Debate 2nite, plz use your head

[Jetmeck]

Use facts and common sense to decide who won ?

If it don't add up but he was a better debater he didn't win.

Facts matter, style does not.

Important stuff in this next election.

Birther,communist,socialist and obstructionists should be punished.

Who cares about the middle class ?

Who wants to hand rich people even more and on the

other hand take away from poor and middle class ?


This is a really simple choice, just use your head and wallet to

decide........................


We all know who screwed it up and those exact policies won't

fix it.

Just use your head...............

Romney doesn't give a chit about the little guy.
Mr offshore accounts hides his money to not pay his taxes and
ships jobs overseas to make an extra buck.

Sound like a guy who cares about you or the rich ?

It's that easy....................

[Crushaholic]

It looks like you're not even going to LISTEN to anything that Romney has to say. What's the point of this thread?

[Smiling Assassin27]

Nah man, I'm just gonna vote for the black guy.


Sincerely,

Samuel L. Jackson

[Jetmeck]

When Romney says something that will help the middle class I will listen. His numbers don't add up and the rich have had tax breaks as we speak and it don't work.

[Crushaholic]

When Romney says something that will help the middle class I will listen. His numbers don't add up and the rich have had tax breaks as we speak and it don't work.

...which Obama extended...

[barryr]

Yeah, Obama cares so much about the little guy. While his wife is strutting around in $500 shoes and $1,000 outfits and taking countless, million dollar vacations at tax payer expenses. Oh, blacks are now more unemployed than in recent history, but Obama cares for the little guy. Right. The liberals really think Obama gives a crap about them. Yeah, for your vote, but that's about it. Suckers.

[Smiling Assassin27]

I love these folks who have no UTTER concept that others may a)disagree with them and b)might actually have a viable reason for it. typical obama voters--completely blindsided by the fact that people see through his ruse and amateurish failure of a presidency and automatically assume the worst of those who dissent.

I know, I know...i'm racist.

[barryr]

...which Obama extended...

And Obama didn't close Gitmo, like he stated he would. He would bring the troops home, but they aren't. Unemployment would drop, but instead people are going on food stamps and disability in record numbers, and growing. The Patriot Act would be gone, but it isn't. All things liberals supposedly wanted so badly, but I guess those things are suddenly ok now.

[Jetmeck]

...which Obama extended...

BECAUSE AND ONLY BECAUSE THE REPUBS IN CONGRESS WOULDN'T COMPROMISE......OTHERWISE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS WOULD HAVE WENT UP JUST LIK THEY WILL AFTER jAN UNLESS REPUBS GIVE UP ON THE TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH.

REPUB HOUSE PROTECTS THE RICH TAX BREAKS AT OUR EXPENSE, THEY WILL ALLOW OUR TAXESW TO GO UP UNLESS THE SUPER RICH GET EVEN MORE.

[Jetmeck]

I love these folks who have no UTTER concept that others may a)disagree with them and b)might actually have a viable reason for it. typical obama voters--completely blindsided by the fact that people see through his ruse and amateurish failure of a presidency and automatically assume the worst of those who dissent.

I know, I know...i'm racist.


yOU AND YOURS QUOTE LIMBAUGH, BECK AND CALL OUT SOCIALIST, COMMUNISTS, RED AND PINKOS AND i HAVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE

I LISTEN TO NUMBERS AND NOT BS............**** OFF

[nyuk nyuk]

Birther,communist,socialist and obstructionists should be punished.

There goes half of the Democratic Party.

[nyuk nyuk]

yOU AND YOURS QUOTE LIMBAUGH, BECK AND CALL OUT SOCIALIST, COMMUNISTS, RED AND PINKOS AND i HAVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE

I LISTEN TO NUMBERS AND NOT BS............**** OFF

Seriously... I'm saying this from the heart. You would do well for yourself to consider spending some of your free time spiffing up your writing ability. You come off as an undereducated buffoon.

[spdirty]

Seriously... I'm saying this from the heart. You would do well for yourself to consider spending some of your free time spiffing up your writing ability. You come off as an undereducated buffoon.

How can you take a guy that starts a thread with "Debate 2nite, plz use your head" serious? If this guy can't use his head when starting a thread title, how can you respect his advice to "plz use your head" when watching the debate?

I kind of have a feeling that many liberals that post on this forum wish this guy would either just go away or convert to a right winger, so they could constantly ridicule him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Use facts and common sense to decide who won ?

You can't expect right-wingers and TeaBots to use something they don't have.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And Obama didn't close Gitmo, like he stated he would. .

Remember barryr's objections to Gitmo when his hero Dim Son was in office?

No?

That's because they didn't happen.

[nyuk nyuk]

How can you take a guy that starts a thread with "Debate 2nite, plz use your head" serious? If this guy can't use his head when starting a thread title, how can you respect his advice to "plz use your head" when watching the debate?

I kind of have a feeling that many liberals that post on this forum wish this guy would either just go away or convert to a right winger, so they could constantly ridicule him.

He IS an embarrassment, but since he has an ideology they like, they give him the slide, even if he does talk like a guy living in a van down by the river.

[Arkie]

Use facts and common sense to decide who won ?

If it don't add up but he was a better debater he didn't win.

Facts matter, style does not.

Important stuff in this next election.

Birther,communist,socialist and obstructionists should be punished.

Who cares about the middle class ?

Who wants to hand rich people even more and on the

other hand take away from poor and middle class ?


This is a really simple choice, just use your head and wallet to

decide........................


We all know who screwed it up and those exact policies won't

fix it.

Just use your head...............

Romney doesn't give a chit about the little guy.
Mr offshore accounts hides his money to not pay his taxes and
ships jobs overseas to make an extra buck.

Sound like a guy who cares about you or the rich ?

It's that easy....................

Your head is so fogged with anger towards Romney, you refuse to see that Obama isn't much different at all. Obama's greatest asset is style. His biggest liability is substance.

[nyuk nyuk]

Your head is so fogged with anger towards Romney, you refuse to see that Obama isn't much different at all. Obama's greatest asset is style. His biggest liability is substance.

Our hard core liberal contingent here is driven by anger, period.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Our hard core liberal contingent here is driven by anger, period.

Like all sociopaths, republican crooks and their supporters can never understand why anyone would be angry with them.

[spdirty]

I bet if Obama doesn't bring up the precious 47%, an "undecided voter" will. They won't let him **** it up. And once they do, liberals all across msnbc will declare Obama the winner.

[manchambo]

Romeny's being really dumb right now. You don't voluntarily cede your own time to your opponent by asking him direct questions.

[The Lone Bolt]

The President's on his game tonight. He owns it so far.

[manchambo]

Obama is curb stomping him right now.

[ghwk]

Romney is just drowning.

[ghwk]

Romney is just drowning.

Just waiting for the righties to start screaming about equal speaking time and liberal media bias.

[Mecklomaniac]

Obama doing what he does best... Accepting credit for things he didn't do, and passing blame on things he did do.

[nyuk nyuk]

In all the tongue-lashing he's trying to hide behind claiming to call him on the consulate attack being "offensive," I find it amusing that Obama has not answered the simple point that WHY WERE THE REQUESTS FOR SECURITY IGNORED?

ANSWER, OBAMA.

[Mecklomaniac]

lol... Barrack doesn't want to talk about Libya. So he steps in and acts as the moderator for Candy, because he is SOooo concerned that some people won't get to ask their questions.

[nyuk nyuk]

Obama doing what he does best... Accepting credit for things he didn't do, and passing blame on things he did do.

Romney sucks ass for not calling Obama on his false claim of having R&D green technology as a viable solution to unemployment. One word answers that: SOLYNDRA.

Nobody with half a brain should be funding R&D during a recession (that's bad enough), and then claiming that funding such money hole programs somehow gives us jobs and on a level that apparently are supposed to impact the joblessness rate.

What a load of steaming ****.

[nyuk nyuk]

We don't have "culture of violence," sorry I don't like Romney saying that. It's not true and it sounds something like a liberal would say.

He has warts and always has. Still beats Jimmy Carter, Jr.

[nyuk nyuk]

lol... Barrack doesn't want to talk about Libya. So he steps in and acts as the moderator for Candy, because he is SOooo concerned that some people won't get to ask their questions.

And after all that, he not only pretended that his administration wasn't calling it impromptu demonstrations when it was (even when we were all watching people in Egypt on the US Embassy grounds with hundreds of AL QAIDA FLAGS), he then ducks the main question at hand -

WHY DID YOUR ADMINISTRATION IGNORE MULTIPLE REQUESTS FOR MORE SECURITY BY THE U.S. EMBASSY STAFF IN LIBYA?

[The Lone Bolt]

Obama doing what he does best... Accepting credit for things he didn't do, and passing blame on things he did do.

No that's what Willard does. He actually tried to take credit for the successful auto industry rescue for God's sake. He had nothing to do with it and his own plan had no chance of working.

And Willard isn't so slick tonight. He looks really nervous.

[Mecklomaniac]

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/UR0KYDR7ZxfPKXmbz_NlsA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNDY7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-10-17T020326Z_119531130_GM1E8AH0RN601_RTRMADP_3_USA-CAMPAIGN.JPG

Ooops I think I sharted...

[Arkie]

http://rlv.zcache.com/roflmao_no_real_choice_bumper_sticker-p128045571318084571en8ys_400.jpg

[nyuk nyuk]

I like it when Obama stutters. It means he's clueless and flabbergasted. I also like that he lost his temper. Funny how they don't call him a RAVING MADMAN like they did when McCain would lose his.

Go figure.

[Kid A]

Maybe not an ass kicking, but clear win. Didn't see much of the 1st debate live, but in terms of tone Obama seemed on tonight, especially dominating a Libya question that I thought Ryan won over Biden. Romney was on the defensive a lot of the night.

[The Lone Bolt]

Well that was a complete ass-whuppin'. Obama didn't really address the Libya security issues but effectively slammed Romney for politicizing it.

He also didn't really address why he didn't pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Other than that Obama owned every issue IMO and came across as forceful yet personable. Romney on the other hand looked nervous and sputtering and fell flat on most issues.

[ghwk]

Romney sucks ass for not calling Obama on his false claim of having R&D green technology as a viable solution to unemployment. One word answers that: SOLYNDRA.

Nobody with half a brain should be funding R&D during a recession (that's bad enough), and then claiming that funding such money hole programs somehow gives us jobs and on a level that apparently are supposed to impact the joblessness rate.

What a load of steaming ****.

Well agree with you on that much at least!

[DBruleU]

On the biggest issue of this election, the economy, Romney won, and will always win. Obama has nothing to stand on.

Good feisty debate. Would be nice if the moderator wasn't acting as a firewall for anything uncomfortable thrown at Obama, and some of the questions were just stupid. Womens pay? Bush? Amnesty? Yeah, they seem real "undecided."

[manchambo]

On the biggest issue of this election, the economy, Romney won, and will always win. Obama has nothing to stand on.

Good feisty debate. Would be nice if the moderator wasn't acting as a firewall for anything uncomfortable thrown at Obama, and some of the questions were just stupid. Womens pay? Bush? Amnesty? Yeah, they seem real "undecided."

Women's pay is totally stupid. Why would i want my daughters to earn equal pay? But at least Romney had a good answer: make sure women can get off early enough to cook dinner.

[maven]

I've got binders full of women yo.

:pimp:

[Jetmeck]

Romney sucks ass for not calling Obama on his false claim of having R&D green technology as a viable solution to unemployment. One word answers that: SOLYNDRA.

Nobody with half a brain should be funding R&D during a recession (that's bad enough), and then claiming that funding such money hole programs somehow gives us jobs and on a level that apparently are supposed to impact the joblessness rate.

What a load of steaming ****.

Your a steaming pile of chit.................

Solyndra was killed by Cheap chinese solar panels.

AND ALL BUSINESSES DO NOT SURVIVE, PERIOD !

[Jetmeck]

On the biggest issue of this election, the economy, Romney won, and will always win. Obama has nothing to stand on.

Good feisty debate. Would be nice if the moderator wasn't acting as a firewall for anything uncomfortable thrown at Obama, and some of the questions were just stupid. Womens pay? Bush? Amnesty? Yeah, they seem real "undecided."

fULL OF IT, YOUR BOY DID NOT WIN AND THE POLS ARE ALREADY
SAYING SO....................RUN AND HIDE LOSER

[Jetmeck]

I like it when Obama stutters. It means he's clueless and flabbergasted. I also like that he lost his temper. Funny how they don't call him a RAVING MADMAN like they did when McCain would lose his.

Go figure.

wHATEVER YOU STUPID ****. hE JUST MIGHT HAVE BEEN NERVOUS ON STAGE LIKE MOST PEOPLE ARE.

[Jetmeck]

And Obama didn't close Gitmo, like he stated he would. He would bring the troops home, but they aren't. Unemployment would drop, but instead people are going on food stamps and disability in record numbers, and growing. The Patriot Act would be gone, but it isn't. All things liberals supposedly wanted so badly, but I guess those things are suddenly ok now.

yOU LOSER.....LOSER......LITTLE MAN WHO WON'T ADMIT THE TRUTH........lol..........YOU LOSE.

cHECK THE POLLS,,,,,YOU LOSE

[DBruleU]

Women's pay is totally stupid. Why would i want my daughters to earn equal pay? But at least Romney had a good answer: make sure women can get off early enough to cook dinner.

