Support NeoGAF

[GaimeGuy]

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.

This is why republicans continue to garner support despite supporting things like eliminating medicare, defaulting on our national debt, raising taxes on the poor and lowering them on the rich, and limiting access to medical procedures for underaged persons and women.

Because no matter what they say, half the country's response is "Nah, they wouldn't actually do something that evil, would they?"

GOP: "We will eliminate medicare."
Population: "No you won't."
GOP: "Yes we will."
Population: "No you won't" *Votes for GOP*

 

[codhand]

I live in the city, work in the burbs, at a construction company. There are no minorities where I work except for me, as someone of Irish descent, mine is the only last name that doesn't end in a vowel.

With that being said, most all the independents at work thought Romney did remarkable, some even changing their opinion. And disappointingly our Democratic CEO joked (but not joked) that anyone who votes for Bams is getting a pink-slip. =/

Anecdotal as a mug, I realize, but I live in CT, which is pretty damn blue by any standard. I can only imagine the water cooler conversations in Alabama.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

First, I'm more offended you dare criticize that GIF. Second, as anyone on PoliGAF can attest, I'm always interested in an honest, mature debate. But when your retorts consist of "turn on the tv," you've surrendered the right to decry another poster for not contributing.

Or Pigeon's response.

That was my retort to him asking for a link, I've already explained Romney's line of reasoning which I learned by watching TV. Do I need a link now for everything I hear on TV? Do you need a link to prove there was even a debate last night? Plently of hard core left wingers in this thread post generalizations or outright false claims and are not called out or dog piled on. The atmosphere in this thread is toxic and that falls on the users not respecting other people's opinions or feeling the need to portray some hyper agressive internet persona. It really drives away any dissenting opinions and makes the thread a useless circle jerk of the same opinion. The right gets stiffled and generally treated like scum on poligaf, and that is coming from a long term lurker and self indentified democrat. This is getting ridiculous, GAF as a community shouldn't be like this.

/whiny post

 

[Paches]

I live in the city, work in the burbs, at a construction company. There are no minorities where I work except for me, as someone of Irish descent, mine is the only last name that doesn't end in a vowel.

With that being said, most all the independents at work thought Romney did remarkable, some even changing their opinion. And disappointingly our Democratic CEO joked (but not joked) that anyone who votes for Bams is getting a pink-slip. =/

Anecdotal as a mug, I realize, but I live in CT, which is pretty damn blue by any standard. I can only imagine the water cooler conversations in Alabama.

Pretty much the only state that matters is Ohio at this point.

 

[codhand]

/whiny post

Chillax people, both reaction gifs and cable TV suck in equal amounts.

Pretty much the only state that matters is Ohio at this point.

Tell that to Linda McMahon. Or any close Congressional race for that matter.

I needed Barry to deliver the death blow to Republican ideology, instead he blew. Tepid, ineffectual, despondent and middling.

 

[GaimeGuy]

So what's the story on that tax loophole that allows companies to get a break while outsourcing? That is a real thing, right?

I don't know if there is a specific provision for that, but all business expenses are deductible. Shutting down domestic places of employment, opening up a new place of employment overseas, paying severence for your local workers and retraining/payroll for the workers at the new overseas location... all of these are expenses that can be written off, amortized, and scheduled to maximize your tax breaks.

 

[Izick]

Could anyone help me find a direct quote from Romney on education?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Pretty much the only state that matters is Ohio at this point.

And Virginia, and Florida. Both if which where Romney is within striking distance.

 

[codhand]

And Virginia, and Florida. Both if which where Romney is within striking distance.

Don't make me pull out that Romney map sans Ohio again.

 

[RDreamer]

I don't know if there is a specific provision for that, but all business expenses are deductible. Shutting down domestic places of employment, opening up a new place of employment overseas, paying severence for your local workers and retraining/payroll for the workers at the new overseas location... all of these are expenses that can be written off, amortized, and scheduled to maximize your tax breaks.

That's what I figured, but I wanted to make sure and see if anyone else knew. It just came off as totally bizarre for him to bug out and just say "Nuh uh, I don't know what the heck you're talking about, crazy person!" That honestly really stuck out to me, and if there is any truth to what Obama's saying (and I'm assuming there is, and it's what you and I are assuming), then Romney's that much more of a jackass for going that route.

 

[Brinbe]

And Virginia, and Florida. Both if which where Romney is within striking distance.

Not really... Iowa/Wisconsin/Ohio is enough to win it.

 

[XenodudeX]

And Virginia, and Florida. Both if which where Romney is within striking distance.

