Is it my imagination or is Biden getting slaughtered

[awm]

I thought Biden won this debate, albeit not as clearly as Romney won the first. Most of the polls seem to agree.

 

For all the complaints about Biden's expression and interruptions -- what exactly is the right expression when your debate opponent is making stuff up?

[cherdano]

I really can't stand Ryan. If you are the man leading the charge of cutting Medicaid by 30%, then at least you shouldn't pretend to be the front fighter against poverty.

 

(Btw, I don't understand why no moderator has brought up Medicaid yet. It's the biggest known policy difference between the two campaigns, now that the Romney campaign doesn't have a tax plan. Although I guess once Medicaid becomes and issue, the Romney campaign wouldn't have a Medicaid-block grant plan anymore either.)

 

I also can't stand the fact that he is considered a "wonk", yet says more non-sense than most other politicians.

[aguahombre]

 

For all the complaints about Biden's expression and interruptions -- what exactly is the right expression when your debate opponent is making stuff up?

There are two approaches when you disagree with someone's position. One is to listen to it and then counter it. The other is to try to distract and disrupt.

 

I have always found it easier to accept counter-arguments from those who exhibit maturity and did not seem fearful that the other side would get to complete his/her thought.

[kenberg]

As mentioned, I was at the beach and taped it. I now have watched part, and will finish later. It's not to soon to make a political point. Before the end of the discussion on the first question, about Libya, Becky announced she could not stand watching Biden and left the room. She continued to listen, she just could not stand to watch him. Becky voted for Obama. She is leaning toward Obama this time around. But she voted to re-elect the Republican governor last election, so she is not a safe Demo vote.

 

Often the performance by candidate X is judged as brilliant by the supporters of candidate X. We saw an exception in the first Pres. debate, but an exception it was. Fair enough, supporters agree with the candidate, that's why they support him. But if the political objective is to get those who are not ideologically committed to consider voting your way, I guess a performance that gets that audience to walk out of the room because they can't stand watching you should not be judged a success. Is Biden taking debating advice from the same idiot who advised Gore?

 

We may just go back to the beach.

 

PS Neither of the speakers addressed the issue of the quote from Gates about taking out Iranian nuclear facilities. A total catastrophe, I believe he said. Or words to that effect. Yes we can drop bombs. And then? There is a plan as to just what we do after the bombs fall? We go home and everything will be fine? The Iranians will no doubt be ever so grateful, just like the Iraqis and the Afghans. They love us everywhere we go.

[luke warm]

As mentioned, I was at the beach and taped it. I now have watched part, and will finish later. It's not to soon to make a political point. Before the end of the discussion on the first question, about Libya, Becky announced she could not stand watching Biden and left the room.

those who felt differently from your wife (and her reaction seems typical of objective viewers) would have thought it acceptable if biden had mooned ryan instead of smirked at, or otherwise act like a jerk, at him... think folks like chris matthews and al sharpton (who both have ... entertaining shows on msdnc)

[Flem72]

I declared Friday "Joe Biden Appreciation Day" -- take it as you like it.

 

For all the complaints about Biden's expression and interruptions -- what exactly is the right expression when your debate opponent is making stuff up?

 

First, such antics are a version of the ad hominem -- the last refuge of an advocate lacking even a minimally substantive response.

 

Second, do you feel like providing examples of "making stuff up"? I'm not saying everthing Ryan said is unadorned fact, but I really can't abide this kind of ad hominem either. There's far too much of it in the arena as it is.

 

And re: the Libya question: Did Happy Joe ever even address Libya in his answer ? -- but, oh yes, we got Bin Laden.

[dwar0123]

First, such antics are a version of the ad hominem -- the last refuge of an advocate lacking even a minimally substantive response.

 

Second, do you feel like providing examples of "making stuff up"? I'm not saying everthing Ryan said is unadorned fact, but I really can't abide this kind of ad hominem either. There's far too much of it in the arena as it is.

 

And re: the Libya question: Did Happy Joe ever even address Libya in his answer ? -- but, oh yes, we got Bin Laden.

