Support NeoGAF

[DragonSworne]

You aren't answering my question. What means? How does having Romney in the White House push a progressive agenda? Do you realize that if he wins the white house, the republicans very likely will keep the House and might win the Senate, meaning that they would control the entire government? What kinds of progressive bills do you think will get passed? I am very confused by your logic.

I don't think he understands what progressive means

 

[speculawyer]

Flippymittens doesnt think Obama isnt progressive enough so he plans to vote for Romney who is more progressive??? No umm wait.....

Yeah, I wouldn't take flippymittens too seriously. It sounds like a jokename for Romney and he's got some interesting worries.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Romney has a good chance at winning every debate if he remains vague, speakers more fluidly than Obama, and hammers Obama on the economy.

The economy is the true elephant in the room. Neither candidate has any idea what to do, but this benefits Romney because he is currently not the president.

 

[Freezie KO]

Just finished watching. Romney won the debates. I feel he only lost the Healthcare part. Romneycare is just too big of a hole for him to dig out of.

Before I get jumped on by reactionary GAF, I'm still voting for Obama. Romney just came off better, and it looked like he knew more about both candidates plans.

 

[RDreamer]

Did a mod change LostVoyager's name or something?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yeah, I wouldn't take flippymittens too seriously. It sounds like a jokename for Romney and he's got some interesting worries.

I think we have a Ron Paul guy

 

[Nameless]

Optimistic post:

This is America--barring any catastrophic gaffs or Perry-Tier blunders each debate will effectively mind wipe any & all relocation of the of the previous from public consciousness. Romney ejaculated himself prematurely. Barack Obama is not a stupid man after all; there was a reason he stuck with his jab instead of throwing any number of the [easy] haymakers for which Romney left himself open leading up to and during the debate(and I only watched 30 minutes). Like Palin , Mitt was the benefactor of low expectations. He's shat the mattress far too much for flipping over to work now.

Pessimistic post:

Romney ,despite dodging questions and repeating debunked points is considered the consensus winner of this debate because he dominated the conversation edgewise. He made his points louder and usually last, remaining more confident & assertive amid sewage water secreting from every facehole. Policy doesn't matter. Winning campaigns are often made by the notion that if you throw enough shit at the wall sometimes it sticks. See Hope & Change '08 or Bush getting re-elected because he "seemed like a great guy to have a beer with". If Romney uses this as a foundation to rebrand, focusing on looking & sounding like the better President and that picks up steam he could win. In combination with his fear mongering it would be quite the play.

 

[apana]

It is so frustrating to realize that the only reason Romney could survive (let alone win) these debates is because of his ability to hit all the right notes for low-information voters.

His statements on energy and healthcare were ludicrous. His tax plan makes no sense. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on education. But that's 3/4 areas where he is clearly and completely full of shit, and yet everyone (even the Poligaffers who actually read studies on these issues) is giving him the win because they know he said the things that Joe Plumber would want to hear.

I wish everyone in the country were smarter, and that the debates contained half hour powerpoint presentations by each candidate complete with charts and graphs, and that some adjudicator had the power to disqualify any candidate who repeatedly used incorrect numbers.

The only frustrating thing was watching Obama act like he was running for high school President instead of President of the United States. Ever since the convention I could see this guy has lost his desire to communicate and explain his policies to the American people. Thank god for Bill Clinton and Obama's effective ad campaign.

 

[Something Wicked]

Sounds good in theory but that hasn't worked in the past. You do know the we have historically low tax rates at the moment right?

Edit: I think I misread your post

Historically low income taxes, but there are many, many more types of taxes these days.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Just finished watching. Romney won the debates. I feel he only lost the Healthcare part. Romneycare is just too big of a hole for him to dig out of.

Before I get jumped on by reactionary GAF, I'm still voting for Obama. Romney just came off better, and it looked like he knew more about both candidates plans.

Well, sure, it looked more like it.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Well, sure, it looked more like it.

Facts, in political debates, are completely arbitrary. Image is everything.

 

[Duffyside]

Duffyside, I never post about black culture. You shouldn't post about economics.

Y'see, the reason I didn't quote a single person from the question you yourself raised is because I figured not a one of you actually wanted an answer. I guess I've learned my lesson to just not even try then.

You can add "posting etiquette" and "logic" to your list of self-imposed boycotted topics, by the way.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Facts, in political debates, are completely arbitrary. Image is everything.

