Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

POLL: Who Won The 'First' Presidential Debate 2012 ?


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Face it, you can't out-talk a pathological liar. Every time you disprove something they said, they dance around it and reword it so they were somehow still right. I've known some in real-life.

Of course, you could apply this to both candidates.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Most people think Romney won. But like the white house has said for over 30 months in a row when the job numbers have come out weaker then expected, " you can't read too much into the numbers."

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Josh M. wrote:

Face it, you can't out-talk a pathological liar. Every time you disprove something they said, they dance around it and reword it so they were somehow still right. I've known some in real-life.

Of course, you could apply this to both candidates.

But not in equal measure.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

Heathansson wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
"Won" is entirely too weak a term for what happened there. Romney pwned Obama.
Quote:

Favorites for this post:

Heathansson, 2 minutes ago

Quote:

Spanky the Leprechaun's page

17,766 posts. Alias of Heathansson.

Oop. You got me there.

*takes off Leprechaun mask*

"AND I WOULDA GOT AWAY WITH IT TOO, IF IT WASN'T FOR YOU DURN SNOOPY KIDS IN BLACK!!!!"

AND YER LITTLE DOG T- no wait that's you.


Its a new ball game!!!!. It all swings on OHIO. Based on every media outlet that i could find Romney won BIG. PBS, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, radio. When Chris Mathews and Van Jones come out and say Romney won its a game changer. The money swings back to Romney and i believe hes your next president. Lots of republicans and independents waited to see what Romney would bring to the debate and he changed a lot of peoples minds. Thats a 2+ hour commitment that may not happen in the second debate or the third.


We have no idea whether it changed a lot of people's minds or not. We know he did well, far better than I expected. Whether it shifts the polling significantly we won't know for a few days. Whether it's a game changer or not we won't know for longer than that.

Shadow Lodge

Hush, he's crowing at the sun.


I dunno what the results will be. I have a feeling by this point most folks have already made up their minds.
I liked how the debate was moderated, though. They both ran over him roughshod at points, but Lehrer really encouraged them to outline their differences on key issues.
Romney represented himself better than Obama, but then again I think most folks already know where Obama stands on most things. It was Romney's debate to lose, and he didn't.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Bruunwald wrote:

The title of the thread has the quotes in the wrong place. It should be "Who 'Won' the First..." blah, blah... since "winning" a presidential debate in America usually means America loses in the long run.

It's telling of the American people that many polls indicate they think Romney "won" the debate. I have often lamented that the US citizenry does not understand what "winning" in politics actually is. Romney was slick, looked into the camera, and threw out "zingers" that stung but were not grounded in fact or anything really helpful to telling what his actual plans are. However, being slick, seeming sincere, even when you are a known liar, and saying nothing with a big grin, are "winning" to a voting public who, as I have opined many, many times, too willingly reduces the presidential election to nothing more important in meaning than the winning of a football game.

Meanwhile, Obama appeared reserved and a little uncomfortable, which, despite that fact that actual facts and plans are on his side, and he actually DID say something relevant, means he "lost."

In short, if the election were tomorrow, the majority of Americans would lead the country down the road after an empty-promising corporate shark with no vision, just because he looked good and was louder.

You know. Idiocy as usual.

That's not quite accurate. A lot of people do feel that Romney carried the debate last night, still aren't voting for him. Fact of the matter is Obama did allow Romney to set the tone, and missed major opportunities to call Romney out on areas where he was vulnerable such as his "47 percent" comments. Obama simply has been out of practice in speaking in areas that weren't his choir, and he seemed rather put out that someone would question him at all. One does have to wonder how his coaching sessions ran through. It seems that Obama's team were expecting a very different Romney and Obama wasn't prepared for one who'd actually talk instead of "zing".

It's not idiocy to call out Obama's obviously weak performance. It would be idiocy to make one's decision solely on last night's debates. I had already decided that Romney was not going to get my vote and his superior performance last night did not change it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Romney.

If the polls don't go anywhere you can expect to see obama continue to "take 10" so he doesn't get the nat 1 that costs him the swing states.

Hnn. Good point.


Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Romney.

