2012 Presidential Debate Master Thread

[TheHamburglar]

so nobody has still explained it. i mean, romney brings up cutting federal funding to freaking pbs in a national debate, but would have no problem giving DoD whatever they want and pubs cheer nationwide.

i don't get it. admittedly, i'm insanely dumb about this so tell me what i'm not getting. i'm sure there's plenty.

2.92 million in the US military between active and reserves.  Buying votes.  No different than liberals buying votes with other government programs and trying to push through pro-union legislation.  Try to figure out what portions of the population you can get to vote for you and give them monetary incentives to vote for you. 

Both of these guys have no problem Greeceing us and future generations if it means they get/keep power.  Only difference is one tries to act like he's not doing it and the other is pandering the people who don't give a crap because they assume someone else will keep paying for it no problem. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Al Gore blames the atmosphere (again) for Obama's poor showing. 

"Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today — just a few hours before the debate started," Gore said on his network, Current. "Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don't know..."

[SdK]

[Dr Rick Daris]

so nobody has still explained it. i mean, romney brings up cutting federal funding to freaking pbs in a national debate, but would have no problem giving DoD whatever they want and pubs cheer nationwide.

i don't get it. admittedly, i'm insanely dumb about this so tell me what i'm not getting. i'm sure there's plenty.

2.92 million in the US military between active and reserves.  Buying votes.  No different than liberals buying votes with other government programs and trying to push through pro-union legislation.  Try to figure out what portions of the population you can get to vote for you and give them monetary incentives to vote for you. 

Both of these guys have no problem Greeceing us and future generations if it means they get/keep power.  Only difference is one tries to act like he's not doing it and the other is pandering the people who don't give a crap because they assume someone else will keep paying for it no problem.

ok. but i mean, it's more than that though isn't it? i mean that's great if he wants to buy DoD type votes by supporting defense funding and all the people that benefit from it. which are much more than just active duty and reserve soldiers btw, but why call out pbs? that seemed weird and out of place.

the gov't gave around 450 million last year to the corporation for public broadcasting. of that 450, prob half went to radio type stuff and half went to tv type stuff. of the half that went to tv type stuff, much less went to pbs and "big bird". conversely, the federal government spent somewhere around 900 billion last year on defense funding. now some of that money is for veterans as well as foreign military and economic aid.

that means that we spent roughly 2,000 times as much last year on defense funding as we did towards the corporation for public broadcasting which is the parent company of pbs.

i mean wtf? like why bother singling pbs out? i don't get it. we spend .0005 of a percent on public boadcasting as a whole as we do on defense and way, way less than that on pbs. seems so weird i don't get it. yet that was a focal point of romney's message last night.

any thoughts?

[TheHamburglar]

so nobody has still explained it. i mean, romney brings up cutting federal funding to freaking pbs in a national debate, but would have no problem giving DoD whatever they want and pubs cheer nationwide.

i don't get it. admittedly, i'm insanely dumb about this so tell me what i'm not getting. i'm sure there's plenty.

2.92 million in the US military between active and reserves.  Buying votes.  No different than liberals buying votes with other government programs and trying to push through pro-union legislation.  Try to figure out what portions of the population you can get to vote for you and give them monetary incentives to vote for you. 

Both of these guys have no problem Greeceing us and future generations if it means they get/keep power.  Only difference is one tries to act like he's not doing it and the other is pandering the people who don't give a crap because they assume someone else will keep paying for it no problem.

ok. but i mean, it's more than that though isn't it? i mean that's great if he wants to buy DoD type votes by supporting defense funding and all the people that benefit from it. which are much more than just active duty and reserve soldiers btw, but why call out pbs? that seemed weird and out of place.

the gov't gave around 450 million last year to the corporation for public broadcasting. of that 450, prob half went to radio type stuff and half went to tv type stuff. of the half that went to tv type stuff, much less went to pbs and "big bird". conversely, the federal government spent somewhere around 900 billion last year on defense funding. now some of that money is for veterans as well as foreign military and economic aid.

that means that we spent roughly 2,000 times as much last year on defense funding as we did towards the corporation for public broadcasting which is the parent company of pbs.

i mean wtf? like why bother singling pbs out? i don't get it. we spend .0005 of a percent on public boadcasting as a whole as we do on defense and way, way less than that on pbs. seems so weird i don't get it. yet that was a focal point of romney's message last night.

any thoughts?

