Debate #2 Go......Follow

Yes, he did say it, but that doesn't mean much when you're just responding to someone else's quote of him.

Just because he said more stuff does not mean he provided more substance. Laying out a laundry list of sh*t is talking points, not substance. Laying out several key issues, discussing how they compare to the alternative, and then discussing how you plan to implement and pay for them is substance. The latter is what Biden did. The former is what Ryan did.



Because Ryan was not detailing his points.

Ryan: We want to offer 5 trillion in new tax cuts to everyone!.
Mod: How will you pay for this?
Ryan: Oh we will cut some stuff!
(What stuff?)

Biden: We are going to continue pushing for tax cuts for the middle class, we are going to increase taxes on the super wealthy to compensate.

See the difference? (probably not.)



If you have it DVR'd I suggest you watch it again, of course it won't matter because you would be unable to watch it without bias. A luxury that I suppose I have as a Canadian.

Biden offered substance in every point he made. He presented an option, compared it to the Romney/Ryan plan, and then elaborated on its planned implementation and how they intend to pay for it. That is what substance is. Well real substance, talking points are great for the water cooler and the morning drive to work on talk radio, but they have no substance.

I guess to compare Biden was like ordering a steak dinner with potatoes and corn, Ryan was like just ordering corn. One takes a bit of time to digest, the other shoots right through you in a couple hours.

Edited, Oct 16th 2012 12:31pm by rdmcandie

I'm just curious here. I get Gbaji. He's an idiot who's attached himself blindly to a political party in a feeble attempt to fill some void in his life and will argue the defense of any and all members, policies, and declarations of said party to avoid the collapse of his inner emotional igloo. I get it. I don't think it's meaningful or beneficial to him in any possible fashion, but at least I understand.

People like you run around on internet forums not attempting to carry on any reasonable measure of discourse or make any factual statements whatsoever, rather preferring to spout off nonsensical babble that offers no inherent value to whatever audience you command.

I know this is typically the function of an internet "troll", so to speak, but usually the expected result of a troll attempt is to find someone who will take up your argument and legitimately disagree with you to whatever end you seek. That doesn't happen here. People recognize that you're at a cognitive disadvantage and immediately dismiss you as such.

Whatever continued response is rewarded to you is at the expense of none other than yourself. Perhaps you like being labeled the village idiot (and also, I guess this forum needs one to thrive), but if that's your sole purpose in life, I pity what a wretched, awful existence you must endure.

Which is what Ryan did. Repeatedly. Biden did not do this at all. Biden doesn't have a plan, much less details for one. I suspect that fact was missed by most people claiming that Biden won on substance. What happened was that Biden wasn't challenged on substance because he never offered anything in the first place, so the moderator couldn't ask him for specifics of his plan.




No. Because Ryan put a proposal on the table. Biden did not. It's always easy to attack the other guys plan when you don't have one. I'll say again: Think about that.



Ryan never said that. What he said was that the claim that their plan would cut tax revenue by $5T is false and has been debunked by several different sources. So when the moderator asks him how his plan will pay for a loss of revenue that he has insisted his plan wont create, she's not asking for details, she's promoting an Obama campaign talking point.

Let me again point out the Complex Question Fallacy. For those who still don't get it, it's when you ask a question which contains within it an assumption that the answerer does not agree with. The correct response to this sort of fallacy is *not* to answer the question, but to challenge the assumption within it (which Ryan did by stating that the $5T number was incorrect). If he answers the question, he's acknowledging the assumption. He *can't* explain how their tax plan will account for $5T in cuts because their plan will not result in $5T in cuts. That's not a failure of the plan, or his understanding of the issue, but him correctly responding to an unfair question.




And she asked him for specifics, right? She asked him exactly what cutoff defines "middle class" and "rich" in that tax plan, right (hint: It's not "super wealthy", it's $250k/year)? And she asked what tax cuts they're aiming at the middle class. And she called him on the whole "extending existing tax rates isn't really a tax cut". No, she didn't. She gave him a pass on all of that.



So you can't answer. Got it.



Then it should be trivially easy for you to give us some examples. Here, I'll make it easy for you

Hell, just the first section shows a glaring difference. Biden is like "We got Bin Laden, Rar!". Ryan talks about a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq, which was supposed to be in place, but the Administration failed to get before with withdrawing. He countered rhetoric "they just wanted to stay in Iraq" with facts.

I could go point by point with how Biden failed to really respond to what Ryan said, instead clinging to a handful of talking points, but you can read for yourself. Biden looked better on the screen, so for those who think that's the most important thing they thought he did great. But when you look at what he actually said, and how limited it was (and often completely off the mark), Ryan won "on substance". Ryan had his facts straight. He brought up many more relevant points in each area. In the defense portion, he talked about several failures of foreign policy, with specifics. Biden says that's malarky, is asked for specifics and then proceeds to toss out a series of talking points which didn't even address what Ryan had said.

There were some areas Biden did a bit better, but overall, Ryan absolutely presented more substance.

Okay, it's actually not possible you watched the debate.

Well, he just sees everything through his GOP colored glasses. That changes everything.

Hrm? The wide-spread opinion after the first debate was "Wow, Obama seriously sucked. I hope that doesn't cause real problems".

I won't say that nobody was overly optimistic but extra-optimism sure wasn't the common wisdom.

The conspiracy theory on DKos was the Obama deliberately sucked the first debate, because he wanted to appear calm, cool, and rational. Thus, people would say "Wow, Obama sucked and had no energy." And then, for debates 2 and 3, he could unleash a can of whoop *** while handily avoiding Angry Black Man accusations.

DKos is partisan, but not blindly so. 90% of the diaries were wailing and gnashing of teeth because Obama lost the first debate. The other 10% were the aforementioned conspiracy theory.

The first sentence in Alma's clip: "The consensus on the president's performance last night seems to be whohoho."

It also doesn't help your point that the clip you played was immediately preceded by a clip showing each of the big three commenting on how much of a poorly Obama performed in the first debate.

In before the thread devolves into a "my facebook friends say I'm cool" thing?

Since I've never said that, I will infer that you're clueless.... You are dismissed.



Yes, because I only mentioned facebook and we all know that thousands of people aren't posting their political beliefs and their beliefs are more recognized on national and local media, not the commentators and their guests....