If the polls don't go anywhere you can expect to see obama continue to "take 10" so he doesn't get the nat 1 that costs him the swing states.

Hnn. Good point.

I suspect that may have been a lot of the difference: Romney badly needed to WIN. Obama needed to not screw up badly.

So Romney came out hard, took risks and they seem to have paid off. Obama played it safe, stayed on defense and it hurt him.
At least in terms of the debate, we'll see if it actually affects the race.


For me, the sad part is that I secretly hope Romney wins, because I childishly believe that if he does win, the fighting, lying, name calling, and theatrics will stop...but alas, I know that they won't. It is really all just a show, anymore, really, just a show.

Food Stamps=bread

Politics=circuses

welcome to the fall of the Ameriroman empire.


Terquem wrote:

For me, the sad part is that I secretly hope Romney wins, because I childishly believe that if he does win, the fighting, lying, name calling, and theatrics will stop...but alas, I know that they won't. It is really all just a show, anymore, really, just a show.

Food Stamps=bread

Politics=circuses

welcome to the fall of the Ameriroman empire.

If Romney wins the lying will stop? What because he's won and the Republicans don't need to anymore?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Politics is lying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But, but, that's the dream, the hope, that someone, anyone will actually care, do right, be moral, and ethical, but it never happens. It's all just "shirts and skins", you know.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
But, but, that's the dream, the hope, that someone, anyone will actually care, do right, be moral, and ethical, but it never happens. It's all just "shirts and skins", you know.

Such a person could never be elected, and would be assassinated in 15 minutes anyway.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss...


Food for thought


wicked cool wrote:
Its a new ball game!!!!. It all swings on OHIO. Based on every media outlet that i could find Romney won BIG. PBS, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, radio. When Chris Mathews and Van Jones come out and say Romney won its a game changer. The money swings back to Romney and i believe hes your next president. Lots of republicans and independents waited to see what Romney would bring to the debate and he changed a lot of peoples minds. Thats a 2+ hour commitment that may not happen in the second debate or the third.

Pretty much the only part of that post that was true is that Ohio is really important.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Politics is lying.

Politics is the art and science of getting other people to do what you want them to do. Political power, then, is one's ability to accomplish the above.

Lying is certainly one method of accomplishing this, but far from the only method. "Politics is lying," is just fashionable cynicism.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Pretty much the only part of that post that was true is that Ohio is really important.

I'll be sure to get my absentee ballot in the mail this weekend.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Politics is lying.

Politics is the art and science of getting other people to do what you want them to do. Political power, then, is one's ability to accomplish the above.

Lying is certainly one method of accomplishing this, but far from the only method. "Politics is lying," is just fashionable cynicism.

I don't know how fashionable it is; it is certainly cynicism.

...but that doesn't make it wrong. While it is an oversimplification to claim that eveyrthing a politician says is a lie, I do think a good argument can be made that it is practically impossible to achieve national office untainted. Someone is going to get their hooks into you on the way up.


bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Politics is lying.

Politics is the art and science of getting other people to do what you want them to do. Political power, then, is one's ability to accomplish the above.

Lying is certainly one method of accomplishing this, but far from the only method. "Politics is lying," is just fashionable cynicism.

I don't know how fashionable it is; it is certainly cynicism.

...but that doesn't make it wrong. While it is an oversimplification to claim that eveyrthing a politician says is a lie, I do think a good argument can be made that it is practically impossible to achieve national office untainted. Someone is going to get their hooks into you on the way up.

That's quite probably true. But it doesn't mean there aren't degrees. It doesn't mean all politicians are equally tainted. There are the ones who've made some comprises to get to where he is and there are the ones who've gotten where they are just so they can profit from it. Some have been tainted by corruption for others it's a way of life.


bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Politics is lying.

Politics is the art and science of getting other people to do what you want them to do. Political power, then, is one's ability to accomplish the above.

Lying is certainly one method of accomplishing this, but far from the only method. "Politics is lying," is just fashionable cynicism.

I don't know how fashionable it is; it is certainly cynicism.

...but that doesn't make it wrong. While it is an oversimplification to claim that eveyrthing a politician says is a lie, I do think a good argument can be made that it is practically impossible to achieve national office untainted. Someone is going to get their hooks into you on the way up.

