cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
God that shit about "worried about America"...it is such bullshit. Romney acts like this shit has been only happening the last 4 years.
2012 Election Thread
- Thread starter IRHari
- Start date
[quote name='mykevermin']"we have best health record in the world" - Mitt Romney.
Saying outright bullshit is why it's easy to appear to be victorious. Who thinks he's looking victorious? The folks watching who don't care about facts.[/QUOTE]
who like Harry Reid
Saying outright bullshit is why it's easy to appear to be victorious. Who thinks he's looking victorious? The folks watching who don't care about facts.[/QUOTE]
who like Harry Reid
[quote name='mykevermin']"we have best health record in the world" - Mitt Romney.
Saying outright bullshit is why it's easy to appear to be victorious. Who thinks he's looking victorious? The folks watching who don't care about facts.[/QUOTE]
I think he'll look victorious among those people who don't.
The bottom line is it's very difficult to debate someone who spends the entire debate lying. Based on the optics of the debate, I thought Romney was the one who outperformed expectations. I doubt the light of morning (read: fact checkers) will be as kind to his performance though.
Saying outright bullshit is why it's easy to appear to be victorious. Who thinks he's looking victorious? The folks watching who don't care about facts.[/QUOTE]
I think he'll look victorious among those people who don't.
The bottom line is it's very difficult to debate someone who spends the entire debate lying. Based on the optics of the debate, I thought Romney was the one who outperformed expectations. I doubt the light of morning (read: fact checkers) will be as kind to his performance though.
ID2006
CAGiversary!
Romney
Segment 1: Waaah, I want the last word!
Segment 2: And this one!
Segment 3: This one, too!
Segment 4: Ok, I guess you can have one, Mr. President.
Closing Statements: Woohoo, coin toss!
Also, 'devastating military cuts' by Obama in his SECOND term, I guess not only was he waiting until term 2 to enact his diabolical plan, but now we'll only be spending more than the next 13 nations combined instead of the next 290 (/hyperbole).
And, also.... Bwahahaha foolish fact checkers. You cannot touch me in the Debate Fortress of Solitude (same for Obama to a lesser extent.)
Oh, and if Romney is President, goodbye PBS, hello Moderator Donald Trump.
As this was the first Pres. Debate I've watched, I just want to say, "Yuck." What a vague mess of smoke and mirrors.
Segment 1: Waaah, I want the last word!
Segment 2: And this one!
Segment 3: This one, too!
Segment 4: Ok, I guess you can have one, Mr. President.
Closing Statements: Woohoo, coin toss!
Also, 'devastating military cuts' by Obama in his SECOND term, I guess not only was he waiting until term 2 to enact his diabolical plan, but now we'll only be spending more than the next 13 nations combined instead of the next 290 (/hyperbole).
And, also.... Bwahahaha foolish fact checkers. You cannot touch me in the Debate Fortress of Solitude (same for Obama to a lesser extent.)
Oh, and if Romney is President, goodbye PBS, hello Moderator Donald Trump.
As this was the first Pres. Debate I've watched, I just want to say, "Yuck." What a vague mess of smoke and mirrors.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dafoomie']Spain is in a Keynesian death spiral.[/QUOTE]
A charming claim. Tell me more about what is causing the riots.
A charming claim. Tell me more about what is causing the riots.
[quote name='ID2006']Romney
Segment 1: Waaah, I want the last word!
Segment 2: And this one!
Segment 3: This one, too!
Segment 4: Ok, I guess you can have one, Mr. President.
Closing Statements: Woohoo, coin toss!
Also, 'devastating military cuts' by Obama in his SECOND term, I guess not only was he waiting until term 2 to enact his diabolical plan, but now we'll only be spending more than the next 13 nations combined instead of the next 290 (/hyperbole).
And, also.... Bwahahaha foolish fact checkers. You cannot touch me in the Debate Fortress of Solitude (same for Obama to a lesser extent.)
Oh, and if Romney is President, goodbye PBS, hello Moderator Donald Trump.
As this was the first Pres. Debate I've watched, I just want to say, "Yuck." What a vague mess of smoke and mirrors.[/QUOTE]
lol I was thinking this the whole time. Did you notice everything he said was numbered? lol
Segment 1: Waaah, I want the last word!
Segment 2: And this one!
Segment 3: This one, too!
