# 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:** 58
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1141 "2012-10-18T18:22:33Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > BTW, has Romney said anything about wanting to find out who did do this? Or is his only concern about whether or not they were called terrorists, or whatever? I’m pretty sure he thinks it means we should invade Iran. (Only half-kidding, amazingly…). ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1142 "2012-10-18T18:25:37Z")
**magellan01** , you are incorrect, possibly deliberately so. I have read the transcripts. I have watched the speech. You probably have to, although that’s unclear. It’s possible that English is not your first language. Romney lied, as is proven by the transcript and the video recordings of the speech in the Rose Garden. He was called out on this lie by both Obama and the moderator. The audience, in appreciation for unexpected truth in a political debate, applauded. ---
**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 18, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1143 "2012-10-18T18:25:46Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > BTW, has Romney said anything about wanting to find out who did do this? Or is his only concern about whether or not they were called terrorists, or whatever? Which is funny because Romney himself didn’t even call it an act of terror or terrorism until Sept. 25. ---
**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 18, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1144 "2012-10-18T18:26:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Unfortunately for you, and Obama, Romney was correct. First, the President lied, and then Crowley felt the need to open her yap and repeat the lie. You do realize you can look up what Obama actually said in the Rose Garden, don’t you? And if you want to see what he believes, just look at the U.N. speech two weeks later. Or any statement he made for two weeks following the attack. > > Obama has an exceedingly odd reluctance to call Islamic terrorism for what it is. So is your claim that there is a magic incantation that only Republicans can recite that sufficiently labels this an act of terror? Does the national security demand that a Republican president, and only a Republican president, repeat these magic words whenever there is a terrorist attack? Do Democratic presidents, and only Democratic presidents, have an obligation to figure out precisely who was behind an attack and exterminate them before the fires have died out? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1145 "2012-10-18T18:34:14Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > So is your claim that there is a magic incantation that only Republicans can recite that sufficiently labels this an act of terror? If Democratic presidents speak the words, their tongues burst into flames. You could look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1146 "2012-10-18T18:42:25Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > **magellan01** , you are incorrect, possibly deliberately so. […] It’s possible that English is not your first language. Again: this is allowed in the Pit, but not in Elections. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1147 "2012-10-18T18:44:31Z")
Fuck, I can’t catch up to this thread. Only on page 16. Comments ensuing anyway. > [@JKellyMap](#): > > 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. > > [snip] > > 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." You should email this entire comment to the White House, so they can incorporate it in their talking points. Here is what stuck out to me about the debate format. There were supposed to be three 2-minute segments per question. 1. Response by first candidate. 2. Response by second candidate. 3. Back and forth discussion between the candidates. What happened is that in that third 2-minute segment, Obama did a splendid job of time manipulation. He drew out his responses, and kept his tone to sound like he was summarizing and drawing back to the main point. So in each case, he would start talking and burn up all the time. Whether Romney had spoken or not. Romney seemed unclear on the structure, thinking that there were two 2-minute response windows, or there was supposed to be even time in that 2-minute window, or something. It was intended as a back and forth rather than a “let me run down my talking points for a while”. Ergo, Obama seemed to be getting all the time, Romney thought he was supposed to get the last response or something to be fair, etc. Where Crowley could have been better was to tame in some of those long-winded responses in the back and forth window, helped balance the time in that period by drawing them into more exchange. Also, there was one question toward the end - I forget which one, may have been the last one - where Obama was speaking and went way over his 2 minute window without a comment by the moderator. The countdown clock was visible in the background as it cycled from green, to yellow, to red, and zero, then shut out, and Obama spoke for almost a minute longer. That was likely coming out of the 2 minute exchange time. So those points stuck out to me. With regards to Romney’s comments, He was trying so hard to get a gotcha on Obama about the Libya thing that he stepped in it. Obama had made the comment about “acts of terror” that include the Libya attack. Some people seem to be caught up in some false dichotomy that