The Debates: Three President/One VP - Page 2

After the debate tonight I went to both party's sites to get a copy of their platforms.

The GOP platform is attractively laid out, produced in Quark 9.2 and Mac OS 10.8.2 was used for making the PDF.

The Democratic platform is shockingly bad.

A long single block of text, typeset in Arial and produced in Microsoft Word 2010.

They didn't even bother to make a cover, at least on the download version.

Clearly the Mac vote has to go to the GOP. Details matter. 

If liberals believe that Biden's performance was a net positive for their campaign, then they would be sorely deluded.

The main take away from this debate that most voters will remember is that Biden was a complete lunatic and a jerk. Both the moderator and Biden hardly let Ryan finish a single sentence. The Obama campaign was obviously trying to compensate for Obama's historic debate loss last week, and I believe that their desperation led to this tactic, which will end up backfiring on them.

As soon as Ryan would open his mouth to respond, almost every single time, the lunatic Biden would begin laughing. They would hardly let the guy finish a single sentence. Some polls are already showing that many people were extremely put off by Biden's douchebag behavior. Romney was definitely aggressive in the previous debate, but he wasn't extremely rude or disrespectful towards Obama. Biden's behavior was downright disgusting, and quite juvenile.

Iranian Nukes? Hahahaha

Dead Ambassador? Libya? Hahahaha

The economy? Unemployment? Hahahaha

And this guy is the Vice President of the United States. This debate wasn't really about the issues at all. What do you think that people and the media will be talking about in the next few days? They will be talking about the guy who acted like an asshole and douchebag.

Viewers tuned in to hear two adults debate, but that's not what happened. What they got was one adult and one child with hair plugs. If you are an Obamabot, then you might have found the debate amusing, especially after the asskicking and schooling that Obama received last week, but looking at the big picture, this Biden performance won't help Obama out, quite the contrary. 

Next week, the real deal continues, when the incompetent and unqualified Obama will face off with the far more intelligent and capable Romney once again. 

Reading around is interesting today.

Few on the right are rallying behind Ryan like they did Mittens last week.  Their focus is on how rude, etc. Biden was (in their perspective) and how the moderator allowed him to run over Ryan.  Fox.  Palin.  The lot.  

In other words, Biden pulled it off.

Double post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Biden was brilliant and didn't take prisoners whilst Ryan was clinic and removed.

 

Devastating to the Romney campaign. 

You are becoming a caricature of yourself.  Not one major analyst on either side shares that opinion.  In fact, the CNN post-debate poll actually had Ryan winning 48-44.   This was the same poll that Romney won by 40 points.  

The consensus seems to be that other than Biden's demeanor, it was a draw or very narrow Biden win.  Include the demeanor, and Biden actually damaged the campaign further.  Google "Joe Biden smirk" and see what you find.  I don't think you guys realize how bad this is going to be for the Obama camp.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ 

What am I missing here?

I think you might be missing the fact that we have no constitutional or moral right to tell Iran or any other country what they can or cannot do, especially not under threat of violence.

Has Iran attacked us? No.

Everybody seems to be forgetting that the only country to have ever actually used nuclear weapons to kill people is the United States of America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Has Iran attacked us? No.

 

Actually, yes they have. Beirut Marine barracks, Iranian sponsored terrorists murdered hundreds of US marines. Iran is also sponsoring tons of terrorists today.

I have no problems with Iran being bombed tomorrow. It doesn't matter to me who does the bombing, it could be Israel, it could be the USA, it could be a combination, it could be anybody.

They're enemies of the USA, there will never be any peace with them, they will always be sponsoring terrorists who are trying to kill Americans, and we should just get it over with and destroy them.

There are a couple of things we should all know about VP Biden. 

In 1995 (six *years* prior to the 9/11 attacks) he was instrumental in drafting what became known as the USA "PATRIOT" Act. The bill at the time was called the "Omnibus Antiterrorism Bill of 1995", (HR 896) and is virtually identical to the Constitution-busting Patriot Act of 2001, which unfortunately for America, was passed by Congress without anybody readings its often treacherous, anti-American content.

Here's Biden's bill, or just a part of it, in summary:

The legislation would:

(a). authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations;

(b). repeal the ancient provision (Posse Comitatus) barring the U.S. military from civilian law enforcement;

(c). expand a pre-trial detention scheme that puts the burden of proof on the accused;

(d). loosen the carefully-crafted rules governing federal wiretaps, in violation of the Fourth Amendment;

(e). establish special courts that would use secret evidence to order the deportation of persons convicted of no crimes, in violation of basic principles of due process;

(f). permit permanent detention by the Attorney General of aliens convicted of no crimes, with no judicial review;

(g). give the President unreviewable power to criminalize fund-raising for lawful activities associated with unpopular causes;

(h). renege on the Administration’s approval in the last Congress of a provision to insure that the FBI would not investigate based on First Amendment activities; and

(i). resurrect the discredited ideological visa denial provisions of the McCarran Walter Act to bar foreign speakers.