Segment 4: Ok, I guess you can have one, Mr. President.
Closing Statements: Woohoo, coin toss!
Also, 'devastating military cuts' by Obama in his SECOND term, I guess not only was he waiting until term 2 to enact his diabolical plan, but now we'll only be spending more than the next 13 nations combined instead of the next 290 (/hyperbole).
And, also.... Bwahahaha foolish fact checkers. You cannot touch me in the Debate Fortress of Solitude (same for Obama to a lesser extent.)
Oh, and if Romney is President, goodbye PBS, hello Moderator Donald Trump.
As this was the first Pres. Debate I've watched, I just want to say, "Yuck." What a vague mess of smoke and mirrors.[/QUOTE]
lol I was thinking this the whole time. Did you notice everything he said was numbered? lol
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Ugamer_X']I'm interested to see how much attention the post-debate fact checking will receive. I feel that Romney looked and sounded really positive, but man, he administered a metric 
-ton of bullshit tonight.[/QUOTE]
Right-o. That's the unfortunate reality about debates - more folks are paying attention to eye gaze, composure, and what "zingers" people did or did not use (e.g., Obama not mentioning Bain, Romney's disdain for the lower half of the electorate, etc.).
We're measuring victory on style, and substance is left by the wayside. That's quite sad.
-ton of bullshit tonight.[/QUOTE]Right-o. That's the unfortunate reality about debates - more folks are paying attention to eye gaze, composure, and what "zingers" people did or did not use (e.g., Obama not mentioning Bain, Romney's disdain for the lower half of the electorate, etc.).
We're measuring victory on style, and substance is left by the wayside. That's quite sad.
4thHorseman
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 91 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Right-o. That's the unfortunate reality about debates - more folks are paying attention to eye gaze, composure, and what "zingers" people did or did not use (e.g., Obama not mentioning Bain, Romney's disdain for the lower half of the electorate, etc.).
We're measuring victory on style, and substance is left by the wayside. That's quite sad.[/QUOTE]
Well, when someone like Romney says "My plan is too long and detailed to explain right now", then clearly it's been well thought out and will work. There is no need for them to take a long time out of their day to read this thorough explanation on how to get Healthcare perfected under Romney's plan. Best to just slide the vote his way as he no doubt has this all worked out.
We're measuring victory on style, and substance is left by the wayside. That's quite sad.[/QUOTE]
Well, when someone like Romney says "My plan is too long and detailed to explain right now", then clearly it's been well thought out and will work. There is no need for them to take a long time out of their day to read this thorough explanation on how to get Healthcare perfected under Romney's plan. Best to just slide the vote his way as he no doubt has this all worked out.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Right-o. That's the unfortunate reality about debates - more folks are paying attention to eye gaze, composure, and what "zingers" people did or did not use (e.g., Obama not mentioning Bain, Romney's disdain for the lower half of the electorate, etc.).
We're measuring victory on style, and substance is left by the wayside. That's quite sad.[/QUOTE]
Truth. I wish people didn't judge presidential debates the same way they judge Olympic figure-skating.
We're measuring victory on style, and substance is left by the wayside. That's quite sad.[/QUOTE]
Truth. I wish people didn't judge presidential debates the same way they judge Olympic figure-skating.
jputahraptor
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='4thHorseman']Well, when someone like Romney says "My plan is too long and detailed to explain right now", then clearly it's been well thought out and will work. There is no need for them to take a long time out of their day to read this thorough explanation on how to get Healthcare perfected under Romney's plan. Best to just slide the vote his way as he no doubt has this all worked out.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I'm sure it will have to be passed before we know what's in it, right?
You're right, I'm sure it will have to be passed before we know what's in it, right?
ced
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad that I missed the entire thing.[/QUOTE]
Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.
I'll save you the trouble:
Obama: I have these problems with Romney's plan.
Romney: That's inaccurate to say about my plan, but I won't clarify any further.
*Repeat for entire program*
**Shake hands**
Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.
I'll save you the trouble:
Obama: I have these problems with Romney's plan.
Romney: That's inaccurate to say about my plan, but I won't clarify any further.
*Repeat for entire program*
**Shake hands**
[quote name='jputahraptor']You're right, I'm sure it will have to be passed before we know what's in it, right?[/QUOTE]
Yup. Liberals smacked you with it and we all felt better.
