The 2012 US Election

Post by **Lalaith** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:51 am

Honestly, vison, I thought Biden was condescending, rude, and smug. Ryan didn't look like he was smirking to me, but I couldn't watch/listen to more than about 15 minutes of it. I don't know who "won" this debate, nor do I care.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:54 am

I do think Biden "won." I doubt that it will matter; I think people are waiting for the next presidential debate. But I came away (again) admiring Biden for his genuineness. I guess I'd rather have someone misstep because they're honest than because they're not.

(That doesn't mean I don't think there were any missteps.)

I do think Biden succeeded in boxing Ryan in on some points that are important to the middle class, women, and people who want the wars to end. I thought his explanation of why he, as a Catholic, does not try to impose his beliefs on every woman in America was pretty strong. And threw Ryan's different belief—that he as a Catholic [MAN] ought to do so—into pretty strong relief.

Whichever position is more morally admirable and consistent, I think I know which one will appeal to more American women, Catholic and otherwise.

Post by **Teremia** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:52 am

Biden missed the chance, though, to say--after Ryan had said, "I think decisions on abortion should be made by people who have been elected by the voters"--"SO, what you're saying is, if you want abortion no longer to be an option for women in difficult circumstances with a pregnancy they can't handle, you should vote for Romney/Ryan. If you want women to have the freedom to make decisions about their own lives and futures, you should vote for Obama/Biden."

I can't watch these debates, though, actually. What I do is follow the Guardian's live blog and watch or listen to bits as my courage waxes and wanes.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:05 am

I know the feeling.

BUt unfortunately, as far as Biden went is as far as anyone is going to go, these days, on that subject. And to train up a vine, you nudge it; you don't cut it off at the root because it's not growing in quite the right direction. As you know, Bob.

(Bob? Sorry.)

Post by **Erunáme** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:38 pm

It's funny how drastically different people interpret Biden's actions: Biden was rude or smug yet other's really appreciated his actions of laughing. To me it was expressing how absurd Ryan is... a way of responding with "Can you believe this guy? Do you hear the things that are coming out of his mouth?"... and sometimes you have to laugh in order to reel in a huge amount of anger.

Post by **yovargas** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:36 pm

I didn't see it but that doesn't sound like drastically different interpretations to me. It sounds like Bidan was rude/smug/condescending towards Ryan but some wanted him to be rude/smug/condescending because of how they feel about Ryan/Romney.

Post by **Lalaith** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:58 pm

Precisely, yovi.

And I'm not saying Ryan didn't act in negative ways either. It's just that in the 15 minutes or so (plus the other odd snatches of time here and there) that I watched and/or listened to the debate I saw more negative behavior (rude, condescending, etc.) from Biden than I did Ryan.

I'm freely able to admit that Romney looks condescending and smarmy (as vison so aptly put it some time ago), but I also see Obama smirk and look smug, too. <shrug>

Post by **Erunáme** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:12 pm

yovargas wrote:I didn't see it but that doesn't sound like drastically different interpretations to me. It sounds like Bidan was rude/smug/condescending towards Ryan but some wanted him to be rude/smug/condescending because of how they feel about Ryan/Romney.

Perhaps for some. I'm just glad he didn't sit there and let lies go unchallenged.

Post by **anthriel** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:15 pm

Yeah, I think they all have that smirk thing available on demand.

This thread just reinforces, to me, again, how the same situation is intrepreted so differently based on... wait for it..... which side you are on. There is no *real* standard for decorum, which someone will hold a speaker to no matter which side they are on.

It's like... well, if my guy was rude, well it's just the goldarn honest truth, it needed to be said. If my guy smirks or laughs derisively and derails good discussions with theatrics, well, so what, really... they are tough "warriors" in "battle". Don't you want a leader who is tough in battle?

If the OTHER guy is rude, well, my guy "lost" the debate because *my guy*, and SOOO not *THEIR guy*, has class and is polite and kind and good to kittens. Don't you want a president who is good to kittens?

And the white hat/black hat can change heads relatively quickly. Along with the interpretations of what happened.

As for hospitals, billing for services is NOT the same as getting paid for services. Hospitals are eating a LOT of bad debt, and the idea that "if you go to the hospital you will get treated" is correct. It's just a little hard on the hospitals.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:33 pm

What is the proper response to someone who is trying to take your job by slandering you to your face?

