Are We Not All Winners?

After a grueling 60 year election season, America has finally declared a clear-cut winner. But in the game of politicking, are we not all winners? The answer is no, nearly half of us are obvious losers. The Democrats are taking over and taking our lunch money. I kid. I do not give two farts about politics. I care about humanity and the possibility that we might one day actualize our potential to coexist harmoniously with each other and with nature. I would like to leave a positive impact on the earth. Politicking is not how this might be accomplished. America has a broken system. It is a runaway locomotive the likes of which can only be stopped by a savvy Denzel and an inexperienced but fool-hearted Chris Pine. A once solid foundation has been weakened by incessently fucking with the tectonic underlyings. I hold out hope for President Obama. Even if he is susceptible to making mistakes (as we all are), he at least appears genuine. It also sucks that we may never know if this quality actually exists or is simply a ploy in strategic manipulation intended to gain power for a certain political party whose interests are predetermined by corporate interests. Either way, that guy talk REAL good like. Me enjoy listening to him talk. Big words he use. I give up now.

The Third Debate-Triumvirate

"WE MUST GO FORWARD, NOT BACKWARD...UPWARD, NOT FORWARD...AND ALWAYS TWIRLING, TWIRLING, TWIRRRLINGG TOWARDS FREEDOM"

The third and final debate came down to three men...mano-e-mano-e-mano...just Mr. President, Mr. Mitt, and Ashley Scheiffer, BMW.

And what an epic conclusion it was. I mean this debate had EVERYTHING! Foreign Policy; Domestic Policy; rhetorical attempts to bridge the gap between those concerned with only foreign or domestic policy; ambiguity; bayonets; battleships; a 1980's zinger taken straight out of a 1980's sitcom.  I just wish we could have 3 more debates, maybe then we could find out what the next four years might consist of.

The Breakdown:

1) Performance: Obama had to have known that this would be his only oppurtunity to KO The Mad Mormon. Obama should've smoked Romney in a Foreign Policy debate...alas, it simply wasn't meant to be. The President had several chances to attack the jugular. He could've destroyed Mitt when he was talking about the ressurrection of Al Queada in Mali and Pakistan; he could've shut his pompous diet-soda hole up in the discussion of the Libya intervention; he could've and SHOULD'VE put the nail in the ivory coffin when they discussed future relations with Iran. Instead, Obama reitterated the same ambiguous points of past accomplishment over and over again. Granted, he did have a few stirring moments when he spoke of his visits to Israel and the Libyan Intervention. These moments were essentially the only times where he didn't appear hesitant. It also seemed like these were the only times in which he was letting his brain do the talking, as opposed to making a point of mentioning points he was made to remember to mention.

2) Zingers: These suckers seem like they've been taking lessons:

Zing after zing after zing!

- My personal favorite: Obama: The 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back! WHAMMY

- Notable zings:

   - "horses and bayonets" is sure to get a lot of attention...I've actually got a few Facebook "friends" who've attempted to claim that the Military is indeed lacking horses and bayonets, citing specific instances of close-range combat in which bayonets would've benefited American soldiers.

   - Romney made a couple zingers about Detroit that only Kid Rock and Guy Fieri laughed at.

   - I also liked Romney's reference to our mutually beneficial relationship with Latin America due simply to "time zones". Touche.

3) Substance: Probably should've eliminated this category this week...the ambiguity required to bridge the gap between foreign and demostic policy when speaking to an audience in which the majority couldn't locate Iran, Syria or Mali on a map within 10 tries is astounding. I didn't expect them to provide too many details, especially the President (as it may be viewed as a National security concern), but there were some oppurtunities in which specifics could've really bolstered credibility but also may have mitigated any beneficial aspects.

For instance, the bulk of the debate (5 out of 6 topics) focused on relations with the Middle East. Instead of appearing more knowledgable through citing his understanding of the dynamics of Middle Eastern relationships (also: Northern Africa, Central Asia, Eurasia, Europe) and being open to the possibility of peace with Iran, President Obama found himself in a position where ambiguity and re-explaining the context of the situation were necessary. If he says YES to talks with Iran (which will likely occur if he is re-elected, anyways), he looks weak to the uninformed voter, who immediately percieves Iran as a threat due to oft-portrayed inaccuracies.

