Obama's done much better this time. He's been comfortable, engaged, much more articulate, clear and firm,
Romney comes off peevish and sometimes a bit desperate. "Government does not create jobs, government does not create jobs," repeated like a religious mantra.
Both could have stood to be kept more on topic. I wish Candy could kill their mikes when they go over time. But overall she's done a solid job.
Yeah Obama was more focused this time, and I agree that Romney seemed desperate, almost laughing at himself at times I thought. He struck me as a salesman.
What really bothered me was the final question that guy had asking them both to address misconceptions about themselves, citing specific examples.
Both candidates failed to do this and instead attacked each other subtly and gave reasons to vote for them instead. Lol.
Cave_Dweller wrote: Yeah Obama was more focused this time, and I agree that Romney seemed desperate, almost laughing at himself at times I thought. He struck me as a salesman.
What really bothered me was the final question that guy had asking them both to address misconceptions about themselves, citing specific examples.
Both candidates failed to do this and instead attacked each other subtly and gave reasons to vote for them instead. Lol.
I thought they both answered in the most obvious way, just like when you're asked in a job interview about 'your weakest points', at which you are supposed to look thoughtful and then reply 'sometimes I am too dedicated, too driven to get the job done'...
Agreed. At the end they need to wrap up with a more general statement. There's no way they would stay on topic and not do that.
Samus_aran115 wrote: Eh, that wasn't a very good debate. The question about george bush was totally unwarranted and silly.
No, it was 100% justified. Romney is another ivy league rich guy whose centerpiece of his economic policy is tax cuts and helping corporations. Part of Obama's argument is that Romney's advocated policies are functionally a return to the same crap that got us into the great financial crash. Romney needs to convince people that's not the case.
Cave_Dweller wrote: Yeah Obama was more focused this time, and I agree that Romney seemed desperate, almost laughing at himself at times I thought. He struck me as a salesman.
What really bothered me was the final question that guy had asking them both to address misconceptions about themselves, citing specific examples.
Both candidates failed to do this and instead attacked each other subtly and gave reasons to vote for them instead. Lol.
I thought they both answered in the most obvious way, just like when you're asked in a job interview about 'your weakest points', at which you are supposed to look thoughtful and then reply 'sometimes I am too dedicated, too driven to get the job done'...
Spin spin sugar.
Yeah tue but everyone also knows that's a crock. For me at least, it would have went a long way if either of them had the balls to address something, instead of trying to feed everyone more bull.
Yeah tue but everyone also knows that's a crock. For me at least, it would have went a long way if either of them had the balls to address something, instead of trying to feed everyone more bull.
If either had been stupid enough to openly list their commonly commented on weakness/perceived weakness, it would have been pounced on by the other, so they both avoided it and span the question.
Most telling moment of the debate, was the Libya question:
Obama was meaningful, forceful and spoke quite well about the tragedy of the consulate. He referred to playing politics with the situation as beneath Americans and looked as Presidential as he ever has with his answer.
Romney jumps up, attempts to play politics with the situation "He didn't refer to it as a terrorist attack" and tried to confront Obama---Obama states "Proceed Governor". Then the moderator fact checks Romney and the crowd laughs.
Someone is going to get fired from Romney's campaign tomorrow.
And just to reinforce my call that the Libya moment is going to haunt Romney ---someone already parsed out a video for it;
Look at Obama's troll face when he says "Please proceed Governor" and Romney's "Bu da da ok" reaction. You could hear the Romney campaign aides throwing up off stage.
There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.
I think Obama could have done a better job nailing Romney on flip-flopping. Romney mostly confused him in the first debate by reversing his stated positions on several issues, like taxes and regulation. Better work has been done.
