I find you bemusing. Sometimes, you make perfect sense, and seem super smart, even when I disagree with you.
Then, you say something that throws me way off. Surely you agree with MsWhatsit that one can do both, right? I mean, one can laugh *and *undo one’s opponent.
If you are able to logically take apart your opponent, then it doesn’t take away from your argument that you laughed at him when you found him funny. You may subtract style points for that, if you like (especially if you did the same when Romney smirked and blustered) but you really cheat if you subtract substance points.
Everyone that isn’t Reince Priebus clearly wins the “not being Reince Priebus” award!
Can you identify the cases where Democrats refuse to compromise with Republicans and the metric in which their refusal to compromise endangers America? Bonus points if you can point to a defeated bill which had fewer than 10% of Democrats in support of it in Congress.
I can think of one issue where Democrats refuse to compromise with the Republicans and that’s on not adopting the Ryan budget or the Norquist pledge.
Do you think abortion affects women and men equally?
COBRA gave permission to hospitals to deny care to pregnant women whom the hospitals thought could not afford to pay for the care. Of course, if COBRA gave permission for the hospital staff to shit in the faces of pregnant women who looked homeless Congress wouldn’t be shitting in the faces of pregnant homeless women.
I find it amusing that Joe Biden’s laughing or chuckling is sooooo upsetting to the Repubs. Talking heads on either side of the room do it to each other all the time. It’s a way to be dismissive of the argument, but still be engaged in the debate. It’s almost as if little Eddie Munster’s followers all became petulant children frustrated when an adult is amused at their rather simplistic, unsympathetic disregard for anyone other than themselves and people like themselves. Joe was passionate and you could feel his passion for the less fortunate. Eddie, not so much.
Next time you guys start a thread like this, at least title it accurately so reasonable people with open minds can avoid reading the crap that is posted here. Something like “Lets Trash the Republicans During the Debate By Making Asinine Statements”. Get a life, people. Take a Poly Sci class and maybe next time you can insert some intelligence into the thread.
Well, trouser Troutsqueezer, please tell us, point by point, which posts you find asinine. We’re going to need evidence, so get ready to put your “Poly Sci” research skills to work.
Romney/Ryan team have been insulting us with the “We’ll give you the details After you elect us” and back-peddaling on what facts they have provided for too long. This is something the media should have called them out for months ago. Biden expressed the incredulity we feel at this stage: ‘This isn’t Student Council, Jr. Cough of the details or get out of the big boy race.’
Guys, this was a clear-cut Biden win, period. Now, it wasn’t a Biden blowout by any means because Ryan was able to come off as being at least mildly competent, but that still doesn’t change the fact that Biden decisively won the debate.
Biden had to go out there and reinvigorate the Democratic base after Obama’s lackluster performance against Romney last week. I mean, I’m absolutely not the first person to make that assessment, but it was so obviously and plainly the purpose behind Biden’s performance that I don’t think anybody could seriously question it.
And look, he was enormously successful. You know that you’ve rattled some GOP feathers when Republican operatives spend the entire subsequent day parroting around claiming that Ryan somehow won by default because Biden was too rude. I’ve actually got a few things to say about that criticism:
Grow the fuck up. If Romney gets to spend 90 minutes lying his ass off and condescendingly talking over both Jim Lehrer and the POTUS in Denver last week against the backdrop of his shit-eating Martian grin, then Biden gets to laugh at and talk over Ryan in order to refute the bullshit that he was pushing out. The funny thing is that the same people criticizing Biden today are the same ones who swooned over Romney last week because he had been so “aggressive” and “in control” of the Denver debate.
Give me a break. Look, civility is great and all in an ideal situation, but the bottom line is that Republicans are NOT civil politicians. The GOP is filled with disrespectful jackasses who have constantly gone out of their way to demean Obama (ie Joe Wilson shouting “you lie” at the health care address a few years ago, Jan Brewer getting in Obama’s face at an airport runway, anything that comes out of John Sununu’s mouth, etc.), so when Biden happens to get a little snarky with Ryan at the debate it would behoove yourselves to sit back and take it all and stride. You don’t like the way he acted? You only have yourselves to blame.
But yeah, great debate and a clear Biden win. He did what he needed to do, and he loved every minute of it. Hopefully Obama takes a cue from Biden and ups his game considerably on Tuesday.
Also, I guess I should say that, to the extent that vice presidential debates can actually help the larger campaign, I essentially agree with Nate Silver’s analysis that was referenced earlier. My guess is that the Biden victory here will prop up diminished Democratic enthusiasm and keep Romney from making any further gains out of his first debate bump. From here, though, it’s up to Obama to regain his momentum by beating Romney in rounds two and three.
I was out last night and missed the debate, and now I’m disappointed I missed it. It sounds like it was a good one.
Can anyone fill me in on what led to the Jack Kennedy zinger? I’ve seen a lot of people quote the zinger, but not what Ryan said that led to that.
I agree. Maybe laughing isn’t the best, but I find lying about positions much less respectful.
I agree. That’s the biggest complaint a lot of people have about politics. It’s also the reason for a lot of voter apathy, because “all politicians lie.” So I’m very happy anytime a politician is called out on a lie. When there are just disagreements or different interpretations of things, then that’s one thing. But when someone is straight up lying I want them to be called out and the record set straight.
I’ll give you the laughing, certainly, though I feel that’s what Ryan’s remarks deserved. Romney DID interrupt, though he pretty much limited it to when the moderator was trying to assert control, or Obama was beginning to speak - not in the middle of things. Romney interrupted and asserted his right to have the last word on every subject, even if he also had the first word.
Incredulous laughter was the appropriate response for the ridiculous things Ryan said. I would have preferred Romney and Ryan sticking to previously-established positions, and providing numbers and details when asked. I don’t appreciate candidates treating me like an idiot with the memory of a goldfish.
