US Town Hall Debate |OT| When is the election? What are the names of the candidates?
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
polyh3dron
Banned
When Romney wins, oh yeah Obama got creamed. When Obama wins, ehh doesn't really matter much, most people will just see it as a draw, all politicians lie right
NullPointer
Member
Did you actually look into his platform when he ran? Or did you just get swayed by hype?
Because your issue sounds like you didn't pay much attention, honestly, or greatly misunderstood the situation he walked into.
We suffered the worst financial crisis since the great depression as Bams walked in the door, along with two wars excluded from the budget. What exactly did you expect?
Certainly. That doesn't make Obama 'half of one idiot' though, nor a disappointment 'at best'.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I'm not going to get into list wars. There have been positive things about his presidency, but let's not pretend he hasn't had blunders.
yeah biggest bunch of sore losers in history... same with last week when Biden smacked Ryan's ass around the room as well.
metalslimer
Member
Are blaming Obama for what has happened in Congress because it sounds like you're attributing things to him that's not even a presidential responsibility. yes there have been fuckups, but when you equate Romney to Obama you send the message that you think Romney be a net equal for the country. Obama's fuckups include putting his political capital into ventures that made him completely unable to pass legislation he wanted so picking the wrong battles. Romney's fuckups would be his entire agenda.
Thanks!
I agree with you about Obama, But I can't simply overlook the fact that the democratic direction for the country, is a better direction than the republican 'direction' which consist of not having any direction besides getting the white, back into the white house. Kicking out all the mexicans, and removing womens rights, and denying homosexuals theirs, and separating the wealthy from the middlepoor more and more. There is no concept of foreign relations that has been displayed, and there isn't even an acknowledgement of the health crisis in the country, as according to Romney, no one dies in his country due to lack of healthcare.
I don't feel like you can make this comment in a genuine fashion if you don't acknowledge the actual content of the direction/plan forward. Its a cop out to just say both are the same, when they couldn't be more different. Yes, both puppets, but one puppet is empty with nothing but pandering to a bigoted audience who still thinks the president of our country is an illegal islam.
Obama had a republican war based on 100% lies, and a global economic meltdown to deal with, and He did the best job anyone in his position could do. Things have been better for people, especially health care. Outside of things that the Global Economy exploded, he has done a very good job.
Romney has an ira worth 80 million dollars.
Fucking yep.
And left gaf ALL admitted "WTF IS WRONG WITH OBAMA?" he lost.. etc etc.. Theres a problem with people not being able to acknowledge reality, but thats been the standard problem with the GOP.
there's nothing less american than failing to pick a side and belligerently championing it.
ThisWreckage
Banned
And what if Congress ends up being roughly the same when he's reelected?
ghst, don't lecture me about what constitutes being an American. I will be voting. Not for either one of these people in this debate, however.
metalslimer
Member
Then it would be a huge net positive vs the one where Romney is elected. I don't take issue with people who think Obama has been a disappointment. At the same time, Obama has much more politcal capital as a 2nd term president who doesn't have to worry about reelection than before.
Ok, but it would be interesting to know who you thought had the better plan for the country and how they could enact said plan into the current congress.
heh, well that one went down the wrong hole.
looney toons
just because Romney's white
Obama is the President and acts like it all the time , especially tonight he showed he is Commander in Chief.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Most of the disappointment about Obama is that he didn't fix Bush's 8 years in six months.
In fact, the recession as a whole is a lot bigger than Bush - it was the result of a shaky economy predicated on Reaganomics. Bush just happened to be the guy holding the ball when everything went down - Bush I and Clinton are no less guilty as they did little to reverse the trend, though they were improvements. Regardless, you can't fix that in four years. Or even eight. It will take several Democratic (or moderated Republican) presidents to set us back on a decent course.
Don't get me wrong, Obama hasn't been a perfect president. And peoples' disappointment in him over certain issues is completely warranted, like renewing the PATRIOT Act.
However when people are like "blegh obama hasn't done enough to fix the economy, i'm votin for romney!!1" they're not thinking straight. Particularly the sillies who claimed to have voted for Obama and were SHOCKED and APPALLED that he passed healthcare. That was actually a pretty big part of his platform.
