I've never understood threats. If I'm going to hit you, I'm not going to warn you first. If I want to coerce you into doing something in the manner someone may with a threat, I'm not going to threaten you with something, I'll just fucking do it, and then tell you what I would very much like you to do. Openly threatening people is stupid.
Threats only make sense if you need to coerce you to do something and I only have lethal or sufficiently crippling force available, and even then it only works on an irrational actor who fails to realize that if I use my threatening force I cannot gain what I want.
I think Obama has a serious problem if he doesn't figure out how to debate someone who's willing to flat out lie during the debates. He could use some lessons from Clinton on how to call someone out on their BS in a joking manner.
I think Obama has a serious problem if he doesn't figure out how to debate someone who's willing to flat out lie during the debates. He could use some lessons from Clinton on how to call someone out on their BS in a joking manner.
The problem is that Mittens lies about complex issues and distills them down to kindergarten level falsehoods. A true rebuttal would well overrun the time allotted for a response, and even being truthful about that, "Mitt that's a lie and you know it would take longer than the time allotted to rebut you" means that half the country hears "Wow, I don't have time to tap dance away your patriotic, simple, down-home common sense" even though that's utter bullshit.
I think Obama has a serious problem if he doesn't figure out how to debate someone who's willing to flat out lie during the debates. He could use some lessons from Clinton on how to call someone out on their BS in a joking manner.
The problem is - you can't. If you're willing to sacrifice substance for the sake of rhetoric, you can trounce most rational people. If you actually want the debate to bring up some useful ideas, your efforts will be derailed by crazy.
It's actually a brilliant move on Romney's part. He's already said that he won't let fact-checkers run his campaign, so why not just change his tax policy in the middle of a debate? You can't be called on it and his base will overlook it. Nothing to lose, and if it works, he seems to be the superior statesman.
my facebook feed is depressing. one of my friends just said that all regulation is bad and mittens is pandering by saying there should be some. (Oh, I thought you trusted his business experience! Well, I'll make sure to buy you extra antifreeze flavor toothpaste next time we're back in the industrial revolution.)
my facebook feed is depressing. one of my friends just said that all regulation is bad and mittens is pandering by saying there should be some. (Oh, I thought you trusted his business experience! Well, I'll make sure to buy you extra antifreeze flavor toothpaste next time we're back in the industrial revolution.)
I've dropped most of those sorts of people (about 2/3 of my heads-up-their-asses Republican family) from my feed. I'll never convert them, and there's no sense in smearing myself with it on a daily basis.
see.. I have mixed feelings on this (just like the creationism thread). I was a bull-headed idiot not too long ago, and i can thank the seemingly futile efforts of people to inform me, for actually, eventually, informing me. Plus, I came from a background of 24/7 proselytization... but now I feel like not-enough-RAM-robot, and I can only output "people are fucking stupid derp"
If there's any justice in the world, Romney's unfavorables will go up after this debate. While watching, I thought listening to Romney was exhausting, and the thought of four years of that was depressing.
Scenario Analysis How often the following situations occurred during repeated simulated elections.
Electoral College tie (269 electoral votes for each candidate) 0.7% Recount (one or more decisive states within 0.5 percentage points) 5.4% Obama wins popular vote 85.2% Romney wins popular vote 14.8% Obama wins popular vote but loses electoral college 1.5% Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college 2.4% Obama landslide (double-digit popular vote margin) 6.5% Romney landslide (double-digit popular vote margin) 0.1% Map exactly the same as in 2008 1.2% Map exactly the same as in 2004 0.1% Obama loses at least one state he carried in 2008 94.0% Obama wins at least one state he failed to carry in 2008 16.7%
So if Romney lied, why can't Obama tell the truth and expose Romney for what a cheat he is? Facts always win right? Obama should have creamed Romney if all Romney had was lies.
What you're telling me is that the truth comes harder to Obama than lies do to Romney.
So if Romney lied, why can't Obama tell the truth and expose Romney for what a cheat he is? Facts always win right? Obama should have creamed Romney if all Romney had was lies.
What you're telling me is that the truth comes harder to Obama than lies do to Romney.
Calling Romney out takes longer than 2 minutes, to do so convincingly. That's the major issue - it's faster to lie than to explain the truth.
EDIT: Though, I would've preferred that Obama at least try.
Where was the Obama from 4 years ago? He looked like George W. Bush up there! The truth should be as natural as a lie, MORE natural in fact. You don't have to think anything up when you tell the truth. Its right there for you to say!
If Obama doesn't have proper time to thoroughly refute the false claims, he may as well just say NUH-UH for all the good a partial (and easily mocked) correction would do. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it anyway, but he would have appeared even more on the defensive and running scared to the ignorant majority.
