Videos: The First 2012 Presidential Debate From Denver

[maidu]

One sign of a good debater is to often NOT respond to charges. To do so, would be to let the other person set the agenda, and it could devolve to a continual series of accusations by person A followed by responses by person B. It's not a good position (not a good image to project) for person B, regardless of whether he's right or wrong.

If you know anything about politicians, of all stripes, is they're always eager to present their particular blurb. So, you could ask him about the weather, and that person might go on for minutes about some other topic which they want to articulate about.

If Obama responded to all the attacks, he would have appeared less than presidential and he would have let Romney set the tone and the agenda of the debate.

[chiangmaikelly]

One sign of a good debater is to often NOT respond to charges. To do so, would be to let the other person set the agenda, and it could devolve to a continual series of accusations by person A followed by responses by person B. It's not a good position (not a good image to project) for person B, regardless of whether he's right or wrong.

If you know anything about politicians, of all stripes, is they're always eager to present their particular blurb. So, you could ask him about the weather, and that person might go on for minutes about some other topic which they want to articulate about.

If Obama responded to all the attacks, he would have appeared less than presidential and he would have let Romney set the tone and the agenda of the debate.

Romney did set the tone. They are calling him the moderator.

[koheesti]

One sign of a good debater is to often NOT respond to charges. To do so, would be to let the other person set the agenda, and it could devolve to a continual series of accusations by person A followed by responses by person B. It's not a good position (not a good image to project) for person B, regardless of whether he's right or wrong.

If you know anything about politicians, of all stripes, is they're always eager to present their particular blurb. So, you could ask him about the weather, and that person might go on for minutes about some other topic which they want to articulate about.

If Obama responded to all the attacks, he would have appeared less than presidential and he would have let Romney set the tone and the agenda of the debate.

Might sound good in theory but in reality Obama got embarrassed, destroyed, tossed around the stage like the Mortimer Snerd he is. who knows that reference without googling it?

Edited October 6, 2012 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

Perhaps, but calling someone out for lying about you and/or your policies in front of tens of millions of people watching IS NOT being aggressive. It's weak. I don't think Obama corrected what he thought was untrue because Obama doesn't know himself. He gave a rousing speech the day after the debates...a speech written by someone else that he read from a teleprompter.

Doctor Krauthammer called it "wit on the staircase." That is what you tell yourself that you should have said on the way out from a party after someone smarter than you rips you a new one and you can not refute what they said.

[Chicog]

What the Obama campaign does is not require the use of the credit card verification code on the back side of the card. This allows people to make up names

I don't know where you got this from, but it sounds like rubbish The authorisation record, sent from the merchant via a merchant signing bank, is in ISO bitmap format, containing all the information for the issuing bank to decide whether or not to approve the transaction.

I can't imagine any bank approving a transaction for a particular card number if it does not match the name, otherwise the internet would be absolutely flooded with fraudulent purchases.

Normally, for Internet purchases, they require all or most of the following: Name, Billing address, Card Number, Issue date, Exp. Date and CVV. This is the primary technique for fighting what is known as CNP (Cardholder Not Present) fraud.

The Obama Website collects the Name, Billing Address, U.S. format Phone number, Card number and expiry date, and it requires a State and Zip code.

[Ulysses G.]

One sign of a good debater is to often NOT respond to charges.

So Obama is a master debater - or something like that.

I am looking forward to the next debate. They say that Obama has the advantage in the townhall style forum that they will be using, but, regardless, I don't see how he can defend his record very effectively no matter how well he can speak.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

What the Obama campaign does is not require the use of the credit card verification code on the back side of the card. This allows people to make up names

I don't know where you got this from, but it sounds like rubbish The authorisation record, sent from the merchant via a merchant signing bank, is in ISO bitmap format, containing all the information for the issuing bank to decide whether or not to approve the transaction.

I can't imagine any bank approving a transaction for a particular card number if it does not match the name, otherwise the internet would be absolutely flooded with fraudulent purchases.

