Obama v Romney 1st debate - who won ? | INFJ Forum

Obama v Romney 1st debate - who won ?

James

Infamy, infamy.. they've all got it infamy
Retired Staff
Dec 29, 2009
5,536
22,536
3,498
MBTI
INFJ
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19825263

Initial polls seem to show Romney won the first debate, what do people think ? My personal impression was that on body language and presentation Romney seemed more confident, whilst Obama seemed hesitant. It made me wonder whether Obama maybe an infj ?

I say that due to his non aggressive style, failing to challenge Romney on areas of difference or doing so very gently. Romney challenged more loudly (though not overly aggressively) and effectively often using his hands and gestures. Obama seemed more halting and used less gestures. Anyway I'm interested in what others think.
 
Romney by far. He knew the information well, spoke quickly and with confidence. I felt like Obama needed a teleprompter. He was awkward, stumbled on his words and looked as though he was highly uncomfortable and defensive. I honestly had a difficult time following what he was saying between the "ums" "ahhs" "MIDDLE CLASS" "ums" "ooos" "MIDDLE CLASS" "ums" "hmms" "ums".
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19825263

Initial polls seem to show Romney won the first debate, what do people think ? My personal impression was that on body language and presentation Romney seemed more confident, whilst Obama seemed hesitant. It made me wonder whether Obama maybe an infj ?

I say that due to his non aggressive style, failing to challenge Romney on areas of difference or doing so very gently. Romney challenged more loudly (though not overly aggressively) and effectively often using his hands and gestures. Obama seemed more halting and used less gestures. Anyway I'm interested in what others think.

'Cause the only way to counter Romney was with a big "WTF" smack upside the head probably... and that isn't very presidential. I've tried arguing with people like that in this town and... it's pointless, hopeless and futile. They believe and make up their own lies whenever they need one and are just too dense to even see an alternate position to anything.

I refused to watch since the one candidate I'd want to see in those debates wasn't invited and neither was her counterpart on the other end of the spectrum, but the clips I've seen look like Obama was stopping just short of that "WTF?!" reaction so some insane verbal diarrhea by his opponent.

And the post-debate fact-checking is a fun read. Don't think you can actually win a debate when more than half of everything out of your mouth was a bold faced lie.
 
[MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION] If Romney had verbal diarrhea, then Obama was constipated. LOL :D
 
Romney made a good showing. Obama looked off his game. Maybe as president he doesn't feel like he should be challenged by some rich guy who wants his job and will destroy his work. Idk.

Romney couldn't or didn't answer how he was going to make good on his promises. The only path to revenue was if everyone was working and even then the cbo makes clear payroll taxes alone won't make up for the shortfall. Obama should have hammered that point more than he did. Nice to talk about the trees but how are you going to get it done.

I think for those that drank the cool-aid along time ago, maybe got what they wanted and that was a strong personality on stage. Romney was definitely armed and ready to go. A little rehearsed at times, but I think only those that weren't in his corner noticed it much.

I think the general consensus is the economy will get stronger under Romney. For whom remains the question. Strange that so many that would be worse off seem to support him.

Two topics that I think are sensitive for some people weren't touched. I heard a women of the radio suggest "conservatives argue freedom and small government." But then gay marriage and women's rights, including what women are allowed to do with her own bodies. Freedom except for ...???
So Romney hasn't won everyone over.

I just got out of i'll say diatribe and screed where two coworkers rambled off a bunch of talking points. Something about selling your house in 2014 will include an automatic 5% tax to fund Obamacare.

Of course remains the questions if we would be better off without the healthcare changes or if they were needed.

My questions is if this is true, then it's an awesome way to scare people and something Romney should use as a talking point. I'm suspicious that the facts aren't there since he would use the a argument except if he turns out to be full of shit. Obviously with a few debates left, you wouldn't want to start off making a lot of false claims. But I have heard anything from paying enormous amounts on house sales to having another 4% of my bank account get taxed. That's supposedly a tax on the gross amount of your account, regardless on whether the same money has been taxed before.

It all sounds frightening. But I'm not convinced Romney will save the day. He isn't well thought of in Massachusetts where I have family. Left the state in serious debt.

But for what it isn't worth, I would say last night was a strong, not sure if its a win, night for Romney. Who I think needed it most. But the left has a video of a big money person dismissing half the country as paupers, lazy non working scumbags that just want someone else to go to work while they take vacations. Just not a good video of Romney. Kinda like knowing more about your partner than you want to. You want to believe, but then the truth stares you in the face.