Possibly, but if that's the case it's just as correct to say, "Politics is being good to your fellow man," as it is to say, "Politics is lying." And, as thejeff pointed out, spreading the quasi-truth of "Politics is lying," does nothing but lead the ignorant to believe that all politicians are the same, when in reality there are vast differences not just in terms of policy but also in terms of ethical fortitude.

Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If politics is "being good to your fellow man," why are there so many political ads that use "just another politician" to smear the other guy? It seems as though even politicians have accepted their status in the public eye...


Terquem wrote:
welcome to the fall of the Ameriroman empire.

Smarter people than any of us have claimed to be witnessing the fall of the American empire for hundreds of years. What makes you think you're more likely than they are to be anything but brutally wrong?


Scintillae wrote:
If politics is "being good to your fellow man," why are there so many political ads that use "just another politician" to smear the other guy? It seems as though even politicians have accepted their status in the public eye...

No, politicians have accepted that the American people see politicians a certain way, and that's due to exactly what I was talking about above - people enjoy being fashionably cynical, and spreading the popular myths that all politicians/parties/elections are the same.

And I'll be clear: Politics is not "being good to your fellow man." That is part of what makes up the body of politics, but that is not the whole of it, in the same way that, "Politics is lying," is not true. The real definition of politics is the one I posted a little ways up the thread.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Scott Betts wrote:
Smarter people than any of us have claimed to be witnessing the fall of the American empire for hundreds of years. What makes you think you're more likely than they are to be anything but brutally wrong?

That appears to be an argument from authority, with the dubious distinction of appealing to anonymous group of "smarter people than any of us."

-2 DKP!


.

quote (Summary of last night's debate. Romney: my plan has unicorns! Obama: there are no unicorns. Romney: wrong again, Mr President! )

No, really.

.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well deserved cynicism, Scott.
You're the only one who's opinion I've read that tried to spin last night's debate into a back-handed win for Obama.


It seems to me, after the fact, that Obama's strategy may have been to just let Romney go and hope for a gaffe.


Terquem wrote:

For me, the sad part is that I secretly hope Romney wins, because I childishly believe that if he does win, the fighting, lying, name calling, and theatrics will stop...but alas, I know that they won't. It is really all just a show, anymore, really, just a show.

Food Stamps=bread

Politics=circuses

welcome to the fall of the Ameriroman empire.

This. A MILLION TIMES. THIS.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Well deserved cynicism, Scott.

You're the only one who's opinion I've read that tried to spin last night's debate into a back-handed win for Obama.

Then you've read it wrong, because I believe Romney "won" the debate, in the sense that his net gain in votes from his performance at the debate is probably greater than Obama's net gain from the debate - which is, really, the only sense that matters in an election.


Kryzbyn wrote:

It seems to me, after the fact, that Obama's strategy may have been to just let Romney go and hope for a gaffe.

In my mind saying things that are untrue would be a gaffe. I know I'm in the minority in this opinion. Either way, Rmoney said several "untruths" last night.


bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Smarter people than any of us have claimed to be witnessing the fall of the American empire for hundreds of years. What makes you think you're more likely than they are to be anything but brutally wrong?

That appears to be an argument from authority, with the dubious distinction of appealing to anonymous group of "smarter people than any of us."

-2 DKP!

The claim I'm arguing against literally used the words "Ameriroman empire." I'm not going to bust out formal argumentation for that. It's noteworthy, however, that my supposed appeal to authority was actually pointing out that those who have previously claimed that the American empire is done for were wrong. If anything, the only real "authority" I am appealing to is history.

And besides, my counter was fair. Terquem provided no evidence of his statement, and hundreds of years of similar claims have all been wrong thus far, with each of the claimants likely being equally convinced of the prescient nature of their claim.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

It seems to me, after the fact, that Obama's strategy may have been to just let Romney go and hope for a gaffe.

In my mind saying things that are untrue would be a gaffe. I know I'm in the minority in this opinion. Either way, Rmoney said several "untruths" last night.

Admittedly I haven't seen any of the debate, but from the articles I've seen I have to ask: Did Romney say any "truths"?


meatrace wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

It seems to me, after the fact, that Obama's strategy may have been to just let Romney go and hope for a gaffe.

