I missed that would have made this statement less absurd? Is there some reason I shouldn’t have snorted my tea out of my nose? He said people with incomes of under $200,000 would no longer pay taxes on any of those things. I’m not sure whether that’s worthy of tea-snorting, except to the extent that most people’s savings are tax-exempt already. ETA: **Enkel** , that’s brilliant! ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/720 "2012-10-17T13:57:44Z")
To me, the debate was a tie, and I was pleased to see Obama getting it on with Romney. He was more effective and gave as good as he got. (Where was this Obama the first time?) I think, however, that what Candy Crowley did, marred the debate for Obama. I think Candy Crowley should resign. To actually lie for a candidate during the debate is absolutely outrageous. To be caught doing it and not even attempt to apologize is just unprofessional. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847.md?page=37)