No, it's stupid because it's being discussed in the wrong way. Women aren't paid less just cause...they are paid less cause men and women often times do much different types of work. We aren't comparing apples to apples when we compare pay between men and women. In fact, when work experience, hours worked, education, etc are taken into account the avg woman is making 98 cents per dollar man makes. Maybe if Obama is so concerned about equal pay he should pay women in his WH the same as the men do.

Another reason this is stupid is because no on cares. It was obviously asked in order to help Obama with the women vote when it's clear Romney closed that huge gap he had with women voters.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Romney clearly won the first one
Obama clearly won the second.

Looks like winner take all in the last one

[DBruleU]

fULL OF IT, YOUR BOY DID NOT WIN AND THE POLS ARE ALREADY
SAYING SO....................RUN AND HIDE LOSER

Dude, you already lost just by your response.

CBS insta poll had Obama 37% Romney 33% and 33% a tie. Obama needed a huge knockout like Romney got last time.

Not only that, but on the issue of the economy, you know, the most important issue of this election, Romney won 67% to Obama 33% according to a CBS insta poll.

Now go to bed.

[Jetmeck]

Dude, you already lost just by your response.

CBS insta poll had Obama 37% Romney 33% and 33% a tie. Obama needed a huge knockout like Romney got last time.

Not only that, but on the issue of the economy, you know, the most important issue of this election, Romney won 67% to Obama 33% according to a CBS insta poll.

Now go to bed.


So one poll that you lost so you actually won............more Romney lies I see.


1-1 and more of the last two debates aggressive attacking style is coming round three.

You have already lost.

[Rohirrim]

Romney is a liar and a huckster and anybody who believes a word who comes out of him is a boob. Obama was mediocre, at best. That's just who he is. He's an average president. I still think he's better suited to be a justice.

Anyway, Bill Clinton (who I also didn't like as president) would have taken Romney apart. Romney left gaping holes you could have driven a truck through and Obama didn't call him on a single one. He missed so many opportunities, if it was baseball he'd be carrying a .150 average.

Here's the other thing: Not one single mention of climate change. That's just ****ing mind boggling. Perhaps the greatest issue facing mankind and the two guys running for president don't bring it up. What a joke.

I think the whole thing was a wash. Both candidates were whacking away at each other like a couple of armored knights and there were no critical blows landed. The American people come away from this just as muddled as they went in. I honestly think that neither of these guys can do much of anything. Especially with a Congress that is corrupt to the core. This debate just left me with that old "end of the empire" feeling.

[ghwk]

Obama wins 46% to 39%

[Kaylore]

I don't agree Obama "clearly" won this debate. He was so horrid the last debate that just showing up for this one made him look a lot better.

I thought when that out of work black man stood up (blacks and hispanics did better under the past four presidents than under Obama) and said why should I vote for you again, and Obama went on about 5 million jobs and the auto-industry, and then Romney got up went through all the laundry list of Obama's failures, I thought that was a powerful moment in the debate.

I totally agree Romney made some poor tactical choices. Both candidates trying to bully each other doesn't play well with women. The Biden debate lost 10% of the women and saw a shift back toward Romney. Also asking the President questions so he can rebuttal was stupid again.

Once again Obama spoke more than Obama did by almost five minutes. It will be interesting to see what happens. At the end of the day all Obama has is negativity on Romney because his record is garbage and the 5 Trillion later we're no better off than we were except there are a lot of overqualified people working at Subway.

[nyuk nyuk]

Maybe not an ass kicking, but clear win. Didn't see much of the 1st debate live, but in terms of tone Obama seemed on tonight, especially dominating a Libya question that I thought Ryan won over Biden. Romney was on the defensive a lot of the night.

Obama was angry and stuttering at times. I recall whenever McCain lost his temper at all, the media cast him a lunatic yet predictably give Obama the slide.

Romney should not have let Obama hide behind false outrage when it came to answering WHY Washington repeatedly turned down requests for more security for Benghazi.

It's also a joke that Obama was allowed to duck the oil drilling ban as well as the false assertion that R&D alternative energy reliant on public monies for solvency is a legitimate route to employ people. SOLYNDRA should have been pounded at this point. We should not be funding longterm economic projects during a recession, period. That needs to be on the backburner and money used in more relevant areas.

[SoCalBronco]

I enjoyed this debate as I did the VP one. A little feisty. Obama obviously had upped his game and I thought Romney counter-punched well, especially on economic issues. He fleshed out his tax plan a little more which was effective. I thought the President did a decent job turning possible problem areas into positive ones. I didn't think there was much of a clear winner, which is to say I don't think there was any game changer on either side. I think Obama has probably stopped the bleeding, but there's been a ton of bleeding the last few weeks and I think either way it will be a razor thin result.

As for changing my opinions. I actually made up my mind earlier today before the debate and nothing in the debate changed my outlook. I'm a huge fan of the idea of extending the SS eligibility age and also changing Medicare into more of a voucher plan. It brings tremendous fiscal savings to our debt situation and these areas are the long term driver there. There was a CBO analysis that estimated it would reduce the share of federal spending in GDP on entitlements from around 18% to 11%, and the fact there there is the means testing in there to help out the poor a little more with the subsidy to curb the harsh effects is a positive. This is the siingle biggest issue in my eyes. I laud Romney-Ryan on this and if they are elected, I will strongly support their efforts in this regard.
While it is Issue No. 1 for me, its not the only issue. While I find them a little less important, I do agree with Obama probably on more issues overall than Romney, even though I'm right htere with Romney-Ryan on Issue No. 1.

The first problem with Romney is the tax issue. It is great to reduce the federal burden on these entitlements, but what good is it if you are going to give up a chunk of the savings by extending the Bush tax cuts and also having this 20% across the board cut on top. There has not been sufficient articulation of how you get there mathematically. I'm pretty sure you can't get there unless you assume it will create a massive tidalwave of growth. Some types of tax cuts can in fact lead to growth, but to make up for the cuts made here and assuming you aren't going to tough deductions that most people don't want to give away and will have a huge **** storm if you do give them away, you'd have to project an unreasonably high amount of growth and thats' not possible, here. Regardless of who is President, I dont think we'll see the type of growth from say 1950-2000 for some time. We have to get used to more moderate growth. I think the best way to encourage growth is to destroy debt, which will reduce the share of interest on debt that eats at our budget needlessly and will increase our credit, etc., but that's another point. Basically, I never heard a credible tax plan from Romney. He never embraced Bowles-Simpson or something that's been vetted and well thought out. The second issue is that of global warming. I think teh administration approach as to cap and trade is a solid one. It's market based and creates incentives for people to get emissions down so they can sell the credits. This should be a good GOP policy, you are utilizing market forces to combat what will be a destructive problem. Romney gave very little on this issue. Issue No. 3 is foreign affairs. Romney has generally offered only platitudes and while the administration did bungle the Libya situation, I don't get a clear FP picture from them, with one exception. I was very impressed by Ryan (as I usually am, on all issues, except for taxes) when he made the comment that to put boots on the ground, it would require an assessment that it would be in the US national interest, not humanitarian stuff, US national interest. As a Nixon-Kissinger realist, I'm very pleased with this. You focus on interest No.1, we dont get wrapped up in emotional stuff or spreading democracy, or stupid crap like that. Unfortunately, other than that comment, it seems the only other thing Romney has generally offered in foreign affairs, other than just a rudimentary understanding of the world is belligerence in general, which is unwise. Most of his statements have been unnecessarily provocative as to Russia and China. So, while I will certainly strongly support their entitlement reform and spending cut reform efforts if elected, there are too many issues with Romney for me to pull the trigger.

I can't vote for Obama-Biden, either. The amount of debt they've added for so little return is awful. Yes, it would have been worse without some of this spending, but the debt to return ratio is trash. They had two years of full control and didn't do a ton with it. Biden said early on they would get it done in that time and they've had double. Nor can obstructionism fully explain their failures. There have been Presidents who have had many achievements despite working with the other party controlling both chambers of Congress for their entire term, so don't whine at me about obstructionism. Some of the obstructionism...specifically in forcing automatic cuts if there is no meaningful debt solution was positive. I also don't approve of how they've upset stability by supporting insurgents in the ME. I give Obama credit for withdrawing from Iraq in a way that hasn't created a nightmare and generally support the Vietnamization in Afghanistan as well. Getting OBL was largely symbolic but it was important for the pubilc and while true credit goes to the guys that actually got him, you have to give the top guy props for making the call to go in.

In sum, I am where I was in the GOP primary. I felt one guy stood out better than all the rest and he represented where I was at better than all the rest. That hasn't changed. He's still better than anyone else out there. He's experienced, thoughtful and skilled in foreign affairs, a moderate on domestic issues and is fiscally conservative on spending. That's my guy and that's who I'm going to write in on my ballot: Jon Huntsman. I've decided to write in Huntsman and considering I live in a Blue state that isn't up for grabs, I think its best to go with what I think is the best choice since my vote isn't going to make a difference anyway.

If I were living in a purple state, I'd have to make a really tough choice between two alternatives that I don't fully embrace. I don't, so I can make the choice that I wanted to make all along.

Sorry for the rant.

[nyuk nyuk]

I thought when that out of work black man stood up (blacks and hispanics did better under the past four presidents than under Obama) and said why should I vote for you again, and Obama went on about 5 million jobs and the auto-industry, and then Romney got up went through all the laundry list of Obama's failures, I thought that was a powerful moment in the debate.

Romney should have pointed out another one which nobody seems to want to address: Illegal aliens disproportionately negatively impact black employment.

Obama has sold out black workers to pander to the La Raza lobby. Unacceptable.

[Mecklomaniac]

.Romney and Obama are liars and hucksters and anybody who believes a word who comes out of him is a boob. Obama <s>was</s>is always mediocre, at best. That's just who he is. He's a below average president. I still think he's better suited to be a <s>justice</S> monarch.

Anyway, Bill Clinton (who I also didn't like as president) would have taken Romney apart. Romney left gaping holes you could have driven a truck through and Obama didn't call him on a single one. He missed so many opportunities, if it was baseball he'd be carrying a .150 average.


Obama did try to call Romney out, but came across as a jerk and a liar.

[Rohirrim]

I think Romney got clobbered on the Libya deal. He was stuttering and just looked like a weasel trying to turn a tragedy into political points. He also stomped all over the moderator which I doubt goes over well with the women watching. In fact, the audience applauded when she smacked him down with some factoids, so obviously they were picking up on it.

I thought Obama didn't do enough. He basically just recited his stump speeches over and over again. He's obviously weak on the economy, but the thought that people accept the idea of a junk bond dealer and equity thief like Romney as the antidote is just laughable. The truth is that we have no good choices. Bush and his cronies ****ed us so good we might never recover, regardless of who you put in there. It seemed to be the luck of America that a great leader would rise up in bad times and pull our asses our of the fire. I guess we've run out of luck. What this country needs more than anything is for Congress to show some leadership and get off its ass, and that ain't gonna happen.

Washington said a republic relies on accommodation. There has to be compromise. Deals. That's especially true at times like this. But that ship has sailed in America. What comes after the refusal to engage in dialogue? ???

[nyuk nyuk]

He also didn't really address why he didn't pass comprehensive immigration reform.

"Comprehensive immigration reform" is amnesty by another name.

[nyuk nyuk]

CBS took 2 polls and they gave conflicting results. I see it more a tie generally speaking, but Romney has to have points for not getting pissed and stuttering like a drunkard.

[nyuk nyuk]

I think Romney got clobbered on the Libya deal. He was stuttering and just looked like a weasel trying to turn a tragedy into political points.

Right, because we all know only an evil demon would ask why the embassy staff got turned down multiple times for security help WHICH OBAMA DID NOT ANSWER.

[Rohirrim]

I enjoyed this debate as I did the VP one. A little feisty. Obama obviously had upped his game and I thought Romney counter-punched well, especially on economic issues...


The main reason I can't agree on these so-called fixes is because I worked for years in a hospital assisting the newly disabled with SS, Medicare and Medicaid. When we talk about the big budget, and the big money, etc etc we lose track of the moral issues involved. The truth is, these programs are a pittance on the real life level. They offer the bare bones to the worst off among us. I've seen the elderly who must choose between food and medicine. They can't have both. I've seen people who just found out they are disabled turn to me when I tell them what SS will do for them and they say, "I can't live on that."

And I just say, "I know." I've heard it a thousand times.

So when I hear a born mega-millionaire tell me that the safety net has to be cut so he can pour more tax breaks into his own pocket, and the pockets of his wealthy cronies, or spend more on an already obscenely bloated military budget at the cost of cutting the safety net, forgive me if I find that reprehensible and morally repugnant. Of course, the people who fall through the net won't be falling in Romney's neighborhood, so I can see why he wouldn't give a ****. I doubt any of them will show up to disturb him in the Cayman Islands either.

[Rohirrim]

Right, because we all know only an evil demon would ask why the embassy staff got turned down multiple times for security help WHICH OBAMA DID NOT ANSWER.

Yeah, drama llama. Now that we've outted your bizarre little sex change charade, why don't you tell us again how we can't see straight because we're so full of hatred. I hope you turn to psychology at some point. You would be a fascinating case. Probably earn a spot in the literature.