In my mind saying things that are untrue would be a gaffe. I know I'm in the minority in this opinion. Either way, Rmoney said several "untruths" last night.

They're only gaffes if he gets called on them. And, despite the standard debate assumptions, it's hard for the opponent to do that since you can't actually present evidence it just seems like they're both accusing the other of lying.

Which Romney did. Myths 2-5 at that link were given in response to Obama's attack on his tax plan. He was accusing Obama of lying about his plan and lying about what his plan containing in his defense of it.
There's no way Obama can respond to that without it just devolving into a playground spat.


I'm no historian (by a long shot). How long did it take for the roman empire to fall? Was it hundreds of years?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

It seems to me, after the fact, that Obama's strategy may have been to just let Romney go and hope for a gaffe.

In my mind saying things that are untrue would be a gaffe. I know I'm in the minority in this opinion. Either way, Rmoney said several "untruths" last night.
Admittedly I haven't seen any of the debate, but from the articles I've seen I have to ask: Did Romney say any "truths"?

Yes, some. He had a mix of both accurate and inaccurate statements. I just did a bit of very rough analysis based on Politifact's fact-checking from last night. If we start both candidates at 0 and assign them -1 for a statement that is rated Mostly True, -2 for a statement rated Half True, -3 for a statement rated Mostly False, and -4 for a statement rated False, Obama ends up with a score of -10 while Romney carries it with a score of -17 (lower numbers are bad). This also doesn't include mention of Romney bringing up Politifact's 2010 Lie of the Year again ("Government takeover of healthcare") which would tack on an additional -4 points for Romney if included (or -5 if we decide to score a rating of Pants on Fire lower than a rating of False, which we probably should). In other words, Romney was clearly being far less truthful during the debate than Obama was. He did have truthful moments, though.


Eben TheQuiet wrote:
I'm no historian (by a long shot). How long did it take for the roman empire to fall? Was it hundreds of years?

Yes, and there was clear evidence of that happening over that extended period of time. In contrast, America has had many highs and lows over the course of the past 200 years, and the interdependency of the international economy ensures that nearly every country on the planet has a vested interest in America's stability. There are dozens of points in the country's history where particularly myopic individuals could claim to be witnessing America's ultimate downfall, and thirty years later hindsight would prove them hilariously wrong. It's just not reasonable to take claims of the fall of the American empire seriously without some really compelling evidence that our situation is uniquely momentous and dire (which, at this point, doesn't exist).


Eben TheQuiet wrote:
I'm no historian (by a long shot). How long did it take for the roman empire to fall? Was it hundreds of years?

Well, not to be contrarian, but I'm not sure it ever did.

(not that this thread is the place for it...)
The Western Roman Empire "fell", as tradition dates it, around 476. But 1)The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) continued for another millenium (again, arguably) until the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks. 2)The Western Roman Empire arguably continues to this day, in a fashion, through the Roman Catholic Church.

So, really, it never "fell" as much as changed and broke up into smaller entities.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Scott Betts wrote:

The claim I'm arguing against literally used the words "Ameriroman empire." I'm not going to bust out formal argumentation for that. It's noteworthy, however, that my supposed appeal to authority was actually pointing out that those who have previously claimed that the American empire is done for were wrong. If anything, the only real "authority" I am appealing to is history.

And besides, my counter was fair. Terquem provided no evidence of his statement, and hundreds of years of similar claims have all been wrong thus far, with each of the claimants likely being equally convinced of the prescient nature of their claim.

The truth of the conclusion, or the quality of the original argument, have no bearing on whether you appealed to authority -- which you clearly did. I'm sorry, but it was an unworthy counter to an argument not worth countering.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
I'm no historian (by a long shot). How long did it take for the roman empire to fall? Was it hundreds of years?

That's a good question Eben.

I would say to the Romans it probably felt like it was a hundred years - but whenever I watch movies concerning the subject, the Roman Empire is usually presented: at its zenith, or is in its decline, or it has already fallen - and most movies run around 90-120 minutes.
So, if you watch three different movies showing three different time periods (back to back) the total time is something like 270-360 (sans breaks for food, bathroom and internet). Total time (plus breaks):7 to 8 hours.

