US Town Hall Debate |OT| When is the election? What are the names of the candidates?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Goldrush said:
Playing Devil's advocate here. Let's assume this is true. Electing Obama would just be 4 more years of government deadlock. Unless the Democrats somehow recaptures the House, would the economy be better with 4 years of republican policies or 4 years of government inaction?
Click to expand...

The second.
 
Goldrush said:
Playing Devil's advocate here. Let's assume this is true. Electing Obama would just be 4 more years of government deadlock. Unless the Democrats somehow recaptures the House, would the economy be better with 4 years of republican policies or 4 years of government inaction?
Click to expand...

Have you seen the Republicans policies?
 
Goldrush said:
Playing Devil's advocate here. Let's assume this is true. Electing Obama would just be 4 more years of government deadlock. Unless the Democrats somehow recaptures the House, would the economy be better with 4 years of republican policies or 4 years of government inaction?
Click to expand...

lets just let the republicans fuck things up even more, why stand in their way?
 
Goldrush said:
Playing Devil's advocate here. Let's assume this is true. Electing Obama would just be 4 more years of government deadlock. Unless the Democrats somehow recaptures the House, would the economy be better with 4 years of republican policies or 4 years of government inaction?
Click to expand...

Because as far as I can tell from the last 4 years the Republicans in Congress are happy to set the country on fire if Obama gets hit with the embers.
 
The Mana Legend said:
I just read this headline on Yahoo:

"Obama wins the second debate. Too bad it’s not the one that mattered."

The article is saying how the first debate is the only one that matters and Obama will lose the election because he lost the first debate, and it doesn't matter if he destroys Romney in the second or third debates.

Da fuq? I understand that more people probably watched the first debate more than the second, but this isn't 20 years ago. We have social media now, where momentum is more often than not effected by that rather than how many people watched the debate.
Click to expand...

Shallow articles like that aren't worth paying attention to. At the moment, Obama still has his road to 270 locked down, and that's what matters.
 
Those Gallup numbers that just came out are pretty huge for Romney - 6 point lead which a few pundits are calling insurmountable. They're from last Wednesday so hopefully Obama turned a few back to the light side.
 
Goldrush said:
Playing Devil's advocate here. Let's assume this is true. Electing Obama would just be 4 more years of government deadlock. Unless the Democrats somehow recaptures the House, would the economy be better with 4 years of republican policies or 4 years of government inaction?
Click to expand...

In the short term, it very well may be better off with Republican policies, but I would say not because of their policies specifically but because maybe there is some level of predictability out of government at the federal level as far as a course of action goes.

Long term, I think their policy would be worse.

But even if it provides a short term boost, why reward poor behavior? I bet I can get kids to behave well if I give them candy, but if they refuse to behave well unless they get candy, you've created a worse problem even if the short term results were good.
 
Goldrush said:
Playing Devil's advocate here. Let's assume this is true. Electing Obama would just be 4 more years of government deadlock. Unless the Democrats somehow recaptures the House, would the economy be better with 4 years of republican policies or 4 years of government inaction?
Click to expand...

People conveniently forgetting the policies they were stonewalling on will just put the country further in debt.
 
RSTEIN said:
Those Gallup numbers that just came out are pretty huge for Romney - 6 point lead which a few pundits are calling insurmountable. They're from last Wednesday so hopefully Obama turned a few back to the light side.
Click to expand...

Here's the regional breakdown for the likely voter tracker for yesterday's numbers:

East Obama +4
Midwest Obama +4
South Obama -22
West Obama +6

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx

Don't think we really have that much to worry about.
 
I can't figure out how Romney can create jobs and cut government. The government can't create jobs that aren't, by default, government jobs. Which expands government, if even temporary or through contractors. The government can't just create demand for products and businesses. The jobs that government can create are jobs relating to infrastructure and other government projects. What politicians mean when they say that is that they will enact policies to allow people to maybe create their own jobs, which isn't the same thing at all.

But you can't cut government programs (and therefore jobs) while saying you're creating jobs. You can't have both, and the government can't create a job that isn't a government job. You can cut taxes and all that, but that still isn't going to increase demand for anything. Or supply. And you can't increase supply unless there is a demand. Which there isn't. And government can't create demand. The president isn't really responsible for any of that and can't be unless everything is nationalized or something.


Also, Obama should have hit an RKO (OUTTA NOWHERE) when they started bowing up to each other about 16 minutes in. I feel like Romney was trying to do what he did in the first debate because it worked for him, but went way too far with it at that point. He was an out right dick during those few minutes, much worse than anything Biden did with Ryan. Jesus. There is aggressive and forceful, and there is being a completely dick head. And he certainly crossed that line. And he was pretty shitty with the moderator, I thought.
 
