PDA

View Full Version : The Official First Debate Thread



MoFinz
09-26-2008, 09:51 PM
Thoughts?

45 minutes in and i think both men held serve. McCain scored for being more aggressive than i thought he would be. Obama held firm and showed some stones in firing back quickly on some McCain jabs.

More interesting than i thought it would be

Dolphins9954
09-26-2008, 10:01 PM
Thoughts?

45 minutes in and i think both men held serve. McCain scored for being more aggressive than i thought he would be. Obama held firm and showed some stones in firing back quickly on some McCain jabs.

More interesting than i thought it would be


Sorry I would have to disagree. Both candidates offered nothing new or a difference at all. Obama had nothing but calling Mccain "Bush". That's pretty much what he did. Mccain just played lip service. Everything Obama criticized Mccain for he has done himself. I would have to say that this debate has been pretty boring. There is only so much throwing of stones in glass houses that I can take. None of these guys have any solutions at all. More Bailouts, More Wars, More Debt, and More loss of liberties. The question is. What exactly did these guys disagree on? Can 2012 happen already.

One more thing to add. If we had a third party or independent canididate in this debate. It would have been 10x more interesting. Then we really would have seen a clear and different view. If I had a dollar for every time Obama said Mccain was right and agreed with him. No "change" coming.

MDFINFAN
09-26-2008, 10:04 PM
Thanks Mo for starting this.. I've been trying to get into the site since before the debate just to start this.. I agree, both men are doing pretty good.. but I do agree of course with Obama, that the lessons of Iraq is not to go to a place when it didn't attack us, finish the job where we started...Afgan..

Dolphins9954
09-26-2008, 10:10 PM
Thanks Mo for starting this.. I've been trying to get into the site since before the debate just to start this.. I agree, both men are doing pretty good.. but I do agree of course with Obama, that the lessons of Iraq is not to go to a place when it didn't attack us, finish the job where we started...Afgan..


Really?

Then why did he say he would have war with Iran and Pakistan?

MoFinz
09-26-2008, 10:23 PM
The funniest face of the night went to Obama when Mccain chided him for meeting Acmenimajerk with no pre-conditions. When he admitted as prez, he'd meet whom he wanted, McCain says, so, you'd sit down, he'd say he was going to eliminate Israel, you'd say no youre not, he'd say yes i am...then what?

That look on Obamas face was too funny

MDFINFAN
09-26-2008, 10:24 PM
Really?

Then why did he say he would have war with Iran and Pakistan?


He did, are you listening to the same debate as i, I never heard him say he's going to war with them.. wow...what a spin..

Blackocrates
09-26-2008, 10:28 PM
I looked into Putin's eyes and I saw a K a G and a B. :lol:

Dolphins9954
09-26-2008, 10:29 PM
He did, are you listening to the same debate as i, I never heard him say he's going to war with them.. wow...what a spin..


No spin at all. Obama has said that war with Iran is on the table and called Iran's army a terrorist organization. And Obama has said that he would attack Pakistan without permission. So what was that you thing you said about "not attacking countries that didn't attack us".

Dolphins9954
09-26-2008, 10:32 PM
One more thing. I didn't like how Obama interrupted Mccain constantly. Even though Mccain really didn't have nothing to say. The constant interruptions was rude.

MoFinz
09-26-2008, 10:59 PM
i laughed at the irony of how all night Obama tried to tie McCain into Bush, and at the end...McCain compared Obamas impulsiveness to Bush...too funny

Dolphins9954
09-26-2008, 11:00 PM
i laughed at the irony of how all night Obama tried to tie McCain into Bush, and at the end...McCain compared Obamas impulsiveness to Bush...too funny


Bush=Mccain=Obama

MoFinz
09-26-2008, 11:03 PM
Bush=Mccain=Obama

too true my friend....too true

milldog
09-26-2008, 11:14 PM
No spin at all. Obama has said that war with Iran is on the table and called Iran's army a terrorist organization. And Obama has said that he would attack Pakistan without permission. So what was that you thing you said about "not attacking countries that didn't attack us".

is it not?

FinFatale
09-26-2008, 11:24 PM
Sorry I would have to disagree. Both candidates offered nothing new or a difference at all. Obama had nothing but calling Mccain "Bush". That's pretty much what he did. Mccain just played lip service. Everything Obama criticized Mccain for he has done himself. I would have to say that this debate has been pretty boring. There is only so much throwing of stones in glass houses that I can take. None of these guys have any solutions at all. More Bailouts, More Wars, More Debt, and More loss of liberties. The question is. What exactly did these guys disagree on? Can 2012 happen already.

