Who won the 1st Presidential Debate?

[MozoVote]

Even if ObamaCare is repealed, it's still bad that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can tax you for refusing to buy something. Any time Congress gets expanded power, it will be used again.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Even if ObamaCare is repealed, it's still bad that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can tax you for refusing to buy something. Any time Congress gets expanded power, it will be used again.

Sure it's bad, nobody said otherwise. Suggesting Obamacare can't be repealed with the agreement of the SCOTUS is just ignorance though.

And this is actually a great example on how the "both parties are the same" talking point is just a groundless myth: every single one of the Justices appointed by Democrat presidents, including those appointed by the "moderate" Bill Clinton, voted to uphold Obamacare.

Out of those appointed by Republican presidents - a quasi-socialist like Bush II, a decent center-right pragmatic like Bush I and a charismatic but ineffective alleged conservative like Reagan - 4 out of 5 voted to take it down.

And even the guy who voted to uphold it based it on a rationale with much narrower grounds than the 4 Dem nominated Justices.

Funny video on the debate:



If this guy was a republican, he'd be called the dumbest, less articulate president in history.

 

[Britannia]

Again, I have no idea why you believe anyone will be thinking about treating Ron Paul supporters better if Obama is re-elected. In which terrain is that claim grounded? Seems like pure magical thinking. That's a talking point often repeated here but nobody has ever explained how's that supposed to work.

Secondly, many Ron Paul supporters would always say the same stuff about being mistreated simply because Paul didn't win the nomination.

Third, if you think the GOP treats Ron Paul and libertarians badly, if you think the parties are just the same, then you haven't been paying attention. I mean, maybe Ron Paul should try to get the Democrat nomination next time. What about Rand Paul? Do you think he - or Massie or Amash or Bentivolio - could win a Dem primary? Do you think they could even get 10%? Do you think Rand Paul could get a speaking slot in a Dem convention? Do you think his speech would be applauded? If you think the GOP treats you badly, you should try the other side.

That crap about the 2 parties being the same is pure fiction - and the fact that we've never heard about "Liberty candidate (D)" is proof of it. The thesis that Obama and Romney are exactly the same is nothing but a childish fallacy. In the voting booth, I couldn't care less if the differences aren't as large as I'd want them to be. Political advocacy =! voting. Not voting for Romney has no upside whatsoever. It won't make the GOP "treat Paul supporters better". It won't "teach them a lesson". It won't make "them vote for Ron Paul the next time". It won't make them more conservative, more amenable to Paul's ideas. Those are just over-emotional temper tantrums. At some point, one needs to get over personal feelings, move on and make the only decision that matters: vote for the guy who's a lesser evil, even if just by a small margin.

As for Obamacare, check my posts above. You guys really overrate the ideological positioning of politicians. They'll do whatever is popular. Obamacare will be repealed because it's still so unpopular and the hard support for it is still very soft. Wait 4 years and that will change.

I am convinced that this election is going to be very close and a few hundred, or a few thousand votes, one way or the other in some states, might make a huge difference to the outcome, as with Florida in 2000.

It's not that Dr. Paul didn't win the nomination, it's why he lost it that concerns me. When I read the Paulbots complaining about media bias against Dr. Paul, and his own party hacks working against him, I laughed. Yeah yeah yeah, they would say that, wouldn't they! Then I did some investigating of my own and lo and behold, they were telling the truth. And no, I don't think "the other side" would have treated Paul any better, or Rand or any of the other liberty-minded people, because both political parties are dominated by people who hold, or profess to hold, certain views that allow them to get into office and then progress further up the greasy pole. Someone like Ron Paul, who applies logic and common sense to a problem, as opposed to blind ideology, is always going to be at a disadvantage in such a system because political parties want drones, people who will parrot the party line and do as they are told.

I think there are differences between the two parties but not on anything I would describe as truly significant. Where's the difference in foreign policy? where the difference in monetary policy? where's the difference on welfare reform? where's the difference on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, drones flying over American cities? Neither candidate is going to stop the wars or the war spending, neither is going to change monetary policy, both will continue to spend money like water, both will continue the PA, the NDAA, and both will continue to allow drones to fly through domestic American airspace. And you talk about "the lesser of two evils"? How much evil can you tolerate, considerably more than me, from the sounds of it. If you don't get these things right then the rest of it is little more than tinkering around the edges; fiddling while Rome burns.

