Obama/Romney Debate: ROUND II

[maxiep]

Angry mormons!!!! ROFL!!!

Scowl!! ROwwwweRRSSz

I'm not a Mormon, but I'm angry about the state of the economy. It didn't have to be this way. Obama has put changing the role of government in our lives over the well being of the populace. Tens of millions of people are hurting, and it's due to these policies of centralizing power.

 

[MickZagger]

I'm not a Mormon, but I'm angry about the state of the economy. It didn't have to be this way. Obama has put changing the role of government in our lives over the well being of the populace. Tens of millions of people are hurting, and it's due to these policies of centralizing power.

Strengthening the middle class is a much better strategy for fixing the economy than giving tax breaks to the rich. Shit, if it were up to Romney, he'd make every state a right to work state. That would be a disaster.

 

[maxiep]

I find it fascinating that people are now morons for being undecided, but picking your horse simply because he has an R or a D next to his title is intelligent... I think that's fucking idiotic. And I'm not undecided on the issues. The problem is I side with the candidates on different issues, so now it's just weighing those against each other. I don't have to vote tonight, so why the fuck do you care?

I think those people are morons, too. I agree with a few of President Obama's positions, but the choice was obvious to me. I know people who agree with several of Gov. Romney's positions, but are clearly going to vote for Obama. If you're still weighing your options, I would wonder what on earth your heirarchy of decision-making could be.

 

[maxiep]

Strengthening the middle class is a much better strategy for fixing the economy than giving tax breaks to the rich. Shit, if it were up to Romney, he'd make every state a right to work state. That would be a disaster.

What economic evidence do you have to support your opinion? So far, President Obama's policies have hurt the middle class, so I'm curious as to why you think more of the same policies will suddenly change the direction of the country.

And what's wrong with "Right to Work"? I don't think people should be forced to join a union if they don't wish to do so just to get a job.

 

[noknobs]

If you're still weighing your options, I would wonder what on earth your heirarchy of decision-making could be.

In my defense, it gets tough when the candidates positions keep changing... Don't you worry though, we'll have it all sorted out in time for me to cast my worthless ballot. I do after all live in California.

 

[maxiep]

In my defense, it gets tough when the candidates positions keep changing... Don't you worry though, we'll have it all sorted out in time.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to sound snarky, it's just the differences are so vast. I applaud anyone who researches and considers the issues.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Good debate, I enjoyed that.

I think Obama won the debate. More importantly probably made those who want to vote for Obama but were feeling uneasy due to the state of the nation and his last debate performance, now can vote for him with confidence.

Were independent voters swayed by this debate, I don't know.

I am again in fear that Romney will be so favorable for the rich. But maybe a business man making tough cuts is what this country needs. Still tough for me to accept that people like Romney makes millions a year and pays less tax rate (by a lot) than I do. Obama isn't much better in that category.

I'm one of the idiots/morons confused at this point. I want a strong middle class, i don't know which one will be better. If I default to foreign policy, I sway back to Obama (understanding the debate on foreign policy is still to come.)

But my priority is still the state of our economy and the fear of erosion of the middle class. I'm glad my vote doesn't count as I will probably finally make a decision when I mark my ballot.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Just read an article that hit true to me. Most debates have a moment that defines the debate:

The moderator correcting Romney with regard to the diplomats, will be that moment for many.

 

[Further]

I was listening to some analysis and they made an interesting point. Although Romney won the first debate by more than Obama won this debate, there are far more sound bites from this debate that could have staying power than from the first debate. And most all of those sound bites either make Obama look good or Romney look bad.

I don't know if this is true, especially the staying power part, but it will be interesting to see. My guess is the only sound bite with staying power will be Romney getting corrected by the moderator. Perhaps the women issues answer too. Most others I expect will fade quickly, and the next debate will be what the voters take into the polling booth.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

next debate is only about foreign policy, most average amurricans will tune out. now its just about attack ads.

 

[Ed O]

Just read an article that hit true to me. Most debates have a moment that defines the debate:

The moderator correcting Romney with regard to the diplomats, will be that moment for many.

Incorrectly correcting, of course.

Which article did you read? This one on Time is pretty good:

http://nation.time.com/2012/10/16/w...eans-this-act-of-terror/?iid=pf-main-mostpop2

It reads to me, from the entire transcript, that he was talking about September 11 (like THE September 11) towards the end of his speech. If he wanted to call the attack an "act of terror", he'd had about five minutes to specifically call it that.

Might he have meant to call the September 11, 2012 attack an act of terror, putting it in the pantheon of other acts of terror? I guess. Maybe.

Was it so clear that the moderator should have "corrected" Romney? I don't see it that way at all.