Goldrush said:
Playing Devil's advocate here. Let's assume this is true. Electing Obama would just be 4 more years of government deadlock. Unless the Democrats somehow recaptures the House, would the economy be better with 4 years of republican policies or 4 years of government inaction?
Click to expand...

It's doubtful there will be 4 years of inaction, just inaction until the rest of the year if Obama gets elected.

If Obama is reelected, he will have all the chips on his side of the table and Republicans will have no choice but to make a deal. It all relies on the automatic budget cuts triggering and the bush tax cuts expiring at the same time. There was an article laying it out on nytimes, but I can't seem to find it.
 
strobogo said:
I can't figure out how Romney can create jobs and cut government. The government can't create jobs that aren't, by default, government jobs. Which expands government, if even temporary or through contractors. The government can't just create demand for products and businesses. The jobs that government can create are jobs relating to infrastructure and other government projects. What politicians mean when they say that is that they will enact policies to allow people to maybe create their own jobs, which isn't the same thing at all.

But you can't cut government programs (and therefore jobs) while saying you're creating jobs. You can't have both, and the government can't create a job that isn't a government job. You can cut taxes and all that, but that still isn't going to increase demand for anything. Or supply. And you can't increase supply unless there is a demand. Which there isn't. And government can't create demand. The president isn't really responsible for any of that and can't be unless everything is nationalized or something.


Also, Obama should have hit an RKO (OUTTA NOWHERE) when they started bowing up to each other about 16 minutes in. I feel like Romney was trying to do what he did in the first debate because it worked for him, but went way too far with it at that point. He was an out right dick during those few minutes, much worse than anything Biden did with Ryan. Jesus. There is aggressive and forceful, and there is being a completely dick head. And he certainly crossed that line. And he was pretty shitty with the moderator, I thought.
Click to expand...

The theory for Romney is this.

If he cuts taxes by the crazy amounts he says, rich people and business owners will have more money, therefore they will hire more people and grow their business. Essentially he is advocating trickle down economics.
 
Lathentar said:
It's doubtful there will be 4 years of inaction, just inaction until the rest of the year if Obama gets elected.

If Obama is reelected, he will have all the chips on his side of the table and Republicans will have no choice but to make a deal. It all relies on the automatic budget cuts triggering and the bush tax cuts expiring at the same time. There was an article laying it out on nytimes, but I can't seem to find it.
Click to expand...

New York magazine, not New York Times.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/obama-romney-economic-plans-2012-10/
 
Except during this economy, businesses have proven that they can work and be successful with smaller work forces and even companies that CAN afford to hire more workers aren't, because it makes little business sense. So what evidence is there that businesses would instantly hire more people just because taxes are cut? If companies that can hire people now, but aren't because they've found they can do just the same with less people, why would more profits make them hire more people, which cuts into those extra profits? That's bad business, right there.

I also can't figure out how "cut everyone's taxes, cut a bunch of government programs (which means cutting a bunch of jobs), and spend more on defense" = BALANCED BUDGET! His plan is to cut massive amounts of the revenue the government brings in, spend more in an area that is already dramatically lopsided to begin with, and that is going to somehow even everything out? I'm pretty math retarded, but that shit doesn't add up at all to me.

He still has no specifics and it is hilarious to watch and hear. His arguments all come down to "I'll do everything good everyone wants, vote for me plz". Holy shit, he's being such a dick to the moderator. First rolling his eyes at her like a teenager and then the tone on "Of course they add up". God, that was gross.
 
strobogo said:
Except during this economy, businesses have proven that they can work and be successful with smaller work forces and even companies that CAN afford to hire more workers aren't, because it makes little business sense. So what evidence is there that businesses would instantly hire more people just because taxes are cut? If companies that can hire people now, but aren't because they've found they can do just the same with less people, why would more profits make them hire more people, which cuts into those extra profits? That's bad business, right there.

I also can't figure out how "cut everyone's taxes, cut a bunch of government programs (which means cutting a bunch of jobs), and spend more on defense" = BALANCED BUDGET! His plan is to cut massive amounts of the revenue the government brings in, spend more in an area that is already dramatically lopsided to begin with, and that is going to somehow even everything out? I'm pretty math retarded, but that shit doesn't add up at all to me.

He still has no specifics and it is hilarious to watch and hear. His arguments all come down to "I'll do everything good everyone wants, vote for me plz". Holy shit, he's being such a dick to the moderator. First rolling his eyes at her like a teenager and then the tone on "Of course they add up". God, that was gross.
Click to expand...

Yes, you understand why he is hilarious to those of us that can think and put one and one together. He will say what ever he can to get elected. If he is elected he will think of what ever way he can to get out keeping his promises to get reelected. He won't balance the budget. Cutting taxes by an insane amount will not spur job growth the way he thinks it will.
 