One more thing to add. If we had a third party or independent canididate in this debate. It would have been 10x more interesting. Then we really would have seen a clear and different view. If I had a dollar for every time Obama said Mccain was right and agreed with him. No "change" coming.


I know it's not possible but I would have like to have seen a third party candidate that has no chance of winning thanks to our two party monopoly........which we haven't changed as of yet.............question Senators Obama and McCain on some of these issues.......

shula_guy
09-26-2008, 11:27 PM
I gave McCain a slight edge tonight, but not much of one

Dolphins9954
09-26-2008, 11:48 PM
is it not?


War should not be on the table with Iran period. We're in two wars right now. To even consider a third one is insane. You even have Obama saying he would attack Pakistan without permission. So that could be a forth war. This is getting out of control. Where is the choice? Where is the difference? MD brought up Obama saying that we shouldn't attack countries that didn't attack us. That is not the case with Obama. War is here to stay. We have no choice in the matter. We already have enough problems and wars in this country. Putting another war on the table and calling a nation's army a terrorist organization. Is not the best Foreign policy. And in fact is the same exact thing that got us into Iraq. How is that change?

This debate was missing something very important. A clear difference of ideas and policies. Not having a third party candidate on these debates is a huge injustice to the people.

Dolphins9954
09-26-2008, 11:54 PM
I know it's not possible but I would have like to have seen a third party candidate that has no chance of winning thanks to our two party monopoly........which we haven't changed as of yet.............question Senators Obama and McCain on some of these issues.......


I agree 100%. That's what these debates are missing. It's a shame that we can't at least get a second opinion.

ohall
09-27-2008, 12:11 AM
No gotcha moments, they both didn't lose.

FinaticPatch
09-27-2008, 12:25 AM
I would say Obama was better on foreign policy than advertised and McCain was better than advertised on economy. Obama could have stuck it to McCain big time on earmarks where McCain makes his Bear in Montana joke and qouting totals on Obama hear marks. A simple why did you chose Palin who had the largest per capita of any earmarks of any state and the crabs studied being of them. Obama still doesn't go in for the kill on debates and seeing as thought McCain doesn't matter and the ticket is really on Palin's viability it could have been really damaging. All in all a draw and like the primary it favors the person ahead which as of now is Obama.

P.S. How unpatriotic is McCain......no lapel pin shame shame lol

Dolphan7
09-27-2008, 12:30 AM
Good to see that this debate didn't lend itself to the childish antics, innuendo, rumour and flat out lies this campaign has seen in the last 2 months.

Good job to both men.

milldog
09-27-2008, 12:40 AM
Good to see that this debate didn't lend itself to the childish antics, innuendo, rumour and flat out lies this campaign has seen in the last 2 months.

Good job to both men.

Wouldn't it be great if that's the way the rest of their campaigns go? I'm sure we'll wake up tomorrow and everything each said will be super dissected and the lies and name calling will resume. But, I guess, that's politics! Glad to see both performed rather well and the next debates will be interesting to watch! God, I wish war wasn't always on the table but that's the world we live in... some countries just don't like us! I'm not feeling super positive about their statements about how each feels were a lot safer than before of a terrorist attack happening again here on our soil again. Terrorists will never stop trying to kill innocent people. I'll bet their more determined than ever.

WSE
09-27-2008, 12:41 AM
One more thing. I didn't like how Obama interrupted Mccain constantly. Even though Mccain really didn't have nothing to say. The constant interruptions was rude.

I support Obama, but I didn't like it either

also, it wasn't meant to be anything, but I don't like how he kept calling him John. Call him Senator McCain- by polite and respectful. Calling him John is pretty juvenile imo.

anyway, I think both handled themselves well. I agree with Obama's answers and people of a different political ideology like McCain's answers. I give McCain a slight edge because he nailed in the earmark issue- Obama had to be better prepared for that.

FinaticPatch
09-27-2008, 12:51 AM
I support Obama, but I didn't like it either

also, it wasn't meant to be anything, but I don't like how he kept calling him John. Call him Senator McCain- by polite and respectful. Calling him John is pretty juvenile imo.

anyway, I think both handled themselves well. I agree with Obama's answers and people of a different political ideology like McCain's answers. I give McCain a slight edge because he nailed in the earmark issue- Obama had to be better prepared for that.


Both did interupt alot. To be fair I think McCain not looking at Obama for an hour and a half is just as imature as Obama calling him John. They do work in the Seante together Im sure they all dont walk around saying senator.

WSE
09-27-2008, 12:53 AM
Both did interupt alot. To be fair I think McCain not looking at Obama for an hour and a half is just as imature as Obama calling him John. They do work in the Seante together Im sure they all dont walk around saying senator.
of course not, but this is a presidential debate

formalities cant be a bad thing. It sounds more professional and polite.

