I’m pretty sure he thinks it means we should invade Iran. (Only half-kidding, amazingly…).
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.
Which is funny because Romney himself didn’t even call it an act of terror or terrorism until Sept. 25.
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?
If Democratic presidents speak the words, their tongues burst into flames. You could look it up.
Again: this is allowed in the Pit, but not in Elections.
Fuck, I can’t catch up to this thread. Only on page 16. Comments ensuing anyway.
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.
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.
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.
Romney probably would have used it as a pretext to invade Iran.
ETA: Tip o the hat to Jas09
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.
Irritating as hell. He did better this time than he usually does.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Obama wins on time, Romney wins on word count:
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.
It was to anyone who speaks and understands English.
Any other reading of the text is tortured at best.
This is simply untrue. Reread this post. 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.
Rachel Maddow says “do not confuse your World Net Daily-caliber therapeutic Conservative alternative reality fantasy babble for what actually happened.” She manages to indict Romney, WND and PolitiFact in one glorious fell swoop. (The part pertaining to the debate begins at about 5:10)