Support NeoGAF

[exarkun]

I dont get the debate over his laughing and smirking. Hes a 69 year old career politician facing a 40 year old from Wisconsin who was clearly picked to humanize and energize the republican candidate. To be in that position is semi-laughable in itself.

To me, Biden is the most relate-able(?) of the 4 people involved in the running. Tonight proved that because Biden was full of energy and looked genuine in his love for debating, while Obama is stoic, Romney is robotic, and Ryan is...just occupying space.

If anything, the way Biden acted during the debate is the way that most republicans would want their presidential candidate to act: Forceful, thorough, on-point (in some areas), and very down to earth. The smirking is forgivable because of all the aforementioned things. It also makes him human because its something that a regular person would do in that situation. Biden is almost just a smarter Bush, personality-wise. Which is something one of my repub. friends had said before. And I agree with.

 

[Amzin]

I'm not decided if I'm voting for Romney or voting for either candidate. Romney still has to seal the deal with me to get me to care enough to go out to vote on election day.

Like I said we live in a hyper partisan time. Nobody can be honest about anything.

This isn't how discourse should be. A VP doesn't conduct himself in a debate like this regardless of whether he's Republican or Democrat. At minimum you should bring respect for the opposition to the table. Am I expecting too much in 2012?

I think Biden made some good points during the debate and even got Ryan on a few issues and vice versa, but the overwhelming thing that I will remember about this debate was the bizarre disrespectful conduct of the VP.



All politicians are perpetual bullshitters. Anyone who thinks one side tells the truth and the other lies is full of it themselves. You don't get anywhere in politics without being a perpetual bullshitter. Joe Biden has made a long career out of the game of politics.

Ryan didn't strike me at all as an immature child, robotic maybe but immature? I think it took a lot to sit there and continue on for an hour and half while the VP is acting like he's on drugs laughing hysterically and interrupting everyone. Also and maybe it's just me, but when the VP turns on the "rage" it strikes me as overly dramatic faux-rage. Like you said it changes when he needs it, so it doesn't come across as sincere or heartfelt, it comes across staged.

You may dislike Ryan, but he's not an idiot. If anything he comes across to me as a numbers nerd, not an idiot at all.

No one outside of debate teams uses actual debate rules. And while I give people the benefit of the doubt, there is no reason to respect Ryan (or most politicians, really). Respect is earned, and he's certainly done nothing to earn mine.

 

[NullPointer]

The media better not spin this into a draw. This was nothing less than a 90 minute massacre.

Anybody who watches it knows how it went down.

 

[Open Source]

I'm not decided if I'm voting for Romney or voting for either candidate. Romney still has to seal the deal with me to get me to care enough to go out to vote on election day.

Like I said we live in a hyper partisan time. Nobody can be honest about anything.

This isn't how discourse should be. A VP doesn't conduct himself in a debate like this regardless of whether he's Republican or Democrat. At minimum you should bring respect for the opposition to the table. Am I expecting too much in 2012?

I think Biden made some good points during the debate and even got Ryan on a few issues and vice versa, but the overwhelming thing that I will remember about this debate was the bizarre disrespectful conduct of the VP.

I have to agree. Biden was at his best when he waited his turn and explained things clearly, which he did on several occasions later in the debate. I thought his trying to flummox Ryan with interruptions and preventing viewers from hearing cohesive answers was bush league and kept viewers from getting information they needed to make an informed decision - which is ostensibly the point of the debate.

Biden did a better job of saying things in a way that would resonate with average people. But Ryan came across as credible, knowledgeable and qualified for the job.

 

[Baconsammy]

Rachel Maddow nailed it. Every Biden laugh coincided with a Ryan lie.

 

[RobotChant]

Biden's smirks and laughing is how a normal person reacts to someone sitting right next to you bullshitting. He's a politician and that might not be the best thing to do but Biden gonna Biden.

 

[thekad]

You may dislike Ryan, but he's not an idiot. If anything he comes across to me as a numbers nerd, not an idiot at all.

You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

 

[Officerrob]

Ryan is supposed to be the "numbers" guy, the "facts" guy, the "math" guy.......and he was just destroyed by a man Republicans labeled as a goofball for four years.