I think it is funny that you are commiting an ad hominen attack on Biden while erronously acusing him of the same. Attacking Biden for his facial expressions is an attack on the man.

 

Saying someone is making stuff up is not an attack on the man. It could be wrong, but everything that is wrong is not an ad hominen.

 

Because you appear to be so unclear on the subject.

 

If I merely say you are wrong. That is an unsubstantiated claim.

If I say are wrong because you are an uneducated janitor. That is an ad hominen.

If I say you are wrong, and is how. That is a substantiated claim.

[awm]

I declared Friday "Joe Biden Appreciation Day" -- take it as you like it.

 

 

 

First, such antics are a version of the ad hominem -- the last refuge of an advocate lacking even a minimally substantive response.

 

Second, do you feel like providing examples of "making stuff up"? I'm not saying everthing Ryan said is unadorned fact, but I really can't abide this kind of ad hominem either. There's far too much of it in the arena as it is.

 

And re: the Libya question: Did Happy Joe ever even address Libya in his answer ? -- but, oh yes, we got Bin Laden.

 

Here's some examples "making stuff up." Obviously the site has a liberal bias, but they have a lot of examples and they have links to further analysis backing up their claim that these are not facts.

 

Anyway, an ad hominem attack is defined as "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it." In fact the Vice President's responses included quite a lot of factual content and most of his facts were rated as true (non-partisan source this time). Even the statements that could be characterized as attacks were mostly on target.

 

There is a great degree of hypocrisy in Paul Ryan (and Mitt Romney) and honestly it is rather humorous. To give some examples:

 

(1) They complain about the stimulus "not creating jobs" yet Ryan requested stimulus funds for his district making claims about the job creating benefits.

(2) They complain that the president has "no plan to create jobs" but Ryan voted down the president's "jobs act" (i.e. plan to create jobs).

(3) They complain that the president didn't embrace Simpson-Bowles, but Ryan was on the commission and voted against it.

(4) They complain that the president doesn't negotiate with Republicans, but he formed a "grand bargain" with Republican Speaker Boehner to reduce the deficit by trillions and Ryan (and his Republican colleagues in Congress) voted it down.

(5) They tout Ryan's budget as a "serious" path to deficit reduction, but it doesn't actually come close to balancing the budget for decades even if you believe his own "cooked" numbers.

(6) They claim to want to "reduce waste and inefficiency" and "reform medicare for the long haul" yet when the president did exactly that and saved some $716B (that Ryan also had in his own budget) they attacked him for it.

(7) They supported "regime change" in Iraq that cost thousands of American lives (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives) and billions of dollars, yet when the president had a much more successful "regime change" intervention in Libya they attacked him for it, yet now they are attacking him for not getting involved in regime change in Syria.

(8) They complained about lack of embassy security in Libya, yet Republicans insisted on cutting the spending for exactly such security below what the administration proposed.

(9) For months Romney has had a plan to increase military spending to a fixed percentage of GDP which would amount to a $2 trillion increase over a decade; it's on his website and less than a week before the VP debate he even touted his plan to increase the number of US navy ships in a major foreign policy speech. Yet Ryan claimed no such plan existed and they only wanted to restore funding "cut by the Obama administration."

(10) They attack the president for cuts to military spending from the sequester, when the entire sequester idea was forced by Republican refusal to raise the debt ceiling (which was raised many times without complaint under Bush and Reagan), and when Ryan voted for the sequester in congress.

(11) They attack "Obamacare" when it is virtually identical a plan designed by the conservative Heritage Foundation, proposed by Bob Dole as a conservative alternative to single-payer, and implemented by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.

 

I'm sure I could come up with more examples if I spend more than a few minutes.

[aguahombre]

For the record, just in case I wasn't clear: I don't know all the real truths involved. I was commenting on the ridiculous manner in which Biden attempted to interject himself while Ryan was speaking, and the ridiculous assertion implied by Adam that Biden could have comported himself in no other way simply because he believes Ryan was wrong.

