Game On: The First Presidential Debate

[Fyacin]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

The experience argument is a dead horse, especially now that he picked Sarah Palin to possibly lead our country. And experience alone doesn't mean anything.

And you really thought it was a series of personal attacks? The mot offensive thing Obama said during the entire debate was, "It doesn't mean we invite them over for tea." And that wasn't even directed at McCain, it was directed at the picture McCain was trying to paint of Obama.

McCain, on the other hand, spent the entire debate snickering and giggling like a little school girl, and at points telling blatant lies about Obama, and repeating the phrase "Obama doesn't understand." Obama, when retaliating to these lies, would simply say "That isn't true." And explain why. He never got defensive. When McCain said something true, he would say, "John is right."

Obama defended his beliefs and explained his opinions, while McCain attacked Obama's and rarely defended his own.

I'm not sure about you, but I know which kind of politics I prefer.

@Fyacin: So was your comment.

Oh wait....

Bias sees what Bias wants. I'm not saying I'm not biased of course, just that arguing won't contribute anything.


I did find it funny when Mcain stumbled over "imanutjob's" name.

[Vampyr]

If I'm only seeing things through biased eyes, then, please, humor me and post what personal attacks Obama made.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

If I'm only seeing things through biased eyes, then, please, humor me and post what personal attacks Obama made.

I'm not sure where you got your "personal attacks" idea from, but I said in-person attack ads. I call any accusation at the other, rather than an expolanation of personal beliefs, attacks. Both candidates took part in that.

And for the record, I found the most disrespectful thing done the entire night was when Obama constantly referred to McCian as "John" and not by his title, which is the custom. The man's been a Senator for 30 years, he deserves the respect.

Overall, I hated Lehrer's idea of having the candidates speak to one another. This is a debate, not a conversation. There is a structure that has been proven in time and use. In Congress, there is a reason why all discussion is directed at the SPEAKER and not one another: It creates awkward moments and unconstructive discourse. And thats what we saw.

[Jason1]

When Barack sends me emails he signs them Barack, not Mr. Obama or Barack Obama. The whole "calling someone by their title is the respectful thing to do" is pretty much gone now. Its not like hes showing disrespect calling him John.

Obama listened to Mcains arguements, recognized them, and stated how he disagrees. Mcain snickerd a lot and looked stupid. But whatever he is the Maverick so all is forgiven!

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I'm not sure where you got your "personal attacks" idea from, but I said in-person attack ads. I call any accusation at the other, rather than an expolanation of personal beliefs, attacks. Both candidates took part in that.

And for the record, I found the most disrespectful thing done the entire night was when Obama constantly referred to McCian as "John" and not by his title, which is the custom. The man's been a Senator for 30 years, he deserves the respect.

Overall, I hated Lehrer's idea of having the candidates speak to one another. This is a debate, not a conversation. There is a structure that has been proven in time and use. In Congress, there is a reason why all discussion is directed at the SPEAKER and not one another: It creates awkward moments and unconstructive discourse. And thats what we saw.

Talk about seeing things through a biased.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Talk about seeing things through a biased.

Please explain. Blanket statements like this enlighten no one, including myself... And for the record, I've never claimed to NOT be biased. I'm obviously a fan of McCain and I dislike Obama greatly. I;ve been clear on this I think. Your analysis is biased as well, obviously, but I at least expect discourse and not empty blanket statements.

As for considering the debate a tie, I don't think thats good for McCain. This was McCain's issue, and he should have been more impressive and won decidedly if he wants to win he election. He didn't, and that will not sit well with undecided voters.

As for referring to one another by their title, its not something of the past... its currently done every day in Congress. Do yourself a favor and turn on CSPAN sometime. The tactic of calling McCain "John" was calculated and purposeful, because Obama needed to show himself as a colleague, and not a junior senator. In that respect, I think he was affective. Disrespectful, especially when McCain referred to Obama properly? Very.

[Vampyr]

Just the fact that you thought -that- was the most disrespectful thing, rather than the other things I've already said.

Also:

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.

Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country’s problems.

[Professor S]

I figured the polls would show well for Obama, and that reflects that independents would have expected McCain to do much better than he did on the foreign policy issue.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I figured the polls would show well for Obama, and that reflects that independents would have expected McCain to do much better than he did on the foreign policy issue.

Yet you still contend that McCain is better for the job? If McCain isn't even good at what he is supposed to be good at according to the independents, then...what is he good at? Seriously..It's over. 50% to 42% according to Gallup at this point.

This too, by the way...http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ntial-election

I am writing drunk from the UK, so if this isn't a great post, I understand, it's more of a a partisan gloat..

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Yet you still contend that McCain is better for the job? If McCain isn't even good at what he is supposed to be good at according to the independents, then...what is he good at? Seriously..It's over. 50% to 42% according to Gallup at this point.

You confuse performance during a debate for performance as president. I can say McCain did not perform that well during the debate, but still is by far the more qualified and superior candidare on almost every level. McCain came off a little bitter, and did not challenge Obama on some glaring misstatements, such as when Obama claimed McCain's accusation that Obama voted for a tax increase for Americans making $45k year. Obama vehemently accused McCain of lying about it, but in fact Obama DID vote for that tax increase according to FactCheck.