He's been in "striking distance" in VA since the fucking start of the year. He has not lead in a SINGLE legit poll there. VA and OH are firewalls that Romney cannot get passed.

 

[pigeon]

That was my retort to him asking for a link, I've already explained Romney's line of reasoning which I learned by watching TV. Do I need a link now for everything I hear on TV?

If you want people to take it seriously, yes. You understand that Fox News is a channel on TV, right? "Here is a thing they said on TV that wasn't true, argh" is pretty much a regular feature on PoliGAF, because cable news just isn't a reliable source -- partly because they never SOURCE anything. So if you post something you saw on TV and people start saying it's not accurate, then yes, you need to provide a source that's actually trustworthy, or stop asserting that it's true -- because odds are it isn't true.

 

[Wes]

Could anyone help me find a direct quote from Romney on education?

From memory: "I love great schools."

 

[codhand]

dat (potential) butt hurt

I'm sorry professor PD, could you explain why Virginia, and Florida matter in the NOhio map?

 

[RustyNails]

And Virginia, and Florida. Both if which where Romney is within striking distance.

There you go again PD

 

[Gucci Messiah]

If you want people to take it seriously, yes. You understand that Fox News is a channel on TV, right? "Here is a thing they said on TV that wasn't true, argh" is pretty much a regular feature on PoliGAF, because cable news just isn't a reliable source -- partly because they never SOURCE anything. So if you post something you saw on TV and people start saying it's not accurate, then yes, you need to provide a source that's actually trustworthy, or stop asserting that it's true -- because odds are it isn't true.

The thing is I was watching CNN, not FOX and never said that Romney was telling the complete truth about his plan. I saw something on CNN supposedly from an independent tax center saying that Romney's plan is possible, but that he won't explain the details. Sorry for not being specific but I am just going off what I heard from a new source I trust.

 

[RDreamer]

The thing is I was watching CNN, not FOX and never said that Romney was telling the complete truth about his plan. I saw something on CNN supposedly from an independent tax center saying that Romney's plan is possible, but that he won't explain the details. Sorry for not being specific but I am just going off what I heard from a new source I trust.

They've asked him about some of those things, and specifically asked him to clarify on some of the assumptions they had to make in order to make his plan work. In one case he basically refuted the thing that "supported" his plan (it said he'd have to raise taxes on those making 100,000 or more... he said he wouldn't do that), and flatly admitted that he hadn't actually read them.

 

[Particle Physicist]

The thing is I was watching CNN, not FOX and never said that Romney was telling the complete truth about his plan. I saw something on CNN supposedly from an independent tax center saying that Romney's plan is possible, but that he won't explain the details. Sorry for not being specific but I am just going off what I heard from a new source I trust.

I heard on the radio today that Obama lied about Romney's 5trillion dollar tax cut because Romney stated that he will offset the costs. No mention of how he will offset them, or by how much, mind you.

 

[Jackson50]

That was my retort to him asking for a link, I've already explained Romney's line of reasoning which I learned by watching TV. Do I need a link now for everything I hear on TV? Do you need a link to prove there was even a debate last night? Plently of hard core left wingers in this thread post generalizations or outright false claims and are not called out or dog piled on. The atmosphere in this thread is toxic and that falls on the users not respecting other people's opinions or feeling the need to portray some hyper agressive internet persona. It really drives away any dissenting opinions and makes the thread a useless circle jerk of the same opinion. The right gets stiffled and generally treated like scum on poligaf, and that is coming from a long term lurker and self indentified democrat. This is getting ridiculous, GAF as a community shouldn't be like this.

/whiny post

You claimed Romney's plan is possible. That's a bold claim which requires substantiation. If you are unprepared to substantiate your claim, and "turn on the tv" hardly qualifies, it's best to refrain. Regarding the rest of your post, PoliGAF is doubtlessly tough on the right. But we're not a useless circle jerk. I've participated in myriad spirited debates where I've bucked the consensus. It's tough, but I've always substantiated my propositions. Welcome to the jungle.

 

[codhand]

I heard on the radio today that Obama lied about Romney's 5trillion dollar tax cut because Romney stated that he will offset the costs. No mention of how he will offset them, or by how much, mind you.

Was it AM radio by any chance?

 

[hydragonwarrior]

The problem that irks me, and people from the official speech page, is how Obama just didn't seem prepared. I mean, it's like they prepared him to ONLY be on the defensive, and not to actually fight back. I mean, the attacks are expected.

Solyndra? C'mon, expected. Economy? Of course. Zingers? Honestly, some of them are pretty obvious.

Really wish I knew what was on Axelrod's mind at the time though.


