Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

"i'm going to ignore you because you're calling me out on PD-style posting and that really hurts my feelings"

 

[scorcho]

Does anyone remember the debates on 04?

I know that was a long time ago, but it started the same way.

Bush's first debate was an extremely weak showing, even weaker in comparison than Obama's; Bush looked almost senile compared to Kerry who was on the offensive.

In some sense, for a sitting President, it must be like "Seriously? I'm here trying to save the world and I have to deal with this shit?" type of thing.

I thought that Bush picked it up tremendously after the first debate. He was like an entirely different candidate.

That's the way I remember it as well. Perceived momentum in these are remarkably fluid, and there's also little reason to expect much of a polling bounce over this single performance. This isn't Nixon-Kennedy. We're no longer a nation captivated by a new medium.

 

[IrishNinja]

How can I be specific about Romney's plan if he has not?

It's been proven that his plan is possible

...well, i'm convinced!

I'm just repeating what the so called experts are saying on TV and using a bit of common sense.

you could literally make this same statement about glenn beck telling you to invest in gold, and it'd hold the same amount of weight. does that seem like a strong argument to you?

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Disappointing, seriously.

I'm laying in bed watching CNN. There is no way that i am getting up, turning on my laptop, and finding a link of things they are saying on CNN. You can turn on the tv or use common sense to understand what i am saying. I am not taking a side here, just pointing out that Obama's 5 trillion dollar claim is false because Romney said multiple times that he has a plan in place and that no taxes would be cut that contribute to the deficit. He just was not very specific, which I have been saying all along. Get off my back.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Yeah, CNN is a pretty trusted source.

you know who's an even more trusted source on tax matters? the tax policy center. i'll trust you to actually click on that link and read the abstract, at least.

but clearly "common sense" and talking heads on a corporate news network know more than them

 

[pigeon]

I'm just going to ignore you want to throw around personal attacks

I don't want to, since this isn't a thread about gender issues. I'd rather have a thoughtful discussion based on facts. But you just literally refused to provide any facts, so it's clear that you're not actually capable of that. Personal attacks are kind of the fallback. Nothing personal, I just want to encourage people to come with actual knowledge instead of the half-formed, contradictory nonsense you're spouting. I mean, who do you think you are, Mitt Romney?

 

[Gucci Messiah]

...well, i'm convinced!



you could literally make this same statement about glenn beck telling you to invest in gold, and it'd hold the same amount of weight. does that seem like a strong argument to you?

The plan is possible. The money is there. We just don't know what specific deductions will be made or which loopholes will get closed. This is not hard to comprehend dude, there are just no details.

 

[rSpooky]

im an hour into this and people are saying obama lost? sorry im not seeing it. Romneys best performance compared to his gop debates though, not as flusted.

if u wanted zingers, gaffe moments etc, to the average watcher its quite boring (which im happy about)

I dont mind jim letting them have their own time, it might be just me but i preferred it this way.

Maybe that is just it.. you went in with low expectation due to the national (and GAF) reaction. They all went in with pipedreams.

 

[DragonSworne]

The plan is possible. The money is there. We just don't know what specific deductions will be made or which loopholes will get closed. This is not hard to comprehend dude, there are just no details.

No there isn't if don't include home mortgage deductions

 

[eBay Huckster]

The plan is possible. The money is there. We just don't know what specific deductions will be made or which loopholes will get closed.

we can, however, actually analyze those 'deductions and loopholes' to see which ones could offset $500 billion in revenue per year

 

[Basileus777]

Anecdotally, the biggest thing about this debate that seems to be sticking in people's minds is big bird.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

you know who's an even more trusted source on tax matters? the tax policy center. i'll trust you to actually click on that link and read the abstract, at least.

but clearly "common sense" and talking heads on a corporate news network know more than them

The non partisan tax policy center already said that Romney is calling for 5 trillion in cuts but did not take into account the deductions because he refuses to specify. This is simple, why can nobody else understand this

 

[DragonSworne]

One things you guys aren't factoring in jobs creation.

What level of unemployment will we need in order to implement Romney's plan if he will not include mortgage deductions?