FinaticPatch
09-27-2008, 12:54 AM
Yeah I just finished watching it again. McCain didn't acknowledge his existent once even after Jim was trying to get them to converse all debate long.

Dolphins9954
09-27-2008, 10:34 AM
Yeah I just finished watching it again. McCain didn't acknowledge his existent once even after Jim was trying to get them to converse all debate long.


There is nothing wrong with that. It's Mccain choice if he wants to look over at Obama. WSE is right. This is a Presidential debate. Formalities are in order. One of the first things I learned way back in debate class is. DON'T INTERUPT. It's rude and unprofessional. And don't call the other person by their first name. Those are two basic rules of debate.

Dolphins9954
09-27-2008, 11:02 AM
Great video about the debates. It's Nader on Bill Maher. He sums it all up really good. He gets pretty fired up and takes over the segment. It's a travesty to the American people and our whole political system that we don't have a third voice on these debate. (Well actually it would be a second voice). There is not enough difference between these candidates and parties to have a functioning Democracy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwYKA12s9VE


A good point that was brought up was the lines on the bottom of the screen showing the reactions to the audience or focus groups. It really takes away from the debate. And makes it look like a game show more than anything.

MDFINFAN
09-27-2008, 11:13 AM
i laughed at the irony of how all night Obama tried to tie McCain into Bush, and at the end...McCain compared Obamas impulsiveness to Bush...too funny

I thought he tried to tie Obama's stubbornness about the surge to the stubborness of Bush.

FinFatale
09-27-2008, 11:59 AM
One thing I noticed is that Senator Obama made an effort to tie Senator McCain to Pres.BUSH yet how many times did he say that he agreed with Senator McCain.........didn't make sense to me........if Senator McCain is " just like President Bush and Senator Obama agrees with Senator McCain then.......................you do the logic.............

Dolphins9954
09-27-2008, 12:07 PM
One thing I noticed is that Senator Obama made an effort to tie Senator McCain to Pres.BUSH yet how many times did he say that he agreed with Senator McCain.........didn't make sense to me........if Senator McCain is " just like President Bush and Senator Obama agrees with Senator McCain then.......................you do the logic.............


I noticed the same thing. There was so many times Obama said he agreed with Mccain and that Mccain was right. I started losing count. Obama's only tactic was to call Mccain "Bush". It was like Bush was in the debate himself. Right after he calls him Bush. He says he agrees with him. Doesn't make much sense at all. And proves the point that both these guys have nothing to offer but the status quo.

shula_guy
09-27-2008, 12:25 PM
Great video about the debates. It's Nader on Bill Maher. He sums it all up really good. He gets pretty fired up and takes over the segment. It's a travesty to the American people and our whole political system that we don't have a third voice on these debate. (Well actually it would be a second voice). There is not enough difference between these candidates and parties to have a functioning Democracy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwYKA12s9VE


A good point that was brought up was the lines on the bottom of the screen showing the reactions to the audience or focus groups. It really takes away from the debate. And makes it look like a game show more than anything.

I fully support a "third party". I am a registered Liberterian. Here is the problem of why we don't have one. Weather it's the Liberterians, the Green's, or any other fringe party. They all want a voice in our presidental election without having any "boots on the ground", if you will.

They need to run their party representives at the grass roots level. Get in on the school boards and the city councils. Then into state representives, and next get into the federal houses. Then you can look towards a presidency.

What good would it do to elect a third party into office if he has no support in the houses?

Both parties would unite and stalemate every agenda that president tried to progress.
That is a political reality these 3rd parties never seem to want to acknowledge.

Dolphins9954
09-27-2008, 12:36 PM
I fully support a "third party". I am a registered Liberterian. Here is the problem of why we don't have one. Weather it's the Liberterians, the Green's, or any other fringe party. They all want a voice in our presidental election without having any "boots on the ground", if you will.

They need to run their party representives at the grass roots level. Get in on the school boards and the city councils. Then into state representives, and next get into the federal houses. Then you can look towards a presidency.

What good would it do to elect a third party into office if he has no support in the houses?

Both parties would unite and stalemate every agenda that president tried to progress.
That is a political reality these 3rd parties never seem to want to acknowledge.


I agree they need to get better with grass roots. And get elected in government from the state to the Federal level. The best way to do that would be to let them on the debates. Once the American people can see and hear a clear difference of opinion on these debates. It would only be a positive and lead to more of what you said. Which is the exact reason why it won't happen. The Dems and the GOP don't want a third voice and a difference of opinion. They go out of their way to suppress dissent and opposition. With "Free Speech" zones, raids and no third parties on the debates. The two party monopoly makes sure that no one else is invited. And that the people only get to hear two sides of the same coin.