That being said, it is Romney - 1, Obama - 0. He can turn it back in the next few debates but I really hope he prepares much more this time around.

 

[Triggafinga]

Obama should come out to the stage and say "who was that guy last nite" then basically go through all the flip flops on Romney's positions.. maybe get a lil fired up. There will be more debates and Obama has another gear or two

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

I heard on the radio today that Obama lied about Romney's 5trillion dollar tax cut because Romney stated that he will offset the costs. No mention of how he will offset them, or by how much, mind you.

It's kind of a half-truth. Based on Romney's plan there will be a 5T tax cut, but there will be deductions that will be closed which will reduce the value of that cut. Until he names those cuts you can say that but it's not intellectually honest.

Outside of that point, there is absolutely no way in hell he can reach the cuts he's looking to make by only closing deductions and loopholes. It just can't fucking happen.

 

[dramatis]

That was my retort to him asking for a link, I've already explained Romney's line of reasoning which I learned by watching TV. Do I need a link now for everything I hear on TV? Do you need a link to prove there was even a debate last night? Plently of hard core left wingers in this thread post generalizations or outright false claims and are not called out or dog piled on. The atmosphere in this thread is toxic and that falls on the users not respecting other people's opinions or feeling the need to portray some hyper agressive internet persona. It really drives away any dissenting opinions and makes the thread a useless circle jerk of the same opinion. The right gets stiffled and generally treated like scum on poligaf, and that is coming from a long term lurker and self indentified democrat. This is getting ridiculous, GAF as a community shouldn't be like this.

/whiny post

Where did you see this explanation? Nowadays in the age of youtubes, it should be easy to find and provided as evidence.

You might notice the huge buzz around 'factchecking'? Why do you think all of the sudden we need this sort of nonsense, where we have to check everything the candidates say? Because they lie. Because there are explanations provided on TV that either confuse or obfuscate. That's why people ask for proof. There are slants online as well, but there are significantly more sources on the internet, which allows you to compare and judge the possibilities. In that case, it boils down to whether or not you are impartial—and I doubt you are.

Pigeon explained exactly why people dogpiled on you and not those "hard core left wingers": because you made a comment that can and has been proven false. Rather than throwing around "left wing gaf", "hard core left wingers", "liberals", etc., a better argument than the implication that we can't be reasoned with is to find the details that can support Romney's plan.

You're free to call out the people who are calling Obama's performance last night some crazy gambit. Instead you're whining about your treatment, not backing up your arguments, and implying that the posters who called you out are below you by saying you have better things to do than argue on a video game forum. Are you afraid to look up the subject because you'll be proven wrong? What's so hard about using Google?

Do you think playing the victim ever makes someone or someone's argument look better?

 

[RustyNails]

The problem that irks me, and people from the official speech page, is how Obama just didn't seem prepared. I mean, it's like they prepared him to ONLY be on the defensive, and not to actually fight back. I mean, the attacks are expected.

Solyndra? C'mon, expected. Economy? Of course. Zingers? Honestly, some of them are pretty obvious.

Really wish I knew what was on Axelrod's mind at the time though.

I'm thinking this "look presidential" thing was Obama's idea. No way Plouffe or Axelrod would've gone for it. When Romney delivered his remark that Obama wasted 2 years of his job going after Obamacare while jobs were being lost and economy being bad, I expected Obama to reply with "You know Mitt, being President means you have to be able to do many things at the same time. I could not focus on simply the economy while 40,000 people were dying every year due to preventable diseases, many poor and elderly. You cannot be the President of only a segment of people. You are the President of the entire country." Boom. Segway into 47%.

 

[MrCheez]

Very disappointed with Obama's lack of energy or fight. However, the bigger curiosity for me is... shouldn't Republicans be questioning Romney's flip-flopping as much as the Democrats? (The sane Republicans, anyway) I mean, aren't they the least bit worried about being conned?

It's pretty safe to assume that's exactly what's happening when you have a candidate who not only refuses to divulge specifics for his plans, but also completely changes his stances and policies based upon who he's talking to and what they want to hear.

I mean... doesn't it seem a little fishy?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I'm thinking this "look presidential" thing was Obama's idea. No way Plouffe or Axelrod would've gone for it. When Romney delivered his remark that Obama wasted 2 years of his job going after Obamacare while jobs were being lost and economy being bad, I expected Obama to reply with "You know Mitt, being President means you have to be able to do many things at the same time. I could not focus on simply the economy while 40,000 people were dying every year due to preventable diseases, many poor and elderly. You cannot be the President of only a segment of people. You are the President of the entire country." Boom. Segway into 47%.