So I call it a Romney win, but expect Obama won't be affected much since Romney and Ryan aren't fooling anybody. They will kill programs like Medicare and SS if they get their way.
Maybe they can win an argument suggesting we just can't afford it. But I wonder how we will be when, not the evil people abusing the system run out of luck, but the old man or lady don't have the means to survive die on your doorstep. You can argue they should have prepared for it, and to an extent you'd be right, IMO. But challenged with so many obstacles, I'm not sure by what means you can expect people to prepare. When you're I'll educated and informed. When you are barely showered because your parents can't afford a decent dwelling, if you even have both of them, and somehow get a job interview, even though you've never heard of anyone else that's had a job interview. How do you make advancements. Can always walk away and argue that's their problem. Not mine. Survival of the fittest. But seems gross to hear that same person talk about Jesus. I'm anything but religious, but the hypocrisy. Didn't Jesus care about the poor and the ones that were in dire straights? Or did he drive away in his god-cart with fuzzy dice laughing at the hungry poor souls selling them happiness in a pipe.

I think it's a loss for us all. At least 99% anyway.
 
In American politics, nobody really wins (except the banks).
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
@Lerxst If Romney had verbal diarrhea, then Obama was constipated. LOL :D

Coming from one of the 47% Mitt doesn't believe is worthy of his time or efforts... or is that such ancient history that people actually forgot that Romney really does feel that way? No debate, no matter how well staged, will ever make up for that one truth Romney did tell.

At this point he should be trying to dig himself out of a hole with chopsticks. But thanks to people's painfully short-sightedness, he's still in the running. I don't understand why middle-class people would vote for the one candidate who's promised to make his millionaire friends richer, ship jobs overseas and drive the non-rich into welfare after cutting welfare.

Are we all that detached form the guys washing car windows on street corners that we think it could never happen to us?
 
And one more post....

The real reason these debates are nothing more than a farce is that neither side wants to bring up the real questions. Democrats will never bring up issues related to Bush's war(s) thanks to Libya and vice versa. Neither party will bring up "green" energy as in a sustainable non-oil based foundation for industry, since neither side has ever really put an effort in to it. Neither will bring up the validity of a "war on terror" since both sides played into it.

Things that have monopolized our government (both parties) for 10+ years are sidestepped, else the one who brings it up makes both sides look bad. You'll never get any real debate if you only have 2 people and both are afraid to address any of the real, long-term concerns that may extend beyond their term.
 
There was no winner, just 1 big loser. The USA was the big loser :(
 
I think the majority view is that Romney came out on top this time. Obama looked preoccupied to most observers and didn't have his usual sure touch. I think the fact checks later may hurt Romney, but I was surprised Obama didn't use the 47% quote or challenge him more often.

Perhaps the lower expectations some had about Romney may have given this more impact. Obama didn't make any terrible gaffes or howlers so it'll be interesting in the next debate.
 
I got tired of Obama making mistakes about what Romney really stands for and having to be continually corrected. I got tired of Romney's five points, when in fact only the last point has anything to do with jobs. I got tired of both of them repeating the same things over and over. I turned it off after the first hour. I would say that Romney came out on top.
 
Not 1 point in the entire debate about making the FED transparent, I guess business as usual this election.
 
Not 1 point in the entire debate about making the FED transparent, I guess business as usual this election.
yeah, not surprised. And i know they use the term 'won' for a reason, but really don't get the point. Seems like the point should be to inform about platforms, personal beliefs etc. And i know that's the idea, but it just seems like it turns into a less than educational experience with each candidate dragging each other and everyone else through piles of crap.

I haven't watched the debate, obviously.
 
yeah, not surprised. And i know they use the term 'won' for a reason, but really don't get the point. Seems like the point should be to inform about platforms, personal beliefs etc. And i know that's the idea, but it just seems like it turns into a less than educational experience with each candidate dragging each other and everyone else through piles of crap.

I haven't watched the debate, obviously.

I watched it today... it was what I expected it to be. A bunch of statements thrown into the wind with no accountability. No fact checking, no nothing. I can say shit like "Obama hates the middle class because 495969493% of his policies hurt 3040595993902% of the middle class and 395969969493% of the working class!

I wish these debates were less a pony show and had some seriously intelligent staticians there or something who could push a buzzer that cuts the candidates mics and makes a red light flash while he explains why the facts the candidate is using are wrong. As though anyone at home can fact check what these bozos are saying within 2 minutes, so instead the winner is decreed by who had the best "presence" or who looked the most "presidential" what a fucking joke! That the American population is TOO STUPID in general to even question the facts these assholes are spewing is joke enough to put these charades of a debate on. The candidates say the SAME DAMNED THINGS and use different numbers to back it up, how is that even possible? Its so friggin subjective it turns my stomach. Then you have Jim Lerher fumbling through the debate like a highschool substitute teacher Its a damn joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
No debate, no matter how well staged, will ever make up for that one truth Romney did tell.

I really don't understand why it's assumed that that particular remark was "honest" and that everything else Romney says is designed to appease the crowd.

(By the way, judging by your third comment [posted12:36 ET, if I've converted correctly] it's quite obvious that you didn't watch since Obama mentioned both the Bush wars and non-fossil energy, and I only watched the first 15 minutes of the debate.)