The only words of a politician's mouth were lies, damn lies and statistics. I didn't hear anything in this debate to change my opinion on that, or that I desperately don't want either of these fethheads running my country.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The only words of a politician's mouth were lies, damn lies and statistics. I didn't hear anything in this debate to change my opinion on that, or that I desperately don't want either of these fethheads running my country.
the biggest thing that these things lack is the biggest part
the HOW
sure, you don't want to give your opponent any help, but come the feth on. I can say everyone will get rainbow colored ponies and it's your birthday everyday, but if I don't lay down A CLEAR PLAN TO MAKE THESE DREAMS COME INTO FRUITION, then well, you maqy as well be pitching a book idea to a publisher for all I am concerned.
I was talking to my coworkers about the debate. I did't watch it since again, I already know what they are going to say and if something wacky happens, like someone upchucks or their pants fall off, there is youtube. Anyway, we've decided we'd prefer the following debate format going forward:
1.) If you say something that's a lie; the moderator may call you out if it's pretty unambiguously untrue (i.e. "Obama refused to ever identify the Libya attacks as a terror event" or whatever)
2.) If the moderator calls you out on a lie under step 1, your opponent is then to stride across the stage and slap you.
3.) If you get visibly upset under step 2, step 2 is repeated.
4.) If you cry, the debate is over and you have lost.
DIDM wrote: the biggest thing that these things lack is the biggest part
the HOW
sure, you don't want to give your opponent any help, but come the feth on. I can say everyone will get rainbow colored ponies and it's your birthday everyday, but if I don't lay down A CLEAR PLAN TO MAKE THESE DREAMS COME INTO FRUITION, then well, you maqy as well be pitching a book idea to a publisher for all I am concerned.
I think I've mentioned this in some older thread (or maybe not).
But the "HOW" at this point will always be in "abstract".
Most of the policies requires the President to engage Congress... you don't know what's going to happen when you get that far.
EDIT: Okay... Candy Crowly NOW says Romeny had a point regarding the Libya issue :
holy feth doe the word "Terrorist" hold some power over you folks
we are a society of fear and catch phrases
terrorist was once Extremists, or maybe Cultists, and religious nutjobs
fear is a vehicle that the media drives pedal to the metal. if you aren't scared you aren't watching the news in their model
terrorist is the biggest scare word they could come up with, it invokes fear just thinking of the TERROR these bad men will unleash. The truth is that we are no more at risk than we have ever been, in fact we are so safe we strip search old ladies and make every man go through a radioactive sperm killing xray to make sure we don;t have bombs on our insides.
they have made everyone scared, now they want everything you have for rights to keep you "safe" from the danger they orchestrated.
Mannahnin wrote: I think Obama could have done a better job nailing Romney on flip-flopping. Romney mostly confused him in the first debate by reversing his stated positions on several issues, like taxes and regulation. Better work has been done.
Obama was more specific, Romney used rhetoric. You can see this during their question about the college student getting a job after graduation. Obama outlined a plan, Romney went on an emotional appeal to the common man.
That said it was just the usual political diatribe.
DIDM wrote: holy feth doe the word "Terrorist" hold some power over you folks
we are a society of fear and catch phrases
terrorist was once Extremists, or maybe Cultists, and religious nutjobs
fear is a vehicle that the media drives pedal to the metal. if you aren't scared you aren't watching the news in their model
terrorist is the biggest scare word they could come up with, it invokes fear just thinking of the TERROR these bad men will unleash. The truth is that we are no more at risk than we have ever been, in fact we are so safe we strip search old ladies and make every man go through a radioactive sperm killing xray to make sure we don;t have bombs on our insides.
they have made everyone scared, now they want everything you have for rights to keep you "safe" from the danger they orchestrated.
Um... what are you talking about?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrScience wrote: Obama was more specific, Romney used rhetoric. You can see this during their question about the college student getting a job after graduation. Obama outlined a plan, Romney went on an emotional appeal to the common man.
That said it was just the usual political diatribe.
Wait... I promise, I'm not being snarky... what's Obama's plan from the debate again?
Wait... I promise, I'm not being snarky... what's Obama's plan from the debate again?
With regards to the college student. Increases in federal aid for student loans (which has already happened).