It was horrible performance, he missed so many opportunities.

 

[codhand]

Although I readily concede Romney won the debate, I'm still mad bro, about his lack of a core. His John Cusack Say Anything approach, makes me really wonder why the fuck is he running at all? Purely some Daddy issue shit? Obama for all his faults, is passionate about his cause, Romney is passionate about winning.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

You claimed Romney's plan is possible. That's a bold claim which requires substantiation. If you are unprepared to substantiate your claim, and "turn on the tv" hardly qualifies, it's best to refrain. Regarding the rest of your post, PoliGAF is doubtlessly tough on the right. But we're not a useless circle jerk. I've participated in myriad spirited debates where I've bucked the consensus. It's tough, but I've always substantiated my propositions. Welcome to the jungle.

Thank you for the advice, I'll try to provide more hard facts from now on

 

[WaltJay]

This is what I was thinking the whole time last night when Romney was describing his tax plan. Reduce my rate and my deductions would lead back to square one, so what's the point?

http://gawker.com/5948960/romneys-incoherent-tax-plan-is-giving-me-a-headache

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Where did you see this explanation? Nowadays in the age of youtubes, it should be easy to find and provided as evidence.

You might notice the huge buzz around 'factchecking'? Why do you think all of the sudden we need this sort of nonsense, where we have to check everything the candidates say? Because they lie. Because there are explanations provided on TV that either confuse or obfuscate. That's why people ask for proof. There are slants online as well, but there are significantly more sources on the internet, which allows you to compare and judge the possibilities. In that case, it boils down to whether or not you are impartial—and I doubt you are.
?
Pigeon explained exactly why people dogpiled on you and not those "hard core left wingers": because you made a comment that can and has been proven false. Rather than throwing around "left wing gaf", "hard core left wingers", "liberals", etc., a better argument than the implication that we can't be reasoned with is to find the details that can support Romney's plan.

You're free to call out the people who are calling Obama's performance last night some crazy gambit. Instead you're whining about your treatment, not backing up your arguments, and implying that the posters who called you out are below you by saying you have better things to do than argue on a video game forum. Are you afraid to look up the subject because you'll be proven wrong? What's so hard about using Google?

Do you think playing the victim ever makes someone or someone's argument look better?

lol I've said multiple times that I am liberal so don't try to paint me as conservative or biased

 

[Plinko]

Sadly, I would venture a guess that a huge amount of the American public actually votes based on how a guy looks and sounds. Because of that, Obama failed in a huge way.

Also, LOL at those that tried to say Obama was a better political candidate that Bill Clinton. Please.

 

[eBay Huckster]

This is what I was thinking the whole time last night when Romney was describing his tax plan. Reduce my rate and my deductions would lead back to square one, so what's the point?

http://gawker.com/5948960/romneys-incoherent-tax-plan-is-giving-me-a-headache

As someone put it in the comments there: it's Underpants Gnome economics.

 

[Jackson50]

Sadly, I would venture a guess that a huge amount of the American public actually votes based on how a guy looks and sounds. Because of that, Obama failed in a huge way.

Also, LOL at those that tried to say Obama was a better political candidate that Bill Clinton. Please.

Let me guess, you want to bench Obama and put in Biden.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I'm thinking this "look presidential" thing was Obama's idea. No way Plouffe or Axelrod would've gone for it. When Romney delivered his remark that Obama wasted 2 years of his job going after Obamacare while jobs were being lost and economy being bad, I expected Obama to reply with "You know Mitt, being President means you have to be able to do many things at the same time. I could not focus on simply the economy while 40,000 people were dying every year due to preventable diseases, many poor and elderly. You cannot be the President of only a segment of people. You are the President of the entire country." Boom. Segway into 47%.

Yeah - but anyway, damage has been done. It's up to Obama now to make it work out the second time.

 

[teruterubozu]

I'm thinking this "look presidential" thing was Obama's idea. No way Plouffe or Axelrod would've gone for it. When Romney delivered his remark that Obama wasted 2 years of his job going after Obamacare while jobs were being lost and economy being bad, I expected Obama to reply with "You know Mitt, being President means you have to be able to do many things at the same time. I could not focus on simply the economy while 40,000 people were dying every year due to preventable diseases, many poor and elderly. You cannot be the President of only a segment of people. You are the President of the entire country." Boom. Segway into 47%.

I wish he looked "presidential". He looked liked a man who fucked up his wedding anniversary.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Was it AM radio by any chance?

Nope, FM music station. It was a news segment with a quick recap of the debates.