[quote name='chibamm']Obama never gave specifics 4 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw[/QUOTE]
Nothing like watching a heavily edited video to prove your point, eh?
Yup. Liberals smacked you with it and we all felt better.
[quote name='chibamm']Obama never gave specifics 4 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw[/QUOTE]
Nothing like watching a heavily edited video to prove your point, eh?
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
So I was not happy with Obama's performance but Romney did not do one thing to make me wonder if I should not vote for Obama.
4thHorseman
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 91 (100%)
[quote name='jputahraptor']You're right, I'm sure it will have to be passed before we know what's in it, right?[/QUOTE]
Who knows, the plan could be amazing.
But nobody knows, because despite being in the campaign run for months now, Romney hasnt taken the time to explain it.
Its not so much as the plan itself being implemented, its voting for someone who I dont feel even has a plan in place because he doesnt have answers when asked about it. Bottom line is, there are people who dont care, will say his healthcare plan will fix everything, yet not really know the details on it.
Who knows, the plan could be amazing.
But nobody knows, because despite being in the campaign run for months now, Romney hasnt taken the time to explain it.
Its not so much as the plan itself being implemented, its voting for someone who I dont feel even has a plan in place because he doesnt have answers when asked about it. Bottom line is, there are people who dont care, will say his healthcare plan will fix everything, yet not really know the details on it.
[quote name='dohdough']Yup. Liberals smacked you with it and we all felt better.
Nothing like watching a heavily edited video to prove your point, eh?[/QUOTE]
Couldn't find the whole thing. I've watched the whole thing and it is pretty funny.
I'm not talking bad about Romney or Obama, it's the way to do politics. There is no gain from talking specifics. Romney keeps it general and vague as did Obama. That's all.
Nothing like watching a heavily edited video to prove your point, eh?
[/QUOTE]Couldn't find the whole thing. I've watched the whole thing and it is pretty funny.
I'm not talking bad about Romney or Obama, it's the way to do politics. There is no gain from talking specifics. Romney keeps it general and vague as did Obama. That's all.
[quote name='4thHorseman']Who knows, the plan could be amazing.
But nobody knows, because despite being in the campaign run for months now, Romney hasnt taken the time to explain it.
Its not so much as the plan itself being implemented, its voting for someone who I dont feel even has a plan in place because he doesnt have answers when asked about it. Bottom line is, there are people who dont care, will say his healthcare plan will fix everything, yet not really know the details on it.[/QUOTE]
And then fact checkers will say tomorrow that Obama wasn't' entirely truthful about how harmful Romney's plans are because Romney never really gave details about it, so unless Obama has ESP, there's no way he could know despite a long history of Romney supporting harmful ideas. This is what we've come to with the media trying to appear "balanced" as if both sides are "equal." Falseing equivalences really cheese me the off.
But nobody knows, because despite being in the campaign run for months now, Romney hasnt taken the time to explain it.
Its not so much as the plan itself being implemented, its voting for someone who I dont feel even has a plan in place because he doesnt have answers when asked about it. Bottom line is, there are people who dont care, will say his healthcare plan will fix everything, yet not really know the details on it.[/QUOTE]
And then fact checkers will say tomorrow that Obama wasn't' entirely truthful about how harmful Romney's plans are because Romney never really gave details about it, so unless Obama has ESP, there's no way he could know despite a long history of Romney supporting harmful ideas. This is what we've come to with the media trying to appear "balanced" as if both sides are "equal." False
ing equivalences really cheese me the off.
ID2006
CAGiversary!
I was particularly irritated when Obama allowed Romney to repeatedly assert that he (Obama) was unwilling to compromise whereas Romney was apparently a master negotiator between the two parties.
The best Obama came up with was that compromise didn't mean giving in to extremists, but he brought that up in a roundabout way by laying it on Romney's kowtowing to the far right in the Republican party.
Yet it seems to me that Obama has been more than willing to compromise, and I suppose you'll find plenty of informed liberals that feel he didn't put forth ideal legislation because of compromise.
The best Obama came up with was that compromise didn't mean giving in to extremists, but he brought that up in a roundabout way by laying it on Romney's kowtowing to the far right in the Republican party.
Yet it seems to me that Obama has been more than willing to compromise, and I suppose you'll find plenty of informed liberals that feel he didn't put forth ideal legislation because of compromise.