It's still not specific at all, but it's much better than Romney's way of answering questions which is "I'm just like you, the common man. Here's why Obama and China are bad."
So this is what Obama said the day after the attack:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
And now the usual side is angry because today he said that he called it terrorism which is clearly a lie, because in Republican land there is a difference between
whembly wrote: It was a draw and both sides got their "zingers" in... and both took their lickings.
No, the difference here is in the viewer. To the person who consumes moronic partisan conservative blogs on a daily basis, Romney won big the first time, and this was a tie. To the more, shall we say, "reality-grounded" viewer, Romney clearly won the first one, and clearly lost this one.
As someone who could be reasonably described as "right of center" I think this was a really good debate. Romney showed his ass a bit with that terrorism bit, if only because he played it a bit fast and loose with specifics in order to attempt to score a point. I think anyone who pays close attention to politics knows what he was getting at, but I think he did so poorly and will come out of that gaffe looking rather silly.
A lot of good points were made by both candidates. For me, personally, the only things that matter as far as policy are concerned are economic (not "hurrrr abortions and whatnot") and I think Romney has the better angle on that.
It was great TV, though.
I also move to change the thread title to "Debate Round 2: Electric Boogaloo."
d-usa wrote: So this is what Obama said the day after the attack:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
And now the usual side is angry because today he said that he called it terrorism which is clearly a lie, because in Republican land there is a difference between
"acts of terror"
and
"terrorist acts"
Well...one could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to LABEL it an act of terrorism. One reason why this might be is that according to U.S. law, acts of terrorism are premeditated and thus, once label in that way triggers certain things what US can do. The Obama administration’s line for days following Obama’s Rose Garden statement suggested that the attack wasn’t premeditated and it was all that Youtube Mohamed video's fault.
d-usa wrote: So this is what Obama said the day after the attack:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
And now the usual side is angry because today he said that he called it terrorism which is clearly a lie, because in Republican land there is a difference between
"acts of terror"
and
"terrorist acts"
Well...one could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to LABEL it an act of terrorism. That's the issue...
Thanks for making my point for me and showcasing the mental acrobatics required to believe that Obama talking specifically about the attack, and that no acts of terror will ever shake our resolve somehow means that he didn't call the attack terrorism.
whembly wrote: It was a draw and both sides got their "zingers" in... and both took their lickings.
No, the difference here is in the viewer. To the person who consumes moronic partisan conservative blogs on a daily basis, Romney won big the first time, and this was a tie. To the more, shall we say, "reality-grounded" viewer, Romney clearly won the first one, and clearly lost this one.
Meh... didn't really think Romney "won" that much in the first debate... I'd say "he held his own".
I'd still contend that this debate is a wash...
I don't see how any of these debates would budge the electorate... *shrugs*
Hey... HEY! I read moronic partisan conservative blogs AND inane partisan leftis blogs... give me a break!
d-usa wrote: So this is what Obama said the day after the attack:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
And now the usual side is angry because today he said that he called it terrorism which is clearly a lie, because in Republican land there is a difference between
"acts of terror"
and
"terrorist acts"
Well...one could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to LABEL it an act of terrorism. That's the issue...
Thanks for making my point for me and showcasing the mental acrobatics required to believe that Obama talking specifically about the attack, and that no acts of terror will ever shake our resolve somehow means that he didn't call the attack terrorism.
D.... I need to re-watch it... but I remember that phrase was at the "end of the speech" used in a general sense, not directly referencing to what happened. The President clearly implied the attack was a result of the reaction to an anti-Muslim film released on YouTube. That's all I was saying...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Well, don't. Read more news sites. Especially international ones.
But I DO!
I like CNN...
I like BBC...
I like Yahoo and Google News... (hey, don't knock them).
Those guys are my mainstays
But, then... I readz all over the place and following the linkages... those linky thingamagigs... who knows where I'll LAND!
