VP Debate

[pricejj]

You can read about Romney/Ryan's 5 point plan at:

http://mittromney.com

Next time you get a chance, listen to Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan explain their plan for America, instead of focusing on the "antics" of the current administration.

Nobody cares about the acting job of Obama/Biden.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by Bronco Yoda

You are clearly blinded by your faith and strong allegiance to a particular party. Ryan didn't win one single section of entire debate. Name one single section he won.

Really? You're telling me Biden "won at everything!" and then say I'm blinded? Yeah even the Democrats and the the Obama campaign are admitting Biden got mudled on foreign policy and taxes. But I can tell you guys are going to try and pretend this was some kind of ass-whooping. Go look at the polls and read what was said. I don't agree with PriceJ that Ryan did too much, but I think his game plan was to play conservative. Biden won on some things, but lost on style.

Take a look

http://www.examiner.com/article/poll...inst-joe-biden

According to CNN poll of debate watchers released following Thursday's matchup between Rep. Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden showed 48% of respondents named Ryan the winner and 44% said Biden won.

According to Yahoo.com with 431,544 votes in poll Rep. Paul Ryan won the debate, Ryan has 54% and Joe Biden 46%.

A CNN/ORC International post-debate poll shows a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.

A CNN/ORC International post-debate poll shows. Seven in ten said Biden was seen as spending more time attacking his opponent, and that may be a contributing factor in Ryan's 53%-43% advantage on being more likable. Ryan also had a slight advantage on being more in touch with the problems of average Americans.

I think what he did do was give the Dems what they wanted to see: A Democrat attacking a Republican to avenge the Obama beat down. Geroge Stephanopolis seems to agree. Clearly you're all here insisting it was a "beat down" and "no contest." But don't you see that's because you agree with Biden? If that was the goal, then fine. But Like I keep saying: Debates are about winning America, not about winning the debate. Shouting down and arrogantly laughing at your opponent might make your core base feel good because of the resentment for the opposition they hold, but it's a cheap thrill that doesn't sell well to moderates. If you look bad "winning" the debate, but it hurts you in the election was it worth it?

It's a VP debate so it won't make much difference, however I am not sure outside of Biden firing up his base, that this changed anything other than cement Biden's reputation as something of a lose cannon.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by pricejj

You can read about Romney/Ryan's 5 point plan...

Lower taxes! More jobs! War in Iran! Unicorns!

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Lower taxes! More jobs! War in Iran! Unicorns!

1. Pro-growth tax reform that lowers rates across the board and closes the loopholes for the wealthy.
2. Repealing Obamacare's increased tax rates on the middle-class and small businesses.
3. Changing the mullah's minds about obtaining nuclear weapons by providing leadership against anti-nuclear proliferation.

Congressman Ryan concisely explained, in detail, all of these issues. It was refreshing.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by pricejj

1. Pro-growth tax reform that lowers rates across the board and closes the loopholes for the wealthy.
2. Repealing Obamacare's increased tax rates on the middle-class and small businesses.
3. Changing the mullah's minds about obtaining nuclear weapons by providing leadership against anti-nuclear proliferation.

Congressman Ryan concisely explained, in detail, all of these issues. It was refreshing.

Still have yet to see a specific. Take the bolded, for instance. It's great to say you are going to do something, but another thing entirely to explain HOW you plan to do it. What are they going to do to change their minds, give them magic beans? Please.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Pro-growth tax reform that lowers rates across the board and closes the loopholes for the wealthy.

Details? What will be reformed? Which loopholes? Who's "wealthy"? Etc.

It's one thing to say it. It's quite another to do it. There is no "everybody wins" scenario that's going to happen or work. It's just not reality. Which is why, even when pressed during the debate, Ryan couldn't begin to offer specifics. There aren't any. It's a fairy tale.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Still have yet to see a specific. Take the bolded, for instance. It's great to say you are going to do something, but another thing entirely to explain HOW you plan to do it. What are they going to do to change their minds, give them magic beans? Please.

Congressman Ryan has already been leading on the issue by passing legislation that would enforce strict sanctions against Libya.

Unfortunately the Obama administration has taken a back seat, while waiting for the toothless UN to deliver watered-down sanctions. Biden explained the Obama administration position on Iran very well. He wants to wait until they have nuclear weapons before attempting to change their minds, which would be laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Details? What will be reformed? Which loopholes? Who's "wealthy"? Etc.

It's one thing to say it. It's quite another to do it. There is no "everybody wins" scenario that's going to happen or work. It's just not reality. Which is why, even when pressed during the debate, Ryan couldn't begin to offer specifics. There aren't any. It's a fairy tale.

Everybody wins if tax rates are lowered across the board, and loopholes are closed for the wealthy. The middle-class and lower income earners win. Small businesses win. Most importantly, the U.S. corporate tax rate would be lowered and the U.S. would be more competitive in the world labor market.

It's all about increasing job creation in the U.S., and improving the economy. Increasing taxes does the exact opposite.

[Requiem]

Too bad Mitt Romney has never been a job creator.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Details? What will be reformed? Which loopholes? Who's "wealthy"? Etc.

It's one thing to say it. It's quite another to do it. There is no "everybody wins" scenario that's going to happen or work. It's just not reality. Which is why, even when pressed during the debate, Ryan couldn't begin to offer specifics. There aren't any. It's a fairy tale.

Funny how these guys will question Romneys plans but don't mind the fact that the other option doesn't have one.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Too bad Mitt Romney has never been a job creator.

That's not even close to being true and you know it.

