Anyone here that thinks Obama won the debate?

[HUGGY]

Every Democrat who isn't an absolute shithead concedes Romney won. Obama could have showed up drunk and spent his time talking about his fascination with the Vagina Monologues, and 27% would have still said Obama won the debate.

I don't think Obama won, but I don't think Romney won either.

Romney still couldn't say anything specific about what he would do if he was President. Nothing. If there was ever a time to get specific about his platform, that was it and he flopped. Why can't he get specific about what he is proposing to the country? Maybe because all he's got is bullshit.

Obama needs an attitude adjustment. I would've ripped Romney a new asshole if I was up there. I would not of let him get away with his standard generalizations and pet phrases. I would've said to him, "Hey, fuckface, cut the crap! What are you going to do specifically?" And, "Why do you think half the country is a bunch of losers?"

Obama should've had Hillary debate him.

I think the "debates" SHOULD be carried out by surrogates. Like having a lawyer speak for you in court. Mittens could have his choice.. and Obama could have Clinton (bill) argue his case.

 

[Synthaholic]

You know its bad when only 27% think that someone won the debate. In most debates it doesn't really matters what each candidate said, both Repubs and Dems think that their side won the debate, and usually whatever candidate the polls are leaning to is the "winner" of the debate. When only 27% (which I think the president had like 55% of support before the debate) thinks that you won, those are only the hardcore, blind supporters saying that (which there are on both sides). That just means the president really got his ass kicked.

Obama went up 8% with independents after the debate.

Perhaps not due to Obama's good performance, but due to Mitt's rudeness, bullying, talking over Lehrer, lies, and blatant flip-flops.

 

[sakinago]

Every Democrat who isn't an absolute shithead concedes Romney won. Obama could have showed up drunk and spent his time talking about his fascination with the Vagina Monologues, and 27% would have still said Obama won the debate.

I don't think Obama won, but I don't think Romney won either.

Romney still couldn't say anything specific about what he would do if he was President. Nothing. If there was ever a time to get specific about his platform, that was it and he flopped. Why can't he get specific about what he is proposing to the country? Maybe because all he's got is bullshit.

Obama needs an attitude adjustment. I would've ripped Romney a new asshole if I was up there. I would not of let him get away with his standard generalizations and pet phrases. I would've said to him, "Hey, fuckface, cut the crap! What are you going to do specifically?" And, "Why do you think half the country is a bunch of losers?"

Obama should've had Hillary debate him.

I think the "debates" SHOULD be carried out by surrogates. Like having a lawyer speak for you in court. Mittens could have his choice.. and Obama could have Clinton (bill) argue his case.

Romney would dig up Reagan and put him on wires. Romneys plan is essentially emulating Reaganomics.

And what dont you people understand that whatever candidate aligns with your views, you are going to think that candidate won, because you think that your view is superior to others. Its really bad when only 27% think that their candidate won.

Personally I think that leftist views are based primarily on emotion, not logic... I think this is a hard statement to argue. Its intentions without thinking about consequences.

 

[sakinago]

I just really, really, really, want to hear someone try to explain how Obama really won the debate (I need a good laugh today). It was that bad of an ass-kicking that I dont see there is any way possible.

Depends, if facts and truth matter then Obama won it because everything that came out of Mittens' mouth was a lie.

Romney looked good and he looked like he was in command where Obama did not. Romney's problem is in the substance of what he said. He left the door wide open for the Obama campaign to use one statement after another against Romney, because as you said, he lied. The question is how far will the Obama campaign go in using this against Romney. The biggest thing I see is Romney's tax cuts and the $5 trillion cost. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't cut taxes by nearly 30% and not lose revenue without getting rid of a slewful of deductions and credits, most of which will affect the middle class and low income earners. What Romney wants to do is transfer a massive amount of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super wealthy. It truly is unbelievable. What is scary is that many in the middle class are buying into it.

Reagan did it very easily. Reagan cut taxes and increased revenue at the same time. Look at the numbers.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Depends, if facts and truth matter then Obama won it because everything that came out of Mittens' mouth was a lie.

Romney looked good and he looked like he was in command where Obama did not. Romney's problem is in the substance of what he said. He left the door wide open for the Obama campaign to use one statement after another against Romney, because as you said, he lied. The question is how far will the Obama campaign go in using this against Romney. The biggest thing I see is Romney's tax cuts and the $5 trillion cost. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't cut taxes by nearly 30% and not lose revenue without getting rid of a slewful of deductions and credits, most of which will affect the middle class and low income earners. What Romney wants to do is transfer a massive amount of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super wealthy. It truly is unbelievable. What is scary is that many in the middle class are buying into it.

Reagan did it very easily. Reagan cut taxes and increased revenue at the same time. Look at the numbers.

Reagan raised taxes 7 times in 8 years. If you subtract his deficit spending from the GNP, his numbers look anemic.

 

[longknife]

I love how hard the left is trying to skew the results!