Mannahnin wrote: Obama's done much better this time. He's been comfortable, engaged, much more articulate, clear and firm,
Romney comes off peevish and sometimes a bit desperate.
They both come off as peevish and desperate.
d-usa wrote:No CTRL&C, CTRL&V from the blogs yet as to what our opinion should be?
Obama Wins Testy Second Debate - Forbes
d-usa wrote:So this is what Obama said the day after the attack:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
And now the usual side is angry because today he said that he called it terrorism which is clearly a lie, because in Republican land there is a difference between
"acts of terror"
and
"terrorist acts"
In republican land we think that's lukewarm at best. Especially when in context it could very well be in reference to the 9/11 attacks or US troops he just got done talking about, or the two weeks his press secretary spent calling it a spontaneous demonstration. What you have here is an argument of semantics on both sides.
Mannahnin wrote: Obama's done much better this time. He's been comfortable, engaged, much more articulate, clear and firm,
Romney comes off peevish and sometimes a bit desperate.
They both come off as peevish and desperate.
d-usa wrote:No CTRL&C, CTRL&V from the blogs yet as to what our opinion should be?
Obama Wins Testy Second Debate - Forbes
d-usa wrote:So this is what Obama said the day after the attack:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
And now the usual side is angry because today he said that he called it terrorism which is clearly a lie, because in Republican land there is a difference between
"acts of terror"
and
"terrorist acts"
In republican land we think that's lukewarm at best. Especially when in context it could very well be in reference to the 9/11 attacks or US troops he just got done talking about, or the two weeks his press secretary spent calling it a spontaneous demonstration. What you have here is an argument of semantics on both sides.
It's mostly just funny. And ironic, because of course what he described was the most over the top form of affirmative action, which is not something Republicans usually advocate.
The binder comment does have an unfortunate resonance with him being a Mormon. Some of the creepy offshoot polygamist groups have been known to put files and photos of young girls of marriageable age into literal binders, sometimes called a "joy book". This idea was publicized a bit in the show Big Love, which is where I think a lot of us first heard of it.
On the subject, though, let's keep the memes under control, please. A reference or two to the big memes and jokes springing from the debate makes sense, but whole posts of gifs are not okay, remember.
Mannahnin wrote: Obama's done much better this time. He's been comfortable, engaged, much more articulate, clear and firm,
Romney comes off peevish and sometimes a bit desperate.
They both come off as peevish and desperate.
d-usa wrote:No CTRL&C, CTRL&V from the blogs yet as to what our opinion should be?
Obama Wins Testy Second Debate - Forbes
d-usa wrote:So this is what Obama said the day after the attack:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
And now the usual side is angry because today he said that he called it terrorism which is clearly a lie, because in Republican land there is a difference between
"acts of terror"
and
"terrorist acts"
In republican land we think that's lukewarm at best. Especially when in context it could very well be in reference to the 9/11 attacks or US troops he just got done talking about, or the two weeks his press secretary spent calling it a spontaneous demonstration. What you have here is an argument of semantics on both sides.
Yeah... I can buy that.
Semantics, schmantics!
So let's just post the whole transcript then, and get that wall of text over with:
Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
END
10:48 A.M. EDT
So many paragraphs specifically about the attack, and one generic statement about the troops lost since 2001.
But according to the usual crowd talking about the attacks and "acts of terror" doesn't mean he called these attacks an act of terror.
Every time I read a paper I immediatly go flip to page 7 to find out which furniture store has a sale and read the editorial on whether Mary from Nantucket prefers firm or soft toothbrushes.
Bottom Line Up Front.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 18, 2012
Statement by the President on the Terrorist Attack in Bulgaria
I strongly condemn today’s barbaric terrorist attack on Israelis in Bulgaria. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those killed and injured, and with the people of Israel, Bulgaria, and any other nation whose citizens were harmed in this awful event. These attacks against innocent civilians, including children, are completely outrageous. The United States will stand with our allies, and provide whatever assistance is necessary to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack. As Israel has tragically once more been a target of terrorism, the United States reaffirms our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, and our deep friendship and solidarity with the Israeli people.