[SoCalBronco]

I don't agree that it has to be cut SO HE CAN POUR more tax breaks into his own pocket. I don't like his tax ideas, or lack thereof. But these programs do need to be reigned in....in a major way. Yes, in the past, about 2T has been taken from SS, but that doesnt even come close to solving the prospective problems, going forward, there are huge structural deficits long-term and despite some of the things that have been posted here, simply raising taxes isn't going to cure that, alone. The long-term federal costs are extraordinary and while it is good to cut medical costs generally, I think prioririty No. 1 is to reduce federal obligations as well. The means testing will help to offset the harshness, but we can't promise everyone everything as it was before. The long term problem is in the multi-trillions, dependign on who you believe, the imbalance is either 13T or 63T. Romney-Ryan are being responsible on this. Unfortunately, they are also pissing away alot of the benefit in terms of more tax cuts, which is not responsible.

Everyone's ox is going to get gored, Roh. Theirs, yours, everyone's. You have to accept that. It's a necessity, even with increased taxes on the wealthy, which is part of, but not all of the answer.

[Blart]

Romney should have pointed out another one which nobody seems to want to address: Illegal aliens disproportionately negatively impact black employment.



What a brilliant strategy. The GOP would totally win over the African American vote, not to mention latino.

[nyuk nyuk]

Yeah, drama llama. Now that we've outted your bizarre little sex change charade, why don't you tell us again how we can't see straight because we're so full of hatred. I hope you turn to psychology at some point. You would be a fascinating case. Probably earn a spot in the literature.

Hahahaha!!!!

Uh let's see. Which users on this forum post the most angry tirades with the most personal insults, including the one I am now responding to?

Liberals.

Labeling people mentally deranged due to their political dissent. A fine Stalinist tradition, I'm glad to see you've revived that. Perhaps you have a Glorious Peoples' Gulag waiting for me, too? A little punitive psychiatry, perhaps?

[nyuk nyuk]

What a brilliant strategy. The GOP would totally win over the African American vote, not to mention latino.

Truth hurts. Plenty of blacks I've spoken to know what's going on and are angry about it.

Latinos who are here legally are also being negatively impacted, and frankly if stating the obvious were to alienate them, then you'd have to question their national loyalties. Race over nation and Mexico over America? Isn't that "racist" when whites do it?

[Rohirrim]

I don't agree that it has to be cut SO HE CAN POUR more tax breaks into his own pocket. I don't like his tax ideas, or lack thereof. But these programs do need to be reigned in....in a major way. Yes, in the past, about 2T has been taken from SS, but that doesnt even come close to solving the prospective problems, going forward, there are huge structural deficits long-term and despite some of the things that have been posted here, simply raising taxes isn't going to cure that, alone. The long-term federal costs are extraordinary and while it is good to cut medical costs generally, I think prioririty No. 1 is to reduce federal obligations as well. The means testing will help to offset the harshness, but we can't promise everyone everything as it was before. The long term problem is in the multi-trillions, dependign on who you believe, the imbalance is either 13T or 63T. Romney-Ryan are being responsible on this. Unfortunately, they are also pissing away alot of the benefit in terms of more tax cuts, which is not responsible.

Everyone's ox is going to get gored, Roh. Theirs, yours, everyone's. You have to accept that. It's a necessity, even with increased taxes on the wealthy, which is part of, but not all of the answer.

No. It's a matter of priorities. What I'm talking about is the poorest of the poor. The disabled. The elderly. The priorities in spending go to those who have a voice in Washington. Literally, it comes down to can you help that guy retain his office. If you can, you get a voice. If you can't, you don't. We need to make a societal decision. You want to lower spiraling health care costs? Remove medicine from the profit matrix. I don't hear any candidates talking about the moral decisions.

The fundamental flaw in our government that drives every issue is corruption. Our government is for sale. It can no longer fulfill its basic constitutional mission to ensure the general welfare because special interests override that mission. Why do our jobs go to China? Because special interests profit from it. Why can't we cut our military budget? Because special interests can shut it down. So we turn to social programs, which simply offer the expediency of having the weakest voice. So we cut there first.

We're in the fix we are in right now because special interests were able to take apart regulations that protected us from this kind of massive thievery and abuse.

Ike warned us about this. So did TR. We still haven't learned.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thurston clearly crapped the bed with his Libya moment.

His disrespect for the debate rules, the moderator, and the president further exposed his true colors, i.e., those of a plutocrat who doesn't believe the rules apply to him.

Obama did a good job of exposing Thurston's arithmetically-challenged tax and deficit reduction plans as well.

[Rohirrim]

Hahahaha!!!!

Uh let's see. Which users on this forum post the most angry tirades with the most personal insults, including the one I am now responding to?

Liberals.

Labeling people mentally deranged due to their political dissent. A fine Stalinist tradition, I'm glad to see you've revived that. Perhaps you have a Glorious Peoples' Gulag waiting for me, too? A little punitive psychiatry, perhaps?

You left the forum for months and then return pretending to be a woman who was an ex-Marxist. I leave it to the forum to decide.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Uh let's see. Which users on this forum post the most angry tirades with the most personal insults, including the one I am now responding to?



Like all sociopaths, republicans never understand why others are angry with them.

That's why your brand just keeps getting more and more toxic with moderates and independents.

If Obama wins another term, he'll have screeching monkeys like you to thank for helping.

[Rohirrim]

BTW, the candidate for the Green Party was arrested for trying to get into the debate. There's an interesting wrinkle on democracy. I guess it's two parties or nothing. I don't remember that being in the Constitution, but given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, nothing would surprise me anymore. Hell, I'm surprised the candidates don't wear corporate patches, like NASCAR drivers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hell, I'm surprised the candidates don't wear corporate patches, like NASCAR drivers.

Just heard on the news tonight that the NBA is headed in the same direction as NASCAR with the corporate patches. This move might be made by 2013.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

[ZONA]

I do think the rich have special rules set for them but I would be much closer to believing Republicans had a more central view if they weren't forcing their pro-life down our throats. Religion is a choice. Many are not religious or have beliefs that don't fall in line with the government making abortion illegal. Nobody in a million years could tell you when a soul is established and even then, some Americans don't believe in souls, yet are forced to the same rules. I don't believe that religion has a place in politics. But IMO, Pro-life is going beyond that. A woman should have the right to do what she wants to her body. When you can prove there is a God, and when you can prove there is a soul, then you can say for sure Pro-Life is justified. Until then, stop shoving it down our throats.

[nyuk nyuk]

I do think the rich have special rules set for them but I would be much closer to believing Republicans had a more central view if they weren't forcing their pro-life down our throats. Religion is a choice. Many are not religious or have beliefs that don't fall in line with the government making abortion illegal. Nobody in a million years could tell you when a soul is established and even then, some Americans don't believe in souls, yet are forced to the same rules. I don't believe that religion has a place in politics. But IMO, Pro-life is going beyond that. A woman should have the right to do what she wants to her body. When you can prove there is a God, and when you can prove there is a soul, then you can say for sure Pro-Life is justified. Until then, stop shoving it down our throats.

Except that Romney isn't forcing it down your throats. He simply said he wanted each state to have a local vote on it. How is that forcing it down your throat?

[nyuk nyuk]

Just heard on the news tonight that the NBA is headed in the same direction as NASCAR with the corporate patches. This move might be made by 2013.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

The spoiled brats are overpaid.

[spdirty]

Just heard on the news tonight that the NBA is headed in the same direction as NASCAR with the corporate patches. This move might be made by 2013.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

**** the NBA. I'll still watch and cheer on my Nuggets, but still, **** the NBA.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

yOU AND YOURS QUOTE LIMBAUGH, BECK AND CALL OUT SOCIALIST, COMMUNISTS, RED AND PINKOS AND i HAVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE

I LISTEN TO NUMBERS AND NOT BS............**** OFF

ohhh your soo angry
why u angry??
isnt libs supposed to be all for peace and love and hugs why no hugs:yayaya::egbgb:

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

patches on unis NO JUST NO not for sports like nba keep it to nascar drivin btw dont watch NBA find bouncing balls around boring

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

BTW, the candidate for the Green Party was arrested for trying to get into the debate. There's an interesting wrinkle on democracy. I guess it's two parties or nothing. I don't remember that being in the Constitution, but given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, nothing would surprise me anymore. Hell, I'm surprised the candidates don't wear corporate patches, like NASCAR drivers.

i think debates be more lively if every candidate was allowed to be there,
even Rosanne barr i think she would liven things up more maybe fireworks too.
so how can we as everyday citizens change the debate format so all candidates can participate

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mitt-used-cars11.jpg

[Blart]

The spoiled brats are overpaid.

The owners? I agree.

Cap executive salaries.

[Willynowei]

No, it's stupid because it's being discussed in the wrong way. Women aren't paid less just cause...they are paid less cause men and women often times do much different types of work. We aren't comparing apples to apples when we compare pay between men and women. In fact, when work experience, hours worked, education, etc are taken into account the avg woman is making 98 cents per dollar man makes. Maybe if Obama is so concerned about equal pay he should pay women in his WH the same as the men do.

Another reason this is stupid is because no on cares. It was obviously asked in order to help Obama with the women vote when it's clear Romney closed that huge gap he had with women voters.

Incorrect, women are paid less in equal positions in many high paying industries, atleast this was the case 4 or 5 years ago when I last read research on the subject.

[Willynowei]

As an independent voter who was leaning toward Obama, I'm definitely leaning towards Romney more and more. Most of this however comes from personal research on their stands on taxes moving forward. I'm not very fond of Romney's vague plan, but its going in the direction I support - down, whereas an increase of the Capital Gains tax under Obama frankly doesn't make much sense to me, especially because he's fooling around with the LONG TERM capital gains tax of 1 year investments or more. I don't understand that move, i don't like it.

I was really up on Obama and his rah rah antics 4 years ago, but the way that banks were chosen in the 2008 TARP (for political importance as opposed to financial health) and the excessive pork present in the 2009 stimulus bill have left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think that Obama was the reason for these mis-steps but it just further cements my dislike for big government spending in general.

[Willynowei]

The first problem with Romney is the tax issue. It is great to reduce the federal burden on these entitlements, but what good is it if you are going to give up a chunk of the savings by extending the Bush tax cuts and also having this 20% across the board cut on top. There has not been sufficient articulation of how you get there mathematically. I'm pretty sure you can't get there unless you assume it will create a massive tidalwave of growth. Some types of tax cuts can in fact lead to growth, but to make up for the cuts made here and assuming you aren't going to tough deductions that most people don't want to give away and will have a huge **** storm if you do give them away, you'd have to project an unreasonably high amount of growth and thats' not possible, here....

Single biggest issue for me. I like the difference in Capital Gains tax rate between the two presidents in favor of Romney but he's gotta throw me a bone on what the deductions he's going to eliminate are going to be. I'm not a tax-lawyer but i know a lot of those tax credits are there to stimulate investment.

[Meck77]

BTW, the candidate for the Green Party was arrested for trying to get into the debate. There's an interesting wrinkle on democracy. I guess it's two parties or nothing. I don't remember that being in the Constitution, but given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, nothing would surprise me anymore. Hell, I'm surprised the candidates don't wear corporate patches, like NASCAR drivers.

While millions of Americans thrash one another over who won the debate the biggest non story goes virtually unnoticed. Props for mentioning this.

Will be interesting to see what pieces are left to pick up after Rombama wins.

Perhaps then, Americans will be ready for change after 4 more years of pain. People just aren't angry and hungry enough yet.

[Blart]

I like the difference in Capital Gains tax rate between the two presidents in favor of Romney but he's gotta throw me a bone on what the deductions he's going to eliminate are going to be.

I'm 90% certain the reason Romney and Ryan don't specify those "loopholes" and deductions is because they don't exist.

What deduction or "loophole" has Romney ever denounced?

Starting at 2:00 in this video, John Stewart goes over every single big deduction in our tax code, and plays clips of Romney supporting each and every one:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:419961" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-9-2012/democalypse-2012---vague-against-the-machine---romney-s-wizardry">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>


If Romney can't conjure up these secret loopholes, that leaves three options to pay for Romney's tax cuts:

1) Reduce the size of the military. Not likely, when he wants to allocate an extra 2 trillion to defense (http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/).

2) Gouge benefits and programs for the middle class and the poor. Pell grants, medicaid, medicare, etc. Not likely, since he'd probably want a shot at a 2nd term.

3) Do what the Republicans have done for the last 30 years - cut taxes and don't pay for it, just leave a bigger deficit for the next guy.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mitt-used-cars11.jpg

you do know a model T ford is worth alot of money .
if you built a time machine which in it self be worth alot and went back and grabbed a model T you would be rich . but since you have a time machine you basically can rule the world. of course then we would get into time paradoxes and screw the entire time line up.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

While millions of Americans thrash one another over who won the debate the biggest non story goes virtually unnoticed. Props for mentioning this.

Will be interesting to see what pieces are left to pick up after Rombama wins.

Perhaps then, Americans will be ready for change after 4 more years of pain. People just aren't angry and hungry enough yet.

i just want a debate with every candidate even the the rent is too damn high guy

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/16/candy-crowley-embarrasses-herself-falsely-corrects-romney-libya

oh my did she get it wrong

CNN correspondent and second presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley disgraced herself tonight, repeatedly intervening to save a floundering President Obama and showing why many Americans were rightfully suspicious of her ability to moderate a presidential debate fairly.Her most outrageous act tonight was her incorrect seconding of Obama's statement that he declared the Libya terrorist attacks to be "terror." While Obama did indeed use the word, this is not what he meant by it. Instead, he was simply referring to "acts of terror." There was no mention of Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates with respect to the actual attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi.
Crowley bungled the facts in attempting to save Obama from his administration's dreadful bungling of the Libya situation. She owes the American people an apology for inserting herself into the debate in such an inappropriate and embarrassing fashion.
Obama deliberately quoted himself out of context and Crowley not only allowed him to do so, she validated his intentionally narrow reading of the facts even before he pleaded for her to come to his rescue.
Here is the full Obama statement in reference to "terror" in Libya. As you can see, this was purely a generic discussion of violence:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/16/candy-crowley-embarrasses-herself-falsely-corrects-romney-libya#ixzz29XimwkEm

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

The owners? I agree.