Tell that to Romney after the first round of "I support vouchercare" ads

 

[Trouble]

And here is the big one that most of the media and definitely GAF always misses;

4) With lower taxes, the economy recovers. The more money people start making, the more jobs people have, meaning people have even more money, and therefore the government also has more money. 35% of 5 trillion is less than 30% of 7 trillion, just as a very basic example.

History does not agree with this assertion.

 

[pigeon]

Tell that to Romney after the first round of "I support vouchercare" ads

Yeah, I was actively surprised that he actually let the words "I support a voucher program for Medicare" escape his lips. That's one issue on which the issue voters are quite well-educated already.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Historically low income taxes, but there are many, many more types of taxes these days.

In 2009, 2010, and 2011, the amount of taxes taken in by the government, as a percentage of GDP, were at their lowest levels since 1950. And this is all three years.

 

[B-Dubs]

Facts, in political debates, are completely arbitrary. Image is everything.

You say that but it depends on how devoid it was, again look what happened to Ryan's speech.

 

[smurfx]

this whole thing is the fault of obama's people. they probably bought in the whole mitt is a shitty debater and only won the republicans debates because those guys sucked argument. you can bet obama is not going to go into the next debate the same way. although i don't think he will get too aggressive but he will be pointing out more of mitt's bullshit. when is the next presidential debate?

 

[ThisWreckage]

Tell that to Romney after the first round of "I support vouchercare" ads

It won't matter. I feel like I'm on another planet reading through this thread. Supporters of both candidates are completely dug in. Romney might have something negligible to gain, but the more likely scenario is that either one of them could totally bomb and the polls will remain unchanged.

 

[flippymittens]

He'd also put domestic policies into place rolling back any 'progressive' gains made since 1930 (since a Romney win at this point would almost certainly mean Republicans holding both chambers of Congress), but that doesn't matter because drone strikes are Hitler

I never said "drone strikes are Hitler" and resent that strawman.
I am saying there would be a stronger public resentment towards policies under Romney ergo furthering the progressive agenda by spreading the ideology.

That's a dangerous game to play. I'd rather vote for a third party and have Obama win than vote for Romney outright and have America go down further in the shitter. Its kinda like picking the lesser of two evils thing.

Well we disagree, I respect your view though.

So you would be fine with more lives being placed in danger for the what you consider the greater good. Sounds what like what you accuse Obama of doing.

Not really... President Obama betrayed the ideology he claims to support.

I think we have a Ron Paul guy

How am I a Ron Paul guy, and in that thread you negate to mention that I admitted I was wrong on Fluoridation of water being bad.

 

[Trakdown]

Yeah, I was actively surprised that he actually let the words "I support a voucher program for Medicare" escape his lips. That's one issue on which the issue voters are quite well-educated already.

Probably not what you want 5 weeks from Election day and needing Florida's help to win.

 

[maharg]

And here is the big one that most of the media and definitely GAF always misses;

4) With lower taxes, the economy recovers. The more money people start making, the more jobs people have, meaning people have even more money, and therefore the government also has more money. 35% of 5 trillion is less than 30% of 7 trillion, just as a very basic example.

Alright, so let's talk about the Laffer curve since it seems to have come back into vogue. The idea of the laffer curve is that there is a tax rate at which government maximizes revenue. Essentially the same as how there is a price at which you achieve maximum revenue on a supply/demand graph.

The idea being that at 100% tax rate no one has any incentive to work and at 0% tax rate the government obtains no revenue even though economic activity is obviously higher. In an ideal world there might be a linear growth of incentive to work as the tax rate goes down (which is unlikely to be true, but it doesn't matter for this).

Romney (and Reagan before him) appealed to this idea in a simplistic form that assumes that the ideal tax rate is always below the current rate. Obviously this can't always be true. And with US taxes being among the lowest in the world and among the lowest in its own history, its unlikely that it is true right now. Lowering taxes will most likely reduce government revenue.

Furthermore, reducing taxes has, as far as I know, never been shown to directly correlate with an increase in employment. It definitely does make the people who get to set their own salaries make more money, because the marginal cost of making that money is lowered, but it does not seem to imply any kind of increase in pay for lower income workers or a significant increase in employment. Maybe some other people have some information that contradicts this, I don't claim to be an expert, but I've never seen anything that makes a solid case myself.

 

[Freezie KO]

Well, sure, it looked more like it.

Isn't that what I said?

I think the policies crafted by the guys behind Obama are better and more fact-based than the policies crafted by the guys behind Romney. But that's pretty irrelevant to who won the debate.