 

[pigeon]

Ryan is supposed to be the "numbers" guy, the "facts" guy, the "math" guy.......and he was just destroyed by a man Republicans labeled as a goofball for four years.

I think you mean "buried."

 

[K.Sabot]

Yeah, I've never been shown anything that makes Ryan out to be a "numbers guy".

Edit: Well, he does like to throw out a lot of numbers. So if you were going with a literal interpretation of "numbers guy", I'd be forced to accept that.

 

[videogamer]

You may dislike Ryan, but he's not an idiot. If anything he comes across to me as a numbers nerd, not an idiot at all.

If he's not an idiot, why wouldn't he provide the specifics that the moderator asked for multiple times?

 

[Evlar]

You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

"As usual, Paul Ryan makes me think of Ezra Klein's old line about Dick Armey: He's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." - Paul Krugman

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

Ryan is so vague. He's dancing around the afghan questions right now.

 

[soul creator]

wasn't able to catch the debate tonight (was being a patriotic american...and watching French band, M83, perform instead)

Reading through some impressions though it seems like:

-Paul Ryan did his usual BS
-Biden repeatedly called him on his BS, often in a snarky way
-conservatives tone trolling Biden ("he was so mean! Unpresidential! At least when we want to destroy the social safety net, we phrase it nicely on TV!")
-liberals mostly fired up, but some still worried that Biden was too "mean".
-media declares it a tie or slightly in Biden's favor

fair summary?

Hopefully I can catch a repeat somewhere...

You may dislike Ryan, but he's not an idiot. If anything he comes across to me as a numbers nerd, not an idiot at all.

Ryan's so called "mastery" of numbers reminds me of:

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

I believe in civility.

I also believe in recognizing when you're dealing with somebody who's demonstrated their willingness to take advantage of your civility to manipulate the situation, and reacting appropriately.

This is excuse making. The VP was smirking/laughing and interrupting regardless of whether Ryan was saying was controversial or not.

If it happened now and again it would be acceptable, but he overdid it. It was every single time Ryan tried to speak.

And it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would ever be appropriate for Republican or Democratic leader to laugh for 90 minutes straight in a nationally televised debate.

I'm sorry to hear that this is what some of the left wants. You don't just want to see your side win, you want to see them disrespect the opposition.

I see anyone who resorts to disrespecting or disparaging their opposition as losers. But there's so many people now who eat up the Ann Coulter and Bill Maher garbage as though it's all cool. I lose all respect for people who can't conduct themselves in a dignified manner when facing people they disagree with. And I gain a lot of respect for people who can express their views to someone who disagrees with them in a dignified statesmanlike manner.

If he's not an idiot, why wouldn't he provide the specifics that the moderator asked for multiple times?

Well Ryan's response and Romney's response last week was that they're not going to force through their plan on Democrats. They're providing guidelines, but they're going to be open to bipartisan debate on the issue. Romney used the example of Obamacare as to how not to force through legislation.

You can say it's bullshit or you can say it's the right way to conduct yourself in office, but I don't think that response makes you an idiot. Again on style points I think that makes Romney/Ryan look like the civilized ones if you're buying into their explanation (obviously most here do not due to partisanship).

 

[Officerrob]

If he's not an idiot, why wouldn't he provide the specifics that the moderator asked for multiple times?

Because he knows they don't add up, so he's not an idiot because he didn't admit it?

 

[Black Mamba]

Ryan's numbers are all fake and misleading. He has an agenda and he uses numbers to make people think he knows what he's talking about because people are too lazy to research into his claims.

Ryan's a bunch of numbers bullshit. If you have 5 apples he'll tell you you have 3.

 

[apana]

I think Biden did his job very effectively and bullied Ryan throughout the night. It wasn't his job to "win" for himself and be more likeable than Ryan. It was his job to get Democracts fired up and attack Romney/Ryan in order to slow their momentum. I think he was as effective as a vice president can be in doing both those things.

 

[NullPointer]

If he's not an idiot, why wouldn't he provide the specifics that the moderator asked for multiple times?