Cap executive salaries.

you cant cap salaries thats private sector only gov can cap their employees .
why dont you buy american stuff or boycott everything made outside the us
again i ask why should i vote for obama the same guy who been in the white house for 4 years already

[Willynowei]

I'm 90% certain the reason Romney and Ryan don't specify those "loopholes" and deductions is because they don't exist.

What deduction or "loophole" has Romney ever denounced?

Starting at 2:00 in this video, John Stewart goes over every single big deduction in our tax code, and plays clips of Romney supporting each and every one:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:419961" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-9-2012/democalypse-2012---vague-against-the-machine---romney-s-wizardry">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>


If Romney can't conjure up these secret loopholes, that leaves three options to pay for Romney's tax cuts:

1) Reduce the size of the military. Not likely, when he wants to allocate an extra 2 trillion to defense (http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/).

2) Gouge benefits and programs for the middle class and the poor. Pell grants, medicaid, medicare, etc. Not likely, since he'd probably want a shot at a 2nd term.

3) Do what the Republicans have done for the last 30 years - cut taxes and don't pay for it, just leave a bigger deficit for the next guy.

You have to remember there are corporate deductions as well, not that I'm counting on him to cut those entirely, nor would i want him to. Frankly I hope he doesn't remove deductions, that was my point because what he's doing with the corporate tax - removing deductions while reducing the tax has a net 0 effect on revenue, likely yielding less of a growth advantage over Obama's taxation policies than I would hope.

Basically i wouldn't mind, or rather, i'd be in favor of this conjecture being just that - conjecture, and his actual action being - Cut taxes, keep deductions and balance the budget through other means.

How? Well, this is where you make a good point - i don't know how he's going get past that political log jam, and he may be hoping that the resulting growth will increase the tax base enough to offset at least some of those taxes. It's not a great plan, and its what's scaring me and I think a lot of people away from voting for him. If well over 60% of Americans think your policies are best for the Nation's economy but your stuck at a 48% tie during an election with the economy as the central issue, that says that people aren't sure of what you're going to have to sacrifice to get your plan going, etc.

Obviously, what these guys say and what these guys do are totally different things. When Obama was running for office I'm sure he didn't make it clear to his biggest donor Goldman Sachs that the guy would push hard for a tax on foreign earnings that ignored repatriation. He certainly struck me as more down the middle than he's turned out...

[Bronco Yoda]

I would have really liked to see Jill Stein & Gary Johnson included in these.

These debates are offering nothing we don't already know. All we're really doing at this point is watching for a fatal gaff and scoring demeanor.

[manchambo]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/16/candy-crowley-embarrasses-herself-falsely-corrects-romney-libya

oh my did she get it wrong

CNN correspondent and second presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley disgraced herself tonight, repeatedly intervening to save a floundering President Obama and showing why many Americans were rightfully suspicious of her ability to moderate a presidential debate fairly.Her most outrageous act tonight was her incorrect seconding of Obama's statement that he declared the Libya terrorist attacks to be "terror." While Obama did indeed use the word, this is not what he meant by it. Instead, he was simply referring to "acts of terror." There was no mention of Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates with respect to the actual attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi.
Crowley bungled the facts in attempting to save Obama from his administration's dreadful bungling of the Libya situation. She owes the American people an apology for inserting herself into the debate in such an inappropriate and embarrassing fashion.
Obama deliberately quoted himself out of context and Crowley not only allowed him to do so, she validated his intentionally narrow reading of the facts even before he pleaded for her to come to his rescue.
Here is the full Obama statement in reference to "terror" in Libya. As you can see, this was purely a generic discussion of violence:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/16/candy-crowley-embarrasses-herself-falsely-corrects-romney-libya#ixzz29XimwkEm

Why would Obama have said Al Qaeda the day after the attack? I don't think we know even today that Al Qaeda was involved. This is a classic case of moving the goalposts. For days and days the problem was that he didn't say it was an act of terror, and Romney repeated that false attack. When he points out that he did say it was an act of terror, now the problem is he didn't say it was Al Qaeda.

[TonyR]

Romney did plenty of lying as usual. Here's just one of them. Remember when he said Obama quadrupled regulations on small businesses?

Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News. The average annual cost to businesses under Obama is higher than under his predecessors, the Bloomberg review shows. The increase is estimated to total as little as $100 million or as much as $4.1 billion, or at most three one-hundredths of a percent of the total economy. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer-rules-than-bush-while-costing-business.html

[TonyR]

Devastating comments from Daniel Larison:

Romney has no foreign policy experience, and tonight everyone clearly saw that. He is superficially conversant with foreign policy issues, but hasn’t taken the time to learn enough about them to speak about them effectively or persuasively. Romney’s bad judgment and his lack of preparation on this front were on display, and it has probably become clear to a much wider audience that Romney lacks important qualifications for the Presidency. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romney-somehow-manages-to-bungle-his-biggest-opportunity-to-attack-on-foreign-policy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=romney-somehow-manages-to-bungle-his-biggest-opportunity-to-attack-on-foreign-policy

WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

[barryr]

Crowley admits Romney was right. Obama stated "acts of terror" on one hand then later on softball shoes like The View, stated "investigation still going on." Bottom line Obama new from the start some 2 month old video was not the reason for the attacks, but sent out his messengers to spout that lie anyway. Oh, and Crowley did her best to help Obama, but looks like it didn't help much.

http://freebeacon.com/candy-crowley-he-was-right/

[barryr]

So Obama voters of 2008 are going with Romney? So even with help from the media and even moderators, Obama is not gaining much it seems. Too bad, my heart bleeds for the happy liberals LOL


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_sw itch_to_romney.html

[BroncoInferno]

Crowley admits Romney was right. Obama stated "acts of terror" on one hand then later on softball shoes like The View, stated "investigation still going on." Bottom line Obama new from the start some 2 month old video was not the reason for the attacks, but sent out his messengers to spout that lie anyway. Oh, and Crowley did her best to help Obama, but looks like it didn't help much.

http://freebeacon.com/candy-crowley-he-was-right/

Did you even watch the debate? After Crowley point out that Romney was wrong on the terror comment (which he was), she IMMEDIATELY said that he was correct about the emphasis on the youtube video thereafter. But, yeah, she was in the bag for Obama.

[Blart]

he may be hoping that the resulting growth will increase the tax base enough to offset at least some of those taxes. It's not a great plan, and its what's scaring me and I think a lot of people away from voting for him.

Yeah, cutting taxes for stimulus is dicey.

Mark Zandi (https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/) (Chief Economist at Moody's) calculated the change in GDP caused by a dollar spent on various stimulus policies. Here's his Senate testimony (http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate-Finance-Committee-Unemployment%20Insurance-041410.pdf). Here's a much easier to digest graphic,


http://wakingupnow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/bang_for_the_buck_for_various_stimulus_methods_LAR GE.png

[Rohirrim]

Devastating comments from Daniel Larison:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romney-somehow-manages-to-bungle-his-biggest-opportunity-to-attack-on-foreign-policy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=romney-somehow-manages-to-bungle-his-biggest-opportunity-to-attack-on-foreign-policy

WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

It was Romney’s theme throughout the entire night: “Bad things are happening. I have no answers. Elect me.” Ha!

[ScottXray]

BTW, the candidate for the Green Party was arrested for trying to get into the debate. There's an interesting wrinkle on democracy. I guess it's two parties or nothing. I don't remember that being in the Constitution, but given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, nothing would surprise me anymore. Hell, I'm surprised the candidates don't wear corporate patches, like NASCAR drivers.

Hilarious!:strong:

Unfortunately its SO true. It might make it easier to differentiate their TRUE
aims....

As far as the debate...I think this one was mostly a draw...slight edge to Obama.

[Kaylore]

When Obama was elected president he had even less experience than Romney. And several Governors "with no foreign policy experience" became awesome Presidents. That's a BS argument.

[TonyR]

When Obama was elected president he had even less experience than Romney. And several Governors "with no foreign policy experience" became awesome Presidents. That's a BS argument.

Fair, but also worth pointing out that Obama's ticket included a VP with considerable, and well respected, foreign policy experience whereas Romney's most certainly doesn't. And then there's the even more frightening fact that Romney's foreign policy team is primarily the Bush/Cheney crew which almost by itself should be sounding alarms for anyone who was awake and alive during W's 8 year term.

[~Crash~]

Hilarious!:strong:

Unfortunately its SO true. It might make it easier to differentiate their TRUE
aims....

As far as the debate...I think this one was mostly a draw...slight edge to Obama.

Define edge. independents are what on the line again more lost last night by obama . so what edge, his redric is old and really not what people want. people want someone that will work with the other side . Obama has not adressed this . you cannot spin that.Hilarious!

[Rohirrim]

Fair, but also worth pointing out that Obama's ticket included a VP with considerable, and well respected, foreign policy experience whereas Romney's most certainly doesn't. And then there's the even more frightening fact that Romney's foreign policy team is primarily the Bush/Cheney crew which almost by itself should be sounding alarms for anyone who was awake and alive during W's 8 year term.

^this

Not to mention, his one foreign policy excursion was an embarrassment. His first act abroad was to insult the Brits, our number one ally in the world.

[BroncoInferno]

What the hell is "redric?"

[Rohirrim]

What the hell is "redric?"

I think he was a Viking warlord in the 10th century.

[Irish Stout]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/16/candy-crowley-embarrasses-herself-falsely-corrects-romney-libya

oh my did she get it wrong

CNN correspondent and second presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley disgraced herself tonight, repeatedly intervening to save a floundering President Obama and showing why many Americans were rightfully suspicious of her ability to moderate a presidential debate fairly.Her most outrageous act tonight was her incorrect seconding of Obama's statement that he declared the Libya terrorist attacks to be "terror." While Obama did indeed use the word, this is not what he meant by it. Instead, he was simply referring to "acts of terror." There was no mention of Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates with respect to the actual attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi.
Crowley bungled the facts in attempting to save Obama from his administration's dreadful bungling of the Libya situation. She owes the American people an apology for inserting herself into the debate in such an inappropriate and embarrassing fashion.
Obama deliberately quoted himself out of context and Crowley not only allowed him to do so, she validated his intentionally narrow reading of the facts even before he pleaded for her to come to his rescue.
Here is the full Obama statement in reference to "terror" in Libya. As you can see, this was purely a generic discussion of violence:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/16/candy-crowley-embarrasses-herself-falsely-corrects-romney-libya#ixzz29XimwkEm

What the hell did I just read?

So even though Obama said "acts of terror" the day after the Libya incident, he didn't mean the right thing, therefore Romney was right in saying that Obama never used the terms "act of terror" until 15 days after the Libya incident? Thats like me saying you're not a Broncos fan because your name is Dan Bronco Fan and therefore, you're only a fan of one Bronco.

Its like arguing a red brick house isn't really a red brick house because the brick is really a stone composite and not all of it is red.

Its like saying a creek isn't running water cause it doesn't have any legs.

There is a legitimate attack to be made on Obama, but this is a stretch to be arguing about the words he used and the semantics of it after its long expired. Romney was dumb for pushing the point, when he could have continued to push that Obama was not disclosing what really happened and that there was likely a failure within his state department.

[Kaylore]

Fair, but also worth pointing out that Obama's ticket included a VP with considerable, and well respected, foreign policy experience whereas Romney's most certainly doesn't. And then there's the even more frightening fact that Romney's foreign policy team is primarily the Bush/Cheney crew which almost by itself should be sounding alarms for anyone who was awake and alive during W's 8 year term.

You guys can try and spin Romney as Bush, but he isn't. And I think deep down you know he isn't. And before you say "all Republicans are the same" that's not true. In fact there isn't a huge amount of difference on a lot of things between Romney and Obama.

This really has been a joke. Obama's domestic record is awful. And what exactly has Obama done with foreign polcy that he can hang his hat on? Before the Libya fiasco, the best thing Obama could say was if he isn't re-elected we would lose Hillary as Secretary of state, who, love or hate her, has worked her ass off at the position. Now he's throwing her under the bus for Libya.

Sorry, but "Romney is Rich and like Bush" doesn't seem like a good enough reason for someone to go back to Obama - especially when the latter comment just isn't true. You're talking about a governor or Massachusetts Vs. the governor of Texas for crying out loud. It's not like the choice is between Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo.

Seriously people.

[Irish Stout]

You guys can try and spin Romney as Bush, but he isn't. And I think deep down you know he isn't. And before you say "all Republicans are the same" that's not true. In fact there isn't a huge amount of difference on a lot of things between Romney and Obama.

Romney isn't Bush. And Obama's actions in the last 4 years do have more similarities with what Romney is advocating.

This really has been a joke. Obama's domestic record is awful. And what exactly has Obama done with foreign polcy that he can hang his hat on? Before the Libya fiasco, the best thing Obama could say was if he isn't re-elected we would lose Hillary as Secretary of state, who, love or hate her, has worked her ass off at the position. Now he's throwing her under the bus for Libya.