[Flem72]

Attacking Biden for his facial expressions is an attack on the man.

 

Look at me, "You are "making stuff up" (= you are a liar). NOT ad hominem?

}Saying someone is making stuff up is not an attack on the man. It could be wrong, but everything that is wrong is not an ad hominen.

 

You are a liar.

 

Because you appear to be so unclear on the subject.

 

If I merely say you are wrong. That is an unsubstantiated claim.

If I say are wrong because you are an uneducated janitor. That is an ad hominen.

If I say you are wrong, and is how. That is a substantiated claim.

 

And if you say -- or let your antics say -- I am wrong b/c I am lying? What is the meaing of "malarkey"?

[awm]

For the record, just in case I wasn't clear: I don't know all the real truths involved. I was commenting on the ridiculous manner in which Biden attempted to interject himself while Ryan was speaking, and the ridiculous assertion implied by Adam that Biden could have comported himself in no other way simply because he believes Ryan was wrong.

 

See it's not that Ryan is wrong (though he is). It's that his statements are ridiculous.

 

The debate started with a question about a terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya (which Obama called a terrorist attack the day after it happened) and Ryan claimed the administration denied it was a terrorist attack for weeks. Later, Biden defended the administrations economic policy and Ryan responded that unemployment rates are going up all over the country (they're going down, and just fell below 8% for the first time in years). Biden attacked the plan Romney has been touting for months to raise military spending (he just talked about building more navy ships less than a week before the VP debate) and Ryan denied that any such plan exists. At various points Ryan criticized the administration for things that he himself voted for or put in his budget (defense cuts, embassy security cuts, medicare cost reductions).

 

If you nod and take notes and then try to give a serious response when your opponent is flagrantly lying, you implicitly recognize that your opponent's points are worthy of consideration despite the fact that you disagree, and you implicitly acknowledge that he is a "serious person" if in the wrong about some specific points of policy. This is a losing tactic when, in fact, your opponent is flagrantly lying and making stuff up. When you come prepared for a serious discussion and your opponent is saying things that make no sense at all, contradict his own previous record, contradict easily-checked facts... you have to point that out... and you don't point that out by waiting your turn and then saying "I'm sorry, but I disagree" and letting the audience leave with the impression that two very smart and serious people discussed major issues and came to slightly different conclusions.

[awm]

An ad hominem attack would be something like saying...

 

Ryan is a liar because he's a Republican.

Ryan is wrong on Medicare because he's under 65.

Ryan's wrong on policy because he didn't go to Harvard.

 

It's a strategy for avoiding discussing the content of his arguments by claiming that something about his background simply disqualifies him from the discussion.

 

If you point out exactly what he said that is untrue and give facts and references to back it up(rather than just claiming it's untrue because of who he is) that is not ad ad hominem attack. Even directly calling him a liar is not an ad hominem attack if you back it up with times that he lied. Laughing at him is not an ad hominem attack if you point out what he said that is patently ridiculous and why.

[dwar0123]

Look at me, "You are "making stuff up" (= you are a liar). NOT ad hominem?

Correct, calling someone a lair, through verbal or non verbal means, is not an ad hominem.

[Flem72]

Here's some examples "making stuff up." Obviously the site has a liberal bias, but they have a lot of examples and they have links to further analysis backing up their claim that these are not facts.

 

Just spent far too much time going through the links provided by this site in repsonse to each Ryan quote-- did you say liberal "bias"? Got far enough to note that all of the ones I checked are opinion pieces that merely cite opposing arguments; also note that the other link, to the "fact-checking" (boy, that one confuses me) site, contradicts claims made by the first site. That's not evidence, much less proof, of "making stuff up". BTW, many these supposed Ryan quotes the first site uses are not in the transcript; many of the responses are mere deflections, not even contrary arguments, much less anything that could be characterized as a fact. H-m-m-m.

 

Anyway, an ad hominem attack is defined as "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it." In fact the Vice President's responses included quite a lot of factual content and most of his facts were rated as true (non-partisan source this time). Even the statements that could be characterized as attacks were mostly on target.

