Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

2012 debates


TheNewTeddy

Recommended Posts

I agree. Vagueness usually doesn't take long. That's why I'm surprised about Obamas speaking time. He still hasn't outlined what he wants to do if given a second term.

He has outlined through things like the Jobs for America act what he wants to do. He is out looking for a mandate for his plans that the GOP have held back. All of this plans are costed and graded by the CBO his numbers add up.

All of this is in contrast to Romney who has numbers THAT NO ONE CAN FIGURE OUT. Mainly because they are lies.

PS how many times did Obama say Libya was a terrorist act again? Romney doesn't even know what Obama said when, or what his policies are. That was high lighted last night, so no wonder you have no clue because instead of reading the plans or the news you get all your news from the Romney campaign no wonder you know nothing about Obama's plans. Maybe pick up a paper and you will know.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 596
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree. Vagueness usually doesn't take long. That's why I'm surprised about Obamas speaking time. He still hasn't outlined what he wants to do if given a second term.

When someone asks how Romney is going to make sure they have a job after university, Romney's reply is "because I want to make sure you have a job."

That is exactly what he did in the first debate and that's what he did in this debate.

During the first debate Obama was completely listless. It was a mess, as far as passion goes. However, in this debate at least Obama answers that questions with "because I want to make sure you have a job and this is what we have done over the last four years and this is what I plan to do over the next four years." Romney rarely ever speaks to how he will operationalize his "wants."

OF COURSE he wants to create jobs and wealth and make the nation prosperous. So does Obama. Only a complete moron would think that someone would run for president and NOT want to do those things.

The problem with Romney is that he refuses to talk about HOW he will do it. Obama in both debates has outlined what he has done and what he plans to do going forward. He has also been more than generous with Romney by acknowledging that Romney also has the best intentions, but then Obama has been the one to elaborate on HOW Romney intends to implement his vision.

If an undecided voter were watching the debates and actually wanted to know what the candidates are going to do, rather than just listening to the candidates' wish lists, Romney will have offered absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't know why I bothered writing a response that long to a fanboy that is completely incapable of looking at things in any objective way.

Thing is that Obama has had four years to do it and has squandered that time. Why should Americans give him another chance to do nothing? he is very weak on the economy while Romney has a track record of performing well with money. He's a great proven money manager.

Romney comes from business, Obama comes from civil rights struggles on the streets of Chicago. Two vastly different things. Romney is clearly the man to fix the economy. I don't know how you can seriously argue that Obama is better experienced to deal with the economy it makes no sense. That just isn't Obama's area of strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is that Obama has had four years to do it and has squandered that time. Why should Americans give him another chance to do nothing? he is very weak on the economy while Romney has a track record of performing well with money. He's a great proven money manager.

Romney comes from business, Obama comes from civil rights struggles on the streets of Chicago. Two vastly different things. Romney is clearly the man to fix the economy. I don't know how you can seriously argue that Obama is better experienced to deal with the economy it makes no sense. That just isn't Obama's area of strength.

To do what? Crawl out of a hole dug for him by Republicans? Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To do what? Crawl out of a hole dug for him by Republicans? Give me a break.

if he had such a great vision for the economy why has he done nothing about it yet? if he had a solution I don't know why he's choosing to wait to implement it. He had the Senate and the house when he got elected. He had a super majority and could've done anything he wanted but chose to do nothing. So explain to me how Obama is better experienced to deal with the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he had such a great vision for the economy why has he done nothing about it yet? if he had a solution I don't know why he's choosing to wait to implement it. He had the Senate and the house when he got elected. He had a super majority and could've done anything he wanted but chose to do nothing. So explain to me how Obama is better experienced to deal with the economy.

Want to tell me more about that super majority that existed for 8 months when two Democrats were in the hospitable both of whom died that year, and had to be wheeled in for votes because Republicans wouldn't sit a member out? FACTS MATTER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he had such a great vision for the economy why has he done nothing about it yet? if he had a solution I don't know why he's choosing to wait to implement it. He had the Senate and the house when he got elected. He had a super majority and could've done anything he wanted but chose to do nothing. So explain to me how Obama is better experienced to deal with the economy.

How bad would it have gotten if he truly did absolutely nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're finding out now. He's done nothing at all that worked. It's clear he doesn't have the best plan for the economy. Obama is a nice who's in over his head.

That's completely wrong. Things were done. Anything you do is going to have some sort of impact, whether positive or negative. If you're going to say he has done nothing, you need to compare where things are to where they would have been if absolutely nothing was done. Anyone that's the least bit familiar with what was going on can see that doing absolutely nothing would have resulted in a far, far worse situation. So the cumulative effect of Obama's policies are difficult to conceptualize because it seems like things have only gotten marginally better. The point is that enough was done that things didn't get dramatically worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he had such a great vision for the economy why has he done nothing about it yet? if he had a solution I don't know why he's choosing to wait to implement it. He had the Senate and the house when he got elected. He had a super majority and could've done anything he wanted but chose to do nothing. So explain to me how Obama is better experienced to deal with the economy.