That's weird in July he had no problem stringing those words together in the first sentence. It's even in the title of the press release.
In tonight's debate, which was totally biased to Obama, he got 9% more time. The moderator was shilling for Obama, took sides, and should be admonished and fired. Despite all that there was a huge surge of likely Obama voters switching to Romney.
These are all sentiments pulled from the first 2 inches of the page, which will be expanded on over the next 2 days in ever more ludicrous ways.
The discussion here is a microcosm of the debates themselves. There is nothing useful to be gleaned here. Everyone just makes their own reality and decides what they want to believe actually happened, rorschach style.
Ouze wrote: There is nothing useful to be gleaned here. Everyone just makes their own reality and decides what they want to believe actually happened, rorschach style.
I disagree. While it is frustrating, there is much to be gained in telling people off for being idiots.
I often say that the problem with America is the population, but I try to practice what I preach by engaging with like-minded individuals; and being unafraid of telling people they're doing something dumb.
I think the only real meme worthy thing going on right now are the binders, so probably not worth it.
Can I at least post the inevitable "songify the debate" video that is sure to come out tomorrow at some point? I think by now that video is a tradition in every debate thread we have had.
I only heard a bit this morning. The bit I heard sounded identical to last time, Obama talking about Romney's tax plan that not even Romney pretends is halfway serious, and Romney throwing out standard Republican catchphrases. Both seemed to be choosing their words very carefully, phrasing everything in most deliberate language.
Ultimately, I just don't think American politics produces great debaters. They're just not raised in a culture of cut and thrust debate. It's speach making culture, people stand up, talk for five or ten minutes and say their piece in a pre-planned speach.
It's why the US has a quite a lot of rather famous speaches, and a lot of very well regarded speachwriters and speachmakers, but not too many great debaters.
Compare that to the Westminster systems in the UK and Australia, where you cut your teeth in question time. We produce a lot of great debaters, but the speaches are almost all snooze fests.
whembly wrote: I think I've mentioned this in some older thread (or maybe not).
But the "HOW" at this point will always be in "abstract".
Most of the policies requires the President to engage Congress... you don't know what's going to happen when you get that far.
And as I pointed out in those threads, other politicians had things that were general, abstract tax policies centred on a few issues. Bush had tax cuts, Obama has the reversal of the high end Bush tax cuts while keeping his middle class tax cuts, and so on.
Whereas Romney has nothing like that. He has a series of muddled statements about a 20% tax cuts that he kind of pretends a claw back on deductions will somehow pay for. Except when he's pushed on the issue, at which point he just says a bunch of words that sum up as 'if it doesn't work I won't do it'. And when anyone with a pocket calculator knows that deductions in total can't come anywhere near the 20% figure he wants, it's only sensible to conclude what he has is not 'abstract', but is just gibberish.
It's also bizarre how he repeats "government does not create jobs", while repeatedly claiming we should elect him to the highest governmental office, because he knows how to create jobs (via the government).
Mannahnin wrote: It's also bizarre how he repeats "government does not create jobs", while repeatedly claiming we should elect him to the highest governmental office, because he knows how to create jobs (via the government).
The Government clearly creates jobs, otherwise who would give me gakky service at every turn from the DMV to the VA? The TSA was just a Republican Peace Corps...and that's going sooooo well.
I insist that the VA is good as a whole with some areas that can use improvement and the occasional gakky person working there that is too hard to get rid of.
Mannahnin wrote: DHS is a piece of crap; no argument there. Bush-era bigger government boondoggle? Check.
NH DMV is fine. Never had any problems there. Our politicians (R & D) seem to insist that the VA is good.
Clearly you have never been on the receiving end of the VAs charm.
DHS is a miserable conglomeration of agencies that for better or worse, should have remained separate. The TSA is an abortion that survives purely to employ x nukmber of workers to keep unemployment down ( For Bush)
I don't like how these debates are framed as win/lose situations.