He can hang his hat on Iraq withdrawal and setting a date for Afghanistan withdrawal, higher exports and Bin Laden. Obama's foreign policy has not been horrible and to argue that Romney has a better position is highly questionable. I understand and agree that Romney can "learn on the job" how to handle foreign policy, but right now thats where these two candidates are night and day.

Sorry, but "Romney is Rich and like Bush" doesn't seem like a good enough reason for someone to go back to Obama - especially when the latter comment just isn't true. You're talking about a governor or Massachusetts Vs. the governor of Texas for crying out loud. It's not like the choice is between Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo.

Seriously people.

I agree. However, I do believe there are other reasons to go back to Obama. My biggest issue 4 years ago was healthcare reform. Obama has done that and Romney wants to strip that away. Love or hate Obamacare, its at least a starting point to build on and change the healthcare system in this country - starting with stopping insurance discrimination and allowing the ability to get health insurance across state lines (both of which I have heard Republicans advocate for). All I have heard from Romney on healthcare is to simply tear down Obamacare on day one. I'd prefer he said he would move to amend Obamacare or even replace it.

Also, Obama has set a date for which the US will be out of Afghanistan. Romney appears to want to stay in Afghanistan as well as possibly pushing for more conflict in the middle east. This is where a huge chunk of our ever growing debt is coming from...

Finally, though I am not thrilled with Obama's tax policies, I don't have a clue how Romney's are going to help reduce the debt - they flat out look like they will increase it. Most of the fiscal conservatives who have commented on Romney's economic policies aren't really happy about it either. Granted they do not like Obama's raising the taxes on the wealthy and see that as being a way to stymie economic growth.

So there is reason to go to Obama simply because Romney = Bush. Thats not true and I agree, but there are reasons for people, like myself to go for Obama. I really wish I had a legitimate 3rd choice.

[TonyR]

You guys can try and spin Romney as Bush, but he isn't.

Where in my post did I say he was? Read it again. I said Romney was using Bush/Cheney's foreign policy team. Anyone sane doesn't want those people in charge again.

[TonyR]

From Sullivan's reader email:

I find it hilarious that the exact moment debate-watchers have dreamed of, the moderator pointing out a direct lie, is the one the right-wing commentators are decrying as Candy Crowley "shilling" for Obama. Martha Raddatz did something similar when she questioned Paul Ryan about which deductions and loopholes Romney would close, or if they really still had no specifics, and concluded "No specifics, then?" And again, the right was beside themselves with animosity at the unfairness of the moderator.

They much preferred Romney buffaloing Jim Lehrer, which was painful to watch. Democrats certainly grumbled about Lehrer's competence in the first debate, but they blamed their candidate. The right won't do that; the right won't look in the mirror. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-town-hall-debate-reader-reax.html

[TonyR]

Romney appears to want to stay in Afghanistan as well as possibly pushing for more conflict in the middle east. This is where a huge chunk of our ever growing debt is coming from...


^ Bears repeating. The Romney team will be beholden to Netanyahu, when it should be the other way around.

[TonyR]

...though I am not thrilled with Obama's tax policies, I don't have a clue how Romney's are going to help reduce the debt - they flat out look like they will increase it. Most of the fiscal conservatives who have commented on Romney's economic policies aren't really happy about it either. Granted they do not like Obama's raising the taxes on the wealthy and see that as being a way to stymie economic growth.


^ Also bears repeating. They will increase the debt. When asked for specifics during the VP debate Ryan couldn't do it. Romney couldn't/wouldn't last night, either. There's a reason for this. Their tax plan is completely fraudulent.

[Irish Stout]

^ Also bears repeating. They will increase the debt. When asked for specifics during the VP debate Ryan couldn't do it. Romney couldn't/wouldn't last night, either. There's a reason for this. Their tax plan is completely fraudulent.

Honestly reminds me of George H. W. Bush's "read my lips" line... I just don't see how they can promise to do what they're promising to do with taxes without doubling or tripling the national deficit. At some point in time, cuts with tax increase are going to have to occur. I'd rather it be now at a reduced rate than 8 years down the road at a higher rate.

[Rohirrim]

You guys can try and spin Romney as Bush, but he isn't. And I think deep down you know he isn't. And before you say "all Republicans are the same" that's not true. In fact there isn't a huge amount of difference on a lot of things between Romney and Obama.

This really has been a joke. Obama's domestic record is awful. And what exactly has Obama done with foreign polcy that he can hang his hat on? Before the Libya fiasco, the best thing Obama could say was if he isn't re-elected we would lose Hillary as Secretary of state, who, love or hate her, has worked her ass off at the position. Now he's throwing her under the bus for Libya.

Sorry, but "Romney is Rich and like Bush" doesn't seem like a good enough reason for someone to go back to Obama - especially when the latter comment just isn't true. You're talking about a governor or Massachusetts Vs. the governor of Texas for crying out loud. It's not like the choice is between Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo.

Seriously people.

I'll give you a "seriously people."

We are in the worst recession/depression that we have had to suffer for 80 years. We are there because of the deregulation of Wall Street, the fact that our Congress is bought off and our government is ino longer able to perform its proper regulatory function, we are hemorrhaging jobs because our corporate leaders no longer give a **** about their allegiance to this country, and finally, because through some kind of hook and crook, the Republicans were able to put in office the worst president in our history, who went on a spending and tax cutting spree like a drunken sailor.

Now Obama comes into this wreckage and we have the most rabid, virulent partisanship since the civil war, a Congress that is deemed by historians the worst in American history, with the leadership of the opposition declaring for all the world that they plan a scorched earth policy of total obstructionism in order to destroy the presidency of one man, and damn the country if we don't like it.

And now the Republicans put forward a candidate who is running on more deregulation and more tax breaks for the rich? It would be comical if the results weren't so disastrous and the devastation to the country so real. Romney is precisely the kind of greedy corporate huckster who brought this ruin on our nation. And now the Right thinks he's the man to fix it? :rofl:

[Drek]

You guys can try and spin Romney as Bush, but he isn't. And I think deep down you know he isn't. And before you say "all Republicans are the same" that's not true. In fact there isn't a huge amount of difference on a lot of things between Romney and Obama.
You're right, he isn't GWB. He's worse in nearly every way.

No off-sets for seniors when he cuts medicare.

Massive unpaid for tax cuts when we're in a deficit, while Bush's massive unpaid for tax cuts came while we had a surplus.

Already saber rattling towards Iran, GWB at least waited until he was in office for a little while before rolling out the war with Iraq road map.

GWB was at least a compassionate conservative, Romney legitimately thinks large portions of this country are a burden we have no responsibility for and that we'd be better off as a nation with corporate feudalism.

This really has been a joke. Obama's domestic record is awful. And what exactly has Obama done with foreign polcy that he can hang his hat on? Before the Libya fiasco, the best thing Obama could say was if he isn't re-elected we would lose Hillary as Secretary of state, who, love or hate her, has worked her ass off at the position. Now he's throwing her under the bus for Libya.
1. Hillary isn't coming back for the second term no matter what, she said that months and months ago.

2. She isn't being thrown under the bus. Both of them are taking responsibility.

3. Obama's foreign policy is largely of his own making. He is why we have new, highly lucrative, trade agreements, why we're all but out of Iraq, why Bin Laden is dead, etc..

4. On domestic policy how exactly has Obama failed? By not getting a transient congress to pass a much needed Jobs Act? By lowering the stimulus below what he actually wanted in an attempt to reach across the isle? By putting through a healthcare plan modeled after what the GOP had been pushing for years but now suddenly was awful communist crap because it came from Obama?

Fact is, the economy is rebounding in a real and sustainable way. There is no false boost that will let us all down in a few years here, this is legitimate rebound and growth. It might be a slow recovery but at least it's not a sham recovery.

Sorry, but "Romney is Rich and like Bush" doesn't seem like a good enough reason for someone to go back to Obama - especially when the latter comment just isn't true. You're talking about a governor or Massachusetts Vs. the governor of Texas for crying out loud. It's not like the choice is between Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo.
We're talking about a one term governor of Massachusetts who didn't run for a second term because his approval numbers where through the floor. He failed to create jobs in Massachusetts (47th in job growth nationally during his time) and his "I balanced the budget" claim is bull**** of the highest order. Massachusetts has a balanced budget amendment and Romney's number one avenue to close the gap was skyrocketing government taxes and fees.

He's a con man selling used cars and telling people they're all rare gems, just ignore the rust and bent frame.

Obama isn't perfect but he's doing a damn sight better at working from the middle and encouraging real economic growth that will last long term.

[mhgaffney]

You guys can try and spin Romney as Bush, but he isn't. And I think deep down you know he isn't. And before you say "all Republicans are the same" that's not true. In fact there isn't a huge amount of difference on a lot of things between Romney and Obama.

This really has been a joke. Obama's domestic record is awful. And what exactly has Obama done with foreign polcy that he can hang his hat on? Before the Libya fiasco, the best thing Obama could say was if he isn't re-elected we would lose Hillary as Secretary of state, who, love or hate her, has worked her ass off at the position. Now he's throwing her under the bus for Libya.

Sorry, but "Romney is Rich and like Bush" doesn't seem like a good enough reason for someone to go back to Obama - especially when the latter comment just isn't true. You're talking about a governor or Massachusetts Vs. the governor of Texas for crying out loud. It's not like the choice is between Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo.

Seriously people.

Yeah seriously.

I don't recall you opposing Bush's insane wars. No, in fact, you were a Bush boooster. Another Amerikkkan on steroids.

As for the second point -- you are strangely correct. I won't be voting FOR Obama simply to vote AGAINST Romney.

The truth is we have no choices. As I've been saying for years, we have only the appearance of democracy. There is no true opposition party. We have a uni-party with two wings.

It now looks like the banksters have abandoned Obama (whom they supported in 2008) for Romney.

He is after all the billionaire's wet dream.

Good bye America.

For what it's worth - I'll be voting for Rocky Anderson.

MHG

[Rohirrim]

I'll probably go with Rocky Anderson myself. The Justice Party aligns with more of the issues that I think have predominance and they have a stronger, more realistic focus than the Green Party, whose call for full employment I find a little too communistic for my tastes. Here's a nice quote from Rocky: “The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party." ;D

[Kaylore]

Just so I have it right

Hitler > Bush > Romney, yes? ::)

[razorwire77]

I'll probably go with Rocky Anderson myself. The Justice Party aligns with more of the issues that I think have predominance and they have a stronger, more realistic focus than the Green Party, whose call for full employment I find a little too communistic for my tastes. Here's a nice quote from Rocky: “The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party." ;D

I agree. The main reason keeping me from a vote of protest for the Justice Party are the ramifications of Mitty nominating multiple Supreme Court justices.

[BroncoInferno]

Just so I have it right

Hitler > Bush > Romney, yes? ::)

C'mon, Khan. Drek, TonyR and Ro all made valid points. In particular, you don't think the fact that Romney has former Bush foreign policy aids advising him perhaps hints that he may believe in a similar foreign policy as Bush? Have those aids radically changed their views in recent years? Or does Romney enjoy surrounding himself with a bunch of contrarians?

[Drek]

Just so I have it right

Hitler > Bush > Romney, yes? ::)

Learn something about the current political climate before you make asinine statements. On the main board you're a quality poster, everything I've seen from you on this sub-forum has contained some blatant factual error that anyone truly following this nation's political landscape would know.

[houghtam]

C'mon, Khan. Drek, TonyR and Ro all made valid points. In particular, you don't think the fact that Romney has former Bush foreign policy aids advising him perhaps hints that he may believe in a similar foreign policy as Bush? Have those aids radically changed their views in recent years? Or does Romney enjoy surrounding himself with a bunch of contrarians?

This. I want to hear how former Bush advisors are going to somehow magically make different choices the second time around.

Please, Kahn. Enlighten us.

[Willynowei]

Yeah, cutting taxes for stimulus is dicey.

Mark Zandi (https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/) (Chief Economist at Moody's) calculated the change in GDP caused by a dollar spent on various stimulus policies. Here's his Senate testimony (http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate-Finance-Committee-Unemployment%20Insurance-041410.pdf). Here's a much easier to digest graphic,


http://wakingupnow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/bang_for_the_buck_for_various_stimulus_methods_LAR GE.png

After seeing your post, i did some research on Mark Zandi in his days before the current administration. Although the way he presented his messages show him an opportunist, his main points have been fairly steady.

So I think your post has merit. It will be something i take into consideration when figuring out where i stand and who to vote for.

[ghwk]

The greatest fallacy you can buy into is "He was a successful businessman so he knows how to do it."

BULLS**T.

Government and the presidencey aren't business, it's politics. The economy is so damn complex that a president needs advisors to help make those sorts of decisions, the decisions then become philosophy based not because he could run a damn business.

You can see how well a divided congress can stonewall a president regardless of their business experience and if you think Romney stands any better chance with this congress than Obama did just because he has sucessfully run (and throroughly destroyed I might add) businesses you are a fricking idiot.

So go snort some more Golden Romneydust and take that vast intellectual wasteland between your ears back to it's happy place .

[Willynowei]

The greatest fallacy you can buy into is "He was a successful businessman so he knows how to do it."

BULLS**T.

Government and the presidencey aren't business, it's politics. The economy is so damn complex that a president needs advisors to help make those sorts of decisions, the decisions then become philosophy based not because he could run a damn business.

