By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Who won the debate? Biden or Ryan?

 

Who won the debate?

Vice President Joe Biden 218 52.03%
 
Congressman Paul Ryan 123 29.36%
 
Nobody/Tie 73 17.42%
 
Total:414
Flanneryaug on 14 October 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
Question... if Biden won then why are the Republicans gaining ground in every electoral map I see. I was going to make a thread about this but I didn't see the point.

That is because almost all of the polling is from the few days right after the first debate. Wait till the new polls come out this week. I don't think Biden's win will give too much of a bounce though, that will be Obama's job in the second debate.



Nintendo Network ID: Flanneryaug

Friend Code: 4699 - 6552 - 3671

Add me! :)

Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 14 October 2012

Well even after the polling of the first debate they are still gaining ground. Huffington post and rassmussen are dynamic and change daily. And even as of yesterday they were still gaining ground.

Huffington post had Obama at 271 yesterday now at only 257 and I think Romney was at 191 and now 206



Max King of the Wild on 14 October 2012

And let me add that before the first debate romeny was at like 160 and obama was at 290.



sperrico87 on 14 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
sperrico87 said:
richardhutnik said:
sperrico87 said:
Both held their own very well. There wasn't a clear winner like last week's debate with Obama and Romney. Biden interrupted a lot, smirked and laughed a lot, and was generally rude and not respectful. Whether or not you like that style of debating will likely decide for you who "won". On substance, they seemed pretty even. Biden delivered a very good show for the left's base. Ryan delivered a good show for the right's base, even if it was a tad on the moderate side of things.

The only part of the debate I really had a hard time with was the abortion segment. Why didn't Ryan make it clearer that there isn't much Romney could as President to limit abortion? He could do very little, other than Supreme Court nominees and over-turning that international funding that can be used for abortion. Ryan could have made his party's point much clearer I thought. It's not like if Romney is elected all the sudden women are going to have more difficulty getting abortions. That's not the case at all.

If Romney or Ryan come out and say there isn't much they can do about abortion, they are going to lose the socially conservative base that is pro-life.  They are invested in the GOP, because the GOP panders to them with promises of ending abortion.  Say they can't do anything about it and they will lose the base.  If you end up mentioning the Supreme Court resolving things, then you make the Suprepe Court an even larger political issue.

And on the abortion issue, there is a degree of irony that those who are pro-choice and those who say they are pro-life (but want to gut welfare) end up crying out about "meanness" and "compassion".


I disagree. You base your argument on the assumption that without welfare people would be starving to death and dying in the streets, therefore in order to be "compassionate" you must support welfare.  Well, that's not actually true, because most of the compassionate types who are pro-life give generously to charity and in many other ways support the sick and the needy both directly and indirectly by tything to their Church and being active in the community.

I resist any accusation that says "those who are pro-life are hyprocrites because they don't care about poor people" or other poorly formed arguments.  They are entirely false and based on false assumptions about what true compassion really is.  For instance, if you were truly compassionate, you would resist welfare because it incentivises people to not work and to take instead of give.

Unless you can show poverty levels would be on par, or less, than they are now by gutting welfare, you are advocating a position that would result in more people dying and shortening of life.   You can at least show cases where those doing charity work to help the poor advocate cutting welfare, and believe that doing such will make their job easier, and reduce poverty.

Here are examples of individuals who have connection to doing welfare and their take on cutting welfare to the poor...

Catholic Church speaks out against it: http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=21197

Protestant churches oppose cuts to welfare: http://articles.courant.com/1995-03-10/news/9503100370_1_welfare-cuts-real-welfare-reform-mainline-protestant-denominations

President of Catholic Charites speaks out against eliminating welfare: http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/welfare/kammer.html

Now that is some on my end.  Now, either you show facts that it would work, or quote those who are in the business of helping the poor, that they support gutting welfare, or abolishing it.  If you can't, then you can't show that someone is pro-life.