Where was the Obama from 4 years ago? He looked like George W. Bush up there! The truth should be as natural as a lie, MORE natural in fact. You don't have to think anything up when you tell the truth. Its right there for you to say!
Actually, I thought Obama was a weak debater 4 years ago. His opponent was just weaker.
Where was the Obama from 4 years ago? He looked like George W. Bush up there! The truth should be as natural as a lie, MORE natural in fact. You don't have to think anything up when you tell the truth. Its right there for you to say!
When the truth involves quoting hard numbers and other subtle facts that require significant time to explain and you're constrained by time limits, it's hard to actually say it other than just say, "you're lying." I mean, just look at FactCheck.org's report on the debate. These lies aren't things you can legitimately dispute in a mere soundbite -- they require time and subtlety to dispute.
Admittedly, Obama wasn't 100% honest either, but some of Obama's dishonestly could be considered "rounding errors" (i.e. 4.6 million new jobs instead of the 5 million he claimed, extrapolating $480 billion revenue decreases over 10 years to get $5 trillion). In fact, according to FactCheck's analysis, and even including these possible rounding errors as outright lies to make the comparison easier, Obama made 5 potentially dishonest claims (3 of which could effectively be considered "rounding errors"). Romney, on the other hand, made 9 dishonest claims, and none of them were even in the ballpark, unlike Obama's. A lot of the time, he went so far as to double the actual numbers to make them look worse than they actually are. In one case, he actually quoted a figure six times larger than the actual figure.
Plus, FactCheck.org had all night to actually analyze the statements of both politicians and give detailed information on just how accurate or inaccurate they were. Kinda hard to do this off the cuff on a podium when you don't even know beforehand what kinds of claims your opponent will be making.
Also, if you setup the divide as "you are lying and we are not" then any gaff or misquoted factoid demolishes your reputation. That's why the GOP is so successful (and why Obama was so successful in 08); they are the party of feelings. Righteousness, Patriotism, Outrage. You can talk someone out of a factual misunderstanding with stronger facts, but facts have no affect on feelings.
Debates are nothing but rhetorical fencing matches but when feelings matter more than reality, winning the game = being right.
Comments
It's actually a brilliant move on Romney's part. He's already said that he won't let fact-checkers run his campaign, so why not just change his tax policy in the middle of a debate? You can't be called on it and his base will overlook it. Nothing to lose, and if it works, he seems to be the superior statesman.
I hate everything.
If I were motivated enough I would look to see what they were saying 4 years ago.
The only reason Mittens won is that Americans value appearance over substance, culturally.
http://www.pollheadlines.com/election-polls-10-2012/us-2012-presidential-election-obama-49-romney-45-gallup-09272012-10032012.html
EDIT: Oh, you're talking about instant-reaction polls. NVM
How often the following situations occurred during repeated simulated elections.
Electoral College tie (269 electoral votes for each candidate) 0.7%
Recount (one or more decisive states within 0.5 percentage points) 5.4%
Obama wins popular vote 85.2%
Romney wins popular vote 14.8%
Obama wins popular vote but loses electoral college 1.5%
Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college 2.4%
Obama landslide (double-digit popular vote margin) 6.5%
Romney landslide (double-digit popular vote margin) 0.1%
Map exactly the same as in 2008 1.2%
Map exactly the same as in 2004 0.1%
Obama loses at least one state he carried in 2008 94.0%
Obama wins at least one state he failed to carry in 2008 16.7%
Source: NY Times
What you're telling me is that the truth comes harder to Obama than lies do to Romney.
EDIT: Though, I would've preferred that Obama at least try.
Admittedly, Obama wasn't 100% honest either, but some of Obama's dishonestly could be considered "rounding errors" (i.e. 4.6 million new jobs instead of the 5 million he claimed, extrapolating $480 billion revenue decreases over 10 years to get $5 trillion). In fact, according to FactCheck's analysis, and even including these possible rounding errors as outright lies to make the comparison easier, Obama made 5 potentially dishonest claims (3 of which could effectively be considered "rounding errors"). Romney, on the other hand, made 9 dishonest claims, and none of them were even in the ballpark, unlike Obama's. A lot of the time, he went so far as to double the actual numbers to make them look worse than they actually are. In one case, he actually quoted a figure six times larger than the actual figure.
Plus, FactCheck.org had all night to actually analyze the statements of both politicians and give detailed information on just how accurate or inaccurate they were. Kinda hard to do this off the cuff on a podium when you don't even know beforehand what kinds of claims your opponent will be making.
Debates are nothing but rhetorical fencing matches but when feelings matter more than reality, winning the game = being right.