The first thread was here.

 

As of right now, McCain is still telling reporters he's not sure whether he'll be at the debate. The debate starts in just a couple of hours.

 

I'll be honest: I'm sold. I really don't have a clue where McCain is going with this - it looks like he loses either way, so if others are like me, he's definitely got the spotlight. I guess I'm still half expecting him to pull some amazing stunt out of his sleeve to account for his erratic behaviour (and I don't mean a diagnosis of dementia).

 

He's got nothing. Plus the media here is reporting that he had a negative effect on the talks in Washington, and helped scupper the deal. If the markets do collapse today or next week because there was no deal, this election will be over.

For all it's "scandals", stupidity and weirdness, i have to give to the candidates for being so entertaining.

Edited September 26, 200817 yr by Meshugger

He's got nothing. Plus the media here is reporting that he had a negative effect on the talks in Washington, and helped scupper the deal. If the markets do collapse today or next week because there was no deal, this election will be over.

you mean, as quoted by democratic congressmen? of course... so far the "deal" looks like the american taxpayer gets to bail out yet another government failure. yes, this is a government failure. they try, try and try again to force some regularity into the economic system and it just.doesn'.t.work. companies have zero incentive to behave as they should since they know uncle sam will come running to the rescue. maybe mccain did screw up the deal. maybe that was a good thing.

 

taks

Limbaugh is still peddling that line? I guess the classics never get old.

what's that blow-hard got to do with anything? obama's voting record (and his general positions) is all that matters.

 

you ideologists just don't get anything that involves facts, do you?

 

taks

you mean, as quoted by democratic congressmen? of course... so far the "deal" looks like the american taxpayer gets to bail out yet another government failure. yes, this is a government failure. they try, try and try again to force some regularity into the economic system and it just.doesn'.t.work. companies have zero incentive to behave as they should since they know uncle sam will come running to the rescue. maybe mccain did screw up the deal. maybe that was a good thing.

Wait, I thought politicians did essentially what The People want? If one doesn't, he's a bad politician and gets his butt kicked out of whatever office he holds...

hehe, yeah, right. don't i wish. politicians represent the people that pay them the most, not the hoi palloi.

 

taks

He's got nothing. Plus the media here is reporting that he had a negative effect on the talks in Washington, and helped scupper the deal. If the markets do collapse today or next week because there was no deal, this election will be over.

you mean, as quoted by democratic congressmen? of course... so far the "deal" looks like the american taxpayer gets to bail out yet another government failure. yes, this is a government failure. they try, try and try again to force some regularity into the economic system and it just.doesn'.t.work. companies have zero incentive to behave as they should since they know uncle sam will come running to the rescue. maybe mccain did screw up the deal. maybe that was a good thing.

 

taks

Makes since...

Or maybe since there weren't enough regulations. So wallstreet workers were able to fill their pockets and run, as in who even needs a job, im outta this B***CH! you saw how much the CEOs made. its ridiculous. These short term loans helped them out tremendously in the short term. These loan companies made a killing! They knew it was only a limited time till the jog was up so they wanted to get as much as possible.

 

So if we gave a child no rules he would be ok? Or are we still responsible for that child so we should watch him? If these companies effect everyone then they should be watched over.

 

I dunno, whats your opinion on that, you always have a different perspective.

Well after watching the debate heh...Obama started better and then when they got to defense and foreign affairs McCain lead the offensive in the debate, although Obama held his ground. But why does Obama say every 2 minutes 'John is right John is right'. lol

 

It was an equal debate for most of the time but if I must pick a victor then it's McCain, but then again this debate was about issues more closer to McCain and he didn't actually knock out Obama in this debate. McCain now will gain ground I think and he needs it much...

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Hildegard

Well after watching the debate heh...Obama started better and then when they got to defense and foreign affairs McCain lead the offensive in the debate, although Obama held his ground. But why does Obama say every 2 minutes 'John is right John is right'. lol

 

It was an equal debate for most of the time but if I must pick a victor then it's McCain, but then again this debate was about issues more closer to McCain and he didn't actually knock out Obama in this debate. McCain now will gain ground I think and he needs it much...

 

Really? A quick poll of 500 undecided voters found that 40% thought Obama won, while 25% thought McCain won. They thought Obama knocked him out on the economy and stood his ground well on foreign relations, as you say.

 

So I'd hold off on your predictions for now.

Limbaugh is still peddling that line? I guess the classics never get old.

what's that blow-hard got to do with anything? obama's voting record (and his general positions) is all that matters.

 

you ideologists just don't get anything that involves facts, do you?

 

taks

 

That's rich coming from one of the most ideological people on these forums. Your ungrounded faith in the invisible hand of the free market is downright frightening.

Time has a good assessment of the debate: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1845106,00.html

They both come across as competent and probably able to do the job if they surround themselves with the right people.

 

What did you think of the format of the debate? I gather it's a new one. I kind of wish the moderator had got more involved and challenged them on their answers a bit more, but I suppose supine deference is good practice for the candidates as that's how the press will treat the eventual winner.

They both come across as competent and probably able to do the job if they surround themselves with the right people.