I agree calling out PBS was stupid.  The point you are making is absolutely right.  Calling out PBS was him trying to act like he is going be tough on spending when he actually isn't.  They probably chose PBS just because it's something that everybody knows about but almost nobody would be impacted personally by cutting it's funding. 

If you can think of a better example of something that gets government funding and everyone knows about, but would have minimal impact on voters if it's cut, the Repubs would like you to share so they can use it in the next debate.   

[theKSU]

rick daris: they are magicians, misdirection and illusion are their entire playbook

[8manpick]

so nobody has still explained it. i mean, romney brings up cutting federal funding to freaking pbs in a national debate, but would have no problem giving DoD whatever they want and pubs cheer nationwide.

i don't get it. admittedly, i'm insanely dumb about this so tell me what i'm not getting. i'm sure there's plenty.

2.92 million in the US military between active and reserves.  Buying votes.  No different than liberals buying votes with other government programs and trying to push through pro-union legislation.  Try to figure out what portions of the population you can get to vote for you and give them monetary incentives to vote for you. 

Both of these guys have no problem Greeceing us and future generations if it means they get/keep power.  Only difference is one tries to act like he's not doing it and the other is pandering the people who don't give a crap because they assume someone else will keep paying for it no problem.

ok. but i mean, it's more than that though isn't it? i mean that's great if he wants to buy DoD type votes by supporting defense funding and all the people that benefit from it. which are much more than just active duty and reserve soldiers btw, but why call out pbs? that seemed weird and out of place.

the gov't gave around 450 million last year to the corporation for public broadcasting. of that 450, prob half went to radio type stuff and half went to tv type stuff. of the half that went to tv type stuff, much less went to pbs and "big bird". conversely, the federal government spent somewhere around 900 billion last year on defense funding. now some of that money is for veterans as well as foreign military and economic aid.

that means that we spent roughly 2,000 times as much last year on defense funding as we did towards the corporation for public broadcasting which is the parent company of pbs.

i mean wtf? like why bother singling pbs out? i don't get it. we spend .0005 of a percent on public boadcasting as a whole as we do on defense and way, way less than that on pbs. seems so weird i don't get it. yet that was a focal point of romney's message last night.

any thoughts?

Because there will be dumbasses out there that hear "450 million dollar cut" and think that it is a lot of money, despite the fact that we are running a deficit over 2000 times that.

['taterblast]

so predictable, but i still laughed really hard at this

[Dr Rick Daris]

you know what's going to cost usa tax payers a crap ton of money over the next sixty years that nobody really talks about? the number of active duty military who are currently and have been getting out of the military since these wars started who have, are currently and will be filing claims for physically related issues that they incurred while "on duty". oh man. you want to talk big birds and snufalopaguses?

[Dugout DickStone]

you know what's going to cost usa tax payers a crap ton of money over the next sixty years that nobody really talks about? the number of active duty military who are currently and have been getting out of the military since these wars started who have, are currently and will be filing claims for physically related issues that they incurred while "on duty". oh man. you want to talk big birds and snufalopaguses?

Totally but for some reason Obama still wages war relentlessly, creating thousands more.  I really thought he was going to end it?  Fool me once I guess.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

so nobody has still explained it. i mean, romney brings up cutting federal funding to freaking pbs in a national debate, but would have no problem giving DoD whatever they want and pubs cheer nationwide.

i don't get it. admittedly, i'm insanely dumb about this so tell me what i'm not getting. i'm sure there's plenty.

2.92 million in the US military between active and reserves.  Buying votes.  No different than liberals buying votes with other government programs and trying to push through pro-union legislation.  Try to figure out what portions of the population you can get to vote for you and give them monetary incentives to vote for you. 