One might wonder why Joe Biden would be so keen to draft such extremist legislation when terrorism in the United States was at the time such a rare event? When challenged about this, he claimed it was in response to the Oklahoma City bombing. However, Biden's bill was introduced into Congress on February 10, 1995, over two months *prior* to the OKC attack, which was on April 19, 2005. 

Biden in flagrant violation of his oath when taking office as a Senator: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God". 

Biden supported Patriot Acts I and II. He also supported that horrendous part of the NDAA which calls for indefinite detention of any US citizen *without trial*, in gross violation of everything this country stands for, every international treaty, and virtually every notion of civilized conduct one can think of. Biden also supported the equally dictatorial and treasonous HR 347, which makes it illegal to protest the actions of any government official with Secret Service protection (whores not  included). Protestors can now be punished with up to 10 years in jail for holding up a sign that the powers-that-be deem as in contravention of said law. Our Rep. Lois Capps also supported these draconian, totalitarian laws, similarly in gross violation of her oath of office.

Is defending the Constitution of the United States equivalent to "attacking and dismantling" it? In today's post 9/11 topsy-turvy world, "where up is down and down is up, and the media spins it round and round"... perhaps it really is.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

You are becoming a caricature of yourself.  Not one major analyst on either side shares that opinion.  In fact, the CNN post-debate poll actually had Ryan winning 48-44.   This was the same poll that Romney won by 40 points.  

 

The consensus seems to be that other than Biden's demeanor, it was a draw or very narrow Biden win.  Include the demeanor, and Biden actually damaged the campaign further.  Google "Joe Biden smirk" and see what you find.  I don't think you guys realize how bad this is going to be for the Obama camp.  

 The CNN poll even states on it's website that their poll was taken from a sample skewed heavily towards Republican voters, hence the numbers. A CBS News poll taken from undecided voters showed a slam dunk victory for Biden. 50% thought Biden won, to just 31% for congressman Ryan. That's the kind of hammering I, and I suspect a lot of Republican's too, expected from this masterful bloodbath. Biden was brilliant, in fact this was probably the most brilliant debate victory ever in a presidential election. Romney constantly lied to get ahead, Biden instead spoke the heartfelt truth. That's the kind of victory that lasts, not fades away once the facts are known. trumptman made an angry post here whilst the debate was still live, he must have been so disappointed after the Romney debate, that this was a bloodbath. Biden ate congressman Ryan alive for heavens sake!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Actually, yes they have. Beirut Marine barracks, Iranian sponsored terrorists murdered hundreds of US marines. Iran is also sponsoring tons of terrorists today.

 

I have no problems with Iran being bombed tomorrow. It doesn't matter to me who does the bombing, it could be Israel, it could be the USA, it could be a combination, it could be anybody.

 

They're enemies of the USA, there will never be any peace with them, they will always be sponsoring terrorists who are trying to kill Americans, and we should just get it over with and destroy them.

You been licking Bibi's terrorist jackboots again? The Iran's "involvement" with the Beirut bombings is unproven and baseless - more likely the result of repeated and malicious invention, without proof or hard evidence, aimed at a public that has been programmed to believe, and therefore wants to believe such. Which barrel did you scrape to dish out this conspiracy theory?

Victor Ostrovsky, formerly with Mossad, reported that the former director of Mossad (Nahum Admoni) had very specific information about the truck bomb when it was being prepared, but deliberately withheld this information from the US military. Admoni's words on this incident: "No, we are not there to protect the Americans - they're a big country. Only send the regular information".

At the same time, on that very same day - October 23, 1983, a bomb also exploded at a French military barracks a couple of miles away. Iranians too huh? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

 The CNN poll even states on it's website that their poll was taken from a sample skewed heavily towards Republican voters, hence the numbers. A CBS News poll taken from undecided voters showed a slam dunk victory for Biden. 50% thought Biden won, to just 31% for congressman Ryan. That's the kind of hammering I, and I suspect a lot of Republican's too, expected from this masterful bloodbath. Biden was brilliant, in fact this was probably the most brilliant debate victory ever in a presidential election. Romney constantly lied to get ahead, Biden instead spoke the heartfelt truth. That's the kind of victory that lasts, not fades away once the facts are known. trumptman made an angry post here whilst the debate was still live, he must have been so disappointed after the Romney debate, that this was a bloodbath. Biden ate congressman Ryan alive for heavens sake!