Or even affirm to her that they existed, somewhere. He didn't need to spell out the details to answer her question.

Here is what she asked:

RADDATZ: Well, let’s talk about this 20 percent. You have refused — and, again — to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that’s why you won’t tell voters?

And the full exchange:

RADDATZ: Well, let’s talk about this 20 percent. You have refused — and, again — to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that’s why you won’t tell voters?

RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the…

RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the…

(CROSSTALK) BIDEN: That would — that would be a first for the Republican Congress.

RADDATZ: Do you know exactly what you’re doing?

RYAN: Look — look at what Mitt Romney — look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that.

What we’re saying is, here’s our framework. Lower tax rates 20 percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what we’re saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation…

BIDEN: Can I translate?

RYAN: … so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here’s why I’m saying this. What we’re saying is, here’s the framework…

BIDEN: I hope I’m going to get time to respond to this.

RADDATZ: You’ll get time.

RYAN: We want to work with Congress — we want to work with the Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful. Look…

RADDATZ: No specifics, again.

RYAN: Mitt — what we’re saying is, lower tax rates 20 percent, start with the wealthy, work with Congress to do it…

RADDATZ: And you guarantee this math will add up?

RYAN: Absolutely. Six studies have guaranteed — six studies have verified that this math adds up. But here’s…

 

[Officerrob]

You don't just want to see your side win, you want to see them disrespect the opposition.

For me it really depends on who the opposition is. If it's a phony numbers guy with extreme social views who many think is the future of the Republican party, you bet your ass

 

[thekad]

This is excuse making. The VP was smirking/laughing and interrupting regardless of whether Ryan was saying was controversial or not.

If it happened now and again it would be acceptable, but he overdid it. It was every single time Ryan tried to speak.

And it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would ever be appropriate for Republican or Democratic leader to laugh for 90 minutes straight in a nationally televised debate.

I'm sorry to hear that this is what the left wants. You don't just want to see your side win, you want to see them disrespect the opposition.

Dude, we have the video. This is just obviously false.

 

[Open Source]

This is excuse making. The VP was smirking/laughing and interrupting regardless of whether Ryan was saying was controversial or not.

If it happened now and again it would be acceptable, but he overdid it. It was every single time Ryan tried to speak.

And it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would ever be appropriate for Republican or Democratic leader to laugh for 90 minutes straight in a nationally televised debate.

I'm sorry to hear that this is what the left wants. You don't just want to see your side win, you want to see them disrespect the opposition.

It reminded me a bit of bush-Kerry round 2. Bush was supposed to come out aggressively after a tired-looking performance in round 1. The problem was, he sounded like a peevish muppet or a yapping chihuahua.

 

[Klocker]

"As usual, Paul Ryan makes me think of Ezra Klein's old line about Dick Armey: He's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." - Paul Krugman

oh shit, that's it.

 

[Neko Mimi Mode]

Seems like a tie overall, I'd give slight advantage to Biden but he went a touch too far with the unnecessary/excessive laughter and interruptions.

 

[Thoraxes]

Rachel Maddow nailed it. Every Biden laugh coincided with a Ryan lie.

So that's what it was!

 

[Officerrob]

"As usual, Paul Ryan makes me think of Ezra Klein's old line about Dick Armey: He's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." - Paul Krugman

That is absolutely perfect

 

[strobogo]

I think Joe Biden wouldn't be a good president, but is a perfect vice president. Especially for Obama. I think it has really been quite a while since we've had a VP in America that would be just fine if the president died/was assassinated. I don't think that part is really taken into consideration anymore. Not since Reagan/Bush, really. And that was a weird case where I think Bush actually seemed like he'd have been a better president than Reagan, but wasn't as charismatic.

But you look at the past 30-40 years of VPs. How many people really thought they'd make a good president if something happened? Dick Cheney? Dan Quayle? Al Gore (seriously, no one would have taken him seriously if he took over for Bill in 1996, he was just a continuation of Clinton, much like Bush was for Reagan)? Gerald Ford (lol)? Spiro Agnew? Maybe Mondale, I guess. VPs are really strictly as a counter weight for the weak spots the president has. Which is weird that Romney picked a guy so much like him. He should have picked a guy with much more personality and humanity. Instead, Ryan is just a younger, more in shape Romney.