 

you and the dwar...If my entire non-verbal presentation says you are a liar, that is not a negative characteristic? How many ads say nothing more than "he is lying"?

 

There is a great degree of hypocrisy in Paul Ryan (and Mitt Romney) and honestly it is rather humorous. To give some examples:

 

(1) They complain about the stimulus "not creating jobs" yet Ryan requested stimulus funds for his district making claims about the job creating benefits.

(2) They complain that the president has "no plan to create jobs" but Ryan voted down the president's "jobs act" (i.e. plan to create jobs).

(3) They complain that the president didn't embrace Simpson-Bowles, but Ryan was on the commission and voted against it.

(4) They complain that the president doesn't negotiate with Republicans, but he formed a "grand bargain" with Republican Speaker Boehner to reduce the deficit by trillions and Ryan (and his Republican colleagues in Congress) voted it down.

(5) They tout Ryan's budget as a "serious" path to deficit reduction, but it doesn't actually come close to balancing the budget for decades even if you believe his own "cooked" numbers.

(6) They claim to want to "reduce waste and inefficiency" and "reform medicare for the long haul" yet when the president did exactly that and saved some $716B (that Ryan also had in his own budget) they attacked him for it.

(7) They supported "regime change" in Iraq that cost thousands of American lives (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives) and billions of dollars, yet when the president had a much more successful "regime change" intervention in Libya they attacked him for it, yet now they are attacking him for not getting involved in regime change in Syria.

(8) They complained about lack of embassy security in Libya, yet Republicans insisted on cutting the spending for exactly such security below what the administration proposed.

(9) For months Romney has had a plan to increase military spending to a fixed percentage of GDP which would amount to a $2 trillion increase over a decade; it's on his website and less than a week before the VP debate he even touted his plan to increase the number of US navy ships in a major foreign policy speech. Yet Ryan claimed no such plan existed and they only wanted to restore funding "cut by the Obama administration."

(10) They attack the president for cuts to military spending from the sequester, when the entire sequester idea was forced by Republican refusal to raise the debt ceiling (which was raised many times without complaint under Bush and Reagan), and when Ryan voted for the sequester in congress.

(11) They attack "Obamacare" when it is virtually identical a plan designed by the conservative Heritage Foundation, proposed by Bob Dole as a conservative alternative to single-payer, and implemented by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.

 

I'm sure I could come up with more examples if I spend more than a few minutes.

 

but could you come up with any that would answer the question? Maybe even by reference to the transcript? Agua's got it right here (admirably pithily as well) , and almost all of us are in the same boat: Facts are hard to come by. Ideological orientation to an issue, any issue, is not.

 

Whenever I see one of these "Ryan voted for/against it" or similar stuff, I have to laugh. Have you ever read a bill, especially a budget-related one? it's like going through two weeks of garbage to find the $100 bill you accidentally threw out. The ideologial goal was and is to stop -- not ineffectively reduce -- current levels of spending, and spending more, even under a compromise, when it will not avoid the cliff, is an ideological non-starter. Have you figured out how to run your household by spending far more than you earn?

 

More: There is nothing inconsistent in voting against Simpson/Bowles and in adopting some of its reccomendations (of course, the instigator of the commission ignored it); there is nothing inconsistent about criticizing a massive and woefully ineffective spending plan and accepting specific pork that actually will create some jobs (we've got one of these green cronies in Colorado: Rep. Perlmutter, who pushed for all the Solyndra stuff and pocketed $140K paid to his wife as a lobbyist for the deal); deficit reduction is a funny thing, Obama's plan to save $5T being actually acceptance of a 10-year $5T increase (since calculated against the 10-year static analysis of how much Big D will increase should spending and taxation receipt levels remain constant); is Syria really a case of a policy of regime change ?; is cutting a security budget the same as ignoring 30 days of requests for more help, right here, right now?; is restoring a $1T cut, then putting in a GDP-tied budget line that will result in a $1T increase over 10 years, is that REALLY a $2T increase?