a spontaneous riot in protest of a film that escalates into an attack on the embassy can’t be an act of terror or terrorism. I think Obama is not that limited. He was willing to think it terroristic, but at the same time trying to understand what really happened rather than jump to label the situation. Candy Crowley did point out the transcript and how Romney was factually incorrect. However, she did also state that he was right in the larger issue, that Obama and company did not come out and state it was a deliberate, planned act of terrorism and they avoided declaring that far longer than seems reasonable. It seems to me, Romney got hooked by the words and turned a win into a fail by that turn of events. The Republicans seemed to me to get some valuable points by Obama taking responsibility. Regardless of what happened and how the embassy ended up without enough security, Obama took responsibility. Seems like the Repubs could use that to their advantage, rather than getting caught up over “acts of terror” and whether that means “terrorist acts”. On the “binders of women” comment, Romney was asking about all the candidates being male, and he said something like “so they went out and found binders full of women that _could be made qualified_.” Not that _were_ qualified, but that could be made qualified. That suggests some kind of affirmative action or changing the criteria for qualifications or watering down the requirments. Not “were qualified but needed persuasion or accommodations to be interested in the job”. If it were that, then he would have been okay with his flexible work schedule remark - that’s incentive to accept the job, not relating to qualifications to be offered the job. Laughable comments: All the middle class would have their capital gains and savings income be non-taxable. Because that’s such a huge slice of our income. (I think I make about $6 a year in this kind of income.) He would solve the women’s inequal pay situation by fixing the economy so companies would be racing to hire women. How does making the economy better so companies have more money to spend make the companies change their pay policies? His immigration reform policy and remarks that he wants illegal immigrants to go where they have better opportunities. Okay, I get his point, but the way he phrased it sure seemed at odds with our perception of America as The Land of Opportunity. Making North America energy independent. So, we’re going to be in a cooperative agreement with Canada and Mexico? Does Mexico have a lot of oil? Will they be buying from us and Canada? From an audio perspective, I do notice that Obama has a certain cadence… to his speaking, with… periodic… pauses to his phrases,… like he’s compiling his thoughts, or… correcting what he’s about to say, or… almost stuttering. I never really paid attention before until SNL did their send up a couple weeks ago, and since then I’ve been paying more attention. From a audio perspective, Romney speaks more plainly, more flowing, with fewer pauses and self-interruptions. ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1148 "2012-10-18T18:53:10Z")
I’ll accept that the first part was a violation of the rules, but I honestly don’t know if English is his first language. We’re discussing the syntax / semantics of English language speech so I believed it to be relevant. I will not bring it up again. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1149 "2012-10-18T18:53:41Z")
Obama’s cadence annoys me and always has. It’s not so bad in his prepared speeches, but in any extemporaneous speaking, he’s almost Shatner-like with the pausing and hesitating. ---
**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 18, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1150 "2012-10-18T18:55:20Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > BTW, has Romney said anything about wanting to find out who did do this? Or is his only concern about whether or not they were called terrorists, or whatever? Romney probably would have used it as a pretext to invade Iran. ETA: Tip o the hat to **Jas09** ---
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1151 "2012-10-18T18:58:09Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > … he’s almost Shatner-like with the pausing and hesitating. You say this as if it’s a _bad_ thing. :dubious: I think that style should be called “shatnering a speech” and it should be applauded. ---
**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 18, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1152 "2012-10-18T18:59:40Z")
> [@](#): > > **Irishman** > > From an audio perspective, I do notice that Obama has a certain cadence… to his speaking, with… periodic… pauses to his phrases,… like he’s compiling his thoughts, or… correcting what he’s about to say, or… almost stuttering. I never really paid attention before until SNL did their send up a couple weeks ago, and since then I’ve been paying more attention. From a audio perspective, Romney speaks more plainly, more flowing, with fewer pauses and self-interruptions. Irritating as hell. He did better this time than he usually does. