The second presidential debate: 10/16/2012

[GrandWino]

@Debaser

What rule did he break?

The candidates had agreed that they would not ask each other direct questions (and this is in fact a rule in place for all of the debates). Romney broke this rule first, and quite early.

[JohnT]

@Andiethewestie

Geesus, What the fuck is the difference between “acts of terror” and “terrorism”? He said it in the Rose Garden. DEAL with it. It happened the day after the attack.
Are the Repubs so stupid as to think that if it was an act of terrorism that Obama had to go in with guns blazing before finding out the full situation? Doesn’t it make sense to understand the full extent of the security breech and why it didn’t happen? Would the request for heightened security for the Embassy in Tripoli and not a compound in Benghazi have anything to do with it? Would the confluence of violent acts and protests have anything to do with what happened here?

And then ask yourself How fucking long did it take W to react after 911? I’ll wait.

Let’s not foget that Romney stood out there and accused the President of being uncaring, imbecile running off to a Vegas fundraiser. It’s okay to insult the President when he just lost great people that he felt a responsibility to?

To answer the question that Debaser, OMG, et al won’t bother to look up, the answer is…

26 days.

9-11 Review: The 2001 Attack on Afghanistan

Note that Bush waited 9 days after the attacks to even demand of Aghanistan, etc, to hand Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects over.

[JohnT]

@Bob Ducca

The candidates had agreed that they would not ask each other direct questions (and this is in fact a rule in place for all of the debates). Romney broke this rule first, and quite early.

Because he, like many of his ilk, believe the rules really aren’t for them… even when they negotiate and agree to them!

[Steve_MB]

@Debaser

But it’s clearly not what the administration was doing. He went around talking loudly about the video for over a week.

Saying you won’t comment on an ongoing investigation is one thing. That wasn’t what happened. The administration at all levels was blaming the incident on a protest over a video. This just wasn’t true.

Given that pretending to ignore the event isn’t an option, blaming it on losers who have sand up their ass about some stupid video is the next best thing. It’s almost a real-world version of Dean Ing’s “Very Proper Charlies” strategy.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Debaser

You really don’t know the answer to this?

There are a couple of possibilities:

1. Obama’s administration, at every level, truly didn’t know that there was a terror attack at the embassy for 12 or so days. This would obviously be a huge intelligence failure that SecState Clinton is now attempting to take the blame for.

Can I just rule this out right from the start? What possible evidence could you have for this ridiculous idea?

2. Obama’s administration is embarrassed that their middle east policy is a failure and that organized terrorists are able to plan and carry out an attack on our embassy. They spin the events for a few news cycles that it was all a protest gone wrong over a video no one has seen before. This results in other actual protests because now everyone has seen the video and buries the real story that there was an organized terrorist attack. It almost worked.

What makes you think they are embarrassed at their overall middle east policy? As for the video, it most surely played a part, as this NY Times article makes clear. This alone could explain the initial statements from the admin. And does it make sense that they would try to cover up a major incident like this, right from the start, without having a concrete idea of exactly what happened over there? The ambassador and three others were murdered. The damage had been done. It would have been unbelievably stupid for them to try to cover this up, and say whatever else you will, this admin is not that politically stupid.

[iiandyiiii]

@Debaser

No he didn’t. He used the term “act of terror” in exactly two instances in all of his speeches for the twelve days after the attacks. At no time did he use it referring to the attacks. Instead he called the attackers “killers” or words other than terrorists.

You just agreed with me. Maybe he didn’t say it every single time (or most of the time)- but Romney was harping upon him for not using that phrase, but he did.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Debaser

I don’t know why it can’t be both.

Right. I don’t know why you can’t also argue, as you do, that Obama is an incompetent do-nothing, ineffectual, professorial mumbler who runs around the world saying “Sorry, please don’t hurt us” to any thug with a slingshot AND simultaneously an oppressive, dictatorial socialist jamming his foreign agenda down Americans’ throats against their will, Hitler-style only less amenable to democracy or reason.

But you really can’t. Which lie do you prefer, personally?

[Debaser]

@Frylock

What polling?. The numbers at the link seem to indicate a much wider advantage for Obama in the debate polls than he enjoys in the election polls.

CNN has it basically tied.

the two candidates were tied on an important measure - whether the showdown would affect how the debate watchers will vote. Nearly half said the debate did not make them more likely to vote for either candidate, with the other half evenly divided between both men.

I thought it was tied watching at home. The polling generally agrees with that.

Those of you who thought Obama decisively won: I bet you thought he tied the last one and were surprised by the results.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

In a way, what you’re doing here is akin to Romney’s vacillations about Obama. You could make the case that Crowley was incompetent, or you could make the case that she was malevolent. It’s hard to make both simultaneously, but because your base is split down the middle you try to make both cases together, which strains your credibility.

Pick a lie and stick to it, for Christ’s sake.