In fact, the recession as a whole is a lot bigger than Bush - it was the result of a shaky economy predicated on Reaganomics. Bush just happened to be the guy holding the ball when everything went down - Bush I and Clinton are no less guilty as they did little to reverse the trend, though they were improvements. Regardless, you can't fix that in four years. Or even eight. It will take several Democratic (or moderated Republican) presidents to set us back on a decent course.
Don't get me wrong, Obama hasn't been a perfect president. And peoples' disappointment in him over certain issues is completely warranted, like renewing the PATRIOT Act.
However when people are like "blegh obama hasn't done enough to fix the economy, i'm votin for romney!!1" they're not thinking straight. Particularly the sillies who claimed to have voted for Obama and were SHOCKED and APPALLED that he passed healthcare. That was actually a pretty big part of his platform.
NullPointer
Member
hehe, yeah, thats not what I read in your words at all.
And I'm right there with you Aaron Strife. There is plenty of shit to hold against Obama, but I recoil at the 'not living up to the hype' argument. He had a shit job, to work our way out of a shit mess, and we're doing it, but government policies and actions don't cause change over night.
Who between the two candidates is thinking long term?
I still cant believe that in our country, people are making decisions based on who looks more presidential..
Morons deserve everything coming to them.
I cringe whenever I hear people condemn him for the economy. It really takes a certain type of blindness. Blame him for the bailouts, sure. But those, all in all, kept people employed.
Flanders.
Well you were retarded for expecting him to live up to "hype" rather than gradually and slowly try to recussicate the economy during the new great depression. No President would have been labeled a "raging success" in that kind of situation. It certainly seems that one of the candidates is worse for the country than the other
Open Source
Banned
The context and the margin of victory are both vastly different. In the first debate, polls had Romney winning by 40+ points - the biggest margin of victory in any presidential debate ever, as far as I know. The polls for this one were single digits for Obama, with some even giving Romney the edge.
Also, the first debate was bound to be the most hyped and most watched of all of them. This was the third (counting the VP debate), and interest in and viewership of the debates has likely declined significantly.
Finally, the first debate was more significant because it was the first time a lot of people were getting to see Romney without the filter of ads or press, in a situation where he had to handle himself well under pressure and look and sound like what people expect from a president. Now that he's passed that milestone, further debates will have far less impact.
W had 8 years to destroy the world economy and you think it will take 4 years to repair most of the damage? Seriously some people just shout just to pretend they have something to say
Open Source
Banned
Because we all know that Obama/Biden would never politicize matters of national security. By the way, have you heard that bin Laden is dead?
ThisWreckage
Banned
What did the economy have to do with Obama and wiretapping and Obama and the Patriot Act?
Open Source
Banned
MSNBC wasn't much different, oddly.
Also, Obama and co. had no problem blaming the video for two weeks right off the bat without "waiting for the facts". Including in a speech to the UN, no less.
What a reasonable post. In a related note I don't think the average American has any idea on how long policies actually take to kick in. It's silly to think he could fix everything in a term or even two but we're at least on a better path. There is no way you (referring to the general public) can honestly say the Romney 5-point plan* would do a better job.
*Plan to be determined at a later date
It's the childlike nature of our culture...no patience.
There is a long game here Obama is playing, not how much richer can Romney's friends get and how many social issues can they take back into the dark ages.
Notice they are all economy and jobs with smoke and mirrors to hide their true intentions of social reform (Regression) and if they get in it wil be cut taxes on wealthy, screw the middle class and reverse 20th century social advances and science back into the olden days. They just aren;t going to tell us that now but they sure did if you watched the GOP primaries.
speculawyer
Member
NullPointer
Member
No, we all know that it is politicized, and if Bush had taken Bin Laden out he'd be on fucking Mt. Rushmore and small samples of his genetic material would be president now, just because.
Obama was mocked for his risky decisions that led to Bin Laden getting double tapped and dropped into the sea. He's earned the right to rub it in the faces of his chickenhawk opposition that have sought nothing more than his failure.
