# 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:** 4\ **Page:** 63
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1241 "2012-10-19T21:46:43Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Actually, I think it _was_ a trap, though one that was only made possible by Republican stupidity. Obama knew that one of Romney’s pre-programmed talking points was going to be “You didn’t call those bad guys terrorists!” … And, in a nitpicky sense, that’s true: Obama did not use the exact word “terrorists”. So what Obama did was that he primed the pump for the talking point, but he did so in a way that removed even that silly little nitpick: He said “I called it an act of terror”, at which Romney tried to make his talking point fit into the debate by saying “You did not call it an act of terror” (instead of the pre-scripted “you did not call them terrorists”), which was easily proven false. Yes, I can agree with that. The Republicans and Romney had been on him about the issue, he knew it was going to surface. So they strategized the response, and went back to how Obama had categorized it as an “act of terror”, which is ambiguous enough that it doesn’t say “it’s a premeditated and well organized and long-planned terrorist event” but does call it a terrorist act. So when the topic was brought up, and he knew the talking point was coming, he went for the preemptive strike with his specific quoting from the event. And it did go beautifully for him. Romney fell for the bait - by trying to turn the words Obama used here against him. If he’d have stuck with the main theme - “You’ve consistently avoided calling this a terrorist attack”, he would have had some wiggle room. Obama could have cited the Rose Garden speech and his repeated “act of terror” line, and Romney could have pointed out that Obama seemed to be pretty coy about the attack being terrorists, and hanging on with the protest gone wrong explanation for a lot longer than seemed justified. But he thought so strongly he had a gotcha on the terrorist thing that he couldn’t avoid it even when Obama disengaged. You can read the excitement on his face, why he repeated it and wanted it “on the record”. The fact that Obama wasn’t backpeddling or obfuscating should have been a clue to proceed carefully, but he charged headfirst. But the Republican characterization of this whole thing is maddeningly stupid, and their accusations about an Obama trap are ridiculous. It only worked because the Republicans as a whole are so blind to the truth and so stuck with their talking points that they couldn’t sort back through what Obama had actually said. They were repeating the meme rather than fact-checking their own spin. So Romney fell for it because he was caught in the Republican fantasy, and he fell for it hard because he was too excited by thinking he’d caught Obama in a stumble that he didn’t realize his own footing was crumbling. The Republicans made this trap for Romney. Obama just finessed the pitch. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1242 "2012-10-22T05:08:16Z")
> [@Nazarene](#): > > I wonder if Obama could Jedi Romney by saying “please proceed” again in the middle of something. Even if it was just a bluff it could throw Romney off his game. Mess with his head. That would be… AWESOME. I can literally see him say that in my head. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1243 "2012-10-22T12:47:45Z")
On thinking about it some more, I don’t think a “Please proceed” would, by itself, rattle Romney. We’re thinking it would, because that’s the phrase he used to lure Romney into the trap last time. But Romney’s so surrounded by his echo chamber, that I don’t think that he even realizes that he was trapped. I think he really does believe that he got in a major zinger there and the President just stood by and let him, and everyone would see it if not for the mean ol’ moderator. Of course, this means that he _could_ still use it again in exactly the same sort of trap he used it before. He’d just have to make sure there’s more to the trap than just the bait. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847/1244 "2012-11-03T14:17:17Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Am I the only one whose ears homed in on this note of diffidence? My first thought on hearing this was “How are you going to accuse the President of failing to say something appropriately, and not be 100% confident that you’re correct in this characterization? That is not confident leadership. You going to call someone out on someone, be right and _know you’re right._” Those are tag questions and are typically used in conversation where there’s a power disparity. Employees use them when addressing their boss and women use them more frequently when speaking to men. One of my lecturers is infuriating because he never accepts an answer in the form of “is it x?”. > [@yorick73](#): > > I assume the part about denigrating religious beliefs of others is a reference to the video. Probably, but he had to address the protests in Egypt along with both 9/11 and the Libyan acts of terror. > [@elucidator](#): > > So, when Obama talks about hunting them down, that’s his way of showing sympathy for the terrorists? He’s going to hunt them down and hug them, presumably. As for the children out of wedlock issue: such a concern is anachronistic and not relevant to gun crime in any direct manner, but a significant minority of Americans think it is immoral to have [children outside of marriage](http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-second-presidential-debate-10-16-2012/637847.md?page=62)