Normally, for Internet purchases, they require all or most of the following: Name, Billing address, Card Number, Issue date, Exp. Date and CVV. This is the primary technique for fighting what is known as CNP (Cardholder Not Present) fraud.

The Obama Website collects the Name, Billing Address, U.S. format Phone number, Card number and expiry date, and it requires a State and Zip code.

Not having needed the services of a credit card for the past 35 years, permit me to ask a question?

I understand most of the credit cards being used for this alleged impropriety were pre-paid. Can't a pre-paid card be used simply by providing a pin number?

As long as there are adequate funds to cover the donation what approval process is involved?

[koheesti]

For those of you interested in polls, the first ones taken after the election show a BIG bump for Romney in key battleground states.

Hopefully this image won't be too large for the TV system, I shrank it down as much as I could and still be readable...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[Chicog]

Not having needed the services of a credit card for the past 35 years, permit me to ask a question?

I understand most of the credit cards being used for this alleged impropriety were pre-paid. Can't a pre-paid card be used simply by providing a pin number?

As long as there are adequate funds to cover the donation what approval process is involved?

These aren't "Credit" cards, as they don't offer any credit. They are "Debit" cards, and yes, the authentication process for those is less rigorous as the banks don't lose any money if you lose the card and the pin, so they don't give a toss - they've already got your money.

However, as I said above, the site specifically asks for a US address, so I would imagine if anyone wanted to donate anonymously this way, the Obama (or Romney) campaign can not be blamed, as they have been given US details.

Romney's site is more rigorous, demanding a CVV as well as the rest, but it does have the following which you could agree to deceitfully.

1. This contribution is made from my personal funds and is not drawn on an account maintained by a corporation, labor union, or national bank.
   
2. I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident and this contribution will not be reimbursed by another person.
   
3. I agree that the first $2,500 of my contribution will be designated for the 2012 general election, and any additional amount, up to $2,500, will be designated for primary debt retirement.
   

What is the "Primary Debt Retirement"?

[Ulysses G.]

I am guessing, but I would guess to pay political bills after the election that are still outstanding.

[geriatrickid]

Perhaps, but calling someone out for lying about you and/or your policies in front of tens of millions of people watching IS NOT being aggressive. It's weak. I don't think Obama corrected what he thought was untrue because Obama doesn't know himself. He gave a rousing speech the day after the debates...a speech written by someone else that he read from a teleprompter. So he's good at reading what other people think, but was incapable the other night of thinking for himself. He didn't "answer" Romney's aggressiveness, he just regurgitated talking points fed to him by the smarter people he has as advisers. That much was obvious at the debate, painfully obvious for Obama's string pullers.

I think it is a reflection of politeness and inherent personal values. Presient Obama is a patient man given to following plans. In this case some observers have cautioned that Romney was given enough rope to hang himself. Why? Because he demonstrated his flip flopping and was not honest on two key issues.

Romney says he'll repeal Obamacare, but doesn't say what he'll replace it with. He says he'll cut taxes by 20 per cent, but doesn't say how he'll pay for it. Over the next few days, as the commentariat chews on the debate, all the talk about posture, eye contact and poor moderating will dissipate, but what will rise to the top is that Romney lied about two of the major concerns of the day.

All of this combined may cast an enormous shadow of doubt over the Romney campaign. If voters are doubtful, they may choose to stick with Obama. By remaining cool and likeable, and by speaking the plain truth, Obama might have given Romney just enough rope to hang himself with. Time will tell of course, but time is the very thing that's on the president's side.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/world-affairs/2012/10/two-debate-lies-could-nail-mitt-romney

Romney will say whatever it takes to score points. Winning is everything. If he has to bash China to a crowd in Ohio he will, but if he has to raise funds from corporate biigwigs that were the ones instrumental in transferring jobs out of the USA, he will talk about competitiveness and a "world economy". If he wants to appeal to a crowd of blue collars, he'll bash the "poor' the government assistance recepients. However, when he wants tot show he has compassion he'll talk about caring for everyone.