1.  The poll was 33%/31%/33% or thereabouts.  Conducted by CNN.  Heavily skewed? 

2.  The CBS poll is clearly an outlier.  The headline even reads "Joe Biden Shredded Paul Ryan."  Come on.  It doesn't even SOUND credible.  

3. "Biden was brilliant, in fact this was probably the most brilliant debate victory ever in a presidential election."     Find me one major analyst that agrees.  One.  

4.  Romney lied:  Oh, you mean like when Biden lied about voting against the wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq?      No?  You mean Romney exaggerated or estimated a few figures?  Yeah, I guess they aren't really the same now, are they?  

Once again, you have no idea how bad Biden's demeanor is going to cost the party, and the ticket.  He was a laughing stock.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

 The CNN poll even states on it's website that their poll was taken from a sample skewed heavily towards Republican voters, hence the numbers. A CBS News poll taken from undecided voters showed a slam dunk victory for Biden. 50% thought Biden won, to just 31% for congressman Ryan. That's the kind of hammering I, and I suspect a lot of Republican's too, expected from this masterful bloodbath. Biden was brilliant, in fact this was probably the most brilliant debate victory ever in a presidential election. Romney constantly lied to get ahead, Biden instead spoke the heartfelt truth. That's the kind of victory that lasts, not fades away once the facts are known. trumptman made an angry post here whilst the debate was still live, he must have been so disappointed after the Romney debate, that this was a bloodbath. Biden ate congressman Ryan alive for heavens sake!

Wow...  Was there another debate recently between Ryan and Biden?  I'm absolutely willing to concede that Biden did MUCH better than Obama did, and I don't deny the argument could be made that he even one the debate, especially true if you only heard a radio broadcast or read the transcript.  However, even Democratic campaign consultant Joe Trippi said that Biden's demeanor during the debate was at best a distraction and at worst an embarasment (not his exact words, but that was his point).  Admittedly Biden was pretty good in some areas in the text of what he said, but his attitude negated any positives he may have won for his ticket.

I love the fact that Democrats can't stand the fact that Romney didn't fit the image that their campaign has been trying to paint of him.  Since he didn't conform to the Democratic talking points of the past few months that have been attempting to define Romney, he must have been lying. 

Just curious, if indeed the CBS News poll indicates a 19 point win for Biden, and that is a bloodbath, what exactly do you call the 40 point win that Romney had last week?  I'm guessing however that you are a part of that 20 something percent that though Obama won that debate.  Oh wait, Obama would have won the debate if only Romney would have been honest and come out dressed in a blood red suit with horns, a pointed tail and pitchfork, and read for the script that the Obama campaing has been attempting to write for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

1.  The poll was 33%/31%/33% or thereabouts.  Conducted by CNN.  Heavily skewed? 

 

2.  The CBS poll is clearly an outlier.  The headline even reads "Joe Biden Shredded Paul Ryan."  Come on.  It doesn't even SOUND credible.  

 

3. "Biden was brilliant, in fact this was probably the most brilliant debate victory ever in a presidential election."     Find me one major analyst that agrees.  One.  

 

4.  Romney lied:  Oh, you mean like when Biden lied about voting against the wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq?      No?  You mean Romney exaggerated or estimated a few figures?  Yeah, I guess they aren't really the same now, are they?  

 

 

Once again, you have no idea how bad Biden's demeanor is going to cost the party, and the ticket.  He was a laughing stock.  

CNN picked 31% dems and 33% repubs. Weighted properly the difference is substantial. Nationally, according to polls what they should have sampled to reflect the nation would have been 34% dems to 33% repubs. They claim a margin of error of 5%. That becomes even higher when you take into account an accurate selection of dems to repubs, so all told Biden could have had a solid victory from CNN if they'd been more thoughtful about the nations party affiliation. 

How can the CBS poll be an outlier? That's just a waste of space of this forum and a waste of time for anybody reading it. It's the undecided voters who are going to decide this election and Biden, like it or not, won those overwhelmingly 50% to 31%. That's a massive victory and you know it is.