 

[flippymittens]

You aren't answering my question. What means? How does having Romney in the White House push a progressive agenda? Do you realize that if he wins the white house, the republicans very likely will keep the House and might win the Senate, meaning that they would control the entire government? What kinds of progressive bills do you think will get passed? I am very confused by your logic.

The Republicans do not really have a chance to win the Senate... Romney would push the progressive agenda because the dissent against him would be that from progressives.

 

[RedSwirl]

Just read the transcript. To me it seems like Mitt just focused on highlighting the negatives of the last four years and cutting down Barack's arguments. I did't see a lot of (or really any raw) details on what Mitt's plans are. People say Mitt was the better speaker, but Barack seems to have laid down more actual content in terms of what he plans to do if re-elected.

 

[Juice]

Listening to the "Levi Johnston Blues" to try to unwind after this mess.

 

[RDreamer]

The Republicans do not really have a chance to win the Senate... Romney would push the progressive agenda because the dissent against him would be that from progressives.

wat

 

[flippymittens]

Just read the transcript. To me it seems like Mitt just focused on highlighting the negatives of the last four years and cutting down Barack's arguments. I did't see a lot of (or really any raw) details on what Mitt's plans are. People say Mitt was the better speaker, but Barack seems to have laid down more actual content in terms of what he plans to do if re-elected.

The problem was President Obama's record, he is more charismatic... However that does not change his record.

 

[SteveWinwood]

I don't know guys I'm inclined to believe Duffy on this one. Your posts are too complicated.

 

[famousmortimer]

The only frustrating thing was watching Obama act like he was running for high school President instead of President of the United States. Ever since the convention I could see this guy has lost his desire to communicate and explain his policies to the American people. Thank god for Bill Clinton and Obama's effective ad campaign.

Honestly I think being president is wearing him out. I especially think Libya has exhausted him.


Though I do think Romney laid out his cards (coughLiescough) and it will be much easier for obama in the next two debates to hammer him on them.

 

[speculawyer]

Mitt's tax plan, from what I can gather:

1) Cut tax rates on businesses, particularly small businesses.

2) Don't raise taxes on the wealthy, ie don't "let the Bush tax cuts expire."

See how confusing it is! You are on your second point and it is already contradicting itself. Cut taxes on 'small businesses' means cut individual tax rates because that is how S-Corps and sole Proprietorships pay taxes (as Romney mentioned). But then you say don't raise taxes on the wealthy. Mitt said he would not cut taxes on the wealthy. But those small businesses as Mitt defined them ARE the wealthy. So are you cutting taxes on the wealthy or not? Who knows?!? It is the Mitt Quantum tax plan.

3) Remove loopholes to make up for the lost revenue of the cut rates on businesses.
a) Don't be specific about the loopholes because then your opponents can attack you on it, no matter what they are.
b) Don't be specific about the loopholes because you admit that governing is not about being a king, it's about compromise, and you're admitting that you want to sit down with Congress and figure out these specifics together.
c) Even considering b), you really should offer at least two examples of some loopholes, but you're too much of a coward to even give one example because of a).

He can't give examples because doing so either (1) proves the numbers don't add up; or (2) alienate voters. He keeps denying (2) saying it won't hurt the middle class, hence Obama hammered him with (1)

And here is the big one that most of the media and definitely GAF always misses;

4) With lower taxes, the economy recovers. The more money people start making, the more jobs people have, meaning people have even more money, and therefore the government also has more money. 35% of 5 trillion is less than 30% of 7 trillion, just as a very basic example.

As George Bush proved, cutting the taxes does not magically fix economies. But ignoring that for now . . .

Mitt said he was effectively NOT lowering taxes. It is revenue neutral . . . he said it multiple times. So playing the shell game with taxes magically fixes the economy? I'm cutting taxes but I'm not really cutting taxes . . . magic fix!

 

[Reticent Rhino]

The Republicans do not really have a chance to win the Senate... Romney would push the progressive agenda because the dissent against him would be that from progressives.

Harriet Miers and the Bush immigration plan would like to have a word with you.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Isn't that what I said?

I think the policies crafted by the guys behind Obama are better and more fact-based than the policies crafted by the guys behind Romney. But that's pretty irrelevant to who won the debate.

It won't matter. I feel like I'm on another planet reading through this thread. Supporters of both candidates are completely dug in. Romney might have something negligible to gain, but the more likely scenario is that either one of them could totally bomb and the polls will remain unchanged.

Sometimes I wish it wasn't so effective to post like a reverse PD.

Spoiler

That is to say I don't know what we're arguing about because I agree with both of you.