 

[empty vessel]

I heard on the radio today that Obama lied about Romney's 5trillion dollar tax cut because Romney stated that he will offset the costs. No mention of how he will offset them, or by how much, mind you.

Democrats will always lose this argument so long as they continue to endorse and advance the deeply conservative proposition that the budget deficit has meaning in and of itself. The Republicans use this device rhetorically as leverage, but ignore it practically to their advantage. The Democrats foolishly take it seriously, to their and the country's detriment.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The problem that irks me, and people from the official speech page, is how Obama just didn't seem prepared. I mean, it's like they prepared him to ONLY be on the defensive, and not to actually fight back. I mean, the attacks are expected.

Solyndra? C'mon, expected. Economy? Of course. Zingers? Honestly, some of them are pretty obvious.

Really wish I knew what was on Axelrod's mind at the time though.


That being said, it is Romney - 1, Obama - 0. He can turn it back in the next few debates but I really hope he prepares much more this time around.

I only think preparation was a part of the problem. The gameplan seemed to be to play prevent defense; that doesn't work in football or anything else. Obama let Romney lie about social security, Medicare, ACA, the progressive tax system, etc etc. He wasn't debating, he was reading his own talking points while ignoring Romney; it was like he was some partisan surrogate on a network show, "facing off" against another partisan surrogate.

I'll wait for next week's post-debate polls to see how this impacts states, but I think things will tighten. Voters are fickle, and last night they saw one guy who looked like he wanted to be there and one guy who looked like he couldn't care less. Stuff like that matters.

 

[Plinko]

Let me guess, you want to bench Obama and put in Biden.

No. Bring in Shaun Hill

 

[PhoenixDark]

No. Bring in Shaun Hill

Obama looked like Stafford last week. Unsure of himself, confused, and overrated.

Spoiler

Hillary Clinton=Drew Stanton

 

[codhand]

Democrats will always lose this argument so long as they continue to endorse and advance the deeply conservative proposition that the budget deficit has meaning in and of itself. The Republicans use this device rhetorically as leverage, but ignore it practically to their advantage. The Democrats foolishly take it seriously, to their and the country's detriment.

Did you notice Jim Lehrer verbally confounding debt and deficit?

 

[Particle Physicist]

It's kind of a half-truth. Based on Romney's plan there will be a 5T tax cut, but there will be deductions that will be closed which will reduce the value of that cut. Until he names those cuts you can say that but it's not intellectually honest.

Outside of that point, there is absolutely no way in hell he can reach the cuts he's looking to make by only closing deductions and loopholes. It just can't fucking happen.

Those deductions don't exist until he names them. Otherwise, the premise is that as long as you aren't specific about anything, you can't be criticized. You can make any broad claim you want that is in the realm of some posibility like this. It's absurd that the media is not callin Romney out on this.

 

[Jackson50]

I wish he looked "presidential". He looked liked a man who fucked up his wedding anniversary.

Yeah. What was he thinking when he acceded to a debate on his anniversary.

No. Bring in Shaun Hill

Hahaha.

Obama looked like Stafford last week. Unsure of himself, confused, and overrated.

Spoiler

Hillary Clinton=Drew Stanton

Nah. He looked like Jordan in 95. A bit rusty, but he'll return to form.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Nah. He looked like Jordan in 95. A bit rusty, but he'll return to form.

Wait, wouldn't this metaphor mean Obama would win the second debate more decisively than the third? (The Bulls did win 3 more games in '96 than '97, after all.)

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Democrats will always lose this argument so long as they continue to endorse and advance the deeply conservative proposition that the budget deficit has meaning in and of itself. The Republicans use this device rhetorically as leverage, but ignore it practically to their advantage. The Democrats foolishly take it seriously, to their and the country's detriment.

I have criticized you in the past, but this is one of the smartest, clearest things I think you have ever posted.

 

[Averon]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157871/unadjusted-unemployment-rate-september.aspx

U.S. Unadjusted Unemployment Rate at 7.9% in September

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, was 7.9% for the month of September, unchanged from 7.9% measured in mid-September but down slightly from 8.1% for the month of August. Gallup's seasonally adjusted September unemployment rate was 8.1%, unchanged from August.

 

[The Librarian]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157871/unadjusted-unemployment-rate-september.aspx

U.S. Unadjusted Unemployment Rate at 7.9% in September

Gallup's UE numbers are wacky. Pay little-to-no attention to it at the most.

 

[pigeon]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157871/unadjusted-unemployment-rate-september.aspx

U.S. Unadjusted Unemployment Rate at 7.9% in September

Bad news for Obama. His campaign has been saying unemployment probably wouldn't go below 8% before the election. Now he looks weak and out of control.