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1153 "2012-10-18T19:28:42Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > On a side note, Gallup should also be beaten and shot for finding these so called “undecided” voters. What undecided voters cheer when Crowley hits Romney with a left hook? If you were truly undecided, wouldn’t you have listened to that exchange politely to see how it played out? How about undecided voters who like to see the truth win? How about undecided voters who want to see a moderator take an activist role in the debate, to keep the candidates from spewing shit, to get them to state specifics and on point and not wander all over their talking points. How about an undecided audience who liked seeing a smug candidate overstep and get caught. Those are all things that would be enjoyed if played either direction, just played out against Romney. > [@Debaser](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called “undecided” voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama — Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her). Wait, Mitt Romney’s tax plan is tailor-made for Obama? Shouldn’t that be a slam dunk for Romney, to explain his own plan? And the “Libya debacle”? OMG, the Repubs are now saying that’s a slam dunk for Obama that shouldn’t have been brought up? Before this debate that was a hands down Republican talking point. These aren’t Democratic issues, these are issues that Americans want to know how the candidates will act. Hell, one of the questions was from a guy saying he voted for Obama last time, but isn’t sufficiently convinced to vote a second time. That’s not a screaming endorsement, that’s an open door for Romney. ---
**Author:** ![sweepkick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@sweepkick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweepkick)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1154 "2012-10-18T19:53:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So facts are utterly irrelevant to you, right? Is there anything that magellan has ever posted that would make you believe he is different from any other conservative partisan that slithers around this board? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1155 "2012-10-18T19:57:56Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > I have read the transcripts. I have watched the speech. You probably have to, although that’s unclear. It’s possible that English is not your first language. Romney lied, as is proven by the transcript and the video recordings of the speech in the Rose Garden. No. He didn’t. Obama only mentioned the word “terror” in a general sense, on the anniversary of 9/11 and it wasn’t clear he was talking about the attackers. When he did talk about the attackers he took pains to say other labels like “killers” and this went on for weeks at all levels of his administration. It’s great that you wish it wasn’t true. But it is. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1156 "2012-10-18T19:58:50Z")
[Obama wins on time, Romney wins on word count](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/obama-wins-on-time-romney-wins-on-word-count/): > [@CNN](#): > > When Tuesday evening’s showdown between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney concluded, the CNN debate clock showed the president spoke for 3 minutes and 14 seconds longer than his Republican rival. > … > But in number of words, it was Romney who came out ahead. He spoke 7,984 words - 478 words ahead of Obama, who spoke 7,506 words. Not entirely sure what this means, except that it shows Obama didn’t necessarily get to hog the conversation. He just has a slower speaking style, so, in order to get across the same concept, he may need additional time. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1157 "2012-10-18T20:00:06Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Obama only mentioned the word “terror” in a general sense, on the anniversary of 9/11 and it wasn’t clear he was talking about the attackers. It was to anyone who speaks and understands English. Any other reading of the text is tortured at best. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1158 "2012-10-18T20:01:28Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > No. He didn’t. > > Obama only mentioned the word “terror” in a general sense, on the anniversary of 9/11 and it wasn’t clear he was talking about the attackers. When he did talk about the attackers he took pains to say other labels like “killers” and this went on for weeks at all levels of his administration. This is simply untrue. [Reread this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15600498#post15600498). I lay it out very clearly for you. His use of “acts of terror” wasn’t general: it specifically tied the 9/11/01 attacks to the 9/11/12 attacks in a way that makes it unambiguous he was calling the 9/11/12 attacks “acts of terror.” If you believe otherwise, please reread that post and reply to it. At this point, folks repeated this untruth about what Obama said are starting to sound like they’re doing so deliberately, but I don’t think you’d do so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1159 "2012-10-18T20:03:06Z")
[Rachel Maddow says “do not confuse your World Net Daily-caliber therapeutic Conservative alternative reality fantasy babble for what actually happened.”](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#49456831) She manages to indict Romney, WND and PolitiFact in one glorious fell swoop. (The part pertaining to the debate begins at about 5:10) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1160 "2012-10-18T20:05:24Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > It’s great that you wish it wasn’t true. But it is. [_cough_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847.md?page=57) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847.md?page=59)