 

What did you think of the format of the debate? I gather it's a new one. I kind of wish the moderator had got more involved and challenged them on their answers a bit more, but I suppose supine deference is good practice for the candidates as that's how the press will treat the eventual winner.

 

I will say McCain is better than your average Republican, but he is clearly still a staunch Republican on too many important issues, and we've seen what 8 years of that lead to.

 

From what I can tell the format of the debate wasn't overly new - although they did stream it live to the Internet for the first time ever. The moderator, for his part, did try time and time again to involve and challenge McCain and Obama, but they didn't seem too interested.

 

You could, at most, credit McCain with a tie. Which essentially means a win for Obama, since he's the one with the momentum to begin with. McCain needed a clear victory.

 

I was amazed at how level-headed and presidential Obama was, even if he didn't make the debate particularly 'entertaining'. For his part, McCain seemed rather flustered and snarky.

and we've seen what 8 years of that lead to.

But what have we seen, really? Tempting as it may be to blame all the evils in the world on dubya, it just doesn't work that way. Guard Dog wrote a very interesting and readable timeline of the events that led to the present crisis. You are content to repeat these boring canned slogans over and over. If it's SO obvious, why not explain it to the rest of us?

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by random n00b

They both come across as competent and probably able to do the job if they surround themselves with the right people.

Very much yes. I think it would be hard for both of them not to be a change for something much better, in the eyes of a European at least.

 

Funnily enough I watched the debate and came to different conclusions than Krezack and Time about the performances.

Funnily enough I watched the debate and came to different conclusions than Krezack and Time about the performances.

Yeah, that's why debate reviews are pretty much worthless. Watch the debate, or don't bother, because the media are always going to try to convince you that the candidate they like did it better than his opponent, regardless of what happened.

and we've seen what 8 years of that lead to.

But what have we seen, really? Tempting as it may be to blame all the evils in the world on dubya, it just doesn't work that way. Guard Dog wrote a very interesting and readable timeline of the events that led to the present crisis. You are content to repeat these boring canned slogans over and over. If it's SO obvious, why not explain it to the rest of us?

 

As important as the economy is right now, it is not everything.

 

Bush's poor record doesn't stop at the economy - it touches on things as disparate as scientific funding, civil rights, upsetting the bipartisan balance of the DoJ and Supreme Court, encouraging Creationism in science class, and a significantly falling standard of education in schools overall.

 

I think it's very important to acknowledge Bush's track record. It puts the fact that McCain agrees with Bush most of the time into perspective.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...gree-with-bush/

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Krezack

Right now, the bailout is the issue. Since both McCain and Obama are for it I am considering changing my mind on voting for Obama.

In 2004, the presidential debate had to be the most dull thing that i've ever seen since "Dude, where's my car?". Now, in 2008, it got marginally better, it looked like they actually tried to have a conversation this time. First some superficial points

 

- McCain didn't have a flagpin, Obama did.

- Obama had one of the most sinister grin that i have seen on his face every time he knew that he had painted McCain in the corner.

- McCain looked like he would've smacked Obama when he said "That simply isn't true".

- McCain didn't look at Obama one single time during the debate.

- Obama seems to stutter at times.

- McCain had the "i'm too old for this political bull****" face on him.

 

More on the content, neither one said anything remarkable. They used the oldest trick in the book in terms of rhethoric though; I doesn't matter if you're right, it is more important to try to show that your opponent's view is wrong. McCain tried this on numerous of occassions. Neither seemed to know what to do about the bailout, even managing to make the moderator furious. Iraq turned into a "what's the difference between tactics and strategy"-hoopla. On taxes, Obama did a good job at trying to point out that the middle class should be in focus, since they make out the majority of all americans. But all in all, it was quite irritating to see them pointing fingers at each other half the time.

 

I am more interested in Biden vs. Palin.

A picture from last night's debate. Before, Obama had this snide "f*** yeah" facial expression through the debate. But this photo from when his wife steps up to congratulate him....

 

 

Youuuuu....areeeee......so beautiful......to meeeeeeee......

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Meshugger

That's awesome.

 

Anyway, he had every right to a snide '**** yeah' expression here and there when he put McCain in his place. McCain was trying so very desperately to misrepresent him.

Isn't McCaine in his 70s, I think thats a little old for the job. If he's just going to be a figurehead whats the point. That might be ageism I suppose, but I believe qualifications other than 'he's a hero' are in order.

And what qualifications does Obama have then?

 

Personally I think talk about qualifications are crap as it's just a way of condeming a candidate that you have trouble condeming on valid grounds.

I didn' t say Obama was a better candidate, that's what I think, but It wasn't the point I was trying to make. I think you need people with some idea of coming up with answers themselves as opposed to being completely at the mercy of their staff. I suggest MaCaine might be too old for the job.

Different people age very differently and not all old people can be bossed around. I've known many old people that'll try to give you a whooping if you try to boss them around and I've seen nothing from McCains behaviour that suggest that he is easily bossed around.

 

It just seems to me that judging solely from a point as shaky as age leads to very shaky conclusions.