You can see how well a divided congress can stonewall a president regardless of their business experience and if you think Romney stands any better chance with this congress than Obama did just because he has sucessfully run (and throroughly destroyed I might add) businesses you are a fricking idiot.

So go snort some more Golden Romneydust and take that vast intellectual wasteland between your ears back to it's happy place .

It is a matter of a man's core beliefs as a president. Before voting for Obama people who knew of his history growing up knew what kind of core beliefs he held. He taught at an extremely conservative law school in U of C (which if you ever been there is full of very smart elitists that will try to convince you of their view point) and yet, almost non of that rubbed off on him. He has conviction in what he believes and you can see how that translates to the bills he's pushed for.

From what I've seen about Romney, his core beliefs are largely shaped by his past experiences as well, one of which was as the founder of a startup turned success. People who have been in that seat before never forget how important certain things are to the ability of their companies to thrive and compete, which is why i feel like he has the interest of business owners at heart.

You are right that being a good politician is important, but a man's past is a huge part of what you can expect from him in the future.

[peacepipe]

You guys can try and spin Romney as Bush, but he isn't. And I think deep down you know he isn't. And before you say "all Republicans are the same" that's not true. In fact there isn't a huge amount of difference on a lot of things between Romney and Obama.

This really has been a joke. Obama's domestic record is awful. And what exactly has Obama done with foreign polcy that he can hang his hat on? Before the Libya fiasco, the best thing Obama could say was if he isn't re-elected we would lose Hillary as Secretary of state, who, love or hate her, has worked her ass off at the position. Now he's throwing her under the bus for Libya.

Sorry, but "Romney is Rich and like Bush" doesn't seem like a good enough reason for someone to go back to Obama - especially when the latter comment just isn't true. You're talking about a governor or Massachusetts Vs. the governor of Texas for crying out loud. It's not like the choice is between Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo.

Seriously people.that's not what he's sayimg & you know that.

[Bronco Yoda]

I agree. The main reason keeping me from a vote of protest for the Justice Party are the ramifications of Mitty nominating multiple Supreme Court justices.

(third party) same here

[Bronco Yoda]

This. I want to hear how former Bush advisors are going to somehow magically make different choices the second time around.

Please, Kahn. Enlighten us.

They will now be required to wear magic underwear so all will be good now. Where have you been? Pay attention...:giggle:

[Bronco Yoda]

I really want to know who these mythical 'undecided' voters are. Are there REALLY any voters still deciding between the two candidates?

Now I'll acknowledge that there are those out there (on all sides) deciding if they're going to actually throw protesting votes to third party candidates. I'm one of them.

But are there REALLY anyone out there deciding between Obama and Romney? If so, what in the hell are you waiting to hear?

[DBruleU]

I really want to know who these mythical 'undecided' voters are. Are there REALLY any voters still deciding between the two candidates?

Now I'll acknowledge that there are those out there (on all sides) deciding if they're going to actually throw protesting votes to third party candidates. I'm one of them.

But are there REALLY anyone out there deciding between Obama and Romney? If so, what in the hell are you waiting to hear?

I've been thinking about that too.

Each week when these polls come out the undecideds shrink, obviously. And we see Romney surging in the polls. My thinking is either people actually did finally make up their minds, or all along there weren't as many undecideds and polls are just now straightening themselves out to reflect the nature of the race.

[ludo21]

I am still undecided... not really sure why.

I also want to throw my vote at a third party, but isnt that just a waste?

[DBruleU]

I am still undecided... not really sure why.

I also want to throw my vote at a third party, but isnt that just a waste?

Yes.

[TonyR]

I've been thinking about that too.

Each week when these polls come out the undecideds shrink, obviously. And we see Romney surging in the polls. My thinking is either people actually did finally make up their minds, or all along there weren't as many undecideds and polls are just now straightening themselves out to reflect the nature of the race.

I just saw the below today and I kind of think there might be something to it:

I suspect—or should I say, fear—that the reason the polls moved so much is that there were a lot of voters who had tuned Obama out as a result of the bad economy. They were ready to vote against him so long as Romney passed a reasonable threshold, which he did. We’ve seen this before in presidential campaigns: in 1980, Americans were looking for an excuse to vote against the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, and so what mattered most in the debates was that Reagan didn’t look like a right-wing maniac. In 2008, Americans were looking for an excuse to vote against the de facto incumbent, John McCain, and so what mattered most in the debates was that Obama didn’t look like a novice. If the debates are really about people disillusioned with Obama becoming comfortable with Romney, it doesn’t really matter that Obama did better than Romney tonight because Romney did well enough. He again and again reminded Americans that the economy is worse than Obama said it would be... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/obama-wins-second-debate-but-romney-scores-with-centrist-likable-storyline.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

[TonyR]

For those still on the fence, give this (a reader email Andrew Sullivan posted) a read. I thought it was interesting.

I keep coming back to a moment I think was the most important of the debate, and in some ways, Obama's whole presidency. When he called Romney's accusations of politicizing Libya "offensive," I pumped my fist in the air, thrilled. Then, when I found myself going back to that moment again and again, I wondered why it was so powerful.

Yes, the language was probably planned and practiced, yes it was partly political theater, but it reinforced something about this leader that I think many of us feel, even if we're not always aware of it. For all the complaints we have about Obama, especially in the conduct of domestic policy, one thing he demonstrates to me, and it's the reason I revere him more than Bill Clinton, is that he makes careful, patient, principled -- and practical -- decisions, waits patiently for them to bear fruit, and when they do, he trusts the public to analyze and understand what he's accomplished on their own. Libya, tellingly, happens to be high on the list.

There was no crowing about the delicately coordinated bombing campaign (and the covert actions on the ground which helped it succeed) that brought down a tyrant. No "Mission Accomplished" banners, no bold predictions about the future of a remade Middle East thanks to our military efforts. But Obama got results. For less than a thousandth of the cost of Iraq, and with no lives lost until September 11th, Obama gave us a democratically elected Arab ally, an ally whose people -- not their leaders, their people -- are so grateful for what America did and how we did it, that after the death of our Ambassador they poured into the streets in outrage, and attacked the Islamic militias responsible.

No the story's not over. But name another Arab country where you've seen anything remotely similar. What political hay does Obama make out of all this? Very little. Then or since. (To my great frustration, frankly.) After the ambassador dies, Obama's language is full of firmness, but also restraint and moderation, and zero politics. Mitt Romney's language? The opposite. Obama trusts us to use our eyes and give credit where it's due.

His anger in that moment, theatrical or not, was about something deeper. At least it was for me. There must be something horribly galling to our president about being called out for an absurdly minor offense (if it even was one) in the context of a huge foreign policy triumph. It should be galling to us too. We fail to appreciate this president's exceptional character at our own peril.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-character-of-obama.html

[DBruleU]

I just saw the below today and I kind of think there might be something to it:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/obama-wins-second-debate-but-romney-scores-with-centrist-likable-storyline.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

Yeah, and the first debate just was what people needed to see from Romney in order to finally get on board with where they were leaning. Against Obama.

[Willynowei]

For those still on the fence, give this (a reader email Andrew Sullivan posted) a read. I thought it was interesting.


http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-character-of-obama.html

The guy's ****ing great on foreign policy, he took down Bin Laden, he's about as good as it gets as a "leader of the free world". I mean this is a guy that would've gone down as one of the greatest leaders in American history if he came during wartime, i'd take him as my wartime president over any guy in my lifetime, certainly. He's got the silver tongue and combines it with the conviction to do nasty things to our enemies when necessary - just perfect for wartime.

Its not going to change my mind on who to vote for this November though...

[Arkie]

I am still undecided... not really sure why.

I also want to throw my vote at a third party, but isnt that just a waste?

It's a waste if you don't vote third party. The two established parties are the same, so voting for either one is a wasted vote. An alternative has to begin somewhere. Momentum will build over several elections as more people vote for an alternative.

[The Lone Bolt]

The guy's ****ing great on foreign policy, he took down Bin Laden, he's about as good as it gets as a "leader of the free world". I mean this is a guy that would've gone down as one of the greatest leaders in American history if he came during wartime, i'd take him as my wartime president over any guy in my lifetime, certainly. He's got the silver tongue and combines it with the conviction to do nasty things to our enemies when necessary - just perfect for wartime.

Its not going to change my mind on who to vote for this November though...

I also think Obama's foreign policy has been outstanding. I'd really like to know how Slick Willard think's it's "unraveling." He's said nothing to back up that statement.

Ryan did haul out the Iran nuke threat but failed to say what he and Mittinus Romneyus Thurston Howell III, esq. would do any differently.

[Mecklomaniac]

It's a waste if you don't vote third party. The two established parties are the same, so voting for either one is a wasted vote. An alternative has to begin somewhere. Momentum will build over several elections as more people vote for an alternative.

People said that about H. Ross Perot 20 years ago. Vote for Perot reform the two party system. Perot later became the standard bearer for the Reform Party. 2 decades later power is still entrenched in the two parties, and Perot has endorsed Romney.

[Arkie]

People said that about H. Ross Perot 20 years ago. Vote for Perot reform the two party system. Perot later became the standard bearer for the Reform Party. 2 decades later power is still entrenched in the two parties, and Perot has endorsed Romney.

We needed to reform the two party system 20 years ago. You can waste a vote on this system of the ruling class. It's an entertaining charade, and we are like the audience at WWE Smackdown.

[peacepipe]

The guy's ****ing great on foreign policy, he took down Bin Laden, he's about as good as it gets as a "leader of the free world". I mean this is a guy that would've gone down as one of the greatest leaders in American history if he came during wartime, i'd take him as my wartime president over any guy in my lifetime, certainly. He's got the silver tongue and combines it with the conviction to do nasty things to our enemies when necessary - just perfect for wartime.

Its not going to change my mind on who to vote for this November though...he did come in during wartime.

[SoCalBronco]

I really want to know who these mythical 'undecided' voters are. Are there REALLY any voters still deciding between the two candidates?

Now I'll acknowledge that there are those out there (on all sides) deciding if they're going to actually throw protesting votes to third party candidates. I'm one of them.

But are there REALLY anyone out there deciding between Obama and Romney? If so, what in the hell are you waiting to hear?

I was an undecided voter up until about early yesterday, so yes, I'm sure there are certainly a decent amount of undecideds still out there. It could be about 5% of the voting public or so. I only got part of what I wanted from each candidate and felt they were too a little too flawed so I went with my own choice. It wouldn't have taken much more for one or the other to win me over and they both failed to do that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/425742_545613192130863_297418097_n.jpg

[Rohirrim]

I am still undecided... not really sure why.

I also want to throw my vote at a third party, but isnt that just a waste?

I've been voting for the Dems for years and watched them steadily move farther and farther away from progressive principles, ever rightward, just to hold office. At some point, you have to decide what you believe in and vote for that. They have left me behind. Goodbye.

[Willynowei]

he did come in during wartime.

That's correct, I guess i overlooked the situation because we were at the end of a war as opposed to the beginning of a serious conflict.

That said, even though he made a great president in that respect last term, and I was happy i was right about him when i voted for him last term, that doesn't affect my decision too much for this next term though, as i said earlier.

[houghtam]

That's correct, I guess i overlooked the situation because we were at the end of a war as opposed to the beginning of a serious conflict.

That said, even though he made a great president in that respect last term, and I was happy i was right about him when i voted for him last term, that doesn't affect my decision too much for this next term though, as i said earlier.

Wait, so your position is that you are happy that you voted for the President, but you're not going to vote for him now?

That's a weird position for me to understand. It's like those weird episodes of Love Connection where they'd go out, have a great time, and go back to the hotel to screw, and then in the interview they inexplicably say they don't want to see each other again.

[Play2win]

George W Bush.

[Willynowei]

Wait, so your position is that you are happy that you voted for the President, but you're not going to vote for him now?

That's a weird position for me to understand. It's like those weird episodes of Love Connection where they'd go out, have a great time, and go back to the hotel to screw, and then in the interview they inexplicably say they don't want to see each other again.

in the context of dealing with said wartime issues yeah, and overall i thought he did a good job for the term, but on issues that are more pressing and developing now, he didn't do as good of a job as hoped, and I think Mitt can do better.

[BowlenBall]

in the context of dealing with said wartime issues yeah, and overall i thought he did a good job for the term, but on issues that are more pressing and developing now, he didn't do as good of a job as hoped, and I think Mitt can do better.

I appreciate your open-mindedness (you do seem to be a flexible voter, not just rooting for your favorite 'team').

However, I'd like you to be more specific on why you think Romney can do a better job in the next four years. One of his campaign's central themes is that the deficit has been out of control under Obama, and that his administration would make deficit-reduction a priority. However, he is against raising taxes on the highest income brackets, and in fact wants to increase spending for the military. The only deficit-reduction measures he's mentioned are miniscule or insignificant in the big scheme of things (PBS? Really?). In the debates and in interviews, he has been frustratingly evasive when asked what his concrete plan is.

I'm willing to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. However, the Romney campaign just isn't putting anything serious on the table, and it's therefore hard for me to take THEM seriously.

[peacepipe]

I appreciate your open-mindedness (you do seem to be a flexible voter, not just rooting for your favorite 'team').

However, I'd like you to be more specific on why you think Romney can do a better job in the next four years. One of his campaign's central themes is that the deficit has been out of control under Obama, and that his administration would make deficit-reduction a priority. However, he is against raising taxes on the highest income brackets, and in fact wants to increase spending for the military. The only deficit-reduction measures he's mentioned are miniscule or insignificant in the big scheme of things (PBS? Really?). In the debates and in interviews, he has been frustratingly evasive when asked what his concrete plan is.