Romney, on the other hand, tended to repeatedly cite his "comprehensive and robust strategy" for containing violence and extremism in the Middle East. Uhhh...ok? He talked about Al Queda now being present in 10 or 12 countries (not 11 or 13)...might this be because we have spent trillions of dollars slaughtering anyone that Central Intelligence deems to be associated with them?

4) Strategy: I think Mitt may have had the better strategy, with this being the final debate, but I also thought it was neutralized by the President's performance. Willard made it a point early and often to reference that 1) Yes, he indeed knows that the country of Mali exists; 2) WOMEN! Am I right? They're important, huh? and 3) Education GOoD! Massachusetts' smart, see! All thanks to Mitt!

Obama decided to take a more debate-oriented approach. He called bullshit a little too often, especially at times when Mitt was able to refute his claims in a similar way that Obama refuted the "acts of terror" debacle of the debate prior.

5) Appearing Presidential: Mitt looked to be running for the coveted position of Commander of Douchetown

6) Closing Statements: Barack whooped up on Mitt in the closing statements...while Obama reitterated his stances on the importance of educations and rewarding American manufacturing (bridging the domestic-foreign gap), Romney reitterated the same vague platitudes that he's been running on for twelve years. However, politicking=Who's got the best vague platitudes?

7. Final Impressions: "Where the jobs go? You get me job? I need job NOW! Jobs good, indeed, jobs very good, indeed. China take Jobs???? Why?" -My impression of America

Other Notes:

- Obama's reputation in the Middle East, at its worst, will still be better than how Mitt handles the Middle East. As President, Romney won't (and should never) personally interact with the Middle East in any fashion that isn't appearence-oriented only. Obama actually has the ability to carry a conversation with those who will be so incricately involved in America's future.

- Also, Mitt + China= very confusing relationship? Do they like him because of his money-grubbing past and connnections to manufacturing or hate him because half of his Foreign Policy platform is punishing China for some reason?

3RD DEBATE WINNER: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Round 2: Debates are 88 minutes too long

I could be spending those 88 minutes watching the timeless Pacino classic, 88 Minutes.

It's fascinating that debates during election season typically last an hour-and-a-half and debate summations on television usually focus on one or two minutes of actual substance. It's almost like SportsCenter...you can somewhat get the gist of a Patriots' game by watching condensed highlights but the story told throughout those three hours is largely missed. SportsCenter condenses highlights for the sake of time; they have roughly 14 NFL games and a plethora of other highlights/stories to address in a limited amount of time. CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC have an abundant amount of time to address ONE 90-minute discussion, yet they often spend entire programs analyzing segments that are already the most widely discussed facets of said event. Objective journalism and hegemony at its finest, I suppose

As for my take on the debate...let's keep this brief and focused on what everyone else has already thoroughly analyzed:

1. Overall Strategy: After an emphatically-criticized first appearance that was inevitably blown way out of proportion, Obama came back and flipped the tables on Mr. Mitt. Romney ended up on the defensive for a good portion of the evening, and Mitt is not very good at defending his "positions" and his past without sounding like a complete jackass. Obama also chose to actually address his opponents fabrications this time around, instead of letting Mormon Mitt lie his way to a train-wreck Presidency and the millions he seeks to make from subsequent book deals and appearances.

2. Substance: The world will end long before politicians actually tell you what they're going to do/what they have actually done. Statistics are somehow muddled and misleading in debates. Last Thursday on The Colbert Report, Stephen dedicated a segment to compiling an unfathomable list of all the tedious things Romney has promised to accomplish "on Day 1" of his Presidency. If this sounds familiar it's because Barack did the same thing four years ago. As I've come to learn through stupid research on stupid Presidential rhetoric, this time of year can be simply described as a power struggle (the next four years can also be considered a power struggle, soon followed by another power struggle). However insincere and ambiguous Presidential debate rhetoric may be, Obama at least comes off as concerned and genuine when standing beside Romney, especially in the town-hall format.

3. Gaffes:
- The obvious one is Romney getting fact-checked by Obama and Candy Crowley in regards to how the President addressed the "acts of terror" in Libya just over a month ago. Romney has been made to look a fool, despite the fact that he may have actually had a point. However, the debate over this issue demonstrates Obama's savvy and experience as a politician. The way he phrased his speech on Libya left himself a little breathing room in anticipating that the reality of what occurred would eventually clear up.
- You can only partially blame Romney for sounding like an idiot in that moment...his advisers absolutely told him to attack on that point when it was brought up...he probably could've had a better plan of attack, though.
- Romney seems ashamed of his plan to provide the wealthy with tax-cuts...that's your plan dude...its a relatively effective policy when combined with other appropriate policies and a little bit of luck. More money for the wealthy isn't necessarily dependent on trickle-down economics, it could also anticipate an increase in investment risk-taking and provide some sort of technological/conceptual breakthrough. Don't be ashamed of who you are, Willard.