In a nutshell here, your priority is not the sanctity of life, if you advocate gutting a current system that helps people and cannot speak of another alternative to replace it.  You may have a priority of freedom or rewarding the successful, but it isn't life.  Thus, do not bring up mercy and compassion as values, because they aren't there.


I work at a liquor store.  I have a brother who is a carpenter and does contract work for local grocery chains.  Do you really want get into an argument with me about how people on welfare and food stamps cannot help themselves and require our money in order for them to be able to have food on the table?  You don't want to go there.  We'll have to leave it at that.

By the way... obviously Churches (however short-sighted it may be) are proponents of more services and more money being dumped into welfare.  It is their job, so to speak.  The trouble is, they're not the ones paying for it.  Churches are tax exempt. 



 

HappySqurriel on 14 October 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
Question... if Biden won then why are the Republicans gaining ground in every electoral map I see. I was going to make a thread about this but I didn't see the point.


I would argue that the polling on this site is not particularly representative ...

In the Romney/Obama debate the public opinion polls had 46% to 67% of voters claiming Romney won, while 22% to 25% of voters claimed Obama won, and this site had it 45% to 30% for Romney. If I was to guess at the partisan skew of this site, I would expect (roughly) 40% of people would favour the democrats, 35% would be independents, and 25% would be Republicans; I suspect that (if we adjusted for partisan preferences) the polls would be closer to the CNN poll where 48% said Ryan won and 44% said Biden won.

 

With that said, I think the optics of the debate really helped Ryan and hurt Biden which would have had a modest impact on the polls. The Obama campaing has (tried to) paint Paul Ryan as being (essentially) a baby eating troll, and Joe Biden's image has always been the nice guy "champion" of the average guy. I think that Paul Ryan's performance eliminated (some of) the negative image that was being presented, and Joe Biden did far more damage to his nice guy image than I think I've seen in a 90 minute debate before.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 14 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
thismeintiel said:
 Sure, being aggressive and rude toward your opponent might get your base riled up, but it's not going to help with the Independents (which Obama is already losing) and the undecided voters.

Really, I think you are just stating what you want to believe. Independant since 18 and I will never vote Republican. Just vote for the best option that can win.

I don't think that actually makes you an independent... so much as a Democrat who doesn't like to be labeled a democrat.

Lol, no. I think I just do not want to waste my vote on something that would help Republicans. Voting for a third party is a wasted vote that would otherwise help more of the values I believe in that the democrats share. I do not read your posts much, but I am curious if you actually vote left ever yourself?

Complete voting History?

2000 Primary - John Mccain

2000 Election - Al Gore

2004 - John Kerry

2008 - Barak Obama.

And i voted for Dennis Kusinich every time he ran for the house.

So yeah.  I've voted left before.   My biggest issues with Obama actually are drone strikes, the NDAA and him thinking it's totally ok to murder US citizens so long as they aren't in the US.

This election i'm either voting Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, either will do.

In Nevada now...

Voting for Dean Heller over Shelley Berkly, because she's so corrupt even leftwing watchdog groups have negative things to say about her corrpution... and will vote against Harry Reid, if there is ever a NON insane candidate running against him, since he's a serial liar who got rich off of getting government projects that coincidentally were right by, and raised the value of land that he owned.

 

Though yeah... the point is.   You aren't an independent on the basis of what people mean when talking about independents... and for all intents and purposes are a Democrat.

When people talking about "winning over independents" they mean people who can see the pros and cons of both parties.

lol @ the Sharron Engel reference

I mean for real though... Harry Reid like BARELY won... and it seemed like he had a third of the states prominent republicans pulling for him.

Somehow missed this earlier.

Had the moderate, who's name i can't remember have won, he'd of beat Harry Reid in a landslide.  Harry Reid could end up being the least popular senator in the senate.  (And he's house leader.)



Kasz216 on 14 October 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
Question... if Biden won then why are the Republicans gaining ground in every electoral map I see. I was going to make a thread about this but I didn't see the point.


Because


A) Romney won much much harder.

B) indepentets/ndecideds tend to break for the challenger towards the end of an election when people are unhappy.