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I'm laying in bed watching CNN. There is no way that i am getting up, turning on my laptop, and finding a link of things they are saying on CNN. You can turn on the tv or use common sense to understand what i am saying. I am not taking a side here, just pointing out that Obama's 5 trillion dollar claim is false because Romney said multiple times that he has a plan in place and that no taxes would be cut that contribute to the deficit. He just was not very specific, which I have been saying all along. Get off my back.

Not entirely sure you're arguing in good faith, but I'll just ask why you are completely discounting the possibility Romney is just bullshitting, when you're accepting the possibility that Obama is bullshitting.

One of them is, obviously, because both claims cannot be true.

 

[eBay Huckster]

The non partisan tax policy center already said that Romney is calling for 5 trillion in cuts but did not take into account the deductions because he refuses to specify.

they also already said that it is literally impossible to raise $5 trillion in revenue to offset those cuts without impacting, quote, "broadly-used and popular preferences". you didn't even click on that link.

 

[neoism]

Holy crap. I'm like 15 minutes in and Romney's coming off as both competent and dare I say, likable.. :O

lol

 

[giga]

The non partisan tax policy center already said that Romney is calling for 5 trillion in cuts but did not take into account the deductions because he refuses to specify. This is simple, why can nobody else understand this

For all we know, the deductions could amount to just a few million dollars in revenue. So until Mittens gives some concrete info, it's fair game to me.

 

[IrishNinja]

The plan is possible. The money is there. We just don't know what specific deductions will be made or which loopholes will get closed. This is not hard to comprehend dude, there are just no details.

you're putting stock in something which is, logically speaking, entirely faith-based.
i think that's worth noting.
in lieu of them telling me much specifically, i like to imagine a world where, upon buying nintendo's next system in november, i am instantly connected to joining groups of friends playing games on dedicated servers, with achievements & widescreen HD versions of contra and zombies ate my neighbors, seamlessly switching over to a game of rock n' roll racing where i get a head start because i suck at that genre.

the possibility is there, we just don't know the specifics about said system or how it will function. it is likewise not hard to comprehend, there are just no details.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

No there isn't if don't include home mortgage deductions

This is where we disagree. I've already said i am not an expert on tax code but i find it very hard to believe that ending mortgage deductions is the only way to meet Romney's figure without raising taxes on the middle class.

 

[electricpirate]

The non partisan tax policy center already said that Romney is calling for 5 trillion in cuts but did not take into account the deductions because he refuses to specify. This is simple, why can nobody else understand this

You're not reading it correctly.

correction, it took into account all possible deductions, and found that one of Romney's priorities has to give. Either taxes on the middle class have to go up, or the deficit has to blow up.

2 of the Studies Romney cited actually confirm this! They just try to get around it by changing the defintion of middle class. One other assumes crazy total growth numbers (like 5 percent growth from the tax plan. Even if this was a straight tax cut we couldn't see that kind of growth).

 

[HylianTom]

Anecdotally, the biggest thing about this debate that seems to be sticking in people's minds is big bird.

I just got to work, and Big Bird was the first topic out of half the people I've heard talking about last night. I thought that it might be just a tempest in a tweeting teapot, but apparently it has a
life beyond the internet..

 

[DragonSworne]

This is where we disagree. I've already said i am not an expert on tax code but i find it very hard to believe that ending mortgage deductions is the only way to meet Romney's figure without raising taxes on the middle class.

You can't disagree with facts. Romney's plan can only work if you include ALL deductions and loopholes.

Unless he ca get unemployementcdown to something ridiculous like 1%

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Not entirely sure you're arguing in good faith, but I'll just ask why you are completely discounting the possibility Romney is just bullshitting, when you're accepting the possibility that Obama is bullshitting.

One of them is, obviously, because both claims cannot be true.