 

[Averon]

this whole thing is the fault of obama's people. they probably bought in the whole mitt is a shitty debater and only won the republicans debates because those guys sucked argument. you can bet obama is not going to go into the next debate the same way. although i don't think he will get too aggressive but he will be pointing out more of mitt's bullshit. when is the next presidential debate?

Oct. 16th. The last one is Oct. 22nd. I agree that Obama will be a lot more prepared and assertive in the last two debates. I also want to say that the topic and format for the last two debates are more friendly to Obama. The town hall debate, I think, will go well for Obama because he's personable and Mitt isn't. Though the Libya attack complicates matters, I think Obama comes to the foreign policy debate with a strong advantage.

 

[flippymittens]

wat

I am saying that Romney would cause the push of the progressive agenda... Not that he would push a progressive agenda himself necessarily.

I personally will laugh and probably cheer gleefully if President Obama is voted out of office. I am not a fan of how tainted the progressive ideology has become because of the administration's heavy prosecution of whistle blowers, violation of civil liberties, continuation of the Bush tax cuts, surge in Afghanistan, etc.

I am sure that most people on this forum could do a better job than President Obama, heck I know I could.

 

[Particle Physicist]

The Republicans do not really have a chance to win the Senate...

If Romney is winning the presidency, then yes they do.

Romney would push the progressive agenda because the dissent against him would be that from progressives.

That is absurd.

 

[maharg]

Mitt said he was effectively NOT lowering taxes. It is revenue neutral . . . he said it multiple times. So playing the shell game with taxes magically fixes the economy? I'm cutting taxes but I'm not really cutting taxes . . . magic fix!

This was actually the most fascinating part of the debate to me. He kept insisting he wouldn't lower any taxes unless it wouldn't increase the deficit, but how the hell is he going to do that? He said he won't cut the military and he won't cut medicare, so he's going to nickle and dime the rest of the government to get a 1 point tax cut for small businesses? Would PBS' public funding even amount to a tenth of a point of a tax cut?

 

[Freezie KO]

Sometimes I wish it wasn't so effective to post like a reverse PD.

Spoiler

That is to say I don't know what we're arguing about because I agree with both of you.

The article you posted did save me time from going to FactCheck.org though. So thanks!

 

[eBay Huckster]

I am sure that most people on this forum could do a better job than President Obama, heck I know I could.

I'll let Reagan speak for me.

(Probably for the only time in recorded history.)

 

[Cloudy]

Oct. 16th. The Last one is Oct. 22nd. I agree that Obama will be a lot more prepared and assertive in the last two debates. I also want to say that the topic and format for the last two debates are more friendly to Obama. The town hall debate, I think, will go well for Obama because he's personable and Mitt isn't. Though the Libya attack complicates matters, I think Obama comes to the foreign policy debate with a strong advantage.

Yeah it's just tough to defend this economy without blaming Bush

 

[RDreamer]

I am saying that Romney would cause the push of the progressive agenda... Not that he would push a progressive agenda himself necessarily.

I personally will laugh and probably cheer gleefully if President Obama is voted out of office. I am not a fan of how tainted the progressive ideology has become because of the administration's heavy prosecution of whistle blowers, violation of civil liberties, continuation of the Bush tax cuts, surge in Afghanistan, etc.

I am sure that most people on this forum could do a better job than President Obama, heck I know I could.

lol, no.

 

[Angry Fork]

I disagree. I think it's more of a waiting game. The next generation, my generation, doesn't have stupid prejudices against words like "socialism." We're pretty progressive about things innately, possibly because we grew up with the internet and I can sit here and talk to people with universal healthcare and they're doing just fine, not dying under the effects of oppressive government. As you said, the collapse of the Soviet Union still lingers, and a lot of that is the baby boomer generation.

Personally I look at people like Obama as someone who's sticking his finger in the dike and kind of waiting to pass it on. Yeah he's not going full hog on progressivism, but it's better than going further right. He's holding things back. Some things, anyway. I think this is a long game, though. People now are still worried about silly words and need to be taught first and foremost that Democrats and left leaning policies aren't the end of the world. If we allow Obamacare, which is barely a progressive policy at all, but nonetheless is characterized that way, to get repealed, then people will keep their stupid fears.

Along with all that, whatever president comes next will very very likely be the head of a recovering economy. Economists have said it will pick up no matter who's in office, and that's probably pretty true. With a Romney presidency he'd get credit for all that, even for things Obama started to put into place. That's bad. That's the last thing we need is people putting more faith into the bullshit that Romney and the right are spewing right now.