4. The Women's: I think the percentage of young women voting for Romney will be lower than the percentage of African Americans voting for Romney...reaaallly dug yourself a hole there, Mitt.

Summary: I'm keeping this post short because I don't think anyone reads it anyways. Also, I never really got into the last debate. I think most of America has grown tired with campaigning...this will likely be a trend for all future elections of my lifetime. This shit begins so early and is so in-your-face, its nearly impossible to not be annoyed by it. The layered complexity in determining what a candidate actually will do/has done is absurdity. I usually just laugh at politicking, but taking multiple classes dedicated to political analysis has forced me to become consistently engulfed. As I gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into me. I cannot wait for this shit to be over...

Notes: I should probably start smoking weed again...

Round 2: Debate Preview

Biden Gives Ryan the Ole VP-DP

Last night the world got it's first real look at Vice-Presidential candidate and former secretary of super-set bicep curls Paul Ryan. He faced off against incumbent Joe Biden, who had apparently smoked vaporizer and subsequently could not stop laughing at Ryan's impersonation of a Muppet stricken with love. Let's make like Chris Jericho and break the walls down:

1. Substance: Interesting how Vice-Presidential candidates seemed to have more to say than their presidential counter-parts. Ryan, a self-proclaimed "numbers guy", indeed has an impressive knack for spitting out numbers without hesitation. Biden, who spent the entire day watching Stone-Cold Steve Austin videos on YouTube, came to lay the smacketh-down on Ryan's candy ass. Biden's experience definitely payed off. He was able to communicate policy specifics in simplified terms. Both offered fairly substantial arguments for the most part (Auto-bailout, Iraq and Afghanistan, Tax-cuts, individual liberties, Medicare), so I won't declare either the victor in terms of substance.

2. Interruptions: Got to give this category to Biden. He was talking over Ryan like he was Jim Lehrer. If you're allowed to get away with it, you might as well. Biden may have came off as a bit of a doucher, but Ryan takes the cake in the next category.

3. Douchiness: Not sure what it is, but this guys a reaaalllll doucher.

4. Gaffes: Not too many screw-ups last night...I guess the main contradiction I noticed was Ryan stated "I don't see any way that you can separate your personal life from your public life." He wasn't contradicting himself here, he was just contradicting some stinky, old, brown document that people are like OBSESSED with.

5. Foreign Policy: Biden wins here. He did not hesitate to demand specifics whenever Ryan spewed some vague rhetoric. Biden might not have had his facts entirely straight concerning our future interactions with Afghanistan, and Ryan held his own in regards to an area that isn't really his forte, but Democrats went from six-to-midnight when they heard Biden repeatedly request specifics in regards to how the Romney-Ryan administration's foreign policy would significantly differ. I also liked how Ryan mentioned that he and Willard would restore the cooperation of a bipartisan congress...?

6. Let's talk about abortions: I assume the majority of undecided Americans side with Mr. Biden on this one.

7. Ensemble: Romney and Ryan are determined to have bigger American flag pins. They shouldn't be trying to win over the demographic they've already won. Also, Paul Ryan's tie made him look like a fart-whiffer.

8. Healthcare: I don't think anyone who's watched both debates has any idea what is going on/will go on with our healthcare system. Why does Joe Biden want to put grandma down? Why does Paul Ryan hate people who are 55 but love those who are 57? I'm confused. I think Romney might end up having a more beneficial plan for a fella like myself, but my instinctual compassion leads me to favor Obama's.

9. Who had the better listening-face? Biden would've taken this category easily if he hadn't maniacally laughed every time Paul Ryan spoke. He could've peppered in some condescending laughter and ran away with the thing. By constantly mocking his opponent he gave Ryan MORE credibility and maybe even a little sympathy. Paul Ryan's listening face looked like an amateur actor improving a back-up role as "sensitive guy who listens intently."

10. Zingers: These guys couldn't even be the opening acts for Willard "The Zing King" Romnington, but they held their own up there. Biden laughed at Ryan like he was Mitt Romney watching "Mind of Mencia."