I have not said that Romney is telling the truth and that Obama is a liar. Both are probably twisting the truth in some way, i am just regurgitating exactly what Romney has said and pointing out that it is possible, even though it seems improbable. As for good faith, I don't care if some random dude on the internet believes that i am laying in bed or not so that is a moot point. I have no reason to sit here and lie to you.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I don't think Obama was weak, and I don't think he lost any moral or intellectual ground, but last night's Romney victory reminded me of the problem that even smart people expect these debates to be won on style, not substance. Which has been true since the invention of radio, but is nonetheless pathetic. Every single quote last night about prior debate victories was a stylistic riposte, with the exception of Clinton's opening against Dole.

NPR turned on this morning as our radio alarm. It opened with a lengthy part of one of Obama's responses. Thought it was pretty sharp, on point. Then the host starts talking about how excited Romney was and how Obama looked like he didn't want to be there.

Really infuriating stuff.

 

[Owzers]

MCXC Pioneer working the crowd rather well. You guys are suckers.

 

[IrishNinja]

MCXC Pioneer working the crowd rather well. You guys are suckers.

i just wanted to talk about nintnedo's online system, and possibilities

 

[eBay Huckster]

I've already said i am not an expert on tax code but i find it very hard to believe that ending mortgage deductions is the only way to meet Romney's figure without raising taxes on the middle class.

it does not even begin to matter what you believe, because pages 12-15 of that TPC paper i just posted directly address this

read them

or cease PD mode

 

[Basileus777]

I just got to work, and Big Bird was the first topic out of half the people I've heard talking about last night. I thought that it might be just a tempest in a tweeting teapot, but apparently it has a
life beyond the internet..

It's the only memorable thing about the debate really. Romney controlled the debate and won, but he didn't have any big moments and Obama didn't make any significant mistakes. A week from now, few people are going to remember much about what happened in this debate.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

MCXC Pioneer working the crowd rather well. You guys are suckers.

Yeah, I guess anyone who tries to bring a fair perspective is trolling. Great contribution to the thread man, keep it up.

 

[DragonSworne]

MCXC Pioneer working the crowd rather well. You guys are suckers.

Tis fun I want to see him crumble.

How long can he continue? He is already at the point where "don't attack me I'm just repeating bullshit" stage.

 

[pigeon]

pages 12-15 of that TPC paper i just posted

read them

or cease PD mode

Basically, not only does he not have facts of his own, he refuses to read anybody else's facts.

 

[teruterubozu]

I just got to work, and Big Bird was the first topic out of half the people I've heard talking about last night. I thought that it might be just a tempest in a tweeting teapot, but apparently it has a
life beyond the internet..

Big Bird comment is tailor made for Saturday Night Live.

 

[electricpirate]

One things you guys aren't factoring in jobs creation.

What level of unemployment will we need in order to implement Romney's plan if he will not include mortgage deductions?

Think in terms of growth, not employment.

He'd have to hit 3% additional GDP growth to hit his marks. That number is pretty implausible, as we'd be talking about growing 150% more based on these changes. For comparison, if this was a stimulative tax cut, we'd probably get 2% extra growth, so 3% for re-aligning tax preferences (and may I say, In a way that would probably not be entirely constructive, but I'll give rombot the benefit of the doubt here).

It's just not possible.

Wonkblog did a nice job rounding up Romney's "Five studies" you can see them here, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ve-guide-to-the-debate-over-romneys-tax-plan/

 

[Gucci Messiah]

pages 12-15 of that TPC paper i just posted

read them

or cease PD mode

I'm in bed but I promise I'll get up and take a look here in the next ~45 mins. Gotta get ready for class.

 

[Half and half]

A lot of people were expecting Obama to go full offensive and bring up Bain, and the 47% comment, and since he didn't are shitting all over that fact..

Lets face a few facts here that I think should put all of this in perspective.

1. This was the first debate, and off course the Challenger to an incumbent will come out looking good by just being there. It is a lot easier to attack an incumbent than it is for an incumbent to attack the challenger particularly when said challenger flip flops on every single thing he has proposed in the past.

2. Obama is the POTUS. He does not have the luxury of time that Romney had to prepare for this debate, or have a Primary season to get him in Debate shape.

3. Romney IMO had already hit rock bottom, or close to it in how people viewed him. Outside of him coming out as the AntiChrist there was hardly anything he could do that would make him look bad in this debate, simply because expectations were so low.