I'm sympathetic towards this but not optimistic. I don't like that it takes so long and relies so much on an already corrupt broken political system. I won't be voting for Romney or campaigning for him in an effort to get that alternative plan in action mainly because it's way too much for my integrity to stomach but if he did win I would treat it as a one step backward two steps forward problem.

Obviously if Obama wins and democrats win house/senate, I'll be happy. Maybe they can finally get some good things done, repeal citizens united stuff like that. It's slow and you'd have to think democrats are competent this time around and care about ordinary people but if that's the case then it's progress. Nobody would advocate democratic socialism but maybe we'd be on the road there if a few ballsy democrats were elected and were able to take back the dirty word somehow. This is really optimistic thinking though, Bernie Sanders still doesn't do anything about mentioning socialism and it pisses me off that he doesn't let alone any young democrats.

But I think the worst possible result would be Obama/dems winning senate and repubs having house like it is now. It will just continue to be a constant filibuster nonsense from republicans, nothing will get done and Obama will half-cave on everything. If republicans win everything at least you can prepare for the worst and plan accordingly. But with Obama the half-measures just make ordinary people think democrats don't know what they're doing once shit goes bad and prolongs things.

It is so frustrating to realize that the only reason Romney could survive (let alone win) these debates is because of his ability to hit all the right notes for low-information voters.

His statements on energy and healthcare were ludicrous. His tax plan makes no sense. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on education. But that's 3/4 areas where he is clearly and completely full of shit, and yet everyone (even the Poligaffers who actually read studies on these issues) is giving him the win because they know he said the things that Joe Plumber would want to hear.

I wish everyone in the country were smarter, and that the debates contained half hour powerpoint presentations by each candidate complete with charts and graphs, and that some adjudicator had the power to disqualify any candidate who repeatedly used incorrect numbers.

This is partly why I'm meh on liberal democracy despite it's good intentions. Without smart interested voters it means nothing and gives them too much power. If it needs to stay then make it mandatory for every person to vote and completely revamp the education system. But if that happened voting wouldn't have to be mandatory anymore people would likely want to vote since they'd be educated enough to do so.

 

[speculawyer]

Historically low income taxes, but there are many, many more types of taxes these days.

Like what?

 

[ThisWreckage]

Oct. 16th. The last one is Oct. 22nd. I agree that Obama will be a lot more prepared and assertive in the last two debates. I also want to say that the topic and format for the last two debates are more friendly to Obama. The town hall debate, I think, will go well for Obama because he's personable and Mitt isn't. Though the Libya attack complicates matters, I think Obama comes to the foreign policy debate with a strong advantage.

Actually, I think Romney came across as more personable during this debate and it shocked the hell out of me.

 

[pestul]

Oct. 16th. The last one is Oct. 22nd. I agree that Obama will be a lot more prepared and assertive in the last two debates. I also want to say that the topic and format for the last two debates are more friendly to Obama. The town hall debate, I think, will go well for Obama because he's personable and Mitt isn't. Though the Libya attack complicates matters, I think Obama comes to the foreign policy debate with a strong advantage.

Well, that all hinges now on what NATO might cook up for the whole Turkey/Syria escalation in the next month. Serious shit could go down that might possibly have ramifications towards the election outcome.

Hopefully not.. but the world is fucking nuts lately, so who knows.

 

[CherryWoodFuton]

I am sure that most people on this forum could do a better job than President Obama, heck I know I could.

I'm not insulting your intelligence but yea I doubt that. I sure as hell would be a shitty president

 

[flippymittens]

If Romney is winning the presidency, then yes they do.





That is absurd.

How so?
You are aware that the senate is controlled by the Democrats right and this election most likely will not change that?

I'll let Reagan speak for me.

Reagan was a terrible President who does not deserve half of the praise he is given in my view.

 

[royalan]

Actually, I think Romney came across as more personable during this debate and it shocked the hell out of me.

I agree. But that just may be more a symptom of the fact that he was clearly in control of this debate. Obama (and the moderator) spent most of the time on the ropes.

 

[ReBurn]

I'm not insulting your intelligence but yea I doubt that. I sure as hell would be a shitty president

The parties would be rad, though.

 

[Averon]

I agree. But that just may be more a symptom of the fact that he was clearly in control of this debate. Obama (and the moderator), spent most of the time on the ropes.

My hope is that the other moderators for the last two debates saw what happened tonight and is making sure Romney doesn't railroad them.