The man is deceitful and not honest. Skills honed as a corporate raider that picked the bones of US business clean to enrich his investment group.

The gloves will come off now. Watch for embarrasing items to be released as they relate to his taxes and past activity in the corporate sector.. People will clue in.

A lepoard can't change his spots as they say.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney will say whatever it takes to score points. Winning is everything.

The Obama campaign has accused Romney of being a murderer and not paying taxes for 10 years - amongst many other lies - and the charges are utterly ridiculous. They have purposely distorted the character and record of a good, successful man just to hold on to power although Obama has failed dismally. Whatever it takes to score points and winning is everything is pretty much the theme of the Obama campaign.

The reason that Obama did not answer when Romney pointed out his frequent lies is because he had no defense. He is so used to the media not asking tough questions that he has started to believe that their misguided adoration is actually warranted. His bumbling ineptitude had nothing to do with being "patient" or "polite."

Despite 150 million in fraudulent, negative ads and a million untruths directed at Romney by Obama, his acolytes and much of the liberal media, the voters are finally starting to get it. The emperor has no clothes and he has no clue how to fix the economy or the kingdom.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maidu]

The reason that Obama did not answer when Romney pointed out his frequent lies is because he had no defense.

Time is limited in such debates. Obama is an able thinker and speaker. If he had played defense, he would have spent the lion's share of his alloted time responding to charges, whether those charges were false or inflated or canards, or......

I just listened to a debate on NPR between the two smaller party candidates (Libertarian and Green) who are not able to attend the prime time debates. They need to show they can get at least 15% of votes to qualify. Man, some good ideas there. Neither are slaves to (or cowed by) Wall Street, as both major candidates are. That's just for starters.

[KKvampire]

Romney will say whatever it takes to score points. Winning is everything.

The Obama campaign has accused Romney of being a murderer and not paying taxes for 10 years - amongst many other lies - and the charges are utterly ridiculous. They have purposely distorted the character and record of a good, successful man just to hold on to power although Obama has failed dismally. Whatever it takes to score points and winning is everything is pretty much the theme of the Obama campaign.

The reason that Obama did not answer when Romney pointed out his frequent lies is because he had no defense. He is so used to the media not asking tough questions that he has started to believe that their misguided adoration is actually warranted. His bumbling ineptitude had nothing to do with being "patient" or "polite."

Despite 150 million in fraudulent, negative ads and a million untruths directed at Romney by Obama, his acolytes and much of the liberal media, the voters are finally starting to get it. The emperor has no clothes and he has no clue how to fix the economy or the kingdom.

As,usual you are on a par with romney , fiction and lies

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

[chuckd]

Not having needed the services of a credit card for the past 35 years, permit me to ask a question?

I understand most of the credit cards being used for this alleged impropriety were pre-paid. Can't a pre-paid card be used simply by providing a pin number?

As long as there are adequate funds to cover the donation what approval process is involved?

These aren't "Credit" cards, as they don't offer any credit. They are "Debit" cards, and yes, the authentication process for those is less rigorous as the banks don't lose any money if you lose the card and the pin, so they don't give a toss - they've already got your money.

However, as I said above, the site specifically asks for a US address, so I would imagine if anyone wanted to donate anonymously this way, the Obama (or Romney) campaign can not be blamed, as they have been given US details.

Romney's site is more rigorous, demanding a CVV as well as the rest, but it does have the following which you could agree to deceitfully.

1. This contribution is made from my personal funds and is not drawn on an account maintained by a corporation, labor union, or national bank.
   
2. I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident and this contribution will not be reimbursed by another person.
   
3. I agree that the first $2,500 of my contribution will be designated for the 2012 general election, and any additional amount, up to $2,500, will be designated for primary debt retirement.
   

What is the "Primary Debt Retirement"?

While they may require an address, what is to stop an unscrupulous political donor from giving a false address?

