ANYBODY CAN GRAB A FUCKING WIN WHEN YOU INTERRUPT AND TALK OVER YOUR OPPONENT.

[Blue_Roses]

Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2012, 01:54 AM - Edit history (3)

See. It works. Mitt could have stood on top of the podium yelling, "I win," and the pundits would still be spinning a "win" for Mitt, no matter what, because "confrontation" rather than facts seems to be what's "in" these days. Forget facts. Just as long as YELLING, and INTERRUPTING and LYING take precedence over civility and calm.

But, Mitt only looked like a frustrated, edgy, spoiled kid. All he did was interrupt and disrespect his opponent and the moderator. How is that winning? Actually, Mitt looked impatient, annoyed, and fearful. Mitt's used to getting his way and by-damn, come hell or high water, the Mittster was not going to let us see him sweat (even though we did). Yes, Mitt was gonna have this debate go "his" way or he was gonna take his ball and go home.

The first sign of things spiraling into a tailspin was when he disrespected Big Bird--and of course Jim Lehrer (who he did say, "he liked" laced with more bullshit). Then Mitt decided to just throw out the rules. Don't you know, Mitt thinks he don't need no STINKING rules. Rules are for "YOU PEOPLE," who are 47% of lazy, WORKING people.

Secondly, I think Obama was seriously taken back, because at one point his expression said it so clear:I can't believe the shit this guy is shoveling. It was best to let Mitt hang himself with his bullshit, because the more Mitt spewed, the more he looked frazzled. Tomorrow, Mitt, will have a WHOLE shit-load of lies to answer for and he WILL be stumbling over himself.

No, I think a win is all in how one sees it. If you wanted to see the president arguing, disrespecting the moderator, and "reacting", then Mitt won. Even though it seems most of us here would have not been so nice. (Nice is actually good sometimes)

But, if you wanted to see the president remain "presidential" and in command of the facts, while staying calm in the face of a crisis, then clearly the president won.If this is how Mitt handles a crisis then he doesn't need to be any where near the WH.

It's all subjective.

[NCLefty]

1. It wasn't all that.

He did do that a few times, but the president spoke for 4 more minutes. There was more going on here.

[Blue_Roses]

4. what then?

nt

[C_U_L8R]

2. Mitt took the Bill O'Reilly approach

If you say any old bullshit forceful enough you win the argument (for the moment)

[Blue_Roses]

3. Exactly. That's how they do it over there at FOX when they don't

want the truth to come out. They talk over and argue. Obama didn't take the bait. I have to say, that's who shows the real strength.

[ailsagirl]

5. Good point re Faux!

[NYC Liberal]

7. It's easy to do if you don't have to care about the facts.

If you're trying to be truthful then you have to think about it, consider what you're saying, etc.

If you're bullshitting, you can just let it fly immediately with no thought.

[NYC Liberal]

6. If all Obama did was say "No you're lying" over and over (even if it were true),

it would have come off very badly and been seen as him being on the defensive. Of course, as president he has the record. Going in the challenger is always on the attack and the incumbent has to defend up to a point. But I think just repeating "That's not true. That's not true" would not have been effective at all.

[Marthe48]

8. Then he didn't win

n/t

[treestar]

9. I agree, I hate people being awarded with "win" or whatever

when they do things like that. Breaking the decorum should be akin to disqualification, let alone "winning." It's too much the capitalists' way of looking at things - no rules, do whatever you can to get away with it and get as much money as possible. That fits.

But no President could do that. What if a President did that to foreign leaders? More illustration that it is not the same as running a business.