Romney's lies where too numerous to get into here now, but your claim that Biden lied about the wars is one more lie from the right. Biden said he voted against paying for the wars on a credit card effectively, that's what he DID vote against (unlike Ryan), not the actual wars themselves, which he has NEVER said he voted against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Wow...  Was there another debate recently between Ryan and Biden?  I'm absolutely willing to concede that Biden did MUCH better than Obama did, and I don't deny the argument could be made that he even one the debate, especially true if you only heard a radio broadcast or read the transcript.  However, even Democratic campaign consultant Joe Trippi said that Biden's demeanor during the debate was at best a distraction and at worst an embarasment (not his exact words, but that was his point).  Admittedly Biden was pretty good in some areas in the text of what he said, but his attitude negated any positives he may have won for his ticket.

 

I love the fact that Democrats can't stand the fact that Romney didn't fit the image that their campaign has been trying to paint of him.  Since he didn't conform to the Democratic talking points of the past few months that have been attempting to define Romney, he must have been lying. 

 

Just curious, if indeed the CBS News poll indicates a 19 point win for Biden, and that is a bloodbath, what exactly do you call the 40 point win that Romney had last week?  I'm guessing however that you are a part of that 20 something percent that though Obama won that debate.  Oh wait, Obama would have won the debate if only Romney would have been honest and come out dressed in a blood red suit with horns, a pointed tail and pitchfork, and read for the script that the Obama campaing has been attempting to write for him.

According to the polls, Romney did indeed inflict a bloodbath on Obama, but that's already waning, and that's because, like I just said in an earlier post, he lied his way to victory. Biden on the other hand has the firm rock of truth and heartfelt passion which won't fade away in just a few days like some cheap bottled tan from walmart. Obama's "likeability" or whatever they call it also rose significantly after the Romney debate. He came across as truthful and sincere, which again are lasting qualities. Most Dems thought he let Romney get away with blue murder, hence Romney's very high percentage points saying he won the debate, but you can be sure those same people won't be voting for Romney. 

In the same poll conducted after the Romney debate, only 46% of undecided voters thought Romney had won. 5% lower than thought Biden had won. Obama received a lower score, but then he would, because he really didn't fight hard enough Romney's lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

CNN picked 31% dems and 33% repubs. Weighted properly the difference is substantial. Nationally, according to polls what they should have sampled to reflect the nation would have been 34% dems to 33% repubs. They claim a margin of error of 5%. That becomes even higher when you take into account an accurate selection of dems to repubs, so all told Biden could have had a solid victory from CNN if they'd been more thoughtful about the nations party affiliation. 

 

 

First, you're talking about a meaningless statistic:  Registered voters.  Even if the a 2% difference in weighting would make that much difference, it still wouldn't be reflective of what actual voters (likely voters) thought.  Secondly, how you can honestly think that any polling organization can get turnout within 1% nationally in terms of affiliation is beyond me.   Third, I notice that when there were MAJOR discrepancies in polling last month you said absolutely nothing.  We're talking about Dem 33 vs. Dem 31, and you're screaming bloody murder.  But when CBS and others were polling Dem +9 and estimating minority turnout higher than its 2008 record, you crowed about how accurate the polls were.  Please.  

It's an outlier because it's, uh, the only poll that shows such a margin for Biden.  It's by itself.  Looks like someone needs a dictionary.  

You attempted to "get into" them before and failed miserably.  At worst, he estimated some numbers ("I think about...") and got a few points wrong.  He may have even used some hyperbole.  At worst.  

"“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden said of the wars. “I said, ‘no, we can’t afford that.’” In reality, Biden voted for the congressional resolutions authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan – on September 14, 2001 – and Iraq – on October 11, 2002.

Look who's lying now.  And what does "he voted against paying for it on a credit card" mean?  Was he for it before he was against it?  Really Hands, you're struggling here.  This was a bald-faced, unquestionable lie, and you know it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

According to the polls, Romney did indeed inflict a bloodbath on Obama, but that's already waning, and that's because, like I just said in an earlier post, he lied his way to victory. Biden on the other hand has the firm rock of truth and heartfelt passion which won't fade away in just a few days like some cheap bottled tan from walmart. Obama's "likeability" or whatever they call it also rose significantly after the Romney debate. He came across as truthful and sincere, which again are lasting qualities. Most Dems thought he let Romney get away with blue murder, hence Romney's very high percentage points saying he won the debate, but you can be sure those same people won't be voting for Romney. 

 

In the same poll conducted after the Romney debate, only 46% of undecided voters thought Romney had won. 5% lower than thought Biden had won. Obama received a lower score, but then he would, because he really didn't fight hard enough Romney's lies.

He came across condescending and disrespectful which I will agree with you are lasting qualities.  Diplomacy is supposed to be one of Biden's strengths, right?  He demonstrated a complete lack of diplomacy from start to finish during the debate.