 

[empty vessel]

The total (public + private) us debt went up every year in the 90s. This is an easily verified fact. Public went down at some point, only because by law any surplus in social security receipts must be applied to paying the public debt. That transfer reduced the public debt and increased the private debt by the same amount.

It doesn't matter, quite frankly. Did you know that the Australian government ran surpluses for many years, but still issued "debt"?* Know why? Because the private sector demanded it. Why? Because the "debt" (which is not real debt as you and I know it, but promises to create and spend money in the future) of a government is the most secure investment in the world. When you think about it, it puts the lie to capitalism. But never mind that.

* The Australian government could run surpluses without causing a major economic recession only because Australia is a net exporter. The US is a net importer, and therefore must have a government that deficit spends if it wants to have an economy that grows.

Government is the source of money. It is not the source of wealth. Money is just a tool that like everything else in the world only has whatever value the people exchanging it agree on.

Agreed! Money is a tool! So don't worry about the government's creation of it ("printing money") except insofar as the creation of too much of this tool has negative ramifications. And I agree that it theoretically could create too much of it! So, clearly, there is no issue about whether the government should create this tool, it is always and evermore about whether it has created the right amount of this tool at the given time!

The deficit is a money deficit, but that deficit represents wealth - the wealth that those who use dollars as a medium of trade assign to it. When government puts more dollars into circulation, and the nation's wealth has not increased proportionately, the value of the dollar will drop, because dollars are now easier to get than wealth.

This is false. When the government puts more dollars into circulation (at least into the right hands), then more goods and services by the people who hold them are demanded. The result is not a decrease in the value of the dollar, but a rise in the employment of capital and labor, i.e., economic efficiency. Only once all idle capital is used and all idle labor is employed can the creation of additional dollars cause their value to drop, i.e., can demand-pull inflation result.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Paul Ryan is an ideologue who twists numbers to get the results he wants. I respect numbers guys. Had he said "I will cut Medicare, cut defense and raise taxes in order to cut the deficit" I would respect him even though I would disagree with him.
However Ryan wants to cut taxes on the rich, cut Medicare, not cut defense and somehow the budget will balance itself! Wtf

 

[Darryl]

I'm sorry to hear that this is what the left wants. You don't just want to see your side win, you want to see them disrespect the opposition.

ryan isn't clean in this debate regardless of how much biden was laughing. shit like this:

RYAN: Here's the problem. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, turning Medicare into a piggybank for Obamacare.

just dishonest

 

[Forgotten_Taco]

You can say it's bullshit or you can say it's the right way to conduct yourself in office, but I don't think that response makes you an idiot.

Disrespecting the opposition had been part of politics since its invention.

 

[pigeon]

I'm sorry to hear that this is what the left wants. You don't just want to see your side win, you want to see them disrespect the opposition.

Actually, more than anything I'd like respectable opposition.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are respectable conservatives. Romney and Ryan aren't them.

Well Ryan's response and Romney's response last week was that they're not going to force through their plan on Democrats. They're providing guidelines, but they're going to be open to bipartisan debate on the issue. Romney used the example of Obamacare as to how not to force through legislation.

You can say it's bullshit or you can say it's the right way to conduct yourself in office, but I don't think that response makes you an idiot.

If it doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you a liar, because it's a wholly inaccurate description of the situation, and makes it clear that you don't respect the American people enough to actually give them any specifics on what you might -- not even would, but might -- actually do.

 

[Forever]

This is excuse making.

No, you're the one trying very hard to make excuses for Ryan flubbing every answer of substance by talking about shallow appearances. I'm very sorry to hear that style completely supercedes all substance in your judgment.

I would say that attitudes like yours are precisely what's wrong with American politics and governance. It's okay to lie, to be wrong, to lose an argument, as long as you look good doing it. You are not only enabling but encouraging the very worst sort of politics that democracy can offer. You're part of the post-truth society advocating for an American Idol election.