[quote name='chibamm']Couldn't find the whole thing. I've watched the whole thing and it is pretty funny.
I'm not talking bad about Romney or Obama, it's the way to do politics. There is no gain from talking specifics. Romney keeps it general and vague as did Obama. That's all.[/QUOTE]
So you tracked down a heavily edited video to show that "both sides do it" while trying to reference an hour long interview that you think proves your point? I mean holy, do you know who Charlie Rose is? Did you bother googling "Charlie Rose Tom Brokaw?" Is watching a 4 minute clip made by a far-right winger really supposed to prove what you're saying? Cause it doesn't. All it says is that you agree with the individual that posted a heavily edited video that distorts the context.
Try again.
I'm not talking bad about Romney or Obama, it's the way to do politics. There is no gain from talking specifics. Romney keeps it general and vague as did Obama. That's all.[/QUOTE]
So you tracked down a heavily edited video to show that "both sides do it" while trying to reference an hour long interview that you think proves your point? I mean holy
, do you know who Charlie Rose is? Did you bother googling "Charlie Rose Tom Brokaw?" Is watching a 4 minute clip made by a far-right winger really supposed to prove what you're saying? Cause it doesn't. All it says is that you agree with the individual that posted a heavily edited video that distorts the context.Try again.
[quote name='ID2006']I was particularly irritated when Obama allowed Romney to repeatedly assert that he (Obama) was unwilling to compromise whereas Romney was apparently a master negotiator between the two parties.
The best Obama came up with was that compromise didn't mean giving in to extremists, but he brought that up in a roundabout way by laying it on Romney's kowtowing to the far right in the Republican party.
Yet it seems to me that Obama has been more than willing to compromise, and I suppose you'll find plenty of informed liberals that feel he didn't put forth ideal legislation because of compromise.[/QUOTE]
Romney's assertion that he was some kind of "great compromiser" was particularly irritating to me in light of the fact that he's from the party that has very publicly based their legislative agenda around blocking and opposing the President at every opportunity...
The best Obama came up with was that compromise didn't mean giving in to extremists, but he brought that up in a roundabout way by laying it on Romney's kowtowing to the far right in the Republican party.
Yet it seems to me that Obama has been more than willing to compromise, and I suppose you'll find plenty of informed liberals that feel he didn't put forth ideal legislation because of compromise.[/QUOTE]
Romney's assertion that he was some kind of "great compromiser" was particularly irritating to me in light of the fact that he's from the party that has very publicly based their legislative agenda around blocking and opposing the President at every opportunity...
Problem with politics, people get combative. Take it down a notch and we can have a conversation about it.
Obama was vague in 2008.
Romney is vague now in 2012.
It's a strategy. Attack mode on the incumbent or incumbent party as Obama did.
Do you think Obama gave specifics in 2008?
Obama was vague in 2008.
Romney is vague now in 2012.
It's a strategy. Attack mode on the incumbent or incumbent party as Obama did.
Do you think Obama gave specifics in 2008?
[quote name='chibamm']Problem with politics, people get combative. Take it down a notch and we can have a conversation about it.
Obama was vague in 2008.
Romney is vague now in 2012.
It's a strategy. Attack mode on the incumbent or incumbent party as Obama did.
Do you think Obama gave specifics in 2008?[/QUOTE]
I'll turn it down aing notch when you turn down the stupid. Back it up with reasoned arguments with some evidence that isn't a 4 minute long hack job.
edit: If you put more effort into your posts, you'd get a better response.
Obama was vague in 2008.
Romney is vague now in 2012.
It's a strategy. Attack mode on the incumbent or incumbent party as Obama did.
Do you think Obama gave specifics in 2008?[/QUOTE]
I'll turn it down a
ing notch when you turn down the stupid. Back it up with reasoned arguments with some evidence that isn't a 4 minute long hack job.edit: If you put more effort into your posts, you'd get a better response.
Shitty debate all around, but Obama was particularly bad. Just wasn't inspired at all, rambled and stumbled on words at time, was visibly irritated at times.
Romney said lots of dumb shit, but was more charismatic for the most part. And with the intelligence and attention span of the average American, that stuff has much more impact than what is said. i.e. the drop Gore saw after his "sigh" debacle debate.
