AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I thought that was Biden consoling Obama after last night's debate performance.
BTW, that article gave me diabetes just by reading it. Thanks, Aaron.
And to what extent did Bush adopt Romney's strategy from last night? To what degree did Bush willfully dissemble and etch-a-sketch his way through the debate?
10/10I thought that was Biden consoling Obama after last night's debate performance.
:lol :lol :lolI thought that was Biden consoling Obama after last night's debate performance.
I'm a worrywort, a bit emotional sometimes, but I thoroughly enjoy these threads. I'm not a troll, you have my word. I've been on GAF for over 10 years now.
That said this is one of those times when it's totally legit to worry.
A weak debater? Loser? Inept? He has proven to thwart all of those things and yet it's as though Obama from last night came from a time machine circa 2007. It's weird as hell.
Even Nate Silver is now more than open to the possibility that the debate could have really changed the landscape:
In several other cases, however, the instant-reaction polls did not correlate with the change in head-to-head polls. Before Wednesday night, the second-clearest margin of victory for a challenging candidate in the CNN poll came in 2008, when Mr. Obama was declared the winner of the third presidential debate by a 27-point margin. However, his opponent John McCain actually gained slightly in the polls instead just after that debate.
Obama is always better when he's behind. This is the part of the movie in which the montage music kicks in. He just got his back broken! He'll will RISE!
Over all, the relationship between the winner of the instant-reaction poll and the change in head-to-head polls is positive, although not statistically significant.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-romney-will-ignore-wall-street-crack-down"When he was asked what he would do to actually cut spending and reduce the deficit, he said he'd eliminate public television funding," Obama said. "But I just want to make sure got this straight. He'll get rid of regulations on Wall Street -- but he's going to crack down on Sesame Street."
From a purely objective point of view, pretending I don't care about politics or what it means to be red or blue, that the non-political Diablos would not be able to understand what Obama was trying to articulate, nor would I feel compelled to support him in any capacity. But Mitt sure did look a lot like a President, and I might want to listen to him. That Obama guy? What was he doing up there?
All these day-after Obama snaps are getting annoying. He better "wake the fuck up" at the next debate at say them to Romney's face.
So I was wondering: there was a point in the debate where Obama talked about ending tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas.
Romney countered by saying that in decades of doing business, he had never heard of such a tax break. IMO, it really made Obama look bad, especially because he never pushed back on that point.
Does anyone know what specific tax break Obama was referring to? I remember him saying more or less the same thing in 2008. The fact that he's saying it again four years later would indicate that either it doesn't exist and he's been using it as a paper tiger this whole time, that he's really talking about some other tax break that can theoretically be claimed by businesses who relocate production overseas, or that this tax break is politically impossible to eliminate.
“I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.”
— Obama
“You said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.”
— Romney
Romney said he was unaware of any provision that gives companies a tax deduction for moving operations overseas. But Obama is right; there is such a provision that allows companies to deduct such expenses — but it is not a specific loophole or incentive, as Obama indicated.
Here’s how the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation described it:
“Under present law, there are no specific tax credits or disallowances of deductions solely for locating jobs in the United States or overseas. Deductions generally are allowed for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, which includes the relocation of business units.”
Moreover, it is pretty small potatoes given the attention Democrats pay to it. The JCT estimated that ending the deduction for moving operations overseas would raise just $168 million over a decade.
In the federal government with an annual budget deficit of more than $1 trillion, that’s what you call a rounding error.
This is gold. Can't believe this is actually a thing lol. Just came back from a lecture on American politics by Maarten van Rossem. It was funny seeing him react the same way as gaf even though he's Dutch. He was very disappointed, almost angry at Obama for the way he handled the debate. I'm glad the lecture was the day after the debate.Haha
Obama: Romney Will Ignore Wall Street, Crack Down On Sesame Street
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-romney-will-ignore-wall-street-crack-down
So I was wondering: there was a point in the debate where Obama talked about ending tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas.
Romney countered by saying that in decades of doing business, he had never heard of such a tax break. IMO, it really made Obama look bad, especially because he never pushed back on that point.
Does anyone know what specific tax break Obama was referring to? I remember him saying more or less the same thing in 2008. The fact that he's saying it again four years later would indicate that either it doesn't exist and he's been using it as a paper tiger this whole time, that he's really talking about some other tax break that can theoretically be claimed by businesses who relocate production overseas, or that this tax break is politically impossible to eliminate.
Right it so stupid.
Speaking of rounding errors and I'm sure I'm not the first to ask, but how much does pbs get from the government?
Yup more and more interviews are showing that, he had a commanding presence to say exactly nothing.
I have seen more Big Bird references than anything else today, not sure that is the thing to get Romney back 5-8 pts lol
Diablos has to be a joke character, right?
Obama's still going to win this. Mitt's positions are not popular, and the more people listen to them and him the less they like both. Obama's just running out the clock while Mitt keeps lying and providing more ad fodder.
Diablos panicking? All is fine.
Since when did the Onion leave satire?
Yup more and more interviews are showing that, he had a commanding presence to say exactly nothing.
I have seen more Big Bird references than anything else today, not sure that is the thing to get Romney back 5-8 pts lol
I may have to pull a 180 on Booker not challenging Christie.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2012/10/gov_christie_keeps_promise_to.html#incart_river_default
Seems like the bromance has hit a rocky skid.
...
I can't wait until next week when we get post-debate polls
...
I can't wait until next week when we get post-debate polls
You've been waiting 5 years for post-everything polls
$400 million per year.
Err I'm confused. They have a surplus, meaning they have payed back the loan and gained a surplus of 18mil correct? Which...is a good thing for Newark/Booker
Holy crap. Didn't realize it was that big. I would cut funding to it, too. But then again, i am for the government really only having their fingers in necessary pies.
Its a dollar per person... Given the content it seems very much worth it.Holy crap. Didn't realize it was that big. I would cut funding to it, too. But then again, i am for the government really only having their fingers in necessary pies.