Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


VP debate

   
Ryan getting the opportunity to close with that emotional - eye to camera - speech probably gave him a very large boost as well.

I'm sure it helped. Debates are all about showmanship and pride.

That debate was truly a decisive victory for Biden; hands down. This is what a real win looks like as opposed to Romney vs Obama (while Romney took it, he didn't do so with particular strength). Biden absolutely killed the debate; I almost felt sorry for Paul Ryan who seemed out of his league against the veteran senator.

I think Romney vs Obama was more shocking given Obama's lackluster performance, rather than any Romney contribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthbound View Post
I think Romney vs Obama was more shocking given Obama's lackluster performance, rather than any Romney contribution.
Yeah. It was definitely more a case of Obama losing rather than Romney winning.

Paul Ryan would not answer direct questions, instead responding with canned statements that he was often stumbling to get out. It will be hard to fact-check him without a large number of facts. Ryan also ate up time going in circles and repeating himself, forcing the mod and Joe Biden to cut in. I shut it off before the final emotional appeal, but in the military and economic forums at least Joe Biden looked like an elder statesman and Paul Ryan looked like a pre-prepped youth trying to remember his speech.

What was very telling to me are two points:
1) Whenever asked about what they would do in teh future, Ryan answered by criticizing what Obama had done in the past
and
2) When pressed for details about the loopholes that would be cut Ryan admitted they didn't have those "details" worked out, and that they didn't actually have a plan, just a framework.

In short Ryan confirmed what i have suspected, indeed what Republicans have said about Romeny back in the primary- he's an empty suit with no plan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443749204578051073494711456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopNo doubt the performance cheered Democrats who needed cheering after last week, but we wonder how well it played with independents or undecided voters who tuned in to learn something.

To the extent that substance mattered, and it didn't count for much, Mr. Biden had his strongest notes on foreign policy. He too glibly rolled past the murders of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate a month ago, attributing the Administration's false early explanations to "the intelligence community." We doubt that's what the investigation will ultimately show. But on Afghanistan, Syria and to a lesser extent Iran, Mr. Biden was more sure-footed than Mr. Ryan. On Syria in particular, Mr. Ryan never said what a Romney Administration would do differently.

Mr. Ryan was stronger on domestic issues, calmly laying out the facts of Mitt Romney's proposals on taxes, Medicare and job creation. Even here, though, the debate devolved into an exchange between Mr. Ryan's policy details and Mr. Biden's free-association appeals to emotion and class solidarity—"Who do you trust on this?"

On nearly every specific issue on which Mr. Biden attacked, he was demonstrably wrong. The Administration's Medicare actuary really does say that 15% of hospitals will take on operating deficits as a result of ObamaCare's cuts in payments to Medicare providers. The American Enterprise Institute study doesn't say that Mr. Romney's plan will raise taxes on the middle class, and Mr. Ryan's Medicare plan doesn't raise costs for seniors by $6,400. Mr. Biden never even tried to offer a second-term agenda.

But this 90 minutes wasn't about an exchange of ideas or a debate over policies. It was a Democratic show of contempt for the opposition, an attempt to claim by repetitive assertion that Messrs. Ryan and Romney are radicals who want to destroy "the middle class." Mr. Ryan's cool under assault was a visual rebuttal of that claim, and we certainly know who looked more presidential.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443749204578051073494711456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopNo doubt the performance cheered Democrats who needed cheering after last week, but we wonder how well it played with independents or undecided voters who tuned in to learn something.

To the extent that substance mattered, and it didn't count for much, Mr. Biden had his strongest notes on foreign policy. He too glibly rolled past the murders of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate a month ago, attributing the Administration's false early explanations to "the intelligence community." We doubt that's what the investigation will ultimately show. But on Afghanistan, Syria and to a lesser extent Iran, Mr. Biden was more sure-footed than Mr. Ryan. On Syria in particular, Mr. Ryan never said what a Romney Administration would do differently.

Mr. Ryan was stronger on domestic issues, calmly laying out the facts of Mitt Romney's proposals on taxes, Medicare and job creation. Even here, though, the debate devolved into an exchange between Mr. Ryan's policy details and Mr. Biden's free-association appeals to emotion and class solidarity—"Who do you trust on this?"

On nearly every specific issue on which Mr. Biden attacked, he was demonstrably wrong. The Administration's Medicare actuary really does say that 15% of hospitals will take on operating deficits as a result of ObamaCare's cuts in payments to Medicare providers. The American Enterprise Institute study doesn't say that Mr. Romney's plan will raise taxes on the middle class, and Mr. Ryan's Medicare plan doesn't raise costs for seniors by $6,400. Mr. Biden never even tried to offer a second-term agenda.

But this 90 minutes wasn't about an exchange of ideas or a debate over policies. It was a Democratic show of contempt for the opposition, an attempt to claim by repetitive assertion that Messrs. Ryan and Romney are radicals who want to destroy "the middle class." Mr. Ryan's cool under assault was a visual rebuttal of that claim, and we certainly know who looked more presidential.
Because Ryan tackled Biden head on when pressured on the issue of tax loopholes and how he plans to balance the budget when they want to add 2 trillion dollars to military spending that their current tax plan will not be able to save enough money to account for. Even the moderator tried to ask Ryan how they were going to work that out but he dodged the issue at every turn. This article is so biased it hurts. I hate both of them but to say Biden was the one doing the emotional pandering and not Ryan is asinine.

If you ask me Biden won on home policies but Ryan had a stronger show for foreign. It was clear Biden was trying to make it seem like it was the intelligence division's fault for the riot deaths. His foreign policy for the night seemed to boil down to "lets try make everything the responsibility of everyone else."

It's because there is no $2 trillion increase. You can't give details to something that doesn't exist. Ryan clearly answered that they're not planning to increase spending from what it's at. He also didn't explain where he's getting the $4 trillion that he's giving out in foreign aid to alien planets, the $7 trillion in doodad subsidies, or the $9 trillion in tax cuts to ant farms.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status