Post by **Frelga** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:35 pm

That's why I refuse to watch the debates until they have instant fact checkers. And possibly shock collars.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:51 pm

Speaking of fact checking, here is a thorough, detailed, and even-handed article from Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post, fact-checking the VP debate:

Link

Post by **yovargas** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:22 pm

My very favoritist thing in the world is to hear Rep. candidates bashing Horribly Evil Government Healthcare Plan A for possibly harming Great and Noble Government Healthcare Plan B...

Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:25 pm

anthriel wrote:Yeah, I think they all have that smirk thing available on demand.

This thread just reinforces, to me, again, how the same situation is intrepreted so differently based on... wait for it..... which side you are on. There is no *real* standard for decorum, which someone will hold a speaker to no matter which side they are on.

It's like... well, if my guy was rude, well it's just the goldarn honest truth, it needed to be said. If my guy smirks or laughs derisively and derails good discussions with theatrics, well, so what, really... they are tough "warriors" in "battle". Don't you want a leader who is tough in battle?

If the OTHER guy is rude, well, my guy "lost" the debate because *my guy*, and SOOO not *THEIR guy*, has class and is polite and kind and good to kittens. Don't you want a president who is good to kittens?

And the white hat/black hat can change heads relatively quickly. Along with the interpretations of what happened.

I don't know, Anthy, President Obama was pretty widely panned by members of both parties for essentially being too polite in the last debate. To the extent that he might now end up losing an election that he all but had sown up before then, unless he can come back in the next too debates and be sufficiently rude and obnoxious.

I'm hoping that he somehow finds a way to walk a middle line where he can come across as "engaged" and as "a fighter" without going to the lengths that Biden went to of constantly interrupting and scornfully laughing and smirking and all of that. But I honestly don't see how he can do that. And, of course (though many people will deny that it is true), he still has the added handicap as an African-American of having to avoid coming across as "the angry black man" (or "racially divisive, as Hannity and the Drudge Report and other conservative media outlets put it on the eve of the first debate).

As for hospitals, billing for services is NOT the same as getting paid for services. Hospitals are eating a LOT of bad debt, and the idea that "if you go to the hospital you will get treated" is correct. It's just a little hard on the hospitals.

That's true, and one of the advantages of the Affordable Care Act (and I would guess the main reason the American Hospital Assocation endorsed it) is that much of that bad debt would be eliminated.

But it is also true that many people without insurance avoid going to see doctors because most people don't like to have bills that they can't pay. That's why so many people die unnecessarily because they don't have health care insurance, despite the fact that hospital are obligated to provide emergency care even if they can't pay for it.

Post by **vison** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:02 pm

I didn't watch enough, obviously. I watched a bit more later and, yes, Mr. Biden was quite rude at times.

Regardless, he seems "more sincere".

The debates seem like a pointless exercise. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Post by **River** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:32 pm

Voronwë the Faithful wrote: I don't know, Anthy, President Obama was pretty widely panned by members of both parties for essentially being too polite in the last debate. To the extent that he might now end up losing an election that he all but had sown up before then, unless he can come back in the next too debates and be sufficiently rude and obnoxious.

Yeah, basically, to "win" the debate in the popular opinion polls you have to be a bigger a-hole than the other guy. Otherwise, you "lose" because you looked "detached" or "weak". And then, on the bloody morning after, that same audience that annointed the bigger a-hole as the winner clinches their pearls and howls about what a-holes the candidates were.

Pick one, people. Either you want a-holes on the podiums or you don't. If you don't, DON'T REWARD THE A-HOLES BY APPOINTING THEM THE WINNER!

And as for Obama displaying "agression" (aka, being the bigger a-hole), he can't. Or he can, but it's very difficult. Getting away with open displays of emotion are a white man's privilege.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:34 pm

River wrote:Getting away with open displays of emotion are a white man's privilege.

That may be true for anger, but it's quite the opposite for emotion in general.

Post by **River** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:37 pm

If Nancy Pelosi turned on the water works the way Boehner does, she'd never get re-elected.

Post by **Teremia** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:45 pm

I don't like anyone being rude, and I am appalled that "winning" has been reduced to "who cares about WHAT they say; I just wanna know who LOOKED tougher."

I do want misstatements, errors and lies countered: firmly and politely.

I think nobody in the universe would want to be in Obama's shoes for the next debate: he does NOT like to attack and interrupt. That is something I like about him (mind you, I have many complaints, too). He is not by nature a rude person. But he can't let Romney play schoolyard bully all over him, either.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:59 pm

River wrote:If Nancy Pelosi turned on the water works the way Boehner does, she'd never get re-elected.

Ah. You're right; when they're in positions of authority, women are expected to be more manly then men (Boeher does get mocked for crying; but he hasn't lost his position). But in normal day to day life, it's different.