11. On Defense: Obama-Biden just have so much more credibility in terms of experience. I like the proposal for a leaner, more specialized military. I know there are a few hundred-thousand troops that might disagree with me, but they can just go to state/community colleges like the rest of us. THE SYSTEM WORKS!

DECLARING A WINNER:

Biden won but Ryan held his own. I think Biden won simply by exceeding expectations and giving the people something to talk about until Barry O can get back up to the plate. His brash, unabashed confidence was refreshing and his credentials are pretty impressive. I liked how he often referenced the olden times where he and and Tip O'Neil would vigorously work to enable compromise and build a better America alongside Reagan and Bush. Well-played, Joe.

Other Notes:

Just one......Lyndon Larouche turned 90 a month ago! NOW THERE'S a guy I can see at the helm of this great nation. I'm sure there was some conspiracy behind why he couldn't blow out all 90 candles.

Biden vs. Ryan...Who Wins?

Certainly not America

Blogoola I guess or some shit

<a href="http://blogoola.com/index.php?page=profilepage&user_id=4774" alt="promote my blog"><img style="height:24px;width:120px" src="http://blogoola.com/images/badges/blogoola-badge.jpg" alt="promote my blog" /></a>

Fuck Weebly

that is all

Round 1: The First Presidential Debate, October 3, 2012

    Every four years most of America is reminded why they don't really pay much attention to politics. Last night's presidential debate may have set/re-set the precedent for getting people excited only to have the majority die of boredom. An aggressively-moderate Mitt Romney may be the most dis-likeable Romney we've seen thus far. At least candid Romney was sort-of funny and genuine.
     Let's break this sucker down (Category, followed by relevant tweet, followed by half-assed analysis):

1. Substance ("My vague platitudes are superior to yours?"- Mitt Romney, @FilmDrunk) Depends what kind of substance we're talking about here...How do you like your ambiguity/equivocations? If it's statistics that tickle your fancy, Mr. Mittington certainly had the edge in referencing unfathomable numbers. The effectiveness of Clinton's DNC speech seems to have inspired both candidates to arithmetically elaborate whenever possible. Obama consistently mentioned Romney's "$5 Trillion Tax-cuts", which Romney vehemently denied. According to Politifact and Rolling Stone, Romney & Ryan's 10 year-plan would almost certainly amount to tax-cuts within the $5 Trillion range. Romney's version of this attack was going after Barry's $89 Billion spent on Green-energy (which he falsely claims send money to China?). There really wasn't a whole lot of substance in this debate (color me surprised). Obama mentioned his $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan, Romney mentions the 200 billion-trillion jobs he'll create (in fact, Romney used the word jobs almost 220,000 times in the debate).

Edge goes to: Obama...if only because viscous fact-checking won't damage his rhetoric as it will Romney's.

2. Contradictions: I'm going to give the edge to Romney here, if for not other reason then that he contradicted prior stances so often it made it nearly impossible to keep track of. Whether completely ignoring his signing-on to his VP's tax-cut for the wealthy plan or lying about his health-care package covering preexisting conditions (or his plans for health-care in general), Romney could've probably had this debate with a segmented-hologram of a speech he gave 3 months ago. Perhaps President Obama's apparent "playing it safe" strategy was an attempt to bait Romney into succumbing to making himself appear foolish? A strategy I certainly anticipated he would take.
    On the other hand, Obama didn't say enough to contradict himself. Rather than providing specifics for future intentions, he simply repeated what he had done (or tried to do) in the past. So Romney didn't really stand a chance in this category.
    Edge goes to: I'll call it a wash. Etch-a-Sketch Romney's more questionable stances will likely go unnoticed by the majority of the public.

3. Memorable Moments: It's not a good sign when the most memorable moment of one of the more publicized presidential debates is the moderator. The candidate's treatment of Lehrer was the most interesting aspect during the two hour snooze-fest. I also liked the premeditated zingers.

4. What was missing: WHY WAS PRESIDENT OBAMA SO RELUCTANT TO ATTACK MITT ROMNEY ON ANY STATEMENT HE MADE? It seemed as though he was trying so hard to avoid looking arrogant/overconfident that he forgot he was in a debate...it was also missing substance AND constant standing ovations.