Romney said lots of dumb shit, but was more charismatic for the most part. And with the intelligence and attention span of the average American, that stuff has much more impact than what is said. i.e. the drop Gore saw after his "sigh" debacle debate.
I couldn't find the whole interview unfortunately. I'll have to find it on the PBS website, I keep getting errors everywhere else.
I don't appreciate the harsh words though, completely uncalled for.
edit:
Yes I do know who Charlie Rose is. What's your point?
I don't appreciate the harsh words though, completely uncalled for.
edit:
Yes I do know who Charlie Rose is. What's your point?
[quote name='chibamm']I couldn't find the whole interview unfortunately. I'll have to find it on the PBS website, I keep getting errors everywhere else.
I don't appreciate the harsh words though, completely uncalled for.
edit:
Yes I do know who Charlie Rose is. What's your point?[/QUOTE]
First off, you posted a heavily edited video of Rose interviewing Brokaw to show how vague Obama was. Now think about that until you can figure out why that is stupid.
Secondly, I shouldn't need to explain AGAIN how to find the full interview. If you know who Rose is, then NOT finding the video would be next to impossible unless you didn't know who Brokaw is either. This scenario is even LESS LIKELY since the youtube page tells us exactly who those people in the hack job are. The point is that there are any number of videos that could possibly illustrate your point, but you chose a biased hack job because you claim that its the only one you could find? Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.
I also don't appreciate you acting dumb or expecting people to fall for stupid bullshit.
I don't appreciate the harsh words though, completely uncalled for.
edit:
Yes I do know who Charlie Rose is. What's your point?[/QUOTE]
First off, you posted a heavily edited video of Rose interviewing Brokaw to show how vague Obama was. Now think about that until you can figure out why that is stupid.
Secondly, I shouldn't need to explain AGAIN how to find the full interview. If you know who Rose is, then NOT finding the video would be next to impossible unless you didn't know who Brokaw is either. This scenario is even LESS LIKELY since the youtube page tells us exactly who those people in the hack job are. The point is that there are any number of videos that could possibly illustrate your point, but you chose a biased hack job because you claim that its the only one you could find? Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.
I also don't appreciate you acting dumb or expecting people to fall for stupid bullshit.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Cantatus']There was a moderator?[/QUOTE]
Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.
Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.[quote name='dohdough']First off, you posted a heavily edited video of Rose interviewing Brokaw to show how vague Obama was. Now think about that until you can figure out why that is stupid.
Secondly, I shouldn't need to explain AGAIN how to find the full interview. If you know who Rose is, then NOT finding the video would be next to impossible unless you didn't know who Brokaw is either. This scenario is even LESS LIKELY since the youtube page tells us exactly who those people in the hack job are. The point is that there are any number of videos that could possibly illustrate your point, but you chose a biased hack job because you claim that its the only one you could find? Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.
I also don't appreciate you acting dumb or expecting people to fall for stupid bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I didn't give you a play by play. I kept getting proxy errors from Rose's website so I couldn't get the whole video up. I watched the episode years back with the girlfriend and we had quite the laugh about it at the time. We still joke about the line, "We really don't know Obama."
However, eventhough it is heavily edited I think it still shows the point I was trying to make.
Charlie Rose says, "We really don't know what his world view is..."
I found it ironic that Rose would say it. If that statement was coming from Fox News or something it would be damning. But he didn't mean it like that obviously, he was speaking in context of the media.
However, Rose could same thing about Romney now. He says alot without saying anything, without getting into specifics.
Obama did not have to get into the nuts and bolts of it to get votes in 2008. And Romney doesn't have to either to get elected either.
It wasn't so much as "both sides do it", but rather "that's how elections work". I'm not going to be this guy. All that.
I feel like I'm going to go on a rant of the executive branch itself in a minute but we can have that discussion some other time.
Sorry again, if I type succintly as well. It can come across as obtuse.
And fall for my bullshit?
I don't want you to think I'm part of some right wing agenda. Because I'm not. Just an observer.
Edit:
I thought Lehrer did an alright job. Some moderators can get long winded.
Secondly, I shouldn't need to explain AGAIN how to find the full interview. If you know who Rose is, then NOT finding the video would be next to impossible unless you didn't know who Brokaw is either. This scenario is even LESS LIKELY since the youtube page tells us exactly who those people in the hack job are. The point is that there are any number of videos that could possibly illustrate your point, but you chose a biased hack job because you claim that its the only one you could find? Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.