I expect the IRS would be at least as diligent as Visa or Mastercard, yet this is what they have been up to.

Can we expect Visa to verify addresses? Of course not. This scam simply means that the Democratic party gives one person 50 "Debit" (I stand corrected) Cards in the pre-paid amount of $2,000 each, this one person can donate $100,000 to the Obama campaign in violation of federal law.

This rumor was going around in 2008 as well, but we know whose Justice Department took up the investigation, don't we.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In one example, investigators found a single address in Lansing, Mich., that was used to file 2,137 separate tax returns. The IRS issued more than $3.3 million in refunds to that address. Three addresses in Florida, the epicenter of the identity theft crisis, filed more than 500 returns totaling more than $1 million in refunds for each address.

In another troubling scenario, hundreds of refunds were deposited into the same bank account -- a red flag for investigators searching for ID thieves who may be filing for refunds for multiple people. In one instance, the IRS deposited 590 refunds totaling more than $900,000 into one account.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz28aaBohOi

Edit in: Primary debt retirement would be to use those funds to retire any debts remaining from a primary race during the election process.

Obama did not have an opponent within the Democratic party (except for the convict in West Virginia who almost beat him) so he incurred no primarty expenses.

Edited October 7, 2012 by chuckd

[Chicog]

This scam simply means that the Democratic party gives one person 50 "Debit" (I stand corrected) Cards in the pre-paid amount of $2,000 each, this one person can donate $100,000 to the Obama campaign in violation of federal law.

This scam also means the Republicans could pull the same trick. However, I don't know what information you have to provide in order to get one of these pre-paid Debit cards. One would assume money laundering laws would prevent you being able to buy them with cash and no ID?

Edited October 7, 2012 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

Romney will say whatever it takes to score points. Winning is everything.

The Obama campaign has accused Romney of being a murderer and not paying taxes for 10 years - amongst many other lies - and the charges are utterly ridiculous. They have purposely distorted the character and record of a good, successful man just to hold on to power although Obama has failed dismally. Whatever it takes to score points and winning is everything is pretty much the theme of the Obama campaign.

The reason that Obama did not answer when Romney pointed out his frequent lies is because he had no defense. He is so used to the media not asking tough questions that he has started to believe that their misguided adoration is actually warranted. His bumbling ineptitude had nothing to do with being "patient" or "polite."

Despite 150 million in fraudulent, negative ads and a million untruths directed at Romney by Obama, his acolytes and much of the liberal media, the voters are finally starting to get it. The emperor has no clothes and he has no clue how to fix the economy or the kingdom.

As,usual you are on a par with romney , fiction and lies

Firstly, thank you for the compliment - comparing me with Romney - but I notice that you do not get specific about "fiction and lies". Instead, you hurl accusations that you can not back up, much like Obama did in the debate. The truth is that Obama does not understand economics and many of the issues that were under discussion and Romney does.

Obama was just throwing out talking points that he got from some debating coach while Romney was talking about things that he has a real understanding of because of his experience as a successful businessman and a successful governor and because they are things that he is genuinely interested in. Obama lost the debate and not because of the altitude or his foreign policy collapsing in the Middle East or because of petty personal problems with Michelle. He lost the debate because it was way over his head.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

The reason that Obama did not answer when Romney pointed out his frequent lies is because he had no defense.

Time is limited in such debates. Obama is an able thinker and speaker. If he had played defense, he would have spent the lion's share of his alloted time responding to charges, whether those charges were false or inflated or canards, or......

Obama had 4 minutes more time than Romney - 10% more time - a lifetime in a debate. Plenty of time to dispute Romney. The ONLY reason Obama didn't answer is because he was incapable. He has never shown any intelligence beyond his reading ability. I'm happy that the American people, even those who have believed Obama's PR that he is "brilliant" are finally seeing the truth. On the debate stage, in front of the world, Obama cannot be protected by his media shield and is unable to hide his incompetence.