Both of these guys have no problem Greeceing us and future generations if it means they get/keep power.  Only difference is one tries to act like he's not doing it and the other is pandering the people who don't give a crap because they assume someone else will keep paying for it no problem.

ok. but i mean, it's more than that though isn't it? i mean that's great if he wants to buy DoD type votes by supporting defense funding and all the people that benefit from it. which are much more than just active duty and reserve soldiers btw, but why call out pbs? that seemed weird and out of place.

the gov't gave around 450 million last year to the corporation for public broadcasting. of that 450, prob half went to radio type stuff and half went to tv type stuff. of the half that went to tv type stuff, much less went to pbs and "big bird". conversely, the federal government spent somewhere around 900 billion last year on defense funding. now some of that money is for veterans as well as foreign military and economic aid.

that means that we spent roughly 2,000 times as much last year on defense funding as we did towards the corporation for public broadcasting which is the parent company of pbs.

i mean wtf? like why bother singling pbs out? i don't get it. we spend .0005 of a percent on public boadcasting as a whole as we do on defense and way, way less than that on pbs. seems so weird i don't get it. yet that was a focal point of romney's message last night.

any thoughts?

It had been reported earlier and kind of a big deal was made of it. I think Romney's campaign wanted it out during the debate to make sure everyone knew that Jim Lehrer may have a vested interest in Romney losing the debate.

[p1k3]

I didn't watch the debate, but who won? Did fascism with an R next to it win, or fascism with a D next to it?

[Rage Against the McKee]

so nobody has still explained it. i mean, romney brings up cutting federal funding to freaking pbs in a national debate, but would have no problem giving DoD whatever they want and pubs cheer nationwide.

i don't get it. admittedly, i'm insanely dumb about this so tell me what i'm not getting. i'm sure there's plenty.

2.92 million in the US military between active and reserves.  Buying votes.  No different than liberals buying votes with other government programs and trying to push through pro-union legislation.  Try to figure out what portions of the population you can get to vote for you and give them monetary incentives to vote for you. 

Both of these guys have no problem Greeceing us and future generations if it means they get/keep power.  Only difference is one tries to act like he's not doing it and the other is pandering the people who don't give a crap because they assume someone else will keep paying for it no problem.

ok. but i mean, it's more than that though isn't it? i mean that's great if he wants to buy DoD type votes by supporting defense funding and all the people that benefit from it. which are much more than just active duty and reserve soldiers btw, but why call out pbs? that seemed weird and out of place.

the gov't gave around 450 million last year to the corporation for public broadcasting. of that 450, prob half went to radio type stuff and half went to tv type stuff. of the half that went to tv type stuff, much less went to pbs and "big bird". conversely, the federal government spent somewhere around 900 billion last year on defense funding. now some of that money is for veterans as well as foreign military and economic aid.

that means that we spent roughly 2,000 times as much last year on defense funding as we did towards the corporation for public broadcasting which is the parent company of pbs.

i mean wtf? like why bother singling pbs out? i don't get it. we spend .0005 of a percent on public boadcasting as a whole as we do on defense and way, way less than that on pbs. seems so weird i don't get it. yet that was a focal point of romney's message last night.

any thoughts?

It had been reported earlier and kind of a big deal was made of it. I think Romney's campaign wanted it out during the debate to make sure everyone knew that Jim Lehrer may have a vested interest in Romney losing the debate.

I agree, and that's just ridiculous. I think the average viewer is well aware that Jim Lehrer has far more integrity than either candidate.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

so nobody has still explained it. i mean, romney brings up cutting federal funding to freaking pbs in a national debate, but would have no problem giving DoD whatever they want and pubs cheer nationwide.

i don't get it. admittedly, i'm insanely dumb about this so tell me what i'm not getting. i'm sure there's plenty.

2.92 million in the US military between active and reserves.  Buying votes.  No different than liberals buying votes with other government programs and trying to push through pro-union legislation.  Try to figure out what portions of the population you can get to vote for you and give them monetary incentives to vote for you. 

Both of these guys have no problem Greeceing us and future generations if it means they get/keep power.  Only difference is one tries to act like he's not doing it and the other is pandering the people who don't give a crap because they assume someone else will keep paying for it no problem.

ok. but i mean, it's more than that though isn't it? i mean that's great if he wants to buy DoD type votes by supporting defense funding and all the people that benefit from it. which are much more than just active duty and reserve soldiers btw, but why call out pbs? that seemed weird and out of place.

the gov't gave around 450 million last year to the corporation for public broadcasting. of that 450, prob half went to radio type stuff and half went to tv type stuff. of the half that went to tv type stuff, much less went to pbs and "big bird". conversely, the federal government spent somewhere around 900 billion last year on defense funding. now some of that money is for veterans as well as foreign military and economic aid.

that means that we spent roughly 2,000 times as much last year on defense funding as we did towards the corporation for public broadcasting which is the parent company of pbs.

i mean wtf? like why bother singling pbs out? i don't get it. we spend .0005 of a percent on public boadcasting as a whole as we do on defense and way, way less than that on pbs. seems so weird i don't get it. yet that was a focal point of romney's message last night.

any thoughts?