[ant1999e]

In the Thursday night vice presidential debate, Vice President Joe Biden criticized Congressman Paul Ryan for voting to "put two wars"--those in Afghanistan and Iraq--"on a credit card." But as the Washington Free Beacon points out, Biden's suggestion that he didn't vote for those wars is simply false:

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...rs_654253.html

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Funny how these guys will question Romneys plans but don't mind the fact that the other option doesn't have one.

Oh, they don't?

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

That's not even close to being true and you know it.

Well, close enough. ~ 25,000 in his whole time as governor of Massssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssachusssaaaaateszizzle. Dude has the balls to call out Obama for 31 straight months of economic growth post-recession, yet the highest growth his state economy ever saw under his leadership was % 0.9.

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by barryr

You stated in previous threads you are "generally liberal" but now you are a "moderate?" Ok. Hunstman is great since he had no shot and no way would have had a chance to defeat Obama, a guy Obama appointed to an ambassador spot. That is why Obama supporters pretend they would have actually considered him, but when November came around, Hunstman who?

Generally liberal on social issues. I also don't HATE Obama care, although I think there are some things in there that may be irresponsible. The healthcare system was broken and needed to be fixed. I can see arguments both ways on Obama care, but its not like the republicans have a reasonable solution. They would just go back to the way it was, leaving 72 million people uninsured. Romney's "Emergency Room" plan is far more unreasonable than Obama care, and immoral I might add.


But yeah, go ahead and disregard the moderate candidates in your party as having "no chance." You know, the ones that believe in science, or are religious but not willing to push their beliefs on others. Honestly, the whole "this candidate couldn't beat Obama" thing is quite funny, when looking at the candidates that the GOP nominates.

The people you guys take seriously as possible candidates is damn scary. Gingrich, Bachman, Palin, Santorum, Rick Perry. Seriously?

But when Ron Paul or Huntsman want to get their names in there, they are "loony" and "can't defeat Obama?"

Or maybe you mean Huntsman isn't qualified because he can't buy his way to the presidency? If Huntsman got nominated by the GOP he would pull far more women and independents than Romney will. Assuming the GOP stood behind him, I really don't understand how he couldn't beat Obama. But he's just not extreme enough for the GOP. He probably doesn't have enough hate flowing for Obama, and might be too bipartisan for your party.

But yeah, I'm totally pretending that I would vote for Huntsman over Obama. Because everything is a conspiracy theory these days am I right? Obama is a Muslim, the last jobs report was rigged, the media is liberal, evolution and global warming are evil schemes by the government etc.

[TonyR]

It was on foreign policy where Ryan was most obviously outmatched, as I assumed he would be. Especially in the sections of the debate on Afghanistan and Syria, Ryan was stuck defending Romney’s very similar positions on both while trying to argue against administration policy. It wasn’t an enviable task, and Ryan was limited by what he had to work with, but it doesn’t change the fact that Ryan didn’t inspire much confidence that he is prepared to be president if the need arose. It’s not surprising that Ryan didn’t do very well in these sections. He isn’t “fluent” on foreign policy, and that should have been obvious all along. Ryan’s boosters did him a great disservice by pretending that he was.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...=biden-vs-ryan

[TonyR]

Here's the difference between Biden and Ryan: whereas Biden has been studying foreign policy for many decades (over which he's made his share of mistakes), everything Ryan knows about foreign policy, or at least everything he's shown us he knows, comes from interventionist ideologues with talking points that test well among the base and bear little resemblance to reality. I didn't quite realize how awful Ryan's performance was until I read the transcript of the debate. Biden did smile too much. It distracted me from Ryan's apparent unfitness to be commander-in-chief.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-potus/263531/

[ant1999e]

Proverbs 29:9
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man,
[a]The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.

[TonyR]

Yes, Biden interrupted too much. This is what the wingers are going to be trying to push now. And his smile. “Condescending,” they will say. And they’ll b**** about Martha Raddatz. This is the kind of thing people do when they know their guy lost.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...st+Articles%29

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Proverbs 29:9
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man,
[a]The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.

Nice.

[Kaylore]

Listening to the radio and it mentioned that early poll numbers are showing that women especially didn't like Biden in the last debate. Like I said, you can do things for your base, but that sometimes estranges you from the rest of the country.

[Irish Stout]

Too bad the debates are all about style and not enough about substance. I would like to see a debate styled where on occasion the individuals couldn't hear their opponents statement - cone of silence, then they could answer the question there way.

I think it would also be cool to have the opponents question each other for a portion.

Obama was one end of the spectrum and Biden was the other. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the facts were sometimes lost in the presentation.

Heres a great read up on the facts both guys fudged last night: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/

[ludo21]

My wife is neutral and is really looking to try and not vote Romney, but the way Biden acted last night really rubbed her the wrong way.

I know the VP debate wont really effect the overall voting for most individuals, but it certainly will for my wife.

(very small smaple size, but I am sure many others feel similar)

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by Irish Stout

Too bad the debates are all about style and not enough about substance. I would like to see a debate styled where on occasion the individuals couldn't hear their opponents statement - cone of silence, then they could answer the question there way.

I think it would also be cool to have the opponents question each other for a portion.

Obama was one end of the spectrum and Biden was the other. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the facts were sometimes lost in the presentation.

Heres a great read up on the facts both guys fudged last night: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/

I agree, the debates seem so scripted. Allowing candidates to actually question one another would be epic. All we have now are scripted answers to questions asked by the moderator.

By the way - "cone of silence, then they could answer the question there way." It would be "their" in this case. "There" has meaning as location. "There they are!" "Their" has meaning as possession. "That is their apple." - Just a pointer.

[myMind]

I love how people throw around that one side actually won any of the debates. We wont find out who won until November 6. Both sides talked out of there asses, and also had genuine moments. I dont feel that one person has any right to impose their religious beliefs onto another, so I vote liberal.