[keemapoot]

The ONLY reason Obama didn't answer is because he was incapable. He has never shown any intelligence beyond his reading ability.

@Koheetsi - you have an interesting point, and one that was discussed heatedly on Bill Maher's show Friday, which I just watched. Surprisingly, Maher was harder on Obama than his two conservative guests, joking "evidently, Obama took my $1 million contribution and bought weed with it."

It's true that Obama is a master orator and speaker, but always with prepared text. Having seen him toe-to-toe with someone of Romney's caliber really was an eye opener. Maher said he looked lost, and could not respond at all, nor most importantly, look Romney in the eye. This was a real low point for Obama I'm afraid.

[koheesti]

Firstly, thank you for the compliment - comparing me with Romney - but I notice that you do not get specific about "fiction and lies". Instead, you hurl accusations that you can not back up, much like Obama did in the debate. The truth is that Obama does not understand economics and many of the issues that were under discussion and Romney does.

One reason Obama doesn't understand much is because most lefties live in an echo chamber. Unless they listen to talk radio or watch Fox News, OR hang out on the TV Forum, all they ever hear are people agreeing with what they say. If you happen to be a vindictive American president with a thin skin who has a Chief of Staff who makes double sure you never hear an opposing argument, then you will be totally defenseless when confronted on a level playing field (debate state) by someone with opposing views, greater experience and intelligence. In preparation for the next debate, Obama is probably being fitted for Depends so he doesn't mess the stage when he craps himself in front of the townhall audience.

[Chicog]

you will be totally defenseless when confronted on a level playing field (debate state) by someone with opposing views, greater experience and intelligence.

That in itself is highly debatable. Romney said nothing of any substance - he didn't have to - and he thinks airplanes should have windows that open.

I don't call that intelligent.

And his "greater experience" seems to me to commute to "greater experience getting a team of people spending other peoples' money" - something of which the right are quick to accuse Obama.

So no real difference there then.

No point in discussing foreign affairs - we still have that debate to come.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

he thinks airplanes should have windows that open.

I don't call that intelligent.

Claiming that a joke was serious statement over and over again is not all that clever either. It gets rather old.

[Ulysses G.]

No point in discussing foreign affairs - we still have that debate to come.

Romney will win that one too. The apology tour of the Middle East, dissing the PM of our only real ally in the area and trying to cover up a terrorist incident in an attempt to win the election do not play well in America.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

The ONLY reason Obama didn't answer is because he was incapable. He has never shown any intelligence beyond his reading ability.

@Koheetsi - you have an interesting point, and one that was discussed heatedly on Bill Maher's show Friday, which I just watched. Surprisingly, Maher was harder on Obama than his two conservative guests, joking "evidently, Obama took my $1 million contribution and bought weed with it."

It's true that Obama is a master orator and speaker, but always with prepared text. Having seen him toe-to-toe with someone of Romney's caliber really was an eye opener. Maher said he looked lost, and could not respond at all, nor most importantly, look Romney in the eye. This was a real low point for Obama I'm afraid.

This article

The Shield Cracks

The cracks in the Acela Corridor's Barack Protection Protocol are showing because Obama's most compelling attribute was the belief that his intellectual prowess is unmatched by any President, perhaps any mortal. A cornerstone of their faith in him was always that Barack Obama's intellectual firepower could be deployed at will, and destroy Mitt Romney at a time and place of the President's choosing.

What they saw Wednesday night wasn't the demigod they've protected like so many cultural Myrmidons, but a stammering, detached, utterly outclassed man hoisted on the petard of his own laziness and incuriousity.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Shield-Cracks

[koheesti]

No point in discussing foreign affairs - we still have that debate to come.

Romney will win that one too. The apology tour of the Middle East, dissing the PM of our only real ally in the area and trying to cover up a terrorist incident in an attempt to win the election do not play well in America.