Depressing. I would not be shocked if you confessed to being a Palin fan.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Laughter is only a problem in a country that wants to believe that anyone who has reached the national stage is 'serious' and above ridicule.

Ryan and his ludicrous policies are not. Laughter is merited. Laughter is deserved. He should be 'disrespected', because his politics are not respectable.

 

[Mairu]

I don't understand how you can argue that "the numbers add up" and then when you're asked for specifics you say "we're open to working together"

How the fuck do you come up with numbers based on specifics that don't exist? It was absolutely embarrassing for Ryan when the moderator probed asking for specifics and he didn't have a real answer.

 

[Wall]

I never knew the entire payment had to be made in gold. Consider me learned.



I'm doing some reading into Paul Krugman. Here he makes the argument that deficits do matter, and that holding solely your own currency is not protection from hyperinflation.
Deficits and the Printing Press - Krugman.

Very interesting in light of the previous articles of his that were posted. This is more in line with what I was arguing about the potential for the bond market to dry up, and the fact that we can't just print our way out of the problem.

Deficits "matter" when the economy is at full employment and capacity utilization. In other words, not now. Not when unemployment is 7.8% and the percentage of the population working is below what it was before the recession. Right now any attempt to cut the deficit would just lower economic growth and threaten to put the country back into a recession. The reason is complicated and I don't feel like it explaining it at 2:00am in the morning.

Here is a paper that explains it probably better than I ever could:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf

I posted it before but people should read it if they haven't because it is important. It basically explains the past 4 years in this country and around the world.

As far as I can tell, both standard macroeconomics (which Krugman uses - he is very orthodox) and MMT (which people on here seem to cite a lot) agree that there are instances when deficits matter. Or, at least they agree that if the government prints too much money (which it would need to do in order to “pay” its debts if demand for its bonds collapses) then inflation will rise. They both then agree that the government should raise taxes to counteract the inflation. Actually, it’s not even clear to me that MMT is really separate from modern macro. It appears more like it is a subdivision of the field focused specifically on how money behaves. At most the two theories just appear to differ in how they explain things. They don't appear to differ with regards to their actual predications or their actual policy prescriptions.

 

[MetatronM]

It reminded me a bit of bush-Kerry round 2. Bush was supposed to come out aggressively after a tired-looking performance in round 1. The problem was, he sounded like a peevish muppet or a yapping chihuahua.

This, by the way, is EXACTLY why Biden handled this debate the way he did. Because the expectation of overcompensating for the weakness of the first debate was inherently going to be there, and it was going to be THE go to critique for the next presidential debate if Biden didn't go all out here.

Instead, Biden intentionally overdid it in THIS debate, which frees Obama up to be as aggressive as he feels comfortable with being in the town hall debate, because anything Obama does will appear restrained and courteous compared to Biden. Additionally, the VP debate has relatively little impact in the polls anyway, but the Democrats needed to hear some fire in order to be reenergized, and Biden delivered exactly that in a situation where it was relatively safe for him to do so. Biden is a very cagey politician, and this was an extremely deliberate plan. Let Biden get the label of being the rude and disrespectful one and keep it off of Obama.

I was saying before the debate that Biden needed to basically do the exact opposite of what he did in the 2008 debate, where he intentionally held back and used kid gloves with Palin because that's what the situation demanded, and that's precisely what he did.

 

[B-Dubs]

Laughter is only a problem in a country that wants to believe that anyone who has reached the national stage is 'serious' and above ridicule.

Ryan and his ludicrous policies are not. Laughter is merited. Laughter is deserved. He should be 'disrespected', because his politics are not respectable.

God knows I was laughing hysterically the whole time.

 

[empty vessel]

As far as I can tell, both standard macroeconomics (which Krugman uses - he is very orthodox) and MMT (which people on here seem to cite a lot) agree that there are instances when deficits matter. Or, at least they agree that if the government prints too much money (which it would need to do in order to “pay” its debts if demand for its bonds collapses) then inflation will rise. They both then agree that the government should raise taxes to counteract the inflation. Actually, it’s not even clear to me that MMT is really separate from modern macro. It appears more like it is a subdivision of the field focused specifically on how money behaves. At most the two theories just appear to differ in how they explain things. They don't appear to differ with regards to their actual predications or their actual policy prescriptions.