I hope that answers your question Eben.


bugleyman wrote:
The truth of the conclusion, or the quality of the original argument, have no bearing on whether you appealed to authority -- which you clearly did. It was an unworthy counter to an argument not worth countering.

There was no appeal to authority because that's not how appeal to authority works, and even if it somehow were an appeal to authority, you wouldn't be able to demonstrate that it was fallacious anyway.

Look, it's really stupid to get into internet arguments over argumentation. It's like taking, "But someone is wrong on the internet!" and squaring it. We're already dumb enough for trying to debate politics online.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
I'm no historian (by a long shot). How long did it take for the roman empire to fall? Was it hundreds of years?

That's a good question Eben.

I would say to the Romans it probably felt like it was a hundred years - but whenever I watch movies concerning the subject, the Roman Empire is usually presented: at its zenith, or is in its decline, or it has already fallen - and most movies run around 90-120 minutes.
So, if you watch three different movies showing three different time periods (back to back) the total time is something like 270-360 (sans breaks for food, bathroom and internet). Total time (plus breaks):7 to 8 hours.

I hope that answers your question Eben.

Auxmaulous said it, therefore it is true.


A battle has been won, but not the war. I have a feeling Obama was caught off guard by Romney, but this amounts to little more then testing the waters. Now, Obama knows to pick up his game. If Romney gets too confidant then he may drop the ball when he needs to be in top shape. We have 3 more debates (1 being VP)and a lot of time left for some stupid gaffs on both sides.
Not their fancy words will pull me away from voting Stein.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
I didn't really think either of them won. They spoke to their respective audiences.

This matches my opinion. If you didn't speak English, and just heard unintelligible blabbering when the candidates spoke, you would probably believe Romney to have had a much stronger performance. The more that the candidates' content and context are examined, however, the stronger Obama's performance looks. This lines up with my perception of what the respective bases care about - Republicans tend to want hard-hitting attacks and really aren't picky about their accuracy, while Democrats want someone willing to explain things in an intellectually honest manner. Unfortunately, while the latter is perhaps morally commendable, it makes for difficult politics when your opponent follows the former strategy.

Ultimately, it's not a big deal either way. As Nate Silver pointed out earlier tonight, there simply aren't many undecided voters left, and chalking up a solid blow in debate round 1 of 3 probably isn't going to shift the way this race is headed.

Extremely well said and, in my opinion, extremely accurate ...


bugleyman wrote:
The truth of the conclusion, or the quality of the original argument, have no bearing on whether you appealed to authority -- which you clearly did. I'm sorry, but it was an unworthy counter to an argument not worth countering.

Yeah...I'm sorry but he didn't appeal to authority. And appeal to authority isn't necessarily a fallacy either.


I believe this election will be similiar to the Bush/Clinton/Perot election. At the time Bush's policies were failing and Clinton appealed to moderates especially moderate independents. Perot appealed to moderate republicans and independents as well. Economy was in rough shape and foreign policy appeared weak.

I believe after last nights debate that Romney appealed to moderates/hard line republicans and will get the independent vote. There is no 3rd candidate to take the votes away. Like i said earlier the majority of the american media said he won (international media cant figure out what happened). In todays modern age of technology thats huge. Many pointed out in prior debates to Bush seniors sighing impatience or Gores sighing or Mccains walking around the podium these things matter to a good percentage of the american people. Obama looked bored, weak and couldnt give good solid answers on how to fix this mess. Best excuse i heard was blame it on the altitude.

For a lot of people it was their first chance to see Romney other than an ad and for many he looked presidential. As for the theory those who have made up thier minds already look at past polls in history at this time and see who won after debates.


meatrace wrote:
Yeah...I'm sorry but he didn't appeal to authority. And appeal to authority isn't necessarily a fallacy either.

.

Yes, appeal to authority is on the list of official fallacies.

Under "Red herring fallacies" > List of fallacies <

Ha!:

Oh, the irony. Get it?

.

51 to 100 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / POLL: Who Won The 'First' Presidential Debate 2012 ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.