The little experience Romney has in Foreign Policy is a big plus compared to the utter failure and national embarrassment of Obama's experience. I expect a lot of zingers in this next debate. Obama will zing with hollow late night comedy like jokes aimed at Romney's character in order to get a laugh, Romney will zing back with Vegas fundraising while our ambassador's body was still warm. We know which one will hit home with the voters more.

[koheesti]

you will be totally defenseless when confronted on a level playing field (debate state) by someone with opposing views, greater experience and intelligence.

That in itself is highly debatable.

Perhaps, but if you want to win that debate I suggest you get someone other than the TOTUS.

[keemapoot]

^^ I don't agree. I think Romney has blundered every chance he had even at softball international relations (pissing off the Brits over the olympics etc.). Obama is the incumbent, and has the advantage of experience, whereas Romney looks seriously outmatched in experience. Of course, the biggie is Bin Laden, and he can argue any "apology tour" of the middle east was to make up for George W.'s transgressions and setback of the U.S. image abroad.

Obama also can showcase Hilary Clinton, who has proven, even though not a foreign affairs expert as Condoleeza Rice was, to be more adept than Rice, and brings the weight of whatever gravitas she has (I don't like Hilary BTW).

What is more troubling for Obama is he seems scared of Romney now, even Maher said it was downright RUDE not to look at your opponent in the debate. So, Obama will have a lot to make up for. I expect him to win that debate though, unless he does another shrinking violet act.

Edited October 7, 2012 by keemapoot

[Chicog]

No point in discussing foreign affairs - we still have that debate to come.

Romney will win that one too. The apology tour of the Middle East, dissing the PM of our only real ally in the area and trying to cover up a terrorist incident in an attempt to win the election do not play well in America.

As opposed to an apology for a Middle East tour, upsetting your closest ally with crass remarks and breach of protocol, and having one of your aides telling the international press corp to kiss my "ass" - a masterpiece of foreign policy.

Oh, and thinking that the Cold War is still on - major FUBAR.

[koheesti]

^^ I don't agree. I think Romney has blundered every chance he had even at softball international relations (pissing off the Brits over the olympics etc.). Obama is the incumbent, and has the advantage of experience, whereas Romney looks seriously outmatched in experience. Of course, the biggie is Bin Laden, and he can argue any "apology tour" of the middle east was to make up for George W.'s transgressions and setback of the U.S. image abroad.

Obama also can showcase Hilary Clinton, who has proven, even though not a foreign affairs expert as Condoleeza Rice was, to be more adept than Rice, and brings the weight of whatever gravitas she has (I don't like Hilary BTW).

What is more troubling for Obama is he seems scared of Romney now, even Maher said it was downright RUDE not to look at your opponent in the debate. So, Obama will have a lot to make up for. I expect him to win that debate though, unless he does another shrinking violet act.

There isn't a single voter who cares about Romney's comments about the London Olympics.

McCain 2008 had more foreign policy experience than Obama has even after 4 years as president and it didn't matter because McCain's experience was connected to the previous administration. Today in 2012, Obama's experience doesn't matter because it is connected to his failed four years. He will not bring up bin Laden directly, because Romney will be waiting for that.

Hillary - it is widely believed that Hillary will not be the Sec of State in an Obama 2nd term. They don't usually continue more than one term and anyway, she needs to distance herself from another Obama admin if she expects to run in 2016.

[Ulysses G.]

No point in discussing foreign affairs - we still have that debate to come.

Romney will win that one too. The apology tour of the Middle East, dissing the PM of our only real ally in the area and trying to cover up a terrorist incident in an attempt to win the election do not play well in America.

As opposed to an apology for a Middle East tour, upsetting your closest ally with crass remarks and breach of protocol, and having one of your aides telling the international press corp to kiss my "ass" - a masterpiece of foreign policy.

Americans could care less that he upset a few snobby Brits by by telling the truth about possible problems with the Olympics as reported by their own reporters for weeks before he got there and in the USA telling the press to kiss your ass is a good way to get votes that you would not have gotten otherwise. Newt Gingrich can testify to that.