5. Zingers: Now to my favorite category...the zingers. I GOTSTA give the edge to Mr. Mitt on this one. He brought some serious heat at Barry O and the president sat there and took it like perked-up boxer. Here's a couple of Mitt's Dangerfield-esque burns:

    - "you're entitled to your own plane and home, not your own facts" (not hypocritical at all....)
    - " You don't just pick winners & losers, you pick losers!" (WHAMMY)
    - "I'm actually quite fond of Obama care" (Serena Williams backhand)
    - "Mr. President, thank you for tuning in this evening"
    - "I love great schools"

And here's a couple Barry highlights:

    - "are Romney's plans so secret because they're too good" (a good point and one of the few aggressive statements from the president"
    - "I had 5 seconds until you interrupted me"
    - "Romney's strategy is just...'never-mind'"

Original King of Comedy: Mitt Romney

6. Gaffs: Along with contradictions, Obama didn't really say enough to get as brutally fact-checked as Romney. I thought Romney's biggest gaff was a freudian-slip towards the end of the debate where, while talking about how much he loved great hospitals, he said "I used to consult with these businesses..errr..I mean hospitals." This probably went unnoticed by most, but it seems like a tick of this sort could end up being Romney's undoing. America is an investment for Romney, and the man DOES NOT invest in something with out expecting to come out better off then he went in.

7. Appropriate Tweets:

"My vague platitudes are superior to yours #derp -Romney" -@FilmDrunk
"It's time for my 2nd question" -Jim Lehrer at 3 pm tommorow -@BlitznBeans
"I should probably look up what taxes are and start this thing over" -@Hadzilla

Declaring a winner, other notes and Closing Remarks:
    So here we are...with the benefit of hindsight the Obama's foresight and tranquility now seem to make more sense. There have been an ONSLAUGHT of commercials destroying Romney's credibility, showing his tendency to be a bit of a waffler. Alas, how do we declare a winner in this thing? How can we? Romney was almost-unanimously declared the victor by pundits and analysts (and rightfully so). A presidential debate is like a boxing/chess match. Rigorous preparation is involved and it shows. Romney came out and tested the waters to get a feel for his opponent. Once he realized Obama wasn't going to be the aggressor, he immediately pulled the rarely seen "Romney pounce." However, Romney's choice to be the aggressor and speak freely could eventually be his downfall. Obama may have appeared tired and disinterested, but he was composed and presidential. Appearing presidential is an essential characteristic of the modern president (redundant, I know).

DEBATE WINNER: Mitt Romney

Will it determine the Presidency? Unlikely.

Side notes:
- Reagan was only mentioned twice
- Obama seems to be coloring his hair to get the right salt-n-pepper look, while Romney seems to be trying to go greyer.
- Striped tie vs. Solid, large American flag pin vs. small...Why do people respond to such subtle cues?
- SO...MUCH...AMBIGUITY
- No more veggie-monster?
- The next moderator is going to have to LAY DOWN THE LAW
- Mitt Romney probably believes CBS when they claim 2 and 1/2 Men/The Big Bang Theory are America's funniest programs
- Closing Statement edge: Obama

Election 2012....LETS GET READY TO STUMBLEEEEEE

    Hey you guys, welcome to the premiere debate-analysis site existing on this here interweb. I hope you enjoy it. I really do. Of course, I've created this site for reasons beyond my passion-for-debates-so-intense-I-MUST-critically-blog. My main motive is to submerge myself in the political world of the internet in order to pass a Campaign-based class. In all honesty I could care less about who wins the election. WHO WILL IT BE? Smooth-talking, J-walking Barry O or Mitt "The Man with The Plan he don't quite Understand" Romney? The incumbent managed to keep his promise of not burning America to the ground, but the challenger has never even drank a beer! Such integrity. That's a guy I'd like to have a beer with.
    Here's the deal: After each debate I will post an in-depth & inaccurate categorical-analysis and declare a winner. Some categories will be featured in each analysis (substance, delivery, appearance, etc...), while others will be relative to that specific debate (fallacies, contradictions, flubs, gaffs, screw-ups, misused words, inappropriate adjectives, anti-intellectual/abstract/assertive rhetoric, etc...).
    My opinions will not be objective. My writing will often be insincere and grammatically incorrect. I will show little-to-no respect for either candidate. I will try to keep my writing concise, though I have a knack for penning in a manner both grandiose and verbose. I encourage active-participation and may even throw in a live-chat here or there.
    This Wednesday...let the games begin.