Early in the debate they had an exchange over taxes, and I see a lot of people saying that they are just saying things (rhetoric), and the numbers are muddy or made up or whatever. It kinda gets hard to pay attention at these points as they tend to be mind dulling. The problem is that the numbers aren't there, because it is just theory at this point. Obama said he wants to sign papers on his plan but I don't think the Repubs will sign off on it until after the election and after a series of battles in December. I don't believe Mitt has written his yet, most likely because it is probably being held by the Repubs for after the election as a counter to the one Obama wants to sign right now.
Mitt seems pretty clear about what this plan involves. It involves lowering taxes on top income business owners so they can hire more people. It's charity for the rich. I have been working for small business owners for 16 years now. Most all of them have been Republicans (fiscally conservative), good people. Everytime they bring this arguement up and they always do at election time, whether its for Governor or Prez , I always remind them that If they really can't make it with out a tax cut because they can't afford to keep me around or grow the business, then I need to start looking for a new job anyways with someone who can make it in whatever economy is presented, because thats lazy and I wont waste my time with another failed business when the writing is on the wall.
I usually try to have this conversation with them in the parking lot and after I have my say I look directly at their new car for a few seconds, kinda staring at it like I want to steal it, then I look at mine and kick its tire and say, "see ya tomorrow morning."
When Mitt says he wants to lower taxes on business owners so they can hire more people I just think of lazy American business owners who should probably think of selling or retiring. But I don't think that is what he means. They just want more money at the expense of American infrastructure. They think if they lower taxes they will have more money and everything will be cheap like magic.
Meanwhile everything decays for another 4 year block.
Mannahnin wrote: It's also bizarre how he repeats "government does not create jobs", while repeatedly claiming we should elect him to the highest governmental office, because he knows how to create jobs (via the government).
It's even funnier when you realise his pledge to create 12 million jobs in the next four years... is exactly what the CBO predicts will happen if nothing changes.
"Vote for me, I'll give you what was going to happen anyway!"
Radiation wrote: Mitt seems pretty clear about what this plan involves. It involves lowering taxes on top income business owners so they can hire more people. It's charity for the rich. I have been working for small business owners for 16 years now. Most all of them have been Republicans (fiscally conservative), good people. Everytime they bring this arguement up and they always do at election time, whether its for Governor or Prez , I always remind them that If they really can't make it with out a tax cut because they can't afford to keep me around or grow the business, then I need to start looking for a new job anyways with someone who can make it in whatever economy is presented, because thats lazy and I wont waste my time with another failed business when the writing is on the wall.
Yeah, ultimately it just doesn't make sense if you look at what business is. Businesses owners don't get a bit more money in their pocket and then look to employ someone with that money, like employment is some kind of charity undertaken by the rich. They employ someone when there's something at the business that needs to be done, and having more stuff to be done comes from having more customers, more sales, not from the business owner having being able to keep more of his profits after tax.
And growing consumer demand comes from an employed and well paid middle class.
Yeah, it fits in nicely with the myth that prices are dictated by the cost to produce, and not by what people are willing to pay; which is why savings never get passed on to the consumer.
I only got to see bits and pieces. CBS instant polling had Obama with the win overall, 37% to 30% (33% believing it a tie), while Romney performed better on the economy and Obama scored more points on Benghazi.
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, it fits in nicely with the myth that prices are dictated by the cost to produce, and not by what people are willing to pay; which is why savings never get passed on to the consumer.
Yeah, the price only moves towards the cost of production when you move closer to the perfect market... which of course businesses look to avoid wherever possible.
Mannahnin wrote: Obama's done much better this time. He's been comfortable, engaged, much more articulate, clear and firm,
Romney comes off peevish and sometimes a bit desperate. "Government does not create jobs, government does not create jobs," repeated like a religious mantra.