I'm willing to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. However, the Romney campaign just isn't putting anything serious on the table, and it's therefore hard for me to take THEM seriously.
I'm guessing you'll get the typical romney response on this one. nothing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm guessing you'll get the typical romney response on this one. nothing.

That's because the details of Thurston's plan are so good he has to keep them a secret until after the election. ;)

[BroncoInferno]

C'mon, Khan. Drek, TonyR and Ro all made valid points. In particular, you don't think the fact that Romney has former Bush foreign policy aids advising him perhaps hints that he may believe in a similar foreign policy as Bush? Have those aids radically changed their views in recent years? Or does Romney enjoy surrounding himself with a bunch of contrarians?

Well, Khan?

[Willynowei]

I appreciate your open-mindedness (you do seem to be a flexible voter, not just rooting for your favorite 'team').

However, I'd like you to be more specific on why you think Romney can do a better job in the next four years. One of his campaign's central themes is that the deficit has been out of control under Obama, and that his administration would make deficit-reduction a priority. However, he is against raising taxes on the highest income brackets, and in fact wants to increase spending for the military. The only deficit-reduction measures he's mentioned are miniscule or insignificant in the big scheme of things (PBS? Really?). In the debates and in interviews, he has been frustratingly evasive when asked what his concrete plan is.

I'm willing to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. However, the Romney campaign just isn't putting anything serious on the table, and it's therefore hard for me to take THEM seriously.

I prefer Romney tax policies over Obama's. There's three big differences in the general direction of their policies.

First: Personal income tax --> Obama wants to raise upper bracket rates for "individuals" earning over 200K.

So on the one hand the president's saying he wants to help small businesses, the mom and pops stores, and wants them to be able to hire more employees and drive up job growth. But how do you do that when small businesses are all setup as pass through entities to avoid corporate tax?

Well apparently what you do is effectively raise taxes on the very small businesses that you say you want to help and support. I don't like that about Obama's tax plan, i like it about Romney's.

Second: Capital gains rate - Obama wants to raise it by 5 points. What the hell? Those taxes are on INVESTMENTS OVER 1 YEAR. Why would you raise that at a time that liquidity in the market is just returning? Want another recession? Irks me just thinking about it.

Third: corporate tax rate and the pre-repatriation minimum. Here's your problem: American companies have been for decades taking corporate expenses overseas and deducting that against profits in the US while selling products to major markets such as the US while tacking the revenue to corporate tax friendly countries such as Ireland.

Obama's solution as i know it is to just start taxing these overseas profits at a higher rate. What the hell? How's that going to solve anything? You've got 10 trillion overseas that you can't capture from the past but you want to tax future profits at a higher rate? That makes no sense, they won't bring the jobs back, they'll just move even more of the company over there to the point that your tax base disappears.

Romney's plan is more simple, forget the 10 trillion, we won't tax it, so now you have no reason to keep it overseas, the idea is you can bring more of it back to the US and invest it, AND we'll try to limit those clever accounting practices by regulating the way deductions are done more tightly. That sounds way more practical to me, its like giving the kid a lolipop to be better rather than whipping them with a belt and driving them away (especially when in this case the kid is grown up and twice your size).

That's the general direction these two guys are leaning, I"m not saying its going to shake out that way when they are in office but thats the direction the wind seems to be blowing for the two administrations.

Obama scares me, Obama scares business owners, Obama scares corporate America, Obama has caused his number one donors on wallstreet to all jump for the underdog in Romney in 4 short years when last term they were all on the Obama boat.

He was supposed to be a moderate president that emphasized transparency and a more stable economic policy - he represented stability and hope. He was supposed to be Bill Clinton 2.0, faster, stronger, better, yay rah rah we all win. Although in some areas he's been great or better than hoped (foreign policy); economically he's spent like a mad man and made everyone realize he's a lot further left than anyone thought.

As for the things i don't like about Romney, well he's not a good politician, and he's got to be vague because two of the groups that he's got to capture are:

1. Economically conservative, (but probably socially liberal/moderate) business minded people. (minor but powerful group)
2. Retarded "moral", WASPS of the belt, and parent-copying voters who revere Fox News. (major group) - sorry if i offend anyone with this, if you're butt hurt, you can call me profanities and i'll laugh at you in an elitist tone while I curse you out over an internet forum.

So he's going to flip flop on a lot of issues and he has to be vague on some things. Romney will say what he needs to inorder to get a lot of people on board, but his history tells me emphatically that he's looking out for business owners, and that's what needs to happen right now for the country to recover. Remember, his platform is moderate and he wants to make cuts (both programs and tax preferences) - which only angers people, so he's going to be as vague as possible, its a good political strategy.

I agree that the ambiguity of where the cuts are going to come from is worrying. But I do think he will try to cut programs, as opposed to spending to try and stimulate the economy; which was something i felt was handled poorly in the last 4 years - the amount of pork was more than i expected.

The spending on the military is concerning as well, but I'm not entirely convinced that military driven GDP is any worse than internal infrastructure spending that's really pork (programs designed to help "impoverished" that actually put money in the pockets of strategic partners). Its the price of democracy as far as I'm concerned that you pay with both parties.

[barryr]

I prefer Romney tax policies over Obama's. There's three big differences in the general direction of their policies.

First: Personal income tax --> Obama wants to raise upper bracket rates for "individuals" earning over 200K.

So on the one hand the president's saying he wants to help small businesses, the mom and pops stores, and wants them to be able to hire more employees and drive up job growth. But how do you do that when small businesses are all setup as pass through entities to avoid corporate tax?

Well apparently what you do is effectively raise taxes on the very small businesses that you say you want to help and support. I don't like that about Obama's tax plan, i like it about Romney's.

Second: Capital gains rate - Obama wants to raise it by 5 points. What the hell? Those taxes are on INVESTMENTS OVER 1 YEAR. Why would you raise that at a time that liquidity in the market is just returning? Want another recession? Irks me just thinking about it.

Third: corporate tax rate and the pre-repatriation minimum. Here's your problem: American companies have been for decades taking corporate expenses overseas and deducting that against profits in the US while selling products to major markets such as the US while tacking the revenue to corporate tax friendly countries such as Ireland.

Obama's solution as i know it is to just start taxing these overseas profits at a higher rate. What the hell? How's that going to solve anything? You've got 10 trillion overseas that you can't capture from the past but you want to tax future profits at a higher rate? That makes no sense, they won't bring the jobs back, they'll just move even more of the company over there to the point that your tax base disappears.

Romney's plan is more simple, forget the 10 trillion, we won't tax it, so now you have no reason to keep it overseas, the idea is you can bring more of it back to the US and invest it, AND we'll try to limit those clever accounting practices by regulating the way deductions are done more tightly. That sounds way more practical to me, its like giving the kid a lolipop to be better rather than whipping them with a belt and driving them away (especially when in this case the kid is grown up and twice your size).

That's the general direction these two guys are leaning, I"m not saying its going to shake out that way when they are in office but thats the direction the wind seems to be blowing for the two administrations.

Obama scares me, Obama scares business owners, Obama scares corporate America, Obama has caused his number one donors on wallstreet to all jump for the underdog in Romney in 4 short years when last term they were all on the Obama boat.

He was supposed to be a moderate president that emphasized transparency and a more stable economic policy - he represented stability and hope. He was supposed to be Bill Clinton 2.0, faster, stronger, better, yay rah rah we all win. Although in some areas he's been great or better than hoped (foreign policy); economically he's spent like a mad man and made everyone realize he's a lot further left than anyone thought.


As for the things i don't like about Romney, well he's not a good politician, and he's got to be vague because the two of the groups that he's got to capture are:

1. Economically conservative, (but probably socially liberal/moderate) business minded people. (minor but powerful group)
2. Retarded "moral", WASPS of the belt, and parent-copying voters who revere Fox News. (major group) - sorry if i offend anyone with this, if you're butt hurt, you can call me profanities and i'll laugh at you in an elitist tone while I curse you out over an internet forum.

So he's going to flip flop on a lot of issues and he has to be vague on some things. Romney will say what he needs to inorder to get a lot of people on board, but his history tells me emphatically that he's looking out for business owners, and that's what needs to happen right now for the country to recover. Remember, his platform is moderate and he wants to make cuts (both programs and tax preferences) - which only angers people, so he's going to be as vague as possible, its a good political strategy.

I agree that the ambiguity of where the cuts are going to come from is worrying. But I do think he will try to cut programs, as opposed to spending to try and stimulate the economy; which was something i felt was handled poorly in the last 4 years - the amount of pork was more than i expected.

The spending on the military is concerning as well, but I'm not entirely convinced that military driven GDP is any worse than internal infrastructure spending that's really pork (programs designed to help "impoverished" that actually put money in the pockets of strategic partners). Its the price of democracy as far as I'm concerned that you pay with both parties.

Thanks for the post. It won't change the Obama supporters' opinions, but maybe they can respond to this without the usual personal attacks. Right, who am I kidding?

[Irish Stout]

Thanks for the post. It won't change the Obama supporters' opinions, but maybe they can respond to this without the usual personal attacks. Right, who am I kidding?

The last few pages have actually been pretty good about debating issues and positions rather than name calling. Being able to debate people with different positions is a good way to actually move political discourse and our country in the right direction. Its at least better than adding "tard" to the end of however you'd describe your opponent.

[barryr]

The last few pages have actually been pretty good about debating issues and positions rather than name calling. Being able to debate people with different positions is a good way to actually move political discourse and our country in the right direction. Its at least better than adding "tard" to the end of however you'd describe your opponent.

Yep, I wish the liberals around here could do that. Maybe you could convince people like labf, req, broncinferno, tgn, spider to start doing that sometime.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yep, I wish the liberals around here could do that. Maybe you could convince people like labf, req, broncinferno, tgn, spider to start doing that sometime.

L0L! :laugh:

Riiiiiight - because you are SO above name-calling and personal attacks.

[ghwk]

The last few pages have actually been pretty good about debating issues and positions rather than name calling. Being able to debate people with different positions is a good way to actually move political discourse and our country in the right direction. Its at least better than adding "tard" to the end of however you'd describe your opponent.

'tard ROFL!

[nyuk nyuk]

Yep, I wish the liberals around here could do that. Maybe you could convince people like labf, req, broncinferno, tgn, spider to start doing that sometime.

I've been attacked repeatedly by such here without having said anything insulting to them first. I seem to be Requiem's obsession of the moment, and I did nothing to "provoke" him outside of upsetting his liberal sensibilities.

[barryr]

I've been attacked repeatedly by such here without having said anything insulting to them first. I seem to be Requiem's obsession of the moment, and I did nothing to "provoke" him outside of upsetting his liberal sensibilities.

There are even a few who are now pretending to be "independents" but always attack republicans and conservatives, but not much about democrats, if anything at all. Gee, they are so clever and smart. They can't even be honest when anonymous on an internet forum. Weak.

[BowlenBall]

I prefer Romney tax policies over Obama's. There's three big differences in the general direction of their policies.

First: Personal income tax --> Obama wants to raise upper bracket rates for "individuals" earning over 200K.

So on the one hand the president's saying he wants to help small businesses, the mom and pops stores, and wants them to be able to hire more employees and drive up job growth. But how do you do that when small businesses are all setup as pass through entities to avoid corporate tax?

Well apparently what you do is effectively raise taxes on the very small businesses that you say you want to help and support. I don't like that about Obama's tax plan, i like it about Romney's.

Second: Capital gains rate - Obama wants to raise it by 5 points. What the hell? Those taxes are on INVESTMENTS OVER 1 YEAR. Why would you raise that at a time that liquidity in the market is just returning? Want another recession? Irks me just thinking about it.

Third: corporate tax rate and the pre-repatriation minimum. Here's your problem: American companies have been for decades taking corporate expenses overseas and deducting that against profits in the US while selling products to major markets such as the US while tacking the revenue to corporate tax friendly countries such as Ireland.

Obama's solution as i know it is to just start taxing these overseas profits at a higher rate. What the hell? How's that going to solve anything? You've got 10 trillion overseas that you can't capture from the past but you want to tax future profits at a higher rate? That makes no sense, they won't bring the jobs back, they'll just move even more of the company over there to the point that your tax base disappears.

Romney's plan is more simple, forget the 10 trillion, we won't tax it, so now you have no reason to keep it overseas, the idea is you can bring more of it back to the US and invest it, AND we'll try to limit those clever accounting practices by regulating the way deductions are done more tightly. That sounds way more practical to me, its like giving the kid a lolipop to be better rather than whipping them with a belt and driving them away (especially when in this case the kid is grown up and twice your size).

That's the general direction these two guys are leaning, I"m not saying its going to shake out that way when they are in office but thats the direction the wind seems to be blowing for the two administrations.

Obama scares me, Obama scares business owners, Obama scares corporate America, Obama has caused his number one donors on wallstreet to all jump for the underdog in Romney in 4 short years when last term they were all on the Obama boat.

He was supposed to be a moderate president that emphasized transparency and a more stable economic policy - he represented stability and hope. He was supposed to be Bill Clinton 2.0, faster, stronger, better, yay rah rah we all win. Although in some areas he's been great or better than hoped (foreign policy); economically he's spent like a mad man and made everyone realize he's a lot further left than anyone thought.