MMT is not separate from modern macroeconomics. It is modern macroeconomics. It is in the Keynesian tradition. It simply recognizes the post-Keynesian transition by governments away from monetary systems based on commodity convertibility (e.g., $1=X oz. gold) to modern fiat monetary systems ($1=$1). This only happened in 1971 (aside from some prior momentary other flirtations with fiat money, including in the US after the Great Depression to the end of WWII). MMT takes issue with people like Krugman only to the extent they fail to recognize and incorporate this transition into their analyses.

 

[Evlar]

Deficits "matter" when the economy is at full employment and capacity utilization. In other words, not now. Not when unemployment is 7.8% and the percentage of the population working is below what it was before the recession. Right now any attempt to cut the deficit would just lower economic growth and threaten to put the country back into a recession. The reason is complicated and I don't feel like it explaining it at 2:00am in the morning.

Here is a paper that explains it probably better than I ever could:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf

I posted it before but people should read it if they haven't because it is important. It basically explains the past 4 years in this country and around the world.

As far as I can tell, both standard macroeconomics (which Krugman uses - he is very orthodox) and MMT (which people on here seem to cite a lot) agree that there are instances when deficits matter. Or, at least they agree that if the government prints too much money (which it would need to do in order to “pay” its debts if demand for its bonds collapses) then inflation will rise. They both then agree that the government should raise taxes to counteract the inflation. Actually, it’s not even clear to me that MMT is really separate from modern macro. It appears more like it is a subdivision of the field focused specifically on how money behaves. At most the two theories just appear to differ in how they explain things. They don't appear to differ with regards to their actual predications or their actual policy prescriptions.

Yes, well stated as usual.

I'll admit to not being convinced one way or another on MMT; I'm not educated enough on the specifics of the theory to have an intelligent opinion. Either way, though, government spending on employment and demand pump-priming is the right course under the current circumstances.

 

[devilhawk]

Paul Ryan is an ideologue who twists numbers to get the results he wants. I respect numbers guys. Had he said "I will cut Medicare, cut defense and raise taxes in order to cut the deficit" I would respect him even though I would disagree with him.
However Ryan wants to cut taxes on the rich, cut Medicare, not cut defense and somehow the budget will balance itself! Wtf

I am disappointed that the $716 billion in medicare "savings" is never truly explained and why it is a bad thing. It is not a cut to benefits but a cut of payments to practitioners. I know many doctors (relatives being some, my own doctor as well) that have stopped seeing new medicare patients and are trying to see less medicare patients overall. The doctors that are not bought out by hospitals, which is rarer and rarer now days, are small businesses that have to make choices. If the now reduced payout from medicare is less than the cost of doing the test, the time needed to perform it, and possibly the outsourced lab work, it no longer makes sense to see these patients.

 

[Mercury Fred]

This is excuse making. The VP was smirking/laughing and interrupting regardless of whether Ryan was saying was controversial or not.

If it happened now and again it would be acceptable, but he overdid it. It was every single time Ryan tried to speak.

And it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would ever be appropriate for Republican or Democratic leader to laugh for 90 minutes straight in a nationally televised debate.

I'm sorry to hear that this is what the left wants. You don't just want to see your side win, you want to see them disrespect the opposition.



Well Ryan's response and Romney's response last week was that they're not going to force through their plan on Democrats. They're providing guidelines, but they're going to be open to bipartisan debate on the issue. Romney used the example of Obamacare as to how not to force through legislation.

You can say it's bullshit or you can say it's the right way to conduct yourself in office, but I don't think that response makes you an idiot. Again on style points I think that makes Romney/Ryan look like the civilized ones if you're buying into their explanation (obviously most here do not due to partisanship).

The levels of absurdity here are just off the charts. You have not one idea what you're talking about.