4. The problem Obama has a lot of times in debates, is that he actually thinks his answers instead of spewing talking points.

5. The damage from Bain and 47% is already done.. He took the higher road in regards to those attacks, because if he went that way it would be considered character assassination and something that the POTUS should be above. It is something that should be brought up by surrogates and ads.

6. The moderator was absolutely atrocious. He had no control of the Debate.

Agree with this mostly. But I do believe Obama should've been a tad more aggressive with calling Romney out on the lies. An uninformed viewer may believe Romney is right simply b/c Obama put up little opposition.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Tis fun I want to see him crumble.

How long can he continue? He is already at the point where "don't attack me I'm just repeating bullshit" stage.

Falling back to personal attacks when i have issued none? I'm not responding anymore. I will say this though - you are a hypocrite. Show me how removing mortgage deductions is the only way to cut 5 tril

EDIT: *not responding to you

 

[gkryhewy]

fair perspective

Yes, this is indeed trolling.

 

[KingGondo]

The plan is possible. The money is there. We just don't know what specific deductions will be made or which loopholes will get closed. This is not hard to comprehend dude, there are just no details.

Who needs silly little things like "details?"

 

[The Librarian]

A good post to calm the hysteria.

And yet, the president’s supporters would be wrong to wring their hands. Fundamentally, Obama’s loss will not matter. At most, Wednesday night was a case of “too little, too late” for Romney. Yes, the polls will probably move a point or two in Romney’s direction after the first debate. But all the evidence suggests that for Romney, whether or not you believe he should be president, closing the gap and beating Obama is a bridge too far.

...

“Ah,” you say, “that may be true, but surely the gap is small enough to close? And wouldn’t the first debate be enough to bring this race back to a dead heat?” In a word, no.

Let’s start with the second question. Incumbent presidents almost always have a poor first debate: George W. Bush lost to John Kerry in 2004, for example, and Walter Mondale beat Ronald Reagan so badly in 1984 that there was a spate of articles asking if the incumbent was too old for the presidency. Yet never has a challenger’s strong first debate performance closed as large a national polling gap as Romney faced going into last night’s debate.

Some of y'all need to chill.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Who needs silly little things like "details?"

I'm not defending Romney. He needs to provide details soon or the media is going to have a field day

 

[DragonSworne]

A good post to calm the hysteria.


Y'all need to chill.

Times are different now. We are now at a point where news is entertainment and only focused on ratings.

The media is going to ride this poor performance by Obama until their ratings drop. I don't see how that changing anytime soon unless Obama outperformance Romney big time in a debate.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I have not said that Romney is telling the truth and that Obama is a liar. Both are probably twisting the truth in some way, i am just regurgitating exactly what Romney has said and pointing out that it is possible, even though it seems improbable. As for good faith, I don't care if some random dude on the internet believes that i am laying in bed or not so that is a moot point. I have no reason to sit here and lie to you.

Yeah, I guess anyone who tries to bring a fair perspective is trolling. Great contribution to the thread man, keep it up.

Playing devil's advocate (which is what I think you're trying to do here) is very tricky and usually ends up in clusterfucks like this because you don't really believe what you're saying, by definition. I know the firing-squad mentality is frustrating to dissenting viewpoints here but it's better to just say what you mean and not worry about bringing "balance" to a thread. If it's an honest concern or question someone will answer it civilly. (Probably. Eventually.)

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Playing devil's advocate (which is what I think you're trying to do here) is very tricky and usually ends up in clusterfucks like this because you don't really believe what you're saying, by definition. I know the firing-squad mentality is frustrating to dissenting viewpoints here but it's better to just say what you mean and not worry about bringing "balance" to a thread. If it's an honest concern or question someone will answer it civilly. (Probably. Eventually.)

Thank you, finally someone who understands. This dog pile mentality on GAF needs to stop. I'm a pretty liberal guy but it is not constructive to have an Obama circle jerk thread, I feel like the right wing of this forum gets dismissed far too often by people who aren't willing to take off the partisan shades and look at things from the other party's side. Maybe trying to bring some sort of balance instead of posting what i actually believe was not the rigt way to approach things but what I just dealt with from other posters here is rediculous.