Both could have stood to be kept more on topic. I wish Candy could kill their mikes when they go over time. But overall she's done a solid job.
I quickly got bored when I realized both were intentionally trying to interrupt each other, and CNN IMINCONTROLDAMMIT CHICK was trying to stop real debate from occurring.
Fortunately the high brow Victorian comedy that is Tosh/Brickleberry, and coconut rum saw me through the night.
Mannahnin wrote: It's also bizarre how he repeats "government does not create jobs", while repeatedly claiming we should elect him to the highest governmental office, because he knows how to create jobs (via the government).
It's even funnier when you realise his pledge to create 12 million jobs in the next four years... is exactly what the CBO predicts will happen if nothing changes.
"Vote for me, I'll give you what was going to happen anyway!"
Yeah , that sound bite speaks to low information voters---and that's about it.
That claim also uses a hodge podge stew of numbers and for all intents/purposes is a lie;
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The only words of a politician's mouth were lies, damn lies and statistics. I didn't hear anything in this debate to change my opinion on that, or that I desperately don't want either of these fethheads running my country.
I'm glad to know your kind won't vote.
For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.
Mannahnin wrote: DHS is a piece of crap; no argument there. Bush-era bigger government boondoggle? Check.
NH DMV is fine. Never had any problems there. Our politicians (R & D) seem to insist that the VA is good.
Clearly you have never been on the receiving end of the VAs charm.
DHS is a miserable conglomeration of agencies that for better or worse, should have remained separate. The TSA is an abortion that survives purely to employ x nukmber of workers to keep unemployment down ( For Bush)
I'll check in with agreements on all of this, d-usa I don't know where you work for the VA, but let me know so I can come to this mythical land of fast and efficient service.
Ahtman wrote: It was enlightening to find out that single mothers are the cause of gun violence.
Yes that was quite fascinating. I mean I always thought much of the background was Drug Wars which gave criminals and criminal gangs cause to arm themselves to defend themselves against competition and law enforcement and attack the same in a multi-trillion dollar illegal industry. But now I know! It's single mothers! Clearly we need some sort of law in place to deal with them.
I work inpatient, I know we have a huge backlog of new guys coming out of OEF/OIF/OND. This country is quick to send our guys to war, and slow to take care of them.
If they would give is half the bodies that they waste to staff the TSA we could do a lot better.
From the hospital point of view, and having worked in many different systems I truly believe that we are one of the best systems. But the clinic side of the Veterans Health Administration is overwhelmed in many facilities, and having pay freezes for years doesn't help retention.
I know many guys that feel like we are the best, but often it is the initial intake and disability rating that is the biggest battle, once in the system most are happy. But we have way to many guys on year long lists to get their benefits approved and care started. Work with your veterans groups and be on your case workers ass, that is the advise I always give people. I know we screw up, but I believe 100% in our mission and I am staying in the system to make it the best I can and repay the people that served.
I have zero experience on non-healthcare VA benefits.
d-usa wrote: I work inpatient, I know we have a huge backlog of new guys coming out of OEF/OIF/OND. This country is quick to send our guys to war, and slow to take care of them.
If they would give is half the bodies that they waste to staff the TSA we could do a lot better.
From the hospital point of view, and having worked in many different systems I truly believe that we are one of the best systems. But the clinic side of the Veterans Health Administration is overwhelmed in many facilities, and having pay freezes for years doesn't help retention.
I know many guys that feel like we are the best, but often it is the initial intake and disability rating that is the biggest battle, once in the system most are happy. But we have way to many guys on year long lists to get their benefits approved and care started. Work with your veterans groups and be on your case workers ass, that is the advise I always give people. I know we screw up, but I believe 100% in our mission and I am staying in the system to make it the best I can and repay the people that served.
I have zero experience on non-healthcare VA benefits.