I'm completely tired of the liar, liar argument.  The lies are the characterization that the Obama campaign has attempted to point Romney with.  Romney didn't fit the Obama narrative, and as a result wiped the floor with Obama.  Get over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

According to the polls, Romney did indeed inflict a bloodbath on Obama, but that's already waning, and that's because, like I just said in an earlier post, he lied his way to victory. Biden on the other hand has the firm rock of truth and heartfelt passion which won't fade away in just a few days like some cheap bottled tan from walmart. Obama's "likeability" or whatever they call it also rose significantly after the Romney debate. He came across as truthful and sincere, which again are lasting qualities. Most Dems thought he let Romney get away with blue murder, hence Romney's very high percentage points saying he won the debate, but you can be sure those same people won't be voting for Romney. 

 

In the same poll conducted after the Romney debate, only 46% of undecided voters thought Romney had won. 5% lower than thought Biden had won. Obama received a lower score, but then he would, because he really didn't fight hard enough Romney's lies.

1.  It's not waning.  Go to RCP and see that Obama only has 10 states as "solid."   PA was likely Obama, it's now a toss-up.  Florida and Nevada were tossup, they are now likely Romney.  Virginia, North Carolina---both Romney.   Speaking of which, if Romney wins PA, it's over for Obama.  Winning PA means all major swing state go Romney.  

2.  I see you've foolishly embraced the same line the Obama campaign has:  Calling Romney an outright liar.  This is widely recognized on both sides of the aisle as the Jump the Shark, Godwin's Law moment of any campaign.   Calling your opponent a liar in the political world really turns people off.  It also means you've got nowhere to go, and look desperate, particularly if people don't see it your way.  Bad move.  

3.  I would like a link on the Obama likability going up. 

4.  Most Dems aren't voting for him anyway.  The undecideds broke HUGE for Romney on debate night.  Focus groups showed this in unprecedented fashion.  

5.  Right.  The same poll that was bogus got it.  You might want to try a few other sources.  

By the way:  Frank Luntz seems to disagree with your assessment about undecideds post-Presidential debate.  

This focus group loved Romney’s performance tonight and didn’t care much for how Obama handled himself. But before you assume this is a Republican group, Luntz said that 13 out of 24 people in the group voted for Obama in 2008. And all but 3 said Romney won big tonight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

1.  It's not waning.  Go to RCP and see that Obama only has 10 states as "solid."   PA was likely Obama, it's now a toss-up.  Florida and Nevada were tossup, they are now likely Romney.  Virginia, North Carolina---both Romney.   Speaking of which, if Romney wins PA, it's over for Obama.  Winning PA means all major swing state go Romney.  

 

2.  I see you've foolishly embraced the same line the Obama campaign has:  Calling Romney an outright liar.  This is widely recognized on both sides of the aisle as the Jump the Shark, Godwin's Law moment of any campaign.   Calling your opponent a liar in the political world really turns people off.  It also means you've got nowhere to go, and look desperate, particularly if people don't see it your way.  Bad move.  

 

3.  I would like a link on the Obama likability going up. 

 

4.  Most Dems aren't voting for him anyway.  The undecideds broke HUGE for Romney on debate night.  Focus groups showed this in unprecedented fashion.  

 

5.  Right.  The same poll that was bogus got it.  You might want to try a few other sources.  

 

 

By the way:  Frank Luntz seems to disagree with your assessment about undecideds post-Presidential debate.  

 

This focus group loved Romney’s performance tonight and didn’t care much for how Obama handled himself. But before you assume this is a Republican group, Luntz said that 13 out of 24 people in the group voted for Obama in 2008. And all but 3 said Romney won big tonight.

You must be living on a different internet because all the sites from The Telegraph to The Huffington Post have all used those two polls that I quoted. You call the one you don't like the results of an "outlier" and therefore dismiss it. You put Romney to shame!  Biden beat Romney. 50% of undecided's thought Biden won and just 46% thought Romney won. That's a 5% bigger win than Romney for Biden.

 I've reset my browser history so instead of finding what I'd read on "likeability" I've googled around. Here's some results-

" Mitt Romney's strong debate performance did little to convince more voters he understands them or is a "good person" even though he has narrowed President Barack Obama's overall poll lead, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey released on Saturday.

Obama even gained ground in some voters' assessment of his character since before the debate, even though a majority - 55 to 23 percent - felt Romney did a better job during the encounter in Denver, the survey showed.