Ed O.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Incorrectly correcting, of course.

Which article did you read? This one on Time is pretty good:

http://nation.time.com/2012/10/16/w...eans-this-act-of-terror/?iid=pf-main-mostpop2

It reads to me, from the entire transcript, that he was talking about September 11 (like THE September 11) towards the end of his speech. If he wanted to call the attack an "act of terror", he'd had about five minutes to specifically call it that.

Might he have meant to call the September 11, 2012 attack an act of terror, putting it in the pantheon of other acts of terror? I guess. Maybe.

Was it so clear that the moderator should have "corrected" Romney? I don't see it that way at all.

Ed O.

Personally I think this is typical politics. You can take one statement and twist it around where two people make two logical arguments on the same statement and both sound correct and both are probably partially correct.

I don't think the moderator should have stepped in like that, but my point is it is a moment in the debate that will stick in the minds of watchers, right or wrong.

 

[maxiep]

Just read an article that hit true to me. Most debates have a moment that defines the debate:

The moderator correcting Romney with regard to the diplomats, will be that moment for many.

Except she was wrong.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Except she was wrong.

Yea I know, I'm just a moron, remember.

 

[maxiep]

[video=youtube;JDanNdzAUn0]

 

[maxiep]

http://minx.cc/?post=333916

 

[maxiep]

One of the things that President Obama really has had going for him is his likability. For those who watched the debate and like him, did he still come across as a good guy or did he seem thin-skinned? I need to watch the debate a few more times to arrive at my conclusion, but I'm interested in the opinion of everyone else.

Also, for those who believe the meme of the Obama campaign, does Mitt Romney still seem like a robber baron who would throw your baby in a garbage disposal for a buck or have the debates changed your opinion of him?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

i mentioned this in the thread, but his voice sounds very annoying when he's defensive. gets all high pitched and whiny.

 

[maxiep]

i mentioned this in the thread, but his voice sounds very annoying when he's defensive. gets all high pitched and whiny.

Which candidate?

 

[maxiep]

Michael Barone's thoughts: http://washingtonexaminer.com/thoughts-on-the-second-presidential-debate/article/2510980

I like the fact he admits he's partisan, but he provides good insight nonetheless.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Which candidate?

obama.

 

[MARIS61]

BTW

All that talk of coal was aimed at coal miners who live in Ohio and PA.

Mother Nature says coal is bad for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis

The fuel of Neanderthals.

 

[Denny Crane]

The person who came off looking the worst, IMO, was the moderator. She overstepped the bounds of her assigned duties by interjecting herself between the two candidates on substance. She talked about how she was going to do it all week heading into the debate. Neither campaign wanted her to do any "follow up" questions or anything beyond keeping the clock and choosing the questions.

She clearly spoke up when she shouldn't have, and it looks to me like she regretted it right away. She couldn't take it back, but did try to correct the record after the fact on CNN.

If catching Romney in a lie was her objective, it was a miserable failure. Upon reviewing the video posted here and shown numerous times on TV, it is clear that Obama and other top admin officials denied it was an act of terror even as damning information dribbled out over the following two weeks.

So the moral of the story is they claim he's a liar, did the gotcha moment, and there was no gotcha. It kind of puts to rest the notion that he is a liar at all.

Romney has plenty of money to fill the airwaves with explanatory commercials, and showing Obama in his own words. Plus there's another debate (foreign policy is the topic) on Monday where he will absolutely get the chance to correct the record.

A black man stood up and told Obama he'd lost hope for any change with him. Obama's answer was terrible. He offered no plan for the future himself, and his track record was thoroughly trounced by Romney - it was one of the most effective things Romney did accomplish last night.

So for those pushing the Obama line, "weak on details" when it comes to Romney... What are the details of what Obama wants to do to us the next 4 years?

kthx bye

EDIT: Obama lied and was caught in it. He absolutely and without a doubt has cut the number of exploratory and drilling permits offshore and on govt. land.

 

[Denny Crane]

I make a second post because it's of a very different nature than the above.

I'm not voting for Romney. He has his moments in these debates but he also has plenty of views that I find offensive.

He absolutely blew it on the issue of women in the workforce last night. His story of looking to find women qualified for cabinet posts was awkward at best, and downright condescending. I personally wouldn't even consider gender when hiring, and I'd expect there to be plenty of good men and women to choose from based upon their merits.

Neither Obama nor Romney have the right position on immigration, though both said things that have appeal to me. Obama would provide amnesty for some illegals (the dream act). OK by me, but for all but those who don't commit violent crimes after immigrating here, I don't see a reason to pick and choose by IQ test or some other means test. Romney suggested the legal process for immigration needs to be sped up and less red tape. Sure, why not.