I also don't appreciate you acting dumb or expecting people to fall for stupid bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I didn't give you a play by play. I kept getting proxy errors from Rose's website so I couldn't get the whole video up. I watched the episode years back with the girlfriend and we had quite the laugh about it at the time. We still joke about the line, "We really don't know Obama."
However, eventhough it is heavily edited I think it still shows the point I was trying to make.
Charlie Rose says, "We really don't know what his world view is..."
I found it ironic that Rose would say it. If that statement was coming from Fox News or something it would be damning. But he didn't mean it like that obviously, he was speaking in context of the media.
However, Rose could same thing about Romney now. He says alot without saying anything, without getting into specifics.
Obama did not have to get into the nuts and bolts of it to get votes in 2008. And Romney doesn't have to either to get elected either.
It wasn't so much as "both sides do it", but rather "that's how elections work". I'm not going to be this guy. All that.
I feel like I'm going to go on a rant of the executive branch itself in a minute but we can have that discussion some other time.
Sorry again, if I type succintly as well. It can come across as obtuse.
And fall for my bullshit?
I don't want you to think I'm part of some right wing agenda. Because I'm not. Just an observer.
Edit:
I thought Lehrer did an alright job. Some moderators can get long winded.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cancerman1120'] Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.[/QUOTE]
And who's going to pay attention to those? Not many.
Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.[/QUOTE]And who's going to pay attention to those? Not many.
[quote name='chibamm']Problem with politics, people get combative. Take it down a notch and we can have a conversation about it.[/QUOTE]
They don't want a conversation, they want fellation or immolation. But I'll give you some of Obama's specifics from 08.
Close Guantanamo Bay
No warrantless wiretapping
No indefinite detention of Americans/no suspension of Habeas Corpus
No military tribunals for detainees
Stop the federal crackdown on medical marijuana
Televise the health care debate
Though I do agree with the overall point... Hope and change, that was his campaign. He didn't often get into details of how his plans would be executed.
They don't want a conversation, they want fellation or immolation. But I'll give you some of Obama's specifics from 08.
Close Guantanamo Bay
No warrantless wiretapping
No indefinite detention of Americans/no suspension of Habeas Corpus
No military tribunals for detainees
Stop the federal crackdown on medical marijuana
Televise the health care debate
Though I do agree with the overall point... Hope and change, that was his campaign. He didn't often get into details of how his plans would be executed.
[quote name='cancerman1120'] Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.[/QUOTE]
The thing that surprised me is that some of the incorrect statements Romney made during the debate are things he's said previously. I figured this was the time for Obama to nail him to the wall on these things (like the $800 million Medicare cuts), but mostly Obama would start talking about something else. I can understand him not wanting to look like he's on the defensive the entire time, but it runs the risk of people believing that Romney was telling the truth. I'm doubting a majority of the people who watched tonight's debate are going to be reading the fact check websites tomorrow.
Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.[/QUOTE]The thing that surprised me is that some of the incorrect statements Romney made during the debate are things he's said previously. I figured this was the time for Obama to nail him to the wall on these things (like the $800 million Medicare cuts), but mostly Obama would start talking about something else. I can understand him not wanting to look like he's on the defensive the entire time, but it runs the risk of people believing that Romney was telling the truth. I'm doubting a majority of the people who watched tonight's debate are going to be reading the fact check websites tomorrow.
speedracer
Banned
This is the problem with fact checking sites.
No Politifact, it's not half true. It's more likely than theing sun coming up tomorrow.
Every Republican president in my lifetime has promised to murder deductions and then done exactly nothing about it. Every single one. And this is a half truth.
No Politifact, it's not half true. It's more likely than the
ing sun coming up tomorrow.DurbanBrown
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 61 (100%)
i dont trust either, but i did feel romney was stronger in this debate.
[quote name='speedracer']This is the problem with fact checking sites.
Every Republican president in my lifetime has promised to murder deductions and then done exactly nothing about it. Every single one. And this is a half truth.
No Politifact, it's not half true. It's more likely than theing sun coming up tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
Obama actually promised to do that himself in 2008, to eliminate deductions for those over $200,000.
Every Republican president in my lifetime has promised to murder deductions and then done exactly nothing about it. Every single one. And this is a half truth.