Maybe I'm getting old and bad-tempered (and if I come off that way I apologise because that's not how my comments are intended) but sometimes in life when someone has knocked you down and walked all over you, you have to get straight back up and bop them on the nose. If you don't, chances are they will do it again.

I couldn't vote for Romney because I know that he's a liar, a serial flip-flopper, severely conservative one month and a moderate the next, and he went along with his party in cheating to crush the little people. Sorry, no.

As for repealing Obamacare, I say again, it's too late. The goodies have been promised and the electorate wants it's goodies. That's my opinion, but we'll see.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't know or care who won. But the American people lost. I guess China won.

 

[CaseyJones]

I don't know or care who won. But the American people lost. I guess China won.

like china is ever seeing that money lol

 

[RonRules]

I knew this Big Bird thing would be Big!

 

[DeMintConservative]

Romney was totally right about Big Bird. Big Bird is a multi-millionaire. He doesn't need taxpayers money to survive (and if he needed, tough luck).

Obama's campaign must be sort of nervous to cling to Big Bird. One month before a presidential election, they're airing Big Bird ads. http://youtu.be/bZxs09eV-Vc

I mean, c'mon. Plus, predictably Sesame Workship has immediately demanded for them to take down the ad. That's going to be the news.


By the way, I think it's pretty obvious now that yes, Romney got a bounce/surge from the debate and a meaningful one.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I am convinced that this election is going to be very close and a few hundred, or a few thousand votes, one way or the other in some states, might make a huge difference to the outcome, as with Florida in 2000.

It's not that Dr. Paul didn't win the nomination, it's why he lost it that concerns me. When I read the Paulbots complaining about media bias against Dr. Paul, and his own party hacks working against him, I laughed. Yeah yeah yeah, they would say that, wouldn't they! Then I did some investigating of my own and lo and behold, they were telling the truth. And no, I don't think "the other side" would have treated Paul any better, or Rand or any of the other liberty-minded people, because both political parties are dominated by people who hold, or profess to hold, certain views that allow them to get into office and then progress further up the greasy pole. Someone like Ron Paul, who applies logic and common sense to a problem, as opposed to blind ideology, is always going to be at a disadvantage in such a system because political parties want drones, people who will parrot the party line and do as they are told.

No offense, but I think that particular point is sort of silly.

Rand Paul is a Republican senator. Amash et al are GOP elected officials.

The two sides aren't the same and it's reality that proves it. Denying this is simply trying to distort reality till it fits a meme.

I think there are differences between the two parties but not on anything I would describe as truly significant. Where's the difference in foreign policy? where the difference in monetary policy? where's the difference on welfare reform? where's the difference on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, drones flying over American cities? Neither candidate is going to stop the wars or the war spending, neither is going to change monetary policy, both will continue to spend money like water, both will continue the PA, the NDAA, and both will continue to allow drones to fly through domestic American airspace. And you talk about "the lesser of two evils"? How much evil can you tolerate, considerably more than me, from the sounds of it. If you don't get these things right then the rest of it is little more than tinkering around the edges; fiddling while Rome burns.

1 - There's a huge differnece in welfare reform. One party has the courage to propose something - a step in the right direction, even if not enough - the other is dominated by economic illiterates and demagogue

Welfare is hugely popular, like it or not. Say what you want about Ryan's plan and Romney's decision to pick Ryan, but coming up with an entitlement reform and picking its author showed political courage and a willingness to take risks.

Plus, I think anyone who isn't a gradualist is flat out misguided about the nature of politics. If any improvement is going to happen, it's going to be incrementally. I won't pretend that incremental improvement isn't improvement at all.

2 - Nobody is going to reinstall a metallic standard, thank God. But it's a mistake to believe this election is immaterial in terms of monetary policy. Check how Obama is filling the Fed board with inflation doves. Again, politics is about picking the lesser evil. There's a difference between a hawkish monetarist and the irresponsible crazes who believe their job is to print enough money till the GDP numbers look rosy.

You can say "well, Switzerland or Germany vs Iran or Zimbabwe... it's all the same, really". No, it's not.

3 - Yeps, the lesser of two evils.

What's the point of not tolerating evil?

It's going to be there, anyway. I prefer to do my part to minimize it in the short-term, even to allow better options in the future.