Max King of the Wild on 14 October 2012

Just seems like Romneys increase would have lost seam already and the win would be oold news but its still going



richardhutnik on 15 October 2012
sperrico87 said:

In a nutshell here, your priority is not the sanctity of life, if you advocate gutting a current system that helps people and cannot speak of another alternative to replace it.  You may have a priority of freedom or rewarding the successful, but it isn't life.  Thus, do not bring up mercy and compassion as values, because they aren't there.


I work at a liquor store.  I have a brother who is a carpenter and does contract work for local grocery chains.  Do you really want get into an argument with me about how people on welfare and food stamps cannot help themselves and require our money in order for them to be able to have food on the table?  You don't want to go there.  We'll have to leave it at that.

By the way... obviously Churches (however short-sighted it may be) are proponents of more services and more money being dumped into welfare.  It is their job, so to speak.  The trouble is, they're not the ones paying for it.  Churches are tax exempt. 

Do you seriously want to argue that current economic conditions are such that EVERYONE wanting work can find it, and it pays sufficiently enough that they can afford to live and not be homeless?  Or do you want to pull a Ben Stein and say that almost everyone on food stamps and welfare are shiftless, lazy, and a bunch of good for nothing bums (in short, if there is any suffering ALL these people deserve it, so getting rid of welfare would get rid of the bad folks, and justice would be served):

And churches do say that, as do any other charitable organization, because they don't see where the slack will be picked up, if they are are the levels of stress they are facing now.  But you need to seriously show someone else who advocates the government should totally stay out, who is in the business, or actually show evidence that it would work out.  Well, maybe work out for you is a bunch of beggars on the street.



sperrico87 on 15 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
sperrico87 said:

In a nutshell here, your priority is not the sanctity of life, if you advocate gutting a current system that helps people and cannot speak of another alternative to replace it.  You may have a priority of freedom or rewarding the successful, but it isn't life.  Thus, do not bring up mercy and compassion as values, because they aren't there.


I work at a liquor store.  I have a brother who is a carpenter and does contract work for local grocery chains.  Do you really want get into an argument with me about how people on welfare and food stamps cannot help themselves and require our money in order for them to be able to have food on the table?  You don't want to go there.  We'll have to leave it at that.

By the way... obviously Churches (however short-sighted it may be) are proponents of more services and more money being dumped into welfare.  It is their job, so to speak.  The trouble is, they're not the ones paying for it.  Churches are tax exempt. 

Do you seriously want to argue that current economic conditions are such that EVERYONE wanting work can find it, and it pays sufficiently enough that they can afford to live and not be homeless?  Or do you want to pull a Ben Stein and say that almost everyone on food stamps and welfare are shiftless, lazy, and a bunch of good for nothing bums (in short, if there is any suffering ALL these people deserve it, so getting rid of welfare would get rid of the bad folks, and justice would be served):

And churches do say that, as do any other charitable organization, because they don't see where the slack will be picked up, if they are are the levels of stress they are facing now.  But you need to seriously show someone else who advocates the government should totally stay out, who is in the business, or actually show evidence that it would work out.  Well, maybe work out for you is a bunch of beggars on the street.

I'm not going to watch that Ben Stein video.  I know what he's going to say, and I have zero respect for him.  He is a Zionist neo-con, and he insults Ron Paul, one of the few if not the only politician left who dares to speak an ounce of truth.

There is too much abuse and corruption embedded in the system for me to agree with you that we should keep funding it.  I'm sorry, that's just how I feel.  I see it day in and day out, it only gets worse with each passing year.  There is very little incentive to get up and go to work in the morning when you are cognizant of the fact that some of your hard-earned money is going to pay for someone's free government cell phone, their heavily-subsidized fancy apartment with washer/dryer, their food stamp bridge card that pays for their food so they can free up all their cash to buy beer and liquor.  I won't have it.  It has gotten to the point where it is just blatantly unfair and beyond redemption. 

It literally has gotten to where it's not too far from someone walking up to me on the street with a pistol and demanding I give them money so they can go buy themselves KFC.