No Politifact, it's not half true. It's more likely than the
ing sun coming up tomorrow.[/QUOTE]Obama actually promised to do that himself in 2008, to eliminate deductions for those over $200,000.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
When it gets down to it many of the promises a Presidential candidate makes during a campaign relies on having a Congress willing to work. Right now neither guy is going to get much done with the current climate in the House and Senate. Romney claiming he will repeal Obamacare is really a slap to the intelligence of the American public. Senate Dems will never let it happen.
I thought Romney decisively won the first half of the debate, then Obama barely won the second half. I felt like things were starting to shift a bit towards the end, but I too was stunned that Obama didn't have a list of rebuttals in his pocket for some of the campaign "exaggerations" Romney-Ryan have been throwing out there for weeks.
One slipperly slope that really stood out to me was that Romney would mention something about tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, or the abundance of tax loop holes in our system, and how Romney wouldn't do anything about those...but Obama was saying that as the guy in office the last 4 years. That debate is better when you have two challengers, not coming from the incumbent, because then the natural response is, OK...if that stuff is really bad, why in the hell haven't you worked to eliminate it?
It was just weird. I expected, in fact was even looking forward to, seeing Romney go deer in the headlights, stammer, then blurt out some really bad, really offensive lines as his awkwardness grew. Instead, Obama looked surprised, checked out, and like he spent the last night cramming, while Romney had been studying since the start of the term. I was stunned.
One slipperly slope that really stood out to me was that Romney would mention something about tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, or the abundance of tax loop holes in our system, and how Romney wouldn't do anything about those...but Obama was saying that as the guy in office the last 4 years. That debate is better when you have two challengers, not coming from the incumbent, because then the natural response is, OK...if that stuff is really bad, why in the hell haven't you worked to eliminate it?
It was just weird. I expected, in fact was even looking forward to, seeing Romney go deer in the headlights, stammer, then blurt out some really bad, really offensive lines as his awkwardness grew. Instead, Obama looked surprised, checked out, and like he spent the last night cramming, while Romney had been studying since the start of the term. I was stunned.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a bit funny. Some people seem to think Obama hasn't done enough, some think he's done too much. Romney criticized him for focusing on health care instead of the economy, which isn't really true, but at the same time, who said the guy can't multitask? A president is supposed to only work to change 1 single thing? I think people tend to overlook the things Obama has accomplished, simply because all they care about is the economy. Which is a big issue of course, but it's not the only issue.
And that's where Obama really sucked last night. He did a terrible job of countering those attacks, he didn't call Romney on his BS nearly enough, didn't talk about things he did for the economy enough (not enough on the auto bailout etc.).
He just seemed tired, disengaged and like he just didn't give a crap in general.
He just seemed tired, disengaged and like he just didn't give a crap in general.
[quote name='Clak']It's a bit funny. Some people seem to think Obama hasn't done enough, some think he's done too much. Romney criticized him for focusing on health care instead of the economy, which isn't really true, but at the same time, who said the guy can't multitask? A president is supposed to only work to change 1 single thing? I think people tend to overlook the things Obama has accomplished, simply because all they care about is the economy. Which is a big issue of course, but it's not the only issue.[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, any president has enough political capital to do "one big thing" during a four year term. Romney's point was that Obama had spent so much political capital on his health care plan while the economy and jobs were definitely the more important issue at the time and still is. People like to think all Democrats/Republicans get along and if they control both executive and legislative that they'll just pass everything, which can't be further from the truth. Both branches compete heavily against each other for power. Thus, spending political capital to get things done.
I tend to agree with Romney that the most important thing is creating and maintaining jobs in America.
On the other hand, I really don't think the President, no matter who he is, has that much effect on an economy as a whole. And if they do, the effects of it won't be seen immediately.
From what I understand, any president has enough political capital to do "one big thing" during a four year term. Romney's point was that Obama had spent so much political capital on his health care plan while the economy and jobs were definitely the more important issue at the time and still is. People like to think all Democrats/Republicans get along and if they control both executive and legislative that they'll just pass everything, which can't be further from the truth. Both branches compete heavily against each other for power. Thus, spending political capital to get things done.
I tend to agree with Romney that the most important thing is creating and maintaining jobs in America.
On the other hand, I really don't think the President, no matter who he is, has that much effect on an economy as a whole. And if they do, the effects of it won't be seen immediately.
bread's done