You are insanely naive about this. You almsot remind me of that horrible "Independance Day" movie where the president flies into space in a fighter jet to fight alien invaders.

The president cannot just "fix the economy", they actually play a very small part.

As far as what you do when youre in a situation like the financial crisis, theres basically a bunch of financial geeks that make those decisions... many of them former heads of major financial companies.

Obamas response to the financial crisis is utterly unremarkable. He did exactly what he was expected to do, exactly what pretty much every other country did, and exactly what anyone else would have done in his place.... which is more or less just let a bunch of financial geeks and the federal reserve decide what to do, and hope like hell the economy improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is that Obama has had four years to do it and has squandered that time.

Exactly. He still won't outline his plan for a second term. But voters are suppose to give him another chance, because THIS TIME, he's REALLY gonna focus on jobs. The problem is though, that his economic policies, and policies in general, like Obamacare, are job killers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's Obama's plan to cut the deficit? Anwswer: He doesn't have one yet.

What's Obama's plan to reform Medicare? Answer: He doesn't have one yet.

What's Obama's plan to reform Social Security and/or Medicaid? Answer: He doesn't have one yet.

What's Obama's plan to deal with the upcoming fiscal cliff on January 1st? Answer: He doesn't have one yet.

What's Obama's plan to reform the tax code? Answer: He doesn't have one yet.

But he's been president for 4 years already!

But Romney's suppose to be ultra specific with his plans? rolleyes.gif

I know Obama's the first affirmative action president, and the same rules don't apply to him as they do for past president's running for re-election, but come'on guys, enough with the love affair already. Start treating him the same way all former presidents have been treated in the past. Stop the man-crush Obama. wub.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviews are in Obama won big time.

Not a close call. President Obama won the second presidential debate as clearly and decisively as he lost the first. For anyone who disagrees, three simple words: “Please proceed, Governor.”

This icy invitation to Mitt Romney came amid an exchange about the killings of State Department officials in Libya. Obama noted that in his initial Rose Garden remarks, he classified the attack as an act of terror. Romney, perhaps misinformed by the right-wing propaganda machine, tried to insist that the president waited weeks to call the incident terrorism. “Get the transcript,” Obama said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obamas-punches-hit-their-mark/2012/10/17/bd4664c6-1861-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_print.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SHOW ME THE RULES!!!!! I saw Candy try to explain last night to Romney so I know for a fact your side doesn't know them. I saw Romney try quite a few times to deviate from the rules and have to be brought back to subject. How about you show me the rules because in both debates ROMNEY was the one reminded of the rules. So you can stop with this BS already.

I saw that part, she really did step over the line when it came to helping out Obama shen she actually tried to clarify a point about the recent terrorist attack. I don't think I've ever seen a moderator step in like that in favour of a particular candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that part, she really did step over the line when it came to helping out Obama shen she actually tried to clarify a point about the recent terrorist attack. I don't think I've ever seen a moderator step in like that in favour of a particular candidate.

She was doing her job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviews are in Obama won big time.

http://www.washingto...6a4b_print.html

Nice opinion piece by Obama fanboy Eugene Robinson. Obama didn't win "big time." None of the polls showed that. I saw a 37% to 30% for him. But that poll also showed him losing the issue of the economy by 65% to 34% to Romney. So, so much for a victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice opinion piece by Obama fanboy Eugene Robinson. Obama didn't win "big time." None of the polls showed that. I saw a 37% to 30% for him. But that poll also showed him losing the issue of the economy by 65% to 34% to Romney. So, so much for a victory.

Sorry man your guy lost. No amount of spin or internals on a plus R10 sample is going to change that,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that part, she really did step over the line when it came to helping out Obama shen she actually tried to clarify a point about the recent terrorist attack. I don't think I've ever seen a moderator step in like that in favour of a particular candidate.

Exactly, it's actually a very debatable point. For a moderator to weigh in like that is completely ridiculous. One has to ask, if she thinks that's her job, what criteria does she use to decide which points to "referee"? The moderator's job is to make sure the candidates follow the debate rules, not to score the arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point about the debate. Apparently Michelle Obama also broke debate rules by leading particpant applause. So whether it's her breaking those rules, or Obama getting help from the moderator, or talking over his time limit (an extra 4 minutes, plus an extra 5 from the previous debate he got shellacked in, for a total of almost 10 more minutes of speaking time), they really pretty pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...