Maybe I'm getting old and bad-tempered (and if I come off that way I apologise because that's not how my comments are intended) but sometimes in life when someone has knocked you down and walked all over you, you have to get straight back up and bop them on the nose. If you don't, chances are they will do it again.

As for repealing Obamacare, I say again, it's too late. The goodies have been promised and the electorate wants it's goodies. That's my opinion, but we'll see.

I still fail to see how that mechanism in the first paragraph is going to work.

If Romney loses, the liberals and progressives will see it as proof they can punch us in the nose really harder. It'll prove you can add 6 trillion dollars to the public debt in 4 years and get away with it. It'll prove you can spend millions in subsidies to your donors and cronies and get away with it. It'll prove you can kill the natural economy cycle with endless boatloads of regulation and get away with it. You can prove you can campaign on jealousy, resentment, class-warfare, using others people money to offer contraceptives and tv shows and get away with it.

Sorry, I'll easily take the lesser evil. It's always about the lesser evil and it'll always be. And to me there's enough of a difference in this case - as there's clearly a difference to Ron Paul, he's ruled out voting for Obama but not for Romney.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I am convinced that this election is going to be very close and a few hundred, or a few thousand votes, one way or the other in some states, might make a huge difference to the outcome, as with Florida in 2000.

It's not that Dr. Paul didn't win the nomination, it's why he lost it that concerns me. When I read the Paulbots complaining about media bias against Dr. Paul, and his own party hacks working against him, I laughed. Yeah yeah yeah, they would say that, wouldn't they! Then I did some investigating of my own and lo and behold, they were telling the truth. And no, I don't think "the other side" would have treated Paul any better, or Rand or any of the other liberty-minded people, because both political parties are dominated by people who hold, or profess to hold, certain views that allow them to get into office and then progress further up the greasy pole. Someone like Ron Paul, who applies logic and common sense to a problem, as opposed to blind ideology, is always going to be at a disadvantage in such a system because political parties want drones, people who will parrot the party line and do as they are told.

No offense, but I think that particular point is sort of silly.

Rand Paul is a Republican senator. Amash et al are GOP elected officials.

The two sides aren't the same and it's reality that proves it. Denying this is simply trying to distort reality till it fits a meme.

I think there are differences between the two parties but not on anything I would describe as truly significant. Where's the difference in foreign policy? where the difference in monetary policy? where's the difference on welfare reform? where's the difference on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, drones flying over American cities? Neither candidate is going to stop the wars or the war spending, neither is going to change monetary policy, both will continue to spend money like water, both will continue the PA, the NDAA, and both will continue to allow drones to fly through domestic American airspace. And you talk about "the lesser of two evils"? How much evil can you tolerate, considerably more than me, from the sounds of it. If you don't get these things right then the rest of it is little more than tinkering around the edges; fiddling while Rome burns.

1 - There's a huge differnece in welfare reform. One party has the courage to propose something - a step in the right direction, even if not enough - the other is dominated by economic illiterates and demagogue

Welfare is hugely popular, like it or not. Say what you want about Ryan's plan and Romney's decision to pick Ryan, but coming up with an entitlement reform and picking its author showed political courage and a willingness to take risks.

Plus, I think anyone who isn't a gradualist is flat out misguided about the nature of politics. If any improvement is going to happen, it's going to be incrementally. I won't pretend that incremental improvement isn't improvement at all.

2 - Nobody is going to reinstall a metallic standard, thank God. But it's a mistake to believe this election is immaterial in terms of monetary policy. Check how Obama is filling the Fed board with inflation doves. Again, politics is about picking the lesser evil. There's a difference between a hawkish monetarist and the irresponsible crazes who believe their job is to print enough money till the GDP numbers look rosy.

You can say "well, Switzerland or Germany vs Iran or Zimbabwe... it's all the same, really". No, it's not.

3 - Yeps, the lesser of two evils.

What's the point of not tolerating evil when it comes to elections?

It's going to be there, anyway. I prefer to do my part to minimize it in the short-term, even to allow better options in the future.

The proper arena for political advocacy, to advance ideas, to stick to purism, to not compromise is not the general election.

Compromising electorally or politically doesn't imply you're compromising your principles. Two very different things.

Maybe I'm getting old and bad-tempered (and if I come off that way I apologise because that's not how my comments are intended) but sometimes in life when someone has knocked you down and walked all over you, you have to get straight back up and bop them on the nose. If you don't, chances are they will do it again.