Yeah once the benefits fight ends VA healthcare isn't bad though I've heard some horror stories, especially from the older gents at the Legion, VFW, MCL posts etc. Getting my GI bill bennies running properly when I started school this semester was a nightmare though... three months with no income is a scary situation to be in.
d-usa wrote: 80s and early 90, the VA was a hellhole and a death trap, I know there are vets that will never come back because of those times.
Do you have guys from the different vet groups helping out? Being on a senators ass helps as well. Keep on fighting for what you earned.
DAV is up to their necks, easier to get the VA itself on the phone, I've been working with Colorado's state veteran's support group. What really ticks me off is that no one told me when I went through TAPS classes* that I could have had the DAV or MCL or whatever group I wanted to represent me working with me from the very start....
*TAPS classes are transition classes for members of the military returning to civilian life and includes presentations on how to get VA bennie applications started, how to write resumes, etc.
Mannahnin wrote: NH DMV is fine. Never had any problems there. Our politicians (R & D) seem to insist that the VA is good.
NH DMV is a Shangri-La. I used to wonder why people would always complain about the DMV when I lived there.
Then I moved to California, and it's every horrible thing you've heard of.
The VA isn't bad, it's just huge so it takes a while to get stuff done.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the DMV's I've been to in NYC were always relatively efficient and friendly. The ones I've been to in Iowa have been much less efficient, but still fairly friendly. I've really never had the horror story experience with civil servants they way the internet tells me I should have, be it police officers or postal employees. I guess they aren't as interesting to read about.
Washington's DMVs aren't too bad and most of our recurring activities (renewals and registration being the big ones) are all done on the web. I renewed my tags one year while commuting home and stuck in traffic from my smartphone.
For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.
You're in the 25-34 demographic, right? Men in that age group turn out at ~45%.
To put it simply, we don't vote. We drink, start careers, and try to get laid.
For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.
You're in the 25-34 demographic, right? Men in that age group turn out at ~45%.
To put it simply, we don't vote. We drink, start careers, and try to get laid.
Twenty two actually, I'm still more for the drinking, starting a career and trying to get laid thing then whatever everyone else my age seems to be doing. I have my mail in ballot in hand though.
For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.
You're in the 25-34 demographic, right? Men in that age group turn out at ~45%.
To put it simply, we don't vote. We drink, start careers, and try to get laid.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.
True. If a third party gets a certain percentage of the vote, then they qualify for additional federal election funding, and potentially will be invited to more debates. Plus, you may want to vote for down ticket positions and amendments.
Or don't and disrespect all those people who have fought and died to get the priviledge of voting. It is your choice.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For president? I'm actually strongly considering it this year. Romney should be back in Massachusetts doing whatever a former Governor does and Obama should be back in Chicago teaching. Neither man is going to rate an endorsement from me for the presidency.
Then vote for one of the third parties.
I do, unfortunately the two clowns are the viable Presidential candidates this year and I was simply saying I'm not voting for EITHER of them. Yes I'm putting a name down on the ballot, but at the point in this election where I'm not voting for Romney or Obama I might as well not be voting in the Presidential election this year, no matter how awesome Gary Johnson is.
Or don't and disrespect all those people who have fought and died to get the priviledge of voting. It is your choice.
Like me? on the former of your example, or the Marines I've had to bury? off mate for one, and for two, again never said I wasn't voting. Just considering skipping the "President" box.
One can vote, and not vote for President. Thats just one item on the ballot. There are always a mad variety of state and local offices, as well as ballot initiatives depending on your locale.
I know I'm not voting for either of those Presidential losers.
Remember, a vote for Frazzled is a vote for enlightened self interest!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Like me? on the former of your example, or the Marines I've had to bury? off mate for one, and for two, again never said I wasn't voting. Just considering skipping the "President" box.
Excellent. I'm glad to hear you will still be voting. I think it is rather important, and it sounds like you agree.
.
---someone already parsed out a video for it;
Just checking... 
, that sound bite speaks to low information voters---and that's about it.
off mate for one, and for two, again never said I wasn't voting. Just considering skipping the "President" box.