It had been reported earlier and kind of a big deal was made of it. I think Romney's campaign wanted it out during the debate to make sure everyone knew that Jim Lehrer may have a vested interest in Romney losing the debate.

I agree, and that's just ridiculous. I think the average viewer is well aware that Jim Lehrer has far more integrity than either candidate.

Perhaps, but Lehrer did try to lead Obama a couple of times when it looked like he was stuck, but I think he may have just been feeling sorry for him and wanted to help.

[Rage Against the McKee]

so nobody has still explained it. i mean, romney brings up cutting federal funding to freaking pbs in a national debate, but would have no problem giving DoD whatever they want and pubs cheer nationwide.

i don't get it. admittedly, i'm insanely dumb about this so tell me what i'm not getting. i'm sure there's plenty.

2.92 million in the US military between active and reserves.  Buying votes.  No different than liberals buying votes with other government programs and trying to push through pro-union legislation.  Try to figure out what portions of the population you can get to vote for you and give them monetary incentives to vote for you. 

Both of these guys have no problem Greeceing us and future generations if it means they get/keep power.  Only difference is one tries to act like he's not doing it and the other is pandering the people who don't give a crap because they assume someone else will keep paying for it no problem.

ok. but i mean, it's more than that though isn't it? i mean that's great if he wants to buy DoD type votes by supporting defense funding and all the people that benefit from it. which are much more than just active duty and reserve soldiers btw, but why call out pbs? that seemed weird and out of place.

the gov't gave around 450 million last year to the corporation for public broadcasting. of that 450, prob half went to radio type stuff and half went to tv type stuff. of the half that went to tv type stuff, much less went to pbs and "big bird". conversely, the federal government spent somewhere around 900 billion last year on defense funding. now some of that money is for veterans as well as foreign military and economic aid.

that means that we spent roughly 2,000 times as much last year on defense funding as we did towards the corporation for public broadcasting which is the parent company of pbs.

i mean wtf? like why bother singling pbs out? i don't get it. we spend .0005 of a percent on public boadcasting as a whole as we do on defense and way, way less than that on pbs. seems so weird i don't get it. yet that was a focal point of romney's message last night.

any thoughts?

It had been reported earlier and kind of a big deal was made of it. I think Romney's campaign wanted it out during the debate to make sure everyone knew that Jim Lehrer may have a vested interest in Romney losing the debate.

I agree, and that's just ridiculous. I think the average viewer is well aware that Jim Lehrer has far more integrity than either candidate.

Perhaps, but Lehrer did try to lead Obama a couple of times when it looked like he was stuck, but I think he may have just been feeling sorry for him and wanted to help.

He also let Romney have the last word whether he spoke first on a topic or not. Lehrer did an excellent job of moving forward enough to briefly touch on all the topics, but spend more time on the topics that the candidates disagreed on.

[Dugout DickStone]

I thought Lehrer totally sucked.  Didn't reign anyone in and Romney took huge advantage of it.

PS.  If PBS get cut to hell, Jim will be just fine.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I thought Lehrer totally sucked.  Didn't reign anyone in and Romney took huge advantage of it.

PS.  If PBS get cut to hell, Jim will be just fine.

I liked that he didn't reel them in. It gave them a chance to expand on the subject and finish their explanations. 

Yeah, I'm sure he's ready to retire KSU style, but I'm guessing he's pretty loyal to PBS.

[wetwillie]

Pro tip: mitt isn't cutting PBS.

[Dugout DickStone]

I thought Lehrer totally sucked.  Didn't reign anyone in and Romney took huge advantage of it.

PS.  If PBS get cut to hell, Jim will be just fine.

I liked that he didn't reel them in. It gave them a chance to expand on the subject and finish their explanations. 

Yeah, I'm sure he's ready to retire KSU style, but I'm guessing he's pretty loyal to PBS.