MDFINFAN
09-27-2008, 12:42 PM
I agree they need to get better with grass roots. And get elected in government from the state to the Federal level. The best way to do that would be to let them on the debates. Once the American people can see and hear a clear difference of opinion on these debates. It would only be a positive and lead to more of what you said. Which is the exact reason why it won't happen. The Dems and the GOP don't want a third voice and a difference of opinion. They go out of their way to suppress dissent and opposition. With "Free Speech" zones, raids and no third parties on the debates. The two party monopoly makes sure that no one else is invited. And that the people only get to hear two sides of the same coin.

I understand your points on this, but when the billionaire, can't think of his name, ran in 92, the 3rd party didn't take advantage of his gains in the debates...oh yea, Ross Perot, that's it, that was an excellent chance to get a 3rd party going, except after clinton came in, he won a lot of the disenfanchise over, and we've never come close since...

shula_guy
09-27-2008, 01:09 PM
I voted for perote and I like McCain right now for the same reason. McCain says he wants to trim down our govt. Im not confident he can, but it would not hurt my feelings if he got the chance to. I like Obamas progessive thinking but I think it's too early to talk about upgrades. Right now we need an economic diet. Slim down, trim up our govt. Use the excess money to start fixing the value of our money. Pay off loans, eliminate waste, return the money stolen from social security.


Grass root is where a third party is going to suceed. If you get enough voices in lower levels of govt, the other two parties can not stop you from getting a podium at the debates. They need the power of holding key votes in the houses to making bills fail or suceed.

Dolphins9954
09-27-2008, 01:18 PM
I understand your points on this, but when the billionaire, can't think of his name, ran in 92, the 3rd party didn't take advantage of his gains in the debates...oh yea, Ross Perot, that's it, that was an excellent chance to get a 3rd party going, except after clinton came in, he won a lot of the disenfanchise over, and we've never come close since...


Ross Perot also quit remember. A lot of Perot supporters were turned off when he did that. It definitely had chance to go somewhere. Before that happened. Perot's actions did him in. At the same time it shows what's possible if we had a third party and candidate that's strong enough and doesn't quit. And is on the debates. This debate was really missing a clear difference. Another voice to challenge both of them. It looked like a gameshow or video game with the lines going across the screen. I was about to start playing Guitar Hero when I saw those lines.:buddwalk:

Joe Robbie
09-27-2008, 01:35 PM
To me it boils down to two issues.

Fiscal Responsibility - which includes this walls street meltdown and government spending.

Foreign Policy.

I think this debate showed that McCain clearly showed his ability and experience and track record to handle both of these, and much much more.

Obama in my mind, after this debate, has absolutely no clue when it comes to foreign policy, and that is dangerous. He should never be allowed anywhere close to the WH.

BillParFan
09-27-2008, 02:43 PM
To me it boils down to two issues.

Fiscal Responsibility - which includes this walls street meltdown and government spending.

From the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122221440058969313.html).......

Maybe the McCain Commission on Deregulation can kick off with a statement from the candidate himself. It will be helpful for the public, if painful for the senator himself, to hear about Mr. McCain's own close brush with one of the towering figures of financial deregulation, Charles Keating, the master of Lincoln Savings and Loan. Keating had a special, urgent interest in getting Big Brother off our backs: in 1986 some meddlesome agency suspected him of massive violations of S&L regulations. Keating fought back by recruiting a handful of legislators, including Mr. McCain, to pressure S&L regulators to leave his S&L alone. A few years later, Lincoln became one of the largest financial failures in U.S. history.
After that, Mr. McCain can get on to witness No. 1: Phil Gramm, a former adviser to the candidate on economic issues and for many years the heavyweight champion of financial deregulation. It was this very fellow who, as a senator, co-authored the Financial Services Modernization Act, largely trashing the old financial regulatory structure and allowed banks, insurance companies and investment houses to merge into what Mr. Gramm called "a supermarket for financial services" -- supermarkets whose lousy decisions are now the wonder of the world and whose losses we will be underwriting for years to come.

Foreign Policy.

I think this debate showed that McCain clearly showed his ability and experience and track record to handle both of these, and much much more.

Obama in my mind, after this debate, has absolutely no clue when it comes to foreign policy, and that is dangerous. He should never be allowed anywhere close to the WH.McCain on Pakistan.....

MCCAIN: I -- I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.TOTAL nonsense!


MCCAIN: I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. McCain accuses Obama on this then uses the terms incorrectly himself!


And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.No one with a functioning brain believes we are "winning" in Iraq. As much as McCain might like to put words in the mouth of Petraeus, the General has never suggested or said we are winning!