Try as hard as you want but it won't change the attitude of those who watched.

 

[sakinago]

Romney looked good and he looked like he was in command where Obama did not. Romney's problem is in the substance of what he said. He left the door wide open for the Obama campaign to use one statement after another against Romney, because as you said, he lied. The question is how far will the Obama campaign go in using this against Romney. The biggest thing I see is Romney's tax cuts and the $5 trillion cost. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't cut taxes by nearly 30% and not lose revenue without getting rid of a slewful of deductions and credits, most of which will affect the middle class and low income earners. What Romney wants to do is transfer a massive amount of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super wealthy. It truly is unbelievable. What is scary is that many in the middle class are buying into it.

Reagan did it very easily. Reagan cut taxes and increased revenue at the same time. Look at the numbers.

Reagan raised taxes 7 times in 8 years. If you subtract his deficit spending from the GNP, his numbers look anemic.

Are you trying to say the economy was not in vastly better shape in the Reagan administration than it was after the Carter administration, which by the way put us in a much worse off position than we are today. That is a very tough argument to make, and I would like to see you try. You are using small bits of information to make a point based on half truths. Go back and look at what Reagan did start to finish of his 8 years. Your argument is one that dems have been trying to make for years, and most have given up because they can not back it up. The new criticisms of Reagan they have tried to make is over his "star wars" technology, and his policy against Russia.

 

[Billo_Really]

See this is the only opposing view on the debate I can understand, that actually uses some sort logic. That being said, the "lets hear the specifics on your plan" tactic is a trap. Any politician knows that you never go into specific detail publicly, especially in timed situations like campaign speeches and debates. Its an absolute killer to go into the specifics in your plan, go on for 20 mins about your plan realize that your not even halfway through and you are putting the crowed asleep. This is why Herman Cain became so popular with his 9-9-9 plan, it was short simple and made sense. In the primaries and shortly after, Romney had a big problem with going into specifics too much about tax plans and etc. He did a good job at making a 5 point plan, with clear, easy to understand points. I think we can all agree that Obama did not even scratch the surface on Obamacare. Obama knew Romney had a problem in going into detail to much, tried to get Romney to bite, and Romney did not fall for it.

As for my source on my previous post, its not from any sort of article that I know of, its just from my 2 years experience in a hospital. You can ask around anyone who works at your standard hospital will tell you they use CYA procedure (cover your ass). Dont get me wrong, some good things have come out of all the lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, (e.g. there is no excuse for bedsores, you should be turning and propping the patient at least every 2 hours), and you could make an argument that the electronic documentation system was in some way influenced by CYA procedure. But... let me put it this way, If some lady can sue McDonald's over because she spilled hot coffee, you best believe that there are a lot of ridiculous lawsuits in the healthcare industry, an industry whose business is to try to save people who are already dying, or have a lot of complications. I cant tell you how many countless lab tests Ive done on patients that were not even ruling out MRSA, just playing it safe, that I could bet my house that they didnt even come close to having MRSA but we still charged them for at least three test and very expensive antibiotics while they are getting tested over a 5 day period. And as someone with a BS in microbio, working as a lab tech, I was just like why are we doing this...were knocking out their normal flora and giving them a chance to catch a different infection. Its because hospitals wont get sued or have to pay out of their pocket for that secondary infection if they were covering their ass, the patients will; but the hospital will have to pay for the treatment or possibly get sued if they did not catch MRSA quick enough.

The one thing I do kind of agree with Obamacare is making free preventative care out there. That being said, Obama should not get credit for that (he already has 1 noble prize he didnt earn), because it is something the healthcare industry has been griping about for a long time, and it is the next logical step in healthcare reform (offcourse right after tort reform which is clearly the first logical step).

Romney can't keep saying he'll do this and that, without explaining some specifics on how he plans to get what he say's done.

As far as MRSA, I was diagnosed with it last March. It came on pretty sudden and my right arm felt like it was going to explode. When I went to the hospital, they thought I was faking it just to get some pain meds, but then a doctor in the ER came over and lanced my arm. He drained 5cc's of fluid out of my arm. Then they gave me some Dilaudid. That shit's great! Better than morphine. Anyway, one night in the hospital cost me $33,000. That's fuckin' bullshit!

We needed the public option in the healthcare bill. That would've reduced healthcare costs.

 

[Billo_Really]

Reagan did it very easily. Reagan cut taxes and increased revenue at the same time. Look at the numbers.

The next two years after he cut taxes, he raised them with some of the biggest tax increases to date at that time.

 

[HUGGY]

I love how hard the left is trying to skew the results!

Try as hard as you want but it won't change the attitude of those who watched.

Two seperate things. Most Americans watch TV for entertainment. Our country has a sick obssession for coronating bullies. Mittens lied his ass off. Both are true.