 

So here's where I'm at: The reason the discourse is so impenetrable is that MEANINGFULLY arguing this stuff requires a treatise on each issue; big economic issues are big issues simply b/c at that level there is no truth, only ideas and experience over a very long term--you put a plan in place that advances your beliefs and you see where you go. From that perspective, the NYC 20-something interviewee I saw saying "Oh, I don't care, I vote on gay marriage and abortion" makes a certain kind of perverted sense.

 

I don't know why I get into these threads, I end up doing more of what I don't like others to do: I have no treatise to offer. I admire American political ideals, and America's history, and I'm in awe of what this country has done to try to rectify social injustices along the way, but I wish social issues had absolutely no place in American presidential politics (which, I suppose, would really cripple the Dems). I tend to vote and think along the big ideological divides. I see where where Europe's gone; it looks an awful lot like where we're going. Government has to be a much smaller piece of GDP and taken out of the market creation business (see Economic Recovery Act; Community Redevelopment Act); markets effectuated by the day-today risk-assessment actiities of real human beings have to be given more latitude. All that cash sitting on the sidelines will remain there if Obama is re-elected, but deployed if he is not (unless, of course, "redistributed" into government). Happy Joe knows all that, but, after all, and before anything else, he's with the G.

[Flem72]

I think it is funny that you are commiting an ad hominen attack on Biden

 

uh -- what?

[kenberg]

So first off: I think the debates, both of them, have been extremely useful. Before the pres debate it appeared as if Obama might be re-elected because the Republicans forgot to show up. Now there is a contest. This is good.

 

 

As far as truth telling is concerned, it is my understanding that the State Department asserts, contrary to Biden's statement, that there was a request for additional protection at the embassy. And it is at least less than certain that the early intelligence reports suggested the attack sprung from reaction to the YouTube video. Some fact checking on both parties is in order.

 

I also want to comment on the fact that Ryan sought stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses. I never like this game no matter who is playing it. Warren Buffett suggests that people like himself should pay more taxes, the response is that no one is stopping him from donating money to the government. No. If there is stimulus money to be had, it is not wrong to apply for it even if you believe that the government should not be offering it. Now I would prefer that congressmen not be part of such a process at all. Businessmen should apply directly to the government. But things are as they are. I take the tax refund I am legally entitled to, I accept the social security check that is deposited to my account and so on. I can advocate one policy or another, but I live by the government policy as it currently is. I do not criticize others for doing likewise.

 

In fact we have some very serious problems to address. I expect the closing weeks of the campaign to be interesting.

[VMars]

...I also want to comment on the fact that Ryan sought stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses. [...] No. If there is stimulus money to be had, it is not wrong to apply for it even if you believe that the government should not be offering it. Now I would prefer that congressmen not be part of such a process at all. Businessmen should apply directly to the government. But things are as they are. I take the tax refund I am legally entitled to, I accept the social security check that is deposited to my account and so on. I can advocate one policy or another, but I live by the government policy as it currently is. I do not criticize others for doing likewise...

(I edited to only display the points to which I wanted to reply)

 

I think that point is not that Ryan said it was "bad policy" to try to stimulate the economy through government support. If that's what he was accused of saying, I would agree that the criticism against it holds no water.

 

I think that the point of the attack is a claim that Ryan said to a nationwide audience that the stimulus was "bad policy" because it wouldn't work (i.e. WON'T stimulate the economy or be helpful), but then requested money for Wisconsin, claiming that it would help his district (i.e. it WOULD stimulate the economy).

[mike777]

My guess is the real argument is we needed the stimulus spending, but much of it was spent on crap that helped little or not.

 

see Multiplier effect....

 

I strongly agree at the time we needed massive fiscal spending...and damn the debt.

AND OF course massive fiscal spending will equal lots of waste...that is a given trade off.

[kenberg]

(I edited to only display the points to which I wanted to reply)

 

I think that point is not that Ryan said it was "bad policy" to try to stimulate the economy through government support. If that's what he was accused of saying, I would agree that the criticism against it holds no water.