Both miss the point that it's a free country, mass quantities of immigrants came here all along without requiring papers. Now that we're here, let's somehow make this an exclusive club by invite only? It's literally fascist when you get down to it (nationalistic, racial discrimination).

Romney's 20% tax cuts across the board absolutely make sense and can work. Simpson-Bowles suggested a cut of the top tax rate to 24% with every deduction eliminated. Romney suggests a cut to 28% with some "favored" deductions kept. Yet he's not making the case we shouldn't just do Simpson-Bowles. Keeping the mortgage deduction sounds good and maybe you don't have to explain it, but it really is as simple as, "would you rather have the deduction and pay 10% of your total income in taxes or would you rather pay 1% of your total income in taxes and have no deductions?"

I can forgive the pandering to the party base on both sides. They both have records of governing to review objectively.

My vote is for:

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

LIVE FREE.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Apropos of nothing, my 10-year-old daughter watched the last hour of the debate with me and decided that she wants Romney to win.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I like Obama. I think he means well, he genuinely wants to build the middle class and create a country where everyone a chance to succeed. I think he is presidential, well spoken, charismatic and a great face for our country. I think his wife is an excelent representative as a first lady and that Obama picks a lot of the right people for higher positions. Obama is current, hip, and is a picture of modern America.

Having said all that, I'm voting for Romney. (Highly doubt the third debate will change my mind.)

Our country, the global economy, is at a crossroads. I don't think Obama runs the country into banckruptcy like Republicans chant all day. But I do think this is a critical time and how we recover from this time perioid will likely define our economy, relative to the world, for the next generation. I would rather have Romney take a crack at that than Obama.

My biggest fear with Romney, is somehow losing my job and small life savings (or an unfortunate event puts me in 100,000s of dollars in debt. I would not want to be in desperate need of money with Romney as president. But I've worked staright for 20 years, I highly doubt that situation will arise. So:

Go Romney!

 

[Eastoff]

I liked Obama in the debate.

 

[e_blazer]

Incorrectly correcting, of course.

Which article did you read? This one on Time is pretty good:

http://nation.time.com/2012/10/16/w...eans-this-act-of-terror/?iid=pf-main-mostpop2

It reads to me, from the entire transcript, that he was talking about September 11 (like THE September 11) towards the end of his speech. If he wanted to call the attack an "act of terror", he'd had about five minutes to specifically call it that.

Might he have meant to call the September 11, 2012 attack an act of terror, putting it in the pantheon of other acts of terror? I guess. Maybe.

Was it so clear that the moderator should have "corrected" Romney? I don't see it that way at all.

Ed O.

Completely agree. What Romney really missed,however, was a golden opportunity to use Obama's comment against him in a big way. Since Obama was saying that his Rose Garden talk indicated that he knew it was a terrorist attack, Romney should have said something like, 'Of course you knew it was a terrorist attack. Nobody with the intelligence assets you have at your disposal could have possibly thought differently. The question that demands answering, Mr. President, is what then are we to make of your administration's smoke screens over the next two weeks where you tried to deflect attention from a terrorist attack by calling it a demonstration against a video gone wild? That appears to have been trying to avoid the political damage from your administrations failings by lying to the public, and that, Mr. President, is the truly offensive thing about this ugly incident.'

 

[maxiep]

Completely agree. What Romney really missed,however, was a golden opportunity to use Obama's comment against him in a big way. Since Obama was saying that his Rose Garden talk indicated that he knew it was a terrorist attack, Romney should have said something like, 'Of course you knew it was a terrorist attack. Nobody with the intelligence assets you have at your disposal could have possibly thought differently. The question that demands answering, Mr. President, is what then are we to make of your administration's smoke screens over the next two weeks where you tried to deflect attention from a terrorist attack by calling it a demonstration against a video gone wild? That appears to have been trying to avoid the political damage from your administrations failings by lying to the public, and that, Mr. President, is the truly offensive thing about this ugly incident.'

Do you think that Romney's team won't drop this argument on President Obama and demand an explanation next Monday? I do. It helped him last night, but next week it's going to cost him, big time.

 

[blazerboy30]

Serious question: Why is it so important when/if Obama said it was an act of terror or an act of violence due to an internet video? 4 people died either way and it's not uncommon for investigations to take a couple weeks to get all the facts.

What seems more important is the idea that it could have been prevented (and the question was 'why wasn't it?'), as well as bringing those responsible to justice. Obama didn't talk about 'the before', only 'the after'. But Romney somehow came off looking worse than Obama.

I didn't get this either. If I were Romney, I would have been calling out Obama for not even coming close to answering the question about why nothing was done BEFORE the event even with some warning signals. Romney missed a big opportunity to land a blow there.