I'm with you in opposition to these measures, although its hard to judge objectively how effective they are from my standpoint. But there was a Frontline special on the growth of secret government behind the war on terror, and if I remember it correctly, that show made the claim that the majority of Obama's issues with these programs were actually solved by late Bush-term actions to provide greater accountability and oversight. I can't vouch for it of course, but its food for thought.
polyh3dron
Banned
Well that can be explained quite easily. Obama supporters could acknowledge when their guy lost a debate, but Romney supporters will say he won a debate no matter what actually happened in reality because NOBAMA, and because Fox News has trained them to basically reject reality in favor of whatever spin Fox News and right wing talk radio feeds them.
I'm not sure that's comparable. That was essentially a national debt that needed to be paid. Some measure of "justice" for the families of the lost from 9/11 or the war(s) that followed as a result. I get what you're saying though.
Officerrob
Banned
I guess you missed when I posted this earlier:
The PPP post debate snap poll in Colorado showed independents said Obama won the debate by 22% (yet Obama only won the complete poll by 4%). All tonight shows is that Republicans won't admit when their guy lost. That kind of separation among independents is no small thing.
Obama and Biden won the last two debates easily and the polls were close. Why? Republicans will never admit defeat and most Democrats will roll over and cry like a little girl with a skinned knee at the first sign of trouble. Democrats admitted Romney won the first debate, it's time to sack-up Republicans
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i love how the right s saying the moderator is a liberal.
i love how every republican is still saying romney "killed it" and beat obama.
i love how every republican is still saying romney "killed it" and beat obama.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
This is the best one.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Another surprising thing IMO was how good Obama was even when off script. He had a few Clinton-esque quick responses/jokes that got the crowd to laugh (especially on Romney's pension being bigger). I honestly didn't believe Obama was capable of that
Angry Fork
Member
And the drug war (to the extent of taking down medial marijuana dispensaries)
drone strikes purposefully killing innocent people all the time, and if you're a military age male = oh well you're a terrorist
indefinite detention (should never be on the cards no matter what)
nothing about prison reforms and capital punishment
giving health insurance companies the biggest handout ever instead of sticking to government universal healthcare system
Then there's stuff a real progressive would talk about like getting rid of private schools and having state run free college education, raising minimum wage, getting rid of electoral college or FPTP system, transformation of productive and bank forces into collective entities and so on. Just so people are reminded how left the spectrum goes and how far away Obama is from any of it.
Obama is better than Romney but hoping he acknowledges anything close to this in his 2nd term is wishful I think. I have such little hopes I'd just be happy if he did something about the drug war which seems to be the topic most of the country is on board with changing the most right now.
speculawyer
Member
Reality has a well known . . .
And that is exactly how Romney got caught looking stupid about Libya. If you deny reality for too long, it will back-fire on you.
Its so hard. We have months of campaigns, but no one listens to the messages... no one cares about anything. Its just a sports team at this point, and all people care about is that their team wins.
My jaw is just dropped @ people voting against their own interests... I haven't seen that as an Adult in all my life till now.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I would have liked to see those issues addressed.
These debates need to be three times as long so that the same shitty dead horsed questions don't take up the entire time. They just say the same shit that they always do.
metalslimer
Member
Saying this ignores every bit of context that happened during the healthcare situation. If you think there was any chance of passing universal government healthcare in this country right now you are out of your mind. It took every bit of political capital him and the democrats had to get what did get passed (and yes it is a huge step in the right direction) and it still winded up costing them the house and a large part of what they had gained in the senate with how much time was put towards that. I can understand how people are disappointed in some issues and put the blame on Obama, but in terms of healthcare his own advisors were telling him to give up or tone what was on the table down even more. Unless Obama had the Senate with like a 75 vote majority it wasn't going to happen no matter who or what anyone did.
GillianSeed79
Member
Didn't get off work unti 3:30 a.m. this morning, anywhere I can watch a replay?
MasterShotgun
brazen editing lynx
Angry Fork
Member
The problem is it wouldn't surprise me if this insurance company healthcare will now stay for 50 years because that's the big 'progressive' thing Obama pushed and everyone acts like it's a big deal. It's a first for universal healthcare here and that's good but I'm not convinced democrats will continue to push for universal healthcare next term or any after for a long time. They're going to wash their hands of the affair because they 'did what they could' and just let future politicians to fix it.