Forty-seven percent of registered voters deemed Obama "a good person," compared with 31 percent who felt that way about Romney. In a similar survey on September 28, Obama led by 43 percent to Romney's 32 percent.

Obama held his ground on a range of such questions. Far more voters (53 to 29 percent) deemed Obama likeable than feel the same way about Romney. He also leads by a healthy margin (43 to 37 percent) on who has the right values to be president.

In addition, 43 percent felt Obama "understands people like me," compared with 31 percent who felt that way about Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and wealthy businessman who has struggled to connect with average Americans."

~ http://news.yahoo.com/romney-gains-ground-obama-strong-debate-004941209--business.html

Biden though saw the biggest likeability gains I've ever seen before after his debate win. I'll dig those numbers up for you too if your not familiar with them.

If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. [Proverbs 29:9 ESV]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. [Proverbs 29:9 ESV]

A useful thing to write in a book that contains laughable and rage-inducing ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ 

Biden was rude and did not allow Ryan to complete his statements ever. He embodied every claim that Democrats made against Romney in hs debate against Obama. But in this case it made him the better debater while Romney, who did not do this but was claimed to have was said to have done a poor job by those same people who are now applauding Biden. Sad.

Biden interrupted the lies with facts.  Romney interrupted the facts with lies.  False equivalence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Biden interrupted the lies with facts.  Romney interrupted the facts with lies.  False equivalence.

At sunset to people are arguing.  One claims it is getting more dark while the other claims it is getting less light.  Both are correct in their interpretation of the facts. 

The problem here is that numerous conflicting studies, polls, and assessments have been performed on a number of the issues in question.  Some of these present "facts" that are more supportive of one side or the other.  It's also the case of garbage in, garbage out.  The starting data and assumptions will always dramatically impact the results.  Why do you think the price tag on ObamaCare has more than doubled in less than 2 years?  Did Obama lie just to get his signature healthcare plan thru Congress, a plan I might add which a majority of Americans still want to see repealed?

You really should be able to make a more valid arguement than Romney lied.

His lies are well documented.  Furthermore, he repeats lies that have been thoroughly debunked again and again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

You really should be able to make a more valid arguement than Romney lied.

He can't. No one can argue the case to re-elect Obama with a straight face. Demonizing the other side is all the Hope-and-Changers have.

Their economic ideas are garbage, their foreign policy positions are downright dangerous.

They've sunk billions into solar panels and electric cars on the pretext of creating 5 million jobs.

Obama's added more debt in one term than all other Presidents combined.

They're willing to negotiate secret deals with Putin, after the election in a final presidential term.

Then they demonize Romney for saying he'll negotiate with Congress over the budget.

Shouting that their opponents are liars is the only thing they can do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

You must be living on a different internet because all the sites from The Telegraph to The Huffington Post have all used those two polls that I quoted. You call the one you don't like the results of an "outlier" and therefore dismiss it. You put Romney to shame!  Biden beat Romney. 50% of undecided's thought Biden won and just 46% thought Romney won. That's a 5% bigger win than Romney for Biden.

 

 I've reset my browser history so instead of finding what I'd read on "likeability" I've googled around. Here's some results-

 

" Mitt Romney's strong debate performance did little to convince more voters he understands them or is a "good person" even though he has narrowed President Barack Obama's overall poll lead, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey released on Saturday.

 

Obama even gained ground in some voters' assessment of his character since before the debate, even though a majority - 55 to 23 percent - felt Romney did a better job during the encounter in Denver, the survey showed.

Forty-seven percent of registered voters deemed Obama "a good person," compared with 31 percent who felt that way about Romney. In a similar survey on September 28, Obama led by 43 percent to Romney's 32 percent.

Obama held his ground on a range of such questions. Far more voters (53 to 29 percent) deemed Obama likeable than feel the same way about Romney. He also leads by a healthy margin (43 to 37 percent) on who has the right values to be president.

In addition, 43 percent felt Obama "understands people like me," compared with 31 percent who felt that way about Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and wealthy businessman who has struggled to connect with average Americans."

~ http://news.yahoo.com/romney-gains-ground-obama-strong-debate-004941209--business.html

 

Biden though saw the biggest likeability gains I've ever seen before after his debate win. I'll dig those numbers up for you too if your not familiar with them.

So let me just get this right:  You only are quoting the polls that you agree with?  Gallup polled the Presidential debate, too.  Their result wasn't 46% Romney.  It was 70% Romney.  This is what I mean when I refer to outliers.  I realize you like that CBS poll, because it's more favorable to your side.  But it doesn't match with the rest of the polling out there.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Biden interrupted the lies with facts.  Romney interrupted the facts with lies.  False equivalence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

His lies are well documented.  Furthermore, he repeats lies that have been thoroughly debunked again and again.