 

[IrishNinja]

Yeah, CNN is a pretty trusted source. Turn on the tv and stop getting hostile over a message board post. I'm not even a Romney backer but somebody has to provide a realistic perspective of him instead of all the demonizing that goes on here.

He's probably still deciding what exactly to close and what precise deductions need to be made. It's been proven that his plan is possible and that Obama's five trillion claim is false.

I'm just repeating what the so called experts are saying on TV and using a bit of common sense.

Romney did answer the question of tax cuts. Yes, Romney wants a 20% tax cut, an additional 2 trillion in military spending and another trillion in extending the bush era tax cuts. He said numerous times though that he will not cut a tax that adds to the deficit. The plan is to pay for all this by closing loopholes in the tax code but we just don't know the details.

I'm not defending Romney.

 

[pigeon]

Thank you, finally someone who understands. This dog pile mentality on GAF needs to stop. I'm a pretty liberal guy but it is not constructive to have an Obama circle jerk thread, I feel like the right wing of this forum gets dismissed far too often by people who aren't willing to take off the partisan shades and look and things from the other party's side. Maybe trying to bring some sort of balance instead of posting what i actually believe was not the rigt way to approach things but what I just dealt with from other posters here is rediculous.

Frankly, I think posting that you aren't willing to actually defend any of your claims because your bed is too comfortable is a depth even Kosmo, pbuh, never sank to.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Times are different now. We are now at a point where news is entertainment and only focused on ratings.

The media is going to ride this poor performance by Obama until their ratings drop. I don't see how that changing anytime soon unless Obama outperformance Romney big time in a debate.

This has arguably been the case for over 30 years (see: Network) and has definitively been the case for the cable networks we all complain about for at least the last decade. Times are not different from 2004. Social media--as a defined Thing--exploded since then but it's not like dissemination of information on the internet has fundamentally changed.

(And social media likely has a liberal lean, anyway.)

 

[The Librarian]

Obama is going to win this election, I have no doubt. But to say Romney didn't have a clear and decisive win last night is to bury your head in the sand. It was one of the most clear debate victories in a long time.

Saying Romney won the debate isn't being a chicken little, it's facts. Look at the polling. The biggest win percentage in literally decades. Attacking a poll for it's sample is exactly what we were mocking conservatives this past few weeks, don't stoop to that level.

Look what liberals and democrats are saying. Look at all the morning shows declaring Romney a huge winner. Romney won last night, he didn't win the election but he won the debate. And it wasn't even close.

Did we watch the same debate? Look, I won't deny that Romney won the debate, but he didn't win it to the extent that people are saying in this thread and elsewhere. If I were watching the debate while reading this thread/TPM, I'd probably agree with you all, but looking at it by itself, the debate was more of a wash with Romney coming out ahead. There were no bad moments for either candidate. There were no huge stumbles.

 

[Jackson50]

Times are different now. We are now at a point where news is entertainment and only focused on ratings.

The media is going to ride this poor performance by Obama until their ratings drop. I don't see how that changing anytime soon unless Obama outperformance Romney big time in a debate.

It hasn't changed drastically enough to alter the effect. 2004 and 2008 were in a similar media environ, yet the pattern held. Also, the media has fragmented to a considerable extent, so the narrative might not be as coherent as when everyone followed three networks.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Frankly, I think posting that you aren't willing to actually defend any of your claims because your bed is too comfortable is a depth even Kosmo, pbuh, never sank to.

I said to turn on the tv dude, that is where i am getting my information. This is the last time i will address this, not everyone has hours a day to spend defending themselves on a video game mesage board.

 

[isoquant]

Frankly, I think posting that you aren't willing to actually defend any of your claims because your bed is too comfortable is a depth even Kosmo, pbuh, never sank to.

Ergh.

Left-wing gaf has a habit of making some pretty ridiculous statements (as evidenced by the past couple of pages); they are never called up on it, and they are certainly not expected to back up their claims.

Of course, if you ever post a dissenting claim, you better have footnoted that shit!