As for repealing Obamacare, I say again, it's too late. The goodies have been promised and the electorate wants it's goodies. That's my opinion, but we'll see.

I still fail to see how that mechanism in the first paragraph is going to work.

If Romney loses, the liberals and progressives will see it as proof they can punch us in the nose really harder. It'll prove you can add 6 trillion dollars to the public debt in 4 years and get away with it. It'll prove you can spend millions in subsidies to your donors and cronies and get away with it. It'll prove you can kill the natural economy cycle with endless boatloads of regulation and get away with it. You can prove you can campaign on jealousy, resentment, class-warfare, using others people money to offer contraceptives and tv shows and get away with it.

Sorry, I'll easily take the lesser evil. It's always about the lesser evil and it'll always be. And to me there's enough of a difference in this case - as there's clearly a difference to Ron Paul, he's ruled out voting for Obama but not for Romney.

 

[acptulsa]

Sure it's bad, nobody said otherwise. Suggesting Obamacare can't be repealed with the agreement of the SCOTUS is just ignorance though.

And this is actually a great example on how the "both parties are the same" talking point is just a groundless myth: every single one of the Justices appointed by Democrat presidents, including those appointed by the "moderate" Bill Clinton, voted to uphold Obamacare.

Out of those appointed by Republican presidents - a quasi-socialist like Bush II, a decent center-right pragmatic like Bush I and a charismatic but ineffective alleged conservative like Reagan - 4 out of 5 voted to take it down.

And even the guy who voted to uphold it based it on a rationale with much narrower grounds than the 4 Dem nominated Justices.

You say that like you mean it. 'The problem with thinking the government is completely bipartisan and does what it wants in spite of the balance of power is that the Supreme Court screwed us in an almost partisan manner, with a whole four Republicans putting on a good show and only one having to cave to put the crap over.'

Oh, thank you for that. And I suppose the sky isn't blue because it's azure?

 

[DeMintConservative]

You say that like you mean it. 'The problem with thinking the government is completely bipartisan and does what it wants in spite of the balance of power is that the Supreme Court screwed us in an almost partisan manner, with a whole four Republicans putting on a good show and only one having to cave to put the crap over.'

Oh, thank you for that. And I suppose the sky isn't blue because it's azure?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.

We have more Republicans than Democrats on the SCOTUS but the decisions are still going wrong. So, how many Republicans do we have to put in there to convince you that the decisions will go the wrong way anyway? Do you want us to stick establishment Republicans in the White House for eight more years so we can get up to three Republican appointees who have to switch and vote with the two remaining Democrats before you're willing to admit that there really is no difference between Republican and Democratic appointees except who writes which minority opinion?

We know their true colors. We saw them in Tampa. We tried a majority of Republican Appointees on the SCOTUS and it isn't working. And there's no guarantee Obama's going to get to appoint any at all. If he does, it'll probably be Bader-Ginsberg, and you could reincarnate Warren and appoint him, and that seat would get more conservative than it is now.

Just a silly argument from any angle.

 

[DeMintConservative]

We have more Republicans than Democrats on the SCOTUS but the decisions are still going wrong. So, how many Republicans do we have to put in there to convince you that the decisions will go the wrong way anyway? Do you want us to stick establishment Republicans in the White House for eight more years so we can get up to three Republican appointees who have to switch and vote with the two remaining Democrats before you're willing to admit that there really is no difference between Republican and Democratic appointees except who writes which minority opinion?

We know their true colors. We saw them in Tampa. We tried a majority of Republican Appointees on the SCOTUS and it isn't working. And there's no guarantee Obama's going to get to appoint any at all. If he does, it'll probably be Bader-Ginsberg, and you could reincarnate Warren and appoint him, and that seat would get more conservative than it is now.

Just a silly argument from any angle.

I don't agree all decisions are going wrong. I have no idea how you can say that. In issues like the 2nd Amendment and free-speech/election laws, this court has been pretty good. More to the point: a lot better than it'd be if all judges were Dem appointed.

There's no point in discussing this if you think all decisions are going wrong. That doesn't seem intellectually honest to me: how can all decisions go wrong if some clearly favour the conservative interpretation of the COTUS and others do the exact opposite? What's exactly your opinion on Heller, for example?

 

[DeMintConservative]

And for the first time, Romney takes the lead in the RCP average:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

I guess this settles the issue of who won the debate. It was a Romney win and the kind of win that moves voting intentions.