Hmm, you mean lies like:  

1)  I voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  (Fact: He voted for both of them)

2)  We didn't know they wanted more security?  (Fact:  This directly contradicts the State Department's testimony)

***Update:  Carney says "he was speaking for himself, the President and the White House...not the administration."   #WhatTheF**AreYouTalkingAbout?

3)  "No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise...has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact."  (The actual fact:  This is a very narrow exception that doesn't apply to religious institutions who serve the general public).  

4)  "There's not one Democrat who endorsed his...plan."  (Fact:  Co-Sponsor, Rep. Ron Wyden(D)-Oregon

But yeah, that's the same as Mitt Romney saying "90 billion in one year" when it was "90 billion in two years."  That's the same as "I think about 50 years worth of tax credits" when it was actual "32 years of tax credits."   
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ 

Of all the points that irritated me about the debate, the one from Biden that Iran didn't have a bomb to put that fissile material into was the one that just lost it for me. Unless I completely misunderstand nuclear weapons, and I might, the basic premise is that the tech for making the bomb itself is not impossible, the hard part is getting the fissile material. Biden kept saying, all they have is the fissile material, stop worrying. What am I missing here?

There are a couple of additional subtleties that got lost along the way. While they have undoubtedly have fissile material, the argument is that they don't have weapons' grade fissile material - that would take some time to make. The concern has also been primarily over a weapon that could be delivered with a ballistic delivery system, which they don't have. And that also requires a more optimized warhead design that would not be possible without testing, that they could not do without the world and his dog knowing about it.

So Biden's basic point, I think, is that we would get plenty of warning if they were to go down that path.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

Shouting that their opponents are liars is the only thing they can do.

That's somewhat ironic in view of all the strident accusations on this forum that the Democrats are lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

There are a couple of additional subtleties that got lost along the way. While they have undoubtedly have fissile material, the argument is that they don't have weapons' grade fissile material - that would take some time to make. The concern has also been primarily over a weapon that could be delivered with a ballistic delivery system, which they don't have. And that also requires a more optimized warhead design that would not be possible without testing, that they could not do without the world and his dog knowing about it.

 

So Biden's basic point, I think, is that we would get plenty of warning if they were to go down that path.

Agreed.  Then again, we don't know whether or not a protest and video started the Libya attack, according to Biden.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

There are a couple of additional subtleties that got lost along the way. While they have undoubtedly have fissile material, the argument is that they don't have weapons' grade fissile material - that would take some time to make. The concern has also been primarily over a weapon that could be delivered with a ballistic delivery system, which they don't have. And that also requires a more optimized warhead design that would not be possible without testing, that they could not do without the world and his dog knowing about it.

 

So Biden's basic point, I think, is that we would get plenty of warning if they were to go down that path.

 

Agreed.  Then again, we don't know whether or not a protest and video started the Libya attack, according to Biden.  

I thought there was no disagreement now on that - he was claiming that the original claims that they made were based on the intel that they received.  But anyway - I'm missing the connection with the weapons issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

There are a couple of additional subtleties that got lost along the way. While they have undoubtedly have fissile material, the argument is that they don't have weapons' grade fissile material - that would take some time to make. The concern has also been primarily over a weapon that could be delivered with a ballistic delivery system, which they don't have. And that also requires a more optimized warhead design that would not be possible without testing, that they could not do without the world and his dog knowing about it.

 

So Biden's basic point, I think, is that we would get plenty of warning if they were to go down that path.

Another point that biden is missing is the fact that Iran can produce a dirty bombwith a suitcase and a couple of hard granades.  Obviously this isn't as dangerous as an actual nucear bomb, but it is still a serious escalation from mortars and conventional missles.

As to the issue with a nuclear weaon the likes of which everyone is concerned...  I worked on nuclear reactors as opposed to weapons, and the thing I know is that in order to achieve a nuclear detonation you have to have critical mass (which apparently they are there or almost there), critical geometry and critical temperature.  The geometry and temperature are achieved by the detonation of charges in the warhead that provide both the heat as well as pushing the pieces together to form the critical geometry.  It seems to me that the weaponization piece is the least of the hurdles to cross but again, I worked on reactors.  What I do know for certain is this is the reason that 1) nuclear reactors can't detonate in a nuclear explosion because it's impossible for them to achieve critical geometry, and 2) in the movies when they say the nuke has to be armed to detonate that isn't just to add Hollywood drama.  Without the detonating charges going off, you don't have the geomerty or temperature to achieve criticality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

There are a couple of additional subtleties that got lost along the way. While they have undoubtedly have fissile material, the argument is that they don't have weapons' grade fissile material - that would take some time to make. The concern has also been primarily over a weapon that could be delivered with a ballistic delivery system, which they don't have. And that also requires a more optimized warhead design that would not be possible without testing, that they could not do without the world and his dog knowing about it.