I just find it obscene that someone can cave on something so important and obvious. During a state of the union he couldn't talk about the UK's NHS system and why it's so much better than ours? Try and get the american people on his side? I don't ever remember him being strong on this stuff. He's so scared of combating republicans on the idea that America is #1 or just anything that may land him in hot water politically.
I know he has to watch his steps because he's the first black president but come on. Obama during the last debate was how he was the first 2-3 years, complacent, naive, over the aisle bs constantly. Get some chavez gung-ho personality going and whip shitty moderate democrats into voting for real leftist policies. Republicans will call him a divisive dictator anyway no matter what he does. Maybe that's not who he is but progressives need someone like that to get things done now in the face of the country's move to the right.
I just really loathe liberal democrats or even liberal democracy in general because it's soooooo fucking slooow. Gives too much power to stupid people, and people who vote end up apathetic without any real direct democratic say in affairs afterward. Republicans don't have facts on their side but are still allowed to filibuster and do whatever they want. Obama is supposed to be the guy to tell them no stfu I'm the president get in line and instead he wants to shake hands with lunatics sexists and bigots. Bush got away with calling himself the decider it's about time progressives did the same whenever they win and take as much ground as they can instead of wanting to compromise.
ThisWreckage
Banned
You bit, I didn't. But I agree with you.
Just finished watching the debate. I have a question about Romney's tax plan, though. Or at least about what he said at the debate.
If I understood that right, he said he's not going to cut taxes for the rich, he will keep their share of the overall tax revenue at 60%, but he will cut taxes for the middle class, right?
Now, I've got a mathematical problem here, because this would mean either:
a) The overall tax revenue (is that even the right word?) would stay about the same, that would mean he'd have to increase taxes for some third group (since the share of the middle class gets lower and the share of the rich stays the same)
b) The overall tax revenue goes down in a way that the middle class will still pay the same share percentage wise. But that would mean those 60% would also be less, so the rich will effectively get a tax cut.
Might be wrong here, though. I'm not from the US, so I don't follow US politics that closely.
If I understood that right, he said he's not going to cut taxes for the rich, he will keep their share of the overall tax revenue at 60%, but he will cut taxes for the middle class, right?
Now, I've got a mathematical problem here, because this would mean either:
a) The overall tax revenue (is that even the right word?) would stay about the same, that would mean he'd have to increase taxes for some third group (since the share of the middle class gets lower and the share of the rich stays the same)
b) The overall tax revenue goes down in a way that the middle class will still pay the same share percentage wise. But that would mean those 60% would also be less, so the rich will effectively get a tax cut.
Might be wrong here, though. I'm not from the US, so I don't follow US politics that closely.
TimesEunuch
Member
Better late than never. Though it looks like you've got competition.
Not my gif, don't blame me for the arrow.
He claims his tax plan will be revenue neutral, so a) is the only thing that makes sense. And when you take away the rich and the 'middle class' (which to him seems to mean people with businesses with profits over $250k) you're left with the real middle class and the poor.
I said it in the last debate's thread and I'll say it again, though. "Broadening the tax base" is code for "tax the poor and middle class."
It's all bullshit anyways. The only deduction that matters to the rich is the capital gains rate and that's definitely one 'loophole' Romney won't touch with a ten foot pole. Most of the deduction loopholes that aren't industry-targetted pork (and often quite desireable in other ways, since they stimulate productive but not necessarily profitable industries like renewable energy research) benefit exclusively the lower and middle classes.
polyh3dron
Banned
Sorry if this was already posted:
Apparently Romney can't talk about anything substantive without lying about it. Here's the truth regarding the so-called binder:
EDIT: I felt this was a big enough lie to warrant its own thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=495993
Apparently Romney can't talk about anything substantive without lying about it. Here's the truth regarding the so-called binder:
EDIT: I felt this was a big enough lie to warrant its own thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=495993
You've reminded me how seriously thankful I am for that. Wow.
- Status