Laughing wouldn’t have been something I’d like to see at the debates, but given the tenor of last week’s debates and how well being boorish went over, it was time to take a new tack. It WAS boorish, and I was genuinely surprised to see it. However, perhaps it is time to treat ridiculous claims and fictions with the derisive laughter they deserve - as long as it is followed up with thorough explanations as to why they are ridiculous. Perhaps things would not have gone so far off the rails in politics if more people were willing to point and laugh, instead of treating fantasy, crazy, and stupid as valid opposing viewpoints.
Well, thank goodness you’re here to set us straight. Let’s just take a look through this thread and see all the pearls of wisdom you’ve added to the discussion.
(a few second pass)
Well, that took a whole lot less time than you’d think based upon your post. Seems you didn’t post anything else at all.
Biden: It’s mathematically impossible to cut taxes by 20% without growing the deficit.
Ryan: It’s not impossible. There are lotsa times where tax cuts lead to economic growth.
Biden: Oh yeah? When?
Ryan: Jack [sic…they’re old buddies] Kennedy did it. Reagan did it…
Biden: Oh now you’re Jack Kennedy?
Kinda of a cheap zinger, but Ryan teed up the Bentsen-Quayle reference.
More interesting, though, is that Ryan dodged the question. He was challenged on the tax cut/deficit connection, and he pivoted to tax cut/job growth. Not the same thing, bud.
So what was is your problem? The utter nonsense Ryan was spewing about Afghanistan and how out of depth he was on Foreign policy in total, or the Abortion issue that he clearly wasn’t prepared to answer, let alone swallow hard for Williard, or the fact when pressed, that he really does look like Eddie Munster?
The moderator pressed Ryan a lot on how he intended to make his tax plan revenue neutral. I think this is a fair point to push on a guy who projects himself as a numbers guy. He ended up saying he’d fill in the detail later after negotiating with the Democrats. The problem is that he would have to cut out almost ALL tax expenditures to achieve revenue neutrality, there would be nothing left to negotiate.
He doesn’t let you whores off the hook but he sees the political reality of having to let you off the hook… for now.
He’s just reminding us what is at stake.
There are a lot of ways to serve your country. His sons are serving their country by helping their dad get elected President. Its really the best thing that anyone could do for America.:rolleyes:
I thought he said “honesty” (implying that Biden was lying). I thought, wow, this guy’s got balls.
Obama has lost about 70 electoral votes since the first debate.
Biden kinda took it easy on Palin. Palin was doing a great job of looking incompetent without any help from him. Ryan didn’t look incompetent. Ryan lost the fiscal policy debate mostly because his positions depend on getting everyone to believe his outrageous assumptions about the supply side effects of tax cuts. Ryan lost because his foreign policy positions depend on everyone believing that Republicans would have handled Libya, Afghanistan, Iran and Osama bin Laden better (which is like monday morning quarterbacking the winning team because you think you could have won by 4 touchdowns instead of three). Ryan lost the
There wasn’t a knockout, and while both the presidential and vice presidential debates were won on points. Obama lost on a split decision when he was a heavy favorite to win and Biden won on points after he knocked Ryan down a few times (he also wasn’t a heavy favorite to win).
He made reference to Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Anyone who is into fiscal policy at all will immediately understand what a conservative is trying to say when he utters those two names in the same sentence. Trickle down economics. These two presidents saw what looked like a supply side effect when they cut taxes. Reagan only saw it in his FIRST tax cut, it turns out the supply side effect (if any) essentially vanishes at the sort of tax rates we are talking about these days. IOW, when JFK lowered top marginal tax rates from 90% to 70%, we saw what looked like a supply side effect. When Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%, we saw what looked like a supply side effect. When Reagan lowered it from 50% to 38% and then 28%, we did not see a similar effect. Similarly we didn’t see a contractionary effect when Clinton raised the top marginal tax rates from 31% to 39.6%.
In the case of the JFK cuts, there was enough growth (some of it organic and some of it seemingly supply side) to almost make up for the lost revenue. In the case of the FIRST Reagan tax cut, there was growth but not nearly enough to make up for the loss in revenue (which is why we see the National debt spike during Reagan). His later tax cuts had almost no supply side effects.
Similarly with the Bush tax cuts, there was no noticable supply side effect. Most conservative economists do not believe there is a significant supply side effect at these tax rates. Bush administration economists put the supply side effect at 25% of lost revenue and that probably overstates the supply side effect by about 25% (plus or minus a margin or error).
With that background, what Ryan is saying is that if you accept his assumptions about how tax cuts stimulate the economy, that his tax cuts will largely pay for themselves, then you can in fact have revenue neutral tax cuts while only closing a few loopholes for really wealthy people if you accept his assumption that the economy will grow quickly enough to cover the majority of the lost revenue (of course he also assumes that a larger economy won’t require more government services but thats another story.
I think that was the point. Biden wants to leave you out of it, Ryan doesn’t think he can, not when you’re killing your baby.
I think that has more to do with you than us.
I don’t think Romney won the debate with interruptions, I think Obama lost the debate with passivity.
If Ryan opened his mouth, he was usually lying. You can laugh or you can scream but the last debate proved that you can’t just sit there and not even acknowledge the other guy is full of shi—Malarkey.
Listening to the fact check (on NPR this morning, in my case) is rather depressing. There are very few flat-out pants-on-fire lies, but there are TONS of half-truths, cherry-picked facts, nuanced interpretations and slippery definitions. Finding the truth is nailing jello to the wall. And I’m embarrassed that both sides do it, although the Republicans truth-o-meter tends closer towards the pants-on-fire zone.
So the take-away from any debate is never so much what was said, because that’s meaningless bafflegab – but how they said it.