 

So Biden's basic point, I think, is that we would get plenty of warning if they were to go down that path.

 

Another point that biden is missing is the fact that Iran can produce a dirty bombwith a suitcase and a couple of hard granades.  Obviously this isn't as dangerous as an actual nucear bomb, but it is still a serious escalation from mortars and conventional missles.

 

As to the issue with a nuclear weaon the likes of which everyone is concerned...  I worked on nuclear reactors as opposed to weapons, and the thing I know is that in order to achieve a nuclear detonation you have to have critical mass (which apparently they are there or almost there), critical geometry and critical temperature.  The geometry and temperature are achieved by the detonation of charges in the warhead that provide both the heat as well as pushing the pieces together to form the critical geometry.  It seems to me that the weaponization piece is the least of the hurdles to cross but again, I worked on reactors.  What I do know for certain is this is the reason that 1) nuclear reactors can't detonate in a nuclear explosion because it's impossible for them to achieve critical geometry, and 2) in the movies when they say the nuke has to be armed to detonate that isn't just to add Hollywood drama.  Without the detonating charges going off, you don't have the geomerty or temperature to achieve criticality.

The dirty bomb is not really relevant. Virtually any state, and plenty of non-state organizations could make one any time they please. It's not a nuclear weapon. With regard to mass, the claim is that they do not have a critical mass of weapons' grade material. In terms of function, the temperature is irrelevant - all that is required is a sufficiently rapid assembly of a super-critical mass, which is what the conventional explosive charge achieves. A reactor can reach criticality but not beyond because assembly is far too slow and it self-disassembles due to radiation pressure; so it cannot detonate in the sense of fast, runaway reaction. Arming, to stick to generalities, basically refers to energizing the firing system for the conventional explosives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

The dirty bomb is not really relevant. Virtually any state, and plenty of non-state organizations could make one any time they please. It's not a nuclear weapon. With regard to mass, the claim is that they do not have a critical mass of weapons' grade material. In terms of function, the temperature is irrelevant - all that is required is a sufficiently rapid assembly of a super-critical mass, which is what the conventional explosive charge achieves. A reactor can reach criticality but not beyond because assembly is far too slow and it self-disassembles due to radiation pressure; so it cannot detonate in the sense of fast, runaway reaction. Arming, to stick to generalities, basically refers to energizing the firing system for the conventional explosives.

Pretty much the same thing I said on the weapon side with a couple of minor differences.  It's been over 20 years since I was a nuclear reactor operator in the Navy, so I've forgotten a few details.  As to the explanation of the speed of assembly, I really think this is actually irrelevant because a reactor by it's design cannot achieve critical geometry in sufficient mass for a runaway reaction.  However, I think we are just splitting hairs at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

The dirty bomb is not really relevant. Virtually any state, and plenty of non-state organizations could make one any time they please. It's not a nuclear weapon. With regard to mass, the claim is that they do not have a critical mass of weapons' grade material. In terms of function, the temperature is irrelevant - all that is required is a sufficiently rapid assembly of a super-critical mass, which is what the conventional explosive charge achieves. A reactor can reach criticality but not beyond because assembly is far too slow and it self-disassembles due to radiation pressure; so it cannot detonate in the sense of fast, runaway reaction. Arming, to stick to generalities, basically refers to energizing the firing system for the conventional explosives.

 

Pretty much the same thing I said on the weapon side with a couple of minor differences.  It's been over 20 years since I was a nuclear reactor operator in the Navy, so I've forgotten a few details.  As to the explanation of the speed of assembly, I really think this is actually irrelevant because a reactor by it's design cannot achieve critical geometry in sufficient mass for a runaway reaction.  However, I think we are just splitting hairs at this point.

I'm certainly not well-versed on the finer details of reactor design, but critical mass and critical geometry should be equivalent descriptions. Criticality is just the point at which the reaction becomes self-sustaining, not runaway, or even necessarily very fast. Equally important, which I forgot to mention at all, is that reactors (of course) don't generally use weapons' grade material as fuel, so would not be able to achieve the fission rates necessary anyway, no matter how fast you tried to assemble.