 

I think that the point of the attack is a claim that Ryan said to a nationwide audience that the stimulus was "bad policy" because it wouldn't work (i.e. WON'T stimulate the economy or be helpful), but then requested money for Wisconsin, claiming that it would help his district (i.e. it WOULD stimulate the economy).

 

The deal : The government will give you money if you can make a convincing case that it will help the economy. So you make a convincing case. I hope you are not shocked, but people do this. I was 14 when my birth certificate said I was 13 because I wanted a job setting pins in a bowling alley.. Similarly I was a Presbyterian when a potential employer asked my religion. I signed a truly bizarre loyalty oath to defend the state of Maryland from attack by surrounding states when I joined the faculty. Such statements are totally meaningless and everyone knows it. The people who are dispensing the money have the responsibility to determine if it is a good use of their money. Since, in the case under discussion, the money is being given to stimulate the economy, everyone who applies says that it will stimulate the economy. The phrase "It will stimulate the economy" can be directly translated to "I want you to give me the money". I don't regard myself as a cynical person, but some things are just common knowledge.

[cherdano]

I have two opinions on this:

1. Republicans are talking non-sense when they claim that the stimulus didn't create jobs. And I am happy to bet that next time there is a recession during a Republican presidency, a Republican Congress would happily pass a stimulus in order to boast their guy's re-election chances. (Yes, probably many of the Republican congressmen believe what they are saying when ranting against the stimulus, but I am sure Rove and troops would work hard to get them up to speed with economic theory if that was necessary to save a Republican presidency.)
   
2. It doesn't make sense at all to criticize Ryan for hypocrisy for voting against the stimulus, and requesting stimulus funds for his district once it passed. If you believe that the stimulus doesn't work, it must be because it crowds out private investment (a strange theory with 8% unemployment and business having difficulties getting a credit), or because the federal deficit somehow magically destroys jobs. No matter where your believe comes from, it would be disastrous for your district if a non-working stimulus gets passed and your district doesn't see any of its money. Ryan is under no obligation to hold his district hostage for his beliefs.
   

 

2. is just silly campaign non-sense. 1. is hypocrisy at its worst, in effect holding the country hostage in order to beat the other team's guy.

[mike777]

I fully agree with most of the posters

 

the argument seems to be who will make you richer...

 

Romney is in full fault..... day after day

 

 

I really truly expect the Pres.. will make me richer....than Romney

[kenberg]

Just one more word about applying for stimulus money. What I found dismaying was that the congressman, or any congressman, was involved at all. Over the years I have applied for various scientific grants. I was successful sometimes, other times not. It never even occurred to me to get a supporting letter from a congressman, and I both hope and trust that if I did so I would receive a terse reply from the National Science Foundation explaining that this isn't how things are done with their agency. In a proposal you explain what you intend to do and what your qualifications for doing it are, and the proposal is evaluated by people who know something (they know quite a bit actually) about what you are saying. The decisions are not always perfect, but they are seriously addressed and do not involve political influence.

 

In applying for stimulus funds, a proposal should say something about the park (or whatever) to be built, how many people will be hired, what the background and expertise is of the proposing company. Then this should be evaluated. Supporting letters from congressmen should be placed in the trash.

 

Yes, since it is a stimulus package the proposal must say it will stimulate. Well, it will. The people who are hired will be stimulated. Whether it will solve the nation's economic problems is beyond the expertise of the proposing company. Their job is to describe what they intend to do and then, if funded, do it.

[aguahombre]

I really truly expect the Pres.. will make me richer....than Romney

That is the President's job...to make you richer? Some of us believe his job is to not make us poorer and to stay out of the way of our efforts to make ourselves and our lives richer.

[Flem72]

That is the President's job...to make you richer? Some of us believe his job is to not make us poorer and to stay out of the way of our efforts to make ourselves and our lives richer.

 

Or simply to make the nation richer, more productive and stronger; to preserve the idea of America.

[aguahombre]

Or simply to make the nation richer, more productive and stronger; safer and to preserve the idea of America.

The other things are our job.