As for the things i don't like about Romney, well he's not a good politician, and he's got to be vague because two of the groups that he's got to capture are:

1. Economically conservative, (but probably socially liberal/moderate) business minded people. (minor but powerful group)
2. Retarded "moral", WASPS of the belt, and parent-copying voters who revere Fox News. (major group) - sorry if i offend anyone with this, if you're butt hurt, you can call me profanities and i'll laugh at you in an elitist tone while I curse you out over an internet forum.

So he's going to flip flop on a lot of issues and he has to be vague on some things. Romney will say what he needs to inorder to get a lot of people on board, but his history tells me emphatically that he's looking out for business owners, and that's what needs to happen right now for the country to recover. Remember, his platform is moderate and he wants to make cuts (both programs and tax preferences) - which only angers people, so he's going to be as vague as possible, its a good political strategy.

I agree that the ambiguity of where the cuts are going to come from is worrying. But I do think he will try to cut programs, as opposed to spending to try and stimulate the economy; which was something i felt was handled poorly in the last 4 years - the amount of pork was more than i expected.

The spending on the military is concerning as well, but I'm not entirely convinced that military driven GDP is any worse than internal infrastructure spending that's really pork (programs designed to help "impoverished" that actually put money in the pockets of strategic partners). Its the price of democracy as far as I'm concerned that you pay with both parties.

Nice post -- I appreciate the time and effort you put into clarifying your viewpoint.

I don't necessarily agree with all of your points, but would like to expand on them further, as follows:

1) I don't follow your distinction between 'small businesses' and 'very small businesses', and how it relates to Romney's refusal to tax wealthy individuals. Not trying to be dense or obtuse, just can't quite catch the point (either my fault or yours, not sure which).

2) Capital Gains taxes are currently at 15%... don't you see that as a bit low? I do. Raising it to 20% doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and I seriously doubt it'll be a drag on the economy, as it will mostly only effect those who are currently making out like bandits anyway (disclosure: I paid roughly $1000 in capital gains taxes last year myself).

3) It seems quite foolish to believe that Romney would increase regulations on companies who move their expenses overseas and screw around with the tax advantages of doing so. Nothing in his personal history (or his party's) suggests that he will fix this issue, and in fact, the smart money says that he'll allow corporations to run wild (as Reagan, Bush, and Bush II did before him). I do, however, believe that Obama will take some steps to remedy this problem. No one knows what the future holds, but I think that we can all make some educated predictions based on past performance....

Again, really appreciate you taking the time to write out that last post. I'm particularly intrigued by your last paragraph ("I'm not entirely convinced that military driven GDP is any worse than internal infrastructure"), which is gonna be food for thought for me for the next few days.... rep to you, sir.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There are even a few who are now pretending to be "independents" but always attack republicans and conservatives, but not much about democrats, if anything at all. Gee, they are so clever and smart. They can't even be honest when anonymous on an internet forum. Weak.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason is because both parties suck, but not in equal proportions?

Yours is exponentially worse. :wave:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/644701_428344983891253_842445851_n.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Romney's 2nd, 3rd and 4th Biggest Debate Lies

by Dave Johnson (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/31) | October 18, 2012 - 9:16am

Earlier I pointed out Romney biggest debate lie: Obama did not "double the deficit" he cut it by almost 1/3 (http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012104217/what-was-romneys-biggest-flatest-outest-debate-lie-obama-doubled-deficit). Here are three more big Romney debate lies.

1) Unemployment rate. Obama promised to bring unemployment down to 5.4%. This is another lie -- Obama never promised this. USA Today's Debate Fact Check (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/16/the-fact-check-a-second-look-at-claims-on-jobs-education/1637861/) explains:
Claim: Romney said Obama said unemployment would be 5.4% by now.

Facts: Two economists who would soon join the Obama administration issued a report in early January 2009 – before Obama's inauguration – predicting that an economic stimulus plan would prevent unemployment from rising above 8% and would push it down to about 5.4% by the third quarter of 2012. However, the economists underestimated the severity of the recession. Even without the stimulus, they forecast in that report that the jobless rate would be 5.9% by now.

Last year, the Commerce Department said the slump was far worse than it had estimated, with the economy contracting almost 9% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 5.3% in the first quarter of 2009.
2. Number of People Working. ROMNEY: “We have fewer people working today than we had when the president took office.” The Nation explains, in Romney’s Seven Biggest Debate Lies (http://www.thenation.com/blog/170623/romneys-seven-biggest-debate-lies#),
This is flatly false. The Bureau of Labor statistics just revised estimates from March 2011 to March 2012 upwards by 386,000 jobs—meaning that Obama crossed the magic imaginary barrier of net job creation for his term, and has actually created a net positive 125,000 jobs. This is a simple fact. And there have been 868,000 jobs created in the private sector during this time, which have been offset by public sector job losses—something Mitt Romney would like to see continue.

Moreover, this is an awful tough metric to judge Obama on in the first place. As he’s fond of mentioning, the economy was hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month when he took office—so holding him to a net job creation standard means he has to make up for those massive losses that were out of his control entirely. But he’s still done it.
This is so important to understand. When Obama took office we were losing more than 800,000 jobs per month. The stimulus completely turned that around. This chart says it all:
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/Job_Chart_Sept.jpg (http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/Job_Chart_Sept.jpg)

When Romney talks about jobs lost under Obama, he is talking about the left side of that chart, when the country was still suffering from the Bush crash! And just look at the tremendous difference the stimulus made, just completely turning things around!

3. Half of College Kids Unemployed. ABC News, Debate Fact Check: The Presidential Debate (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/debate-fact-check-presidential-debate/story?id=17496703#.UH9bDcVwqSo) clears this one up,
ROMNEY: With half of college kids graduating this year, without a college - excuse me - without a job and without a college level job, that's just not acceptable."
ABC's Z. Byron Wolf has the facts:

Youth unemployment is far lower than 50 percent.
... The unemployment rate for the young, just like it has more broadly, has fallen in the U.S. Back when the study was conducted, the unemployment rate for those from 20-24 was about 16 percent. In data for September (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rates#%21ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=ages_code:20&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=1263099600000&tend=1347249600000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false) it was 12.4 percent.
Zunaira Zaki adds...

The unemployment rate for college graduates with a bachelor's degree or higher was 6.3 percent in September, down from 8.1 percent at the same time last year.
Lie after lie after lie...

[BroncoInferno]

Yep, I wish the liberals around here could do that. Maybe you could convince people like labf, req, broncinferno, tgn, spider to start doing that sometime.

There are even a few who are now pretending to be "independents" but always attack republicans and conservatives, but not much about democrats, if anything at all.

LOL Pot meet kettle. Why don't you take your own advice? You call people "idiots" all the time, without offering anything yourself other than straw man arguments. Care to direct us to a post where you've criticized Romney since he won the GOP nomination, or hell, any Republican for that matter? Talk about a hypocrite Hilarious!

[ScottXray]

That's because the details of Thurston's plan are so good he has to keep them a secret until after the election. ;)

68 Nixon had a "secret " plan to end the war. The secret was that he intended to expand it.

I live in Oregon which means Obama will win here ( probably) so my vote is not as important as the swing states.

Romney does have business experience. Some of what he SAYS makes sense.
But he has changed his position so thoroughly over the last 4 years that his previous record as Mass governor is irrelevant. He wants to be President and will adopt whatever position he thinks gives him the best chance to do that. Due to those changes I feel he has no credibility as someone who cares about
the middle class ( what he is currently trying to convince everyone of) or even the country as a whole. I don't trust him to do ANY of what he is pushing, but as the defacto head of the Republican party, (which has been co-opted by radical rightists) , he will go along with whatever cuts the congress sends him...then blame the congress. ( " I can only sign/not sign the bills that come to my desk.)

His supposed foreign policy trend seems to be Hard line and beat the drums....and that will definitely get us into another war ( probably in the mid east) fairly quickly.

I am also disappointed in some of what Obama has done, and at the same time I am cognizant of the fact that the economic free fall that he inherited has REQUIRED that he run huge deficits to try to keep the entire economy from outright collapse. Considering the mess he inherited I think he has done a pretty outstanding job. And coupled with the 2010 congress that came in with the goal of "making him a one term president" regardless of what the consequences of that mean for the country as a whole, he gets a pass from me.

The people that keep saying that Obama has not fixed the economy don't seem to know how our government works. Congress passes the bills and makes the law...not the president. The executive branch does implement the laws, that congress passes. And the supreme court determines whether those laws are proper and fall within the purvue of the constitution.

The next president may likely appoint 2 or maybe 3 new Justices. On that point alone, Obama will get my vote, as he has appointed moderates. I fear that any appt made by Romney would be the equivalent of putting wall street in charge of the SC as an absolute, and be a major step towards the end of any semblance of republican democracy in this country. The corporations and lobbies would then have complete control in name, as well as fact.

[Irish Stout]

3. Half of College Kids Unemployed. ABC News, Debate Fact Check: The Presidential Debate (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/debate-fact-check-presidential-debate/story?id=17496703#.UH9bDcVwqSo) clears this one up,
ROMNEY: With half of college kids graduating this year, without a college - excuse me - without a job and without a college level job, that's just not acceptable."
ABC's Z. Byron Wolf has the facts:

Youth unemployment is far lower than 50 percent.
... The unemployment rate for the young, just like it has more broadly, has fallen in the U.S. Back when the study was conducted, the unemployment rate for those from 20-24 was about 16 percent. In data for September (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rates#%21ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=ages_code:20&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=1263099600000&tend=1347249600000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false) it was 12.4 percent.
Zunaira Zaki adds...

The unemployment rate for college graduates with a bachelor's degree or higher was 6.3 percent in September, down from 8.1 percent at the same time last year.
Lie after lie after lie...

When I graduated in 2003 the job market was pure garbage. I think that for college kids who had graduated within a 10 month period it was close to 50% unemployment, and close something like 7.8% unemployment for all college graduates. I don't blame Bush, its the way the world works... sometimes bubbles pop and jobs are lost and it takes awhile to build it back up. Some bubbles are just bigger than others.

[BowlenBall]

68 Nixon had a "secret " plan to end the war. The secret was that he intended to expand it.

I live in Oregon which means Obama will win here ( probably) so my vote is not as important as the swing states.

Romney does have business experience. Some of what he SAYS makes sense.
But he has changed his position so thoroughly over the last 4 years that his previous record as Mass governor is irrelevant. He wants to be President and will adopt whatever position he thinks gives him the best chance to do that. Due to those changes I feel he has no credibility as someone who cares about
the middle class ( what he is currently trying to convince everyone of) or even the country as a whole. I don't trust him to do ANY of what he is pushing, but as the defacto head of the Republican party, (which has been co-opted by radical rightists) , he will go along with whatever cuts the congress sends him...then blame the congress. ( " I can only sign/not sign the bills that come to my desk.)

His supposed foreign policy trend seems to be Hard line and beat the drums....and that will definitely get us into another war ( probably in the mid east) fairly quickly.

I am also disappointed in some of what Obama has done, and at the same time I am cognizant of the fact that the economic free fall that he inherited has REQUIRED that he run huge deficits to try to keep the entire economy from outright collapse. Considering the mess he inherited I think he has done a pretty outstanding job. And coupled with the 2010 congress that came in with the goal of "making him a one term president" regardless of what the consequences of that mean for the country as a whole, he gets a pass from me.

The people that keep saying that Obama has not fixed the economy don't seem to know how our government works. Congress passes the bills and makes the law...not the president. The executive branch does implement the laws, that congress passes. And the supreme court determines whether those laws are proper and fall within the purvue of the constitution.

The next president may likely appoint 2 or maybe 3 new Justices. On that point alone, Obama will get my vote, as he has appointed moderates. I fear that any appt made by Romney would be the equivalent of putting wall street in charge of the SC as an absolute, and be a major step towards the end of any semblance of republican democracy in this country. The corporations and lobbies would then have complete control in name, as well as fact.

This is a good point... I don't think that Scalia and Clarence Thomas are operating in good faith on the Supreme Court, and it would be absolutely disasterous to have a few more just like them....

[razorwire77]

The next president may likely appoint 2 or maybe 3 new Justices. On that point alone, Obama will get my vote, as he has appointed moderates. I fear that any appt made by Romney would be the equivalent of putting wall street in charge of the SC as an absolute, and be a major step towards the end of any semblance of republican democracy in this country. The corporations and lobbies would then have complete control in name, as well as fact.

That's basically what I'm grappling with. I live in a state that's going to go blue regardless, so I'll most likely vote Justice Party, but if I lived in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado etc., I would probably vote Obama just based on the gravity of the Supreme Court nominations and Romney's outrageously bad taxation plan, where he's going to decrease revenues, increase military spending drastically and somehow everything will work out.

Also, the saber-rattling toward Iran, and to a lesser extent Russia and China is really counter-productive in a global economy. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

[TonyR]

That's basically what I'm grappling with. I live in a state that's going to go blue regardless, so I'll most likely vote Justice Party, but if I lived in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado etc., I would probably vote Obama just based on the gravity of the Supreme Court nominations and Romney's outrageously bad taxation plan, where he's going to decrease revenues, increase military spending drastically and somehow everything will work out.

Also, the saber-rattling toward Iran, and to a lesser extent Russia and China is really counter-productive in a global economy. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

^ Exactly. I'm very please to see that some people get it. No matter how displeased you may be with Obama you really have to take a step back, filter your way through all the propaganda and rhetoric, and understand what a Romney/Ryan administration means.