MCCain also spent too much time talking about spending when he should have stayed on the bailout topic when they talked economics. That was the hot button issue, and McCain looked like he was deflecting, when actually I think he was addressing a core issue. It came off bad.

A tie in a foreign policy debate is a win for Obama because of expectations. Obama is still the favorite, and now I think much more likely to win. It also doesn't take away from the fact he is one of the worst candidates ever to run for President.

This too, by the way...http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ntial-election

I wonder what those numbers of Lichter's would be like post-Palin nomination? Also, being the Spring and early summer when Lichter did the study on Obama/McCain, was Obama still heads-up with CLINTON at the time? There are a lot of variables we don't know, and none of his points address any of the points I have made about media bias.

[Jason1]

This election wont even be close. It will be an Obama landslide. Ive been saying it from the begining. Its going to be an Obamafied country in 09. Spread the love, give peace a chance! Obama is bringing back the middle class. Take from the rich, give to the poor thats my philosophy and Obama's as well. All who dont like it can go take their guns to their Nascar races and shoot stuff. Mcain can drive one of his 13 cars to whichever of his 7 houses he chooses, and go back to his millionaire wife. I feel so sorry for him.

[KillerGremlin]

You know what polls matter the most? The polls on election day. I know Obama commands a lead in the polls, but he needs his voters to go out and vote.

In regard to the debate...considering how poor of a public speaker McCain is (imo) I thought he did pretty good. Obama was dead on with his opinions of the Iraq War and Afghanistan and catching Bin Laden and spending American resources on foreign affairs. McCain made some good points about the economy...but step 1 to fixing the economy is getting out of Iraq.

ps, the VP pick doesn't matter that much

If you want to argue that Palin somehow demeans the Republican Party that McCain is running for then you have been lost in the media shitstorm (or borestorm imo) regarding the VPs.

[Vampyr]

Could someone clarify something for me? Why does McCain keep saying that Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on people making less than like, 42k a year? He said it during the debate, and it's on one of his commercials, too.

I think he's lying, but this isn't an attack at McCain, I'm genuinely interested to know if this is actually true, and how so.

Here's a chart from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060900950.html




Obligatory Support Obama Hyperbole:

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Could someone clarify something for me? Why does McCain keep saying that Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on people making less than like, 42k a year? He said it during the debate, and it's on one of his commercials, too.

Because he voted for those taxes. See my above post and check out FactCheck.org. And the number is $45k, I believe.

Here's a chart from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060900950.html

I often question numbers when taxes are involved with Obama, because he hides massive increases in taxatiuon through semantics, by renaming the taxes. I've already talked about this in others posts. 10th reply down:

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18993

Obama would raise capital gains by as much as 2/3's and I doubt those numbers show up on this chart, as they are not considered INCOME when all is said and done. Capital gains taxes affect anyone who owns a home and anyone who owns stock (over 60% of Americans). It also kills investment in American business, and conversely encourages investment overseas.

He would also greatly increase the burden of social security on small businesses, whose tax models change delending on whether or not they're incorporated, LLC's, or sole proprietorships, and I doubt those numbers show up on this chart.

EDIT: Yep, those numbers are from thre Tax Policy Center, and I KNOW those numbers don't reflect any variables I described above.

Basically, Barack Obama's economic plan is the exact opposite of any economic plan that has ever worked in the history of economics. Policies like his failed during the Great Depression, they failed during Johnson's Great Society and they crashed and burned during Carter's malaise days where the top tax rate was close to 70% when everything was said and done (Obama's top burden would hover around 55-60%, I believe).

Europe has even begun to abandon their socialist tendencies and are adopting more business friendly tax models, and its only imporving their economy. Ireland, after years of economic pain and poverty, virtually annihilated taxes on business and in less than ten years they went from sustained brutal poverty to a thriving economy, one of the most prolific in all of Europe.

I know no one wants to admit that "trickle down" or supply side economics works, but ask yourself this" If everyone can agree to the obvious fact that failures in big business trickle down economic pain and hysteria to everyone in the country, how can we deny that their success trickles down as well?" The trick is to keep the big dogs healthy, so the little dogs are healthy too.

Also, his "tax cuts" for the poor and really welfare checks he he is distributing money to people who didn't pay much in taxes to begin with. For a thematic example (numbers are not exact, but show the theory): If you pay no taxes, you would get $1,000 check from the government. If you paid $200, you would get a $800 check from the government, etc...

"Hey poor people, no need to try and get out of poverty anymore! The government subsidizes your misery and makes you more comfortable in your trailer while emasculating you at the same time! Need health-care? we'll provide the worst that everyone else's money can buy, and with no accountability because its ensconced in a massive, impenetrable bureaucracy!! Still need a job? Make $30K a year under Obama as a paid "volunteer"! There are tens of thousands of us with no way to pay for our "volunteer" salaries because they really aren't a part of my budget because you're "volunteers"! Makes sense, right? Don't worry about getting that GED or invenstigating college grants for further education, we've got you covered, because the government does all the thinking for you!. ARE WE NOT KIND!?!?!"


And Jason, keep `em coming,! I find it entertaining, especially the Robin Hood line. I suppose if all you're going to do is repeat othere people's opinions, they should at least be taken from a classic work of fiction. You should have your own line of Hallmark "Marxist" greeting cards.

[Professor S]

Hmmm, I see Xantar is bopping around the forums. I must prepare for his salvo...