A debate is supposed to let both sides speak their positions, not the bossiest.  JL should have shut Romney down a few times but he didn't so Obama should have adapted instead of making weird expressions.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I thought Lehrer totally sucked.  Didn't reign anyone in and Romney took huge advantage of it.

PS.  If PBS get cut to hell, Jim will be just fine.

I liked that he didn't reel them in. It gave them a chance to expand on the subject and finish their explanations. 

Yeah, I'm sure he's ready to retire KSU style, but I'm guessing he's pretty loyal to PBS.

A debate is supposed to let both sides speak their positions, not the bossiest.  JL should have shut Romney down a few times but he didn't so Obama should have adapted instead of making weird expressions.

I liked it. They both had their bossy moments, but yeah, it's like Obama didn't know he was on split screen.

[Dugout DickStone]

I thought Lehrer totally sucked.  Didn't reign anyone in and Romney took huge advantage of it.

PS.  If PBS get cut to hell, Jim will be just fine.

I liked that he didn't reel them in. It gave them a chance to expand on the subject and finish their explanations. 

Yeah, I'm sure he's ready to retire KSU style, but I'm guessing he's pretty loyal to PBS.

A debate is supposed to let both sides speak their positions, not the bossiest.  JL should have shut Romney down a few times but he didn't so Obama should have adapted instead of making weird expressions.

I liked it. They both had their bossy moments, but yeah, it's like Obama didn't know he was on split screen.

Don't get too cocky, I doubt Obama shows up this unprepared next one.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I thought Lehrer totally sucked.  Didn't reign anyone in and Romney took huge advantage of it.

PS.  If PBS get cut to hell, Jim will be just fine.

I liked that he didn't reel them in. It gave them a chance to expand on the subject and finish their explanations. 

Yeah, I'm sure he's ready to retire KSU style, but I'm guessing he's pretty loyal to PBS.

A debate is supposed to let both sides speak their positions, not the bossiest.  JL should have shut Romney down a few times but he didn't so Obama should have adapted instead of making weird expressions.

I liked it. They both had their bossy moments, but yeah, it's like Obama didn't know he was on split screen.

Don't get too cocky, I doubt Obama shows up this unprepared next one.

I know. He'll be much more animated and combative and try to make it about Romney, but he still has to defend his record as president, and that's a tough position to be in with an economy that has been slowing over the last 3 years. Bottom line, more people are out of work now than when he took office, average incomes are down, tax increases are looming, healthcare costs are up, still at war, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, hasn't passed a budget, trillion dollar deficits, blames bush, etc, etc, etc.

[sys]

he still has to defend his record as president, and that's a tough position to be in with an economy that has been slowing over the last 3 years. Bottom line, more people are out of work now than when he took office, average incomes are down, tax increases are looming, healthcare costs are up, still at war, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, hasn't passed a budget, trillion dollar deficits, blames bush, etc, etc, etc.

i heard some focus group discussing who won, why and what they liked on one of the cable channels.  "i didn't like it when the president kept telling the governor about the five billion", "president obama didn't seem like he was listening, that's what's wrong with this country", "governor romney blinked a lot, he didn't seem comfortable".

[TheHamburglar]

I thought Lehrer totally sucked.  Didn't reign anyone in and Romney took huge advantage of it.

PS.  If PBS get cut to hell, Jim will be just fine.

I liked that he didn't reel them in. It gave them a chance to expand on the subject and finish their explanations. 

Yeah, I'm sure he's ready to retire KSU style, but I'm guessing he's pretty loyal to PBS.

A debate is supposed to let both sides speak their positions, not the bossiest.  JL should have shut Romney down a few times but he didn't so Obama should have adapted instead of making weird expressions.

Obama talked for 4 more minutes than Romney.

[Dugout DickStone]

I thought Lehrer totally sucked.  Didn't reign anyone in and Romney took huge advantage of it.

PS.  If PBS get cut to hell, Jim will be just fine.

I liked that he didn't reel them in. It gave them a chance to expand on the subject and finish their explanations. 

Yeah, I'm sure he's ready to retire KSU style, but I'm guessing he's pretty loyal to PBS.

A debate is supposed to let both sides speak their positions, not the bossiest.  JL should have shut Romney down a few times but he didn't so Obama should have adapted instead of making weird expressions.

Obama talked for 4 more minutes than Romney.

HEard that stat.  Seems amazing.