I’m not making a case that she was incompetent or malevolent. I’ve clearly said here I thought she did a good job, merely that I think she shouldn’t have said anything on this particular question.

What lie? Are you addressing this to me?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Debaser

But it’s clearly not what the administration was doing. He went around talking loudly about the video for over a week.

Saying you won’t comment on an ongoing investigation is one thing. That wasn’t what happened. The administration at all levels was blaming the incident on a protest over a video. This just wasn’t true.

I know you desperately want this narrative to be true. It would take away from the disgusting comments that Romney made when the bodies were still warm.

However, most grownups don’t want a leader who goes off half-cocked, and blusters before getting any facts. Most grownups don’t want a leader who does not understand world politics, and who uses a volatile political situation for political gain.

Essentially this is a Rovian tactic being pushed by right-wing blogs and Fox news. Take Romney’s disgusting comments and try to bury them by manufacturing an outrage that Obama did not label it a terrorist act fast enough, or he used the wrong words, or simply lie that he said nothing. Make up some shit so that Obama cannot use Romney’s disgusting words and half-cocked stupidity against him.

[Debaser]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Right. I don’t know why you can’t also argue, as you do, that Obama is an incompetent do-nothing, ineffectual, professorial mumbler who runs around the world saying “Sorry, please don’t hurt us” to any thug with a slingshot AND simultaneously an oppressive, dictatorial socialist jamming his foreign agenda down Americans’ throats against their will, Hitler-style only less amenable to democracy or reason.

But you really can’t. Which lie do you prefer, personally?

Wow, is this is annual “Gigantic Strawman Contest”? I only brought a few bales, so I think it will be at a disadvantage.

Seriously, try and argue against what your opponents actually say.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Fiddle_Peghead

What lie? Are you addressing this to me?

Sorry–not addressing you at all.

[GrandWino]

@Debaser

Those of you who thought Obama decisively won: I bet you thought he tied the last one and were surprised by the results.

This is the dumbest thing I’ve read on the internet today, and I spent some time in MPSIMS, so that’s saying a lot.

Over and over and over and over, in this thread and elsewhere, Obama supporters have clearly stated (and gone nuts over the fact) that Obama clearly lost that first debate.

I have to say though, I do enjoy seeing the right-wingers here get all grouchy and desperate after 2 weeks of gloating.

[Debaser]

@Bob Ducca

The candidates had agreed that they would not ask each other direct questions (and this is in fact a rule in place for all of the debates). Romney broke this rule first, and quite early.

So a reasonable punishment for this would be to interrupt him over twenty times, never let him have the last word on a question, ask biased questions, give Obama more talking time overall, let Obama go over on every question and then actually jump into the debate on the side of his opponent?

Seems a bit over the top.

On the other hand, she could have just told him not to ask direct questions if that was her problem.

[Skammer]

@Debaser

liberal media bias

Drink!

Oh wait is the game over?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Debaser

I thought it was tied watching at home. The polling generally agrees with that.

What polling are you looking at? Do you have proficiency at mathematics?

A tie is when the numbers are equal. When the poll says that one person’s numbers are bigger than the others, this is not a tie.

Glad to help.

[Debaser]

@Bob Ducca

Over and over and over and over, in this thread and elsewhere, Obama supporters have clearly stated (and gone nuts over the fact) that Obama clearly lost that first debate.

You must have missed this…

@spazurek

Being irresponsible and lazy, I’m not prepared to read the 12±page debate thread. But I need a sanity check. I watched the debate on Wednesday and I was disappointed by what a non-event it was; both candidates repeated talking points from the debate trail. Every accusation made by Romney was one he’s said a hundred times before; ditto Obama. Each of them dodged or denied the claims of the other with no specific counter-point. The whole thing seemed like an extended, alternating campaign commercial. A couple funny lines (I laughed at Obama saying “Well you’re going to have a busy first day sitting down with Democrats after repealing Obamacare”), but otherwise, total dud.

Then I learn from pundits that Romney was scintillating, animated, and passionate, while Obama was dispirited and bored. Apparently Romney scored all kinds of points (while saying nothing I haven’t heard many times already), while Obama failed to land any punches (um…I think it is irresponsible of Romney to hide his plan, beyond killing PBS…). In retrospect, I suppose Romney was more spastic and Obama was a bit professorial, but who’s surprised by this???

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Sorry–not addressing you at all.

Thought not, it just threw me for a sec.

[Debaser]

@Euphonious_Polemic

What polling are you looking at?

Read my posts. 788. CNN has it seven points to Obama overall and tied with people who are yet to make up their minds. Far from the ass kicking of the last debate, which was what I was responding to.

[fumster]

@Debaser

To balance this out the next debate would have to be held at Fox and Friends with Glenn Beck as the moderator. Even he would probably refrain from actually lying about the candidates during the debate.

This wouldn’t work. You can’t have the cameras behind Beck - the tin foil hat creates too many reflections.