He's just being a raging asshole. I'm watching it now. He's being outright rude to Obama and especially the moderator. I get that talking over everyone worked out really well for him in the first one, so I assume he and his team thought "we'll just do this, but HARDER" and he's coming across at outright nasty. I think that's the real Mitt Romney. He's being SO confrontational with the moderator from the very first answer. The fuck? Is he really telling her she doesn't know the rules and she's doing it wrong?
 
strobogo said:
Except during this economy, businesses have proven that they can work and be successful with smaller work forces and even companies that CAN afford to hire more workers aren't, because it makes little business sense. So what evidence is there that businesses would instantly hire more people just because taxes are cut? If companies that can hire people now, but aren't because they've found they can do just the same with less people, why would more profits make them hire more people, which cuts into those extra profits? That's bad business, right there.

I also can't figure out how "cut everyone's taxes, cut a bunch of government programs (which means cutting a bunch of jobs), and spend more on defense" = BALANCED BUDGET! His plan is to cut massive amounts of the revenue the government brings in, spend more in an area that is already dramatically lopsided to begin with, and that is going to somehow even everything out? I'm pretty math retarded, but that shit doesn't add up at all to me.

He still has no specifics and it is hilarious to watch and hear. His arguments all come down to "I'll do everything good everyone wants, vote for me plz". Holy shit, he's being such a dick to the moderator. First rolling his eyes at her like a teenager and then the tone on "Of course they add up". God, that was gross.
Click to expand...

It's clearly so that more immigrants can enter the US through the armed forces, staple green cards to their diplomas, and live the American dream with binders full of women.

I also don't understand how cutting the government's source of revenue and handing it out to the upper class is going to fix the deficit. It's not like rich people/successful corporations stay that way by throwing their money away or over expanding in the first place.

And fixing the economy by "creating more jobs" is not a fucking plan.

What about making it really difficult for companies to move their money overseas, increasing tax rates for large corporations and individuals making over $100k/year, and providing a tax incentive for job creation?
 
tarius1210 said:
He has a five point plan, which we still haven't heard.

Herman Cain outlined his 999 plan last year and he wasn't even nominated.
Click to expand...

All you need to know is the topic of each of the five points and be secure in knowing that its a plan.

At least thats what I get from hearing Romney speak about his plan. It would be wonderful if we actually had some details on it. He could dig into his binder of women and have them fill out the details.
 
tarius1210 said:
He has a five point plan, which we still haven't heard.
Click to expand...

He's mentioned it multiple times

He plans on:
1. making the U.S. energy independent;
2. getting people into job training;
3. opening more free trade with Latin America;
4. cutting the deficit; and
5. reducing taxes on the middle class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qnz52W7KfM8#t=63s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dFQAZYZrjVU

MittRomney.com

Part one of Mitt’s plan is to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs – not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices. America’s economy will boom when the billions of dollars we send overseas for our oil are kept here at home instead.

Part two of the plan is trade that works for America. Mitt believes that trade can offer enormous opportunities for American businesses and workers, but only if they are given a level playing field on which they can compete and win. That is why he will work to open new markets for American goods and services, while also confronting nations like China that cheat on trade and steal American jobs.

Part three is to provide Americans with the skills to succeed through better public schools, better access to higher education, and better retraining programs that help to match unemployed workers with real-world job opportunities.

Part four is to cut the deficit, reducing the size of government and getting the national debt under control so that America remains a place where businesses want to open up shop and hire.

Finally, part five of Mitt’s plan is to champion small business. Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, but they will struggle to succeed if taxes and regulations are too burdensome or if a government in Washington does its best to stifle them. Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and he will cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring.
Click to expand...

You could have researched all of this in a span of 30 seconds.
 
RSTEIN said:
Those Gallup numbers that just came out are pretty huge for Romney - 6 point lead which a few pundits are calling insurmountable. They're from last Wednesday so hopefully Obama turned a few back to the light side.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for Romney his 6 point lead doesn't mean shit when he doesn't have the swing states to pull off a real victory. Romney may just eek out a popular vote win, but it won't matter.

Edit: lol that the plan ignores that he wants to reduce taxes on the rich which will either explode the deficit or make the middle class have a huge tax hike.
 
CrankyJay said:
He's mentioned it multiple times

He plans on:
1. making the U.S. energy independent;
2. getting people into job training;
3. opening more free trade with Latin America;
4. cutting the deficit; and
5. reducing taxes on the middle class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qnz52W7KfM8#t=63s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dFQAZYZrjVU

MittRomney.com



You could have researched all of this in a span of 30 seconds.
Click to expand...

Pixie dust. Goals aren't plans.
 
CrankyJay said:
It's the same place Obama started 4 years ago.
Click to expand...