 

[sakinago]

See this is the only opposing view on the debate I can understand, that actually uses some sort logic. That being said, the "lets hear the specifics on your plan" tactic is a trap. Any politician knows that you never go into specific detail publicly, especially in timed situations like campaign speeches and debates. Its an absolute killer to go into the specifics in your plan, go on for 20 mins about your plan realize that your not even halfway through and you are putting the crowed asleep. This is why Herman Cain became so popular with his 9-9-9 plan, it was short simple and made sense. In the primaries and shortly after, Romney had a big problem with going into specifics too much about tax plans and etc. He did a good job at making a 5 point plan, with clear, easy to understand points. I think we can all agree that Obama did not even scratch the surface on Obamacare. Obama knew Romney had a problem in going into detail to much, tried to get Romney to bite, and Romney did not fall for it.

As for my source on my previous post, its not from any sort of article that I know of, its just from my 2 years experience in a hospital. You can ask around anyone who works at your standard hospital will tell you they use CYA procedure (cover your ass). Dont get me wrong, some good things have come out of all the lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, (e.g. there is no excuse for bedsores, you should be turning and propping the patient at least every 2 hours), and you could make an argument that the electronic documentation system was in some way influenced by CYA procedure. But... let me put it this way, If some lady can sue McDonald's over because she spilled hot coffee, you best believe that there are a lot of ridiculous lawsuits in the healthcare industry, an industry whose business is to try to save people who are already dying, or have a lot of complications. I cant tell you how many countless lab tests Ive done on patients that were not even ruling out MRSA, just playing it safe, that I could bet my house that they didnt even come close to having MRSA but we still charged them for at least three test and very expensive antibiotics while they are getting tested over a 5 day period. And as someone with a BS in microbio, working as a lab tech, I was just like why are we doing this...were knocking out their normal flora and giving them a chance to catch a different infection. Its because hospitals wont get sued or have to pay out of their pocket for that secondary infection if they were covering their ass, the patients will; but the hospital will have to pay for the treatment or possibly get sued if they did not catch MRSA quick enough.

The one thing I do kind of agree with Obamacare is making free preventative care out there. That being said, Obama should not get credit for that (he already has 1 noble prize he didnt earn), because it is something the healthcare industry has been griping about for a long time, and it is the next logical step in healthcare reform (offcourse right after tort reform which is clearly the first logical step).

Romney can't keep saying he'll do this and that, without explaining some specifics on how he plans to get what he say's done.

As far as MRSA, I was diagnosed with it last March. It came on pretty sudden and my right arm felt like it was going to explode. When I went to the hospital, they thought I was faking it just to get some pain meds, but then a doctor in the ER came over and lanced my arm. He drained 5cc's of fluid out of my arm. Then they gave me some Dilaudid. That shit's great! Better than morphine. Anyway, one night in the hospital cost me $33,000. That's fuckin' bullshit!

We needed the public option in the healthcare bill. That would've reduced healthcare costs.

Oh yea I am sure it cost you that much. And that was a pretty shitty hospital if they thought you were faking staph just before a doctor drained 5 ml's out of your arm. You could say that MRSA is a product of the ridiculous suits against doctors. MRSA has emerged from doctors over prescribing antibiotics when it was not indicated, but they were just covering their ass. Patients would wipe out much of the skins biota with the antibiotic, the only biota left was penicillin resistant, and without the competition from other biota, the resistant strains would thrive, and be hard as shit to get rid of. Another reason is some patients are just idiots and dont take their antibiotics like they're supposed too; they stop taking them when they start feeling better and stockpile the rest of the Rx for when they get sick again, INSTEAD of taking the full dose of antibiotics and giving the body and antibiotics time to kill the rest of the resistant strains, they think they feel better and leave the door wide open for resistant strains to thrive.

 

[logical4u]

I love how hard the left is trying to skew the results!

Try as hard as you want but it won't change the attitude of those who watched.

Two seperate things. Most Americans watch TV for entertainment. Our country has a sick obssession for coronating bullies. Mittens lied his ass off. Both are true.

I repeat: it is amusing to see those that support the corrupt fraud in the white house complain when someone else does something similar!

 

[JoeB131]

the pathetic performance by Obama is a fitting end to his pathetic Presidency

I just really, really, really, want to hear someone try to explain how Obama really won the debate (I need a good laugh today). It was that bad of an ass-kicking that I dont see there is any way possible.

Your whole premise is that 1) Debates are really relevent, or 2) Romney really was all that impressive.

Frankly, I asked around the office the next day, and most people who watched the debate thought it was boring and neither one of them really impressed them.

I didn't watch it, because I think it's pointless. Debates don't tell me who can run the country well.

Carter ran circles around Ford in the 1976 debate, but he was an awful president. The same can be said of Bush-41.

 

[JoeB131]

I love how hard the left is trying to skew the results!

Try as hard as you want but it won't change the attitude of those who watched.

Most of the people I talked to who watched who don't get into this stuff as much as we do said they thought it was boring.

Did Romney impress the pundits? Yup.

But most of them already know who they are voting for.

Did he change any minds?

Not so much.