 

[pigeon]

On the topic of "specifics," here's Yglesias:

This was almost too banal for my five dubious claims roundup, but it bears repeating that Paul Ryan's description of the Romney/Ryan tax reform plan makes no more sense than any other description of it because the plan fundamentally doesn't make sense. Ryan said (not unreasonably) that you don't need to delve into specifics, you need to negotiate with congress. But these are his negotiating points:

— “don’t raise the deficit”
— “don’t raise taxes on the middle class”
— “don’t change the share paid by the wealthy”

The way you achieve those three don'ts simultaneously is pretty simple: Don't change the tax code. But Ryan insisted that this three-point plan for inaction could be achieved in the context of an across-the-board 20 percent rate cut. Since that's clearly impossible, he didn't try to explain how it might be true and instead just asserted that "six studies" have said that 2+2=5 but there are no such six studies. There's simply no getting around the fact that a revenue-neutral base-broadening tax reform that aims for large rate cuts is going to be a regressive shift in the tax burden.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...amboozling_on_six_studies_and_tax_reform.html

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Laughter is only a problem in a country that wants to believe that anyone who has reached the national stage is 'serious' and above ridicule.

Ryan and his ludicrous policies are not. Laughter is merited. Laughter is deserved. He should be 'disrespected', because his politics are not respectable.

it's really interesting to see those responses of people being shocked biden was laughing. I guess it's an American thing.

I like watching british parliment. If anyone spun soo much empty bullshit as Ryan did in that kind of environment, chairs would be thrown.

It's good for the Obama campaign that Biden was so agressive and called him out on so much junk I think. I want to watch more of it. America should start doing these at times more convenient for euros, it's my favourite part of the pro wrestling spectacle that is american elections.

 

[Sohter.Nura]

I have to agree. Biden was at his best when he waited his turn and explained things clearly, which he did on several occasions later in the debate. I thought his trying to flummox Ryan with interruptions and preventing viewers from hearing cohesive answers was bush league and kept viewers from getting information they needed to make an informed decision - which is ostensibly the point of the debate.

Biden did a better job of saying things in a way that would resonate with average people. But Ryan came across as credible, knowledgeable and qualified for the job.

How so? When asked about proposals, Ryan couldn't answer any specifics! Martha deliberately asked several times "Ryan, what are YOUR proposals? Are are YOUR specifics?"

Ryan would just dodge the question and go back to his terrible rhetoric.

I watched the full debate and thoroughly enjoyed it. I didn't know Biden up until now and really found him an excellent candidate to be in the white house.

 

[East Lake]

Here is a paper that explains it probably better than I ever could:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf

I posted it before but people should read it if they haven't because it is important. It basically explains the past 4 years in this country and around the world.

Here's sort of a condensed version. He's using a lot of the similar charts at least.

Richard Koo: Where do we go from Here?

 

[GillianSeed79]

I'm sorry to hear that this is what the left wants. You don't just want to see your side win, you want to see them disrespect the opposition.

I'm sorry, I just don't have much respect for the opposition when I've had to hear for four years from stupid people that Obama wasn't born in America, that he's a secret muslim (It shouldn't even fucking matter if he's a Muslim or not), that he's the antichrist, that he's a communist but also a socialist at the same time, that he's a weak president when we took out Bin Laden, that health care reform that falls so far short of actual health care that exists in the rest of the industrialized world is such a theat to freedom that Obama is going to personally execute my grandmother from a death panel, that Obama hasn't tried to reach across the isle, etc., etc., etc. You made your bed. You have slept in it. Don't get up covered in fleas and claim you are being disrespected.

 

[GCX]

I would say that attitudes like yours are precisely what's wrong with American politics and governance. It's okay to lie, to be wrong, to lose an argument, as long as you look good doing it. You are not only enabling but encouraging the very worst sort of politics that democracy can offer. You're part of the post-truth society advocating for an American Idol election.

This is sad and too true. Truth doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, you can lie as much as you want as long as you look good doing it.

 

[grimshawish]

Sounds like an actual interesting debate unlike Mittens and Oboring. Will give it a listen after Uni I think. Glad Biden came out punching.

 

[Trurl]

Let's have a debate between Romney and Biden.