Except mathmatically Obama's goals were much closer to reality than Mitt's could ever be. When you actually examine his plans they completely fall apart under scutiny. The plan also makes no mention of anothe upcoming economic problem with social security solvency. And how exactly does Mitt plan on bettering education. Vouchers?
 
Angry Grimace said:
Because as far as I can tell from the last 4 years the Republicans in Congress are happy to set the country on fire if Obama gets hit with the embers.
Click to expand...



I think they'll start thinking about 2016 and will see that their bullshit isn't gonna work and if they want any chance at all to get back into the white house, they will have to grow up and move away from their loonier polices and constituents.

Also, Dems should gain some seats back in 2014.



CrankyJay said:
He's mentioned it multiple times

He plans on:
1. making the U.S. energy independent;(in 5 years)
2. getting people into job training;
3. opening more free trade with Latin America;
4. cutting the deficit; and
5. reducing taxes on the middle class



You could have researched all of this in a span of 30 seconds.
Click to expand...


Impossible.
 
The Mana Legend said:
I just read this headline on Yahoo:

"Obama wins the second debate. Too bad it’s not the one that mattered."

The article is saying how the first debate is the only one that matters and Obama will lose the election because he lost the first debate, and it doesn't matter if he destroys Romney in the second or third debates.

Da fuq? I understand that more people probably watched the first debate more than the second, but this isn't 20 years ago. We have social media now, where momentum is more often than not effected by that rather than how many people watched the debate.
Click to expand...

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...-kate-down-emily-owens-m-d-debuts-low/153414/

Last nights debate was watched by roughly the same and maybe more people then Debate 1, NBC massively gained while the other networks slightly lost and this does not factor in cable news. So the notion that nobody watched the 2nd Debate as the 1st was all that matter is complete and utter horseshit
 
The Mana Legend said:
I just read this headline on Yahoo:

"Obama wins the second debate. Too bad it’s not the one that mattered."

The article is saying how the first debate is the only one that matters and Obama will lose the election because he lost the first debate, and it doesn't matter if he destroys Romney in the second or third debates.

Da fuq? I understand that more people probably watched the first debate more than the second, but this isn't 20 years ago. We have social media now, where momentum is more often than not effected by that rather than how many people watched the debate.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the article does it say that. You are misunderstanding. I agree with his main point, had Obama done this well in the first debate, Romney would be fucking done. He's not saying Obama is going to lose, he's just saying that doing well this time isn't going to have as big of an effect as doing badly the first time did.

Article for those who are curious.

It’s just that Obama found what he could not find in Denver—a coherent thread to make the case that he understands the middle-class in a way Romney does not. For those Democratic partisans wondering where “the 47 percent” argument was, Obama was saving it for the close which—because of a pre-debate coin flip—Romney could not answer. In this sense, it was like Reagan’s famous “are you better off?” question from 1980.

In a larger sense, however, Obama’s success is unlikely to have anything like the impact of that 1980 debate, nor will it likely alter the terrain of the campaign as the first debate of 2012 did. Had the Obama of this debate showed up two weeks ago, he might well have ended Romney’s effort to present himself as a credible alternative to the president.
Click to expand...
 
Watched it all. Mitt came off as such a mean, nasty, asshole. He was outright rude in a way that Joe Biden would think was a bit much. He has fallen into the same trap that Hilary and McCain did. He was rambling on while straight up bowing up to Obama with a very tense tone while Obama stood there with his troll face on. I can't believe no one has said anything about how Romney was physically trying to cut in the way of Obama multiple times. When they'd both be up and walking and Romney would walk straight into Obama's path like they were about to throw down. That shouldn't be acceptable at all in a presidential debate.




I can't see how anyone could spin it as a good night for Romney. And in fact, I feel like this election is the first election where you can see the media is completely made up and full of shit with how they are covering these. 2004 was pretty bad, but I've never truly felt such a massive disconnect from what I see and how it is reported to me. It's like being in a movie where the character realizes he's in a movie and everything is fake, but no one believes him. Except it is a ton of people, even ones who lean right. It's so fucking weird. I hope someone can articulate what I'm feeling better than I can. It's some weird 1984 "We've always been at war with EastAsia" bullshit. And it is all the networks and outlets. It's not just a FOX NEWS thing. At all. What the fuck is going on? I feel like I'm losing my mind for real. Am I crazy? I feel like I'm living in a completely different world than what is being portrayed back to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What happens when the majority of content on the internet is AI generated?
2
86
789
YCoCg replied
  • Locked
Canada's election results are in
8
196
Jaybe replied
TikTok has shut down in the US (UP: TikTok is in the process of restoring service in the US)
2 3 4 5 6
298
15K
phil_t98 replied
What is the point of NeoGAF discord?
18
1K
eddie4 replied
What if the Treaty of Kanagawa never happened?
Opinion 
20
435
kentkouh replied
Top Bottom