Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (1 Viewer)

[Plorfu]

Undecided voter with dual residency in Nevada and Ohio here. Romney seemed regal and majestic, and his words really resonated. Obama came off like a mouth-breathing caveman and I'm pretty sure I saw him pick his nose once.

 

[humpback]

And how is he going to create these jobs other than lowering tax rates?

Magic?Companies have been tanking all their businesses, but will hire because their politician is in office?Bribing banks to give out loans to anyone?I've been waiting to hear this answer for weeks now and haven't got anything but the same trickle down economics explanation that hasn't worked over the last 30 years.

What is your prescription for job growth?

 

[DoubleG]

Undecided voter with dual residency in Nevada and Ohio here. Romney seemed regal and majestic, and his words really resonated. Obama came off like a mouth-breathing caveman and I'm pretty sure I saw him pick his nose once.

Too bad you're not from Chicago - here we let union folks vote multiple times.

 

[chet]

Undecided voter with dual residency in Nevada and Ohio here. Romney seemed regal and majestic, and his words really resonated. Obama came off like a mouth-breathing caveman and I'm pretty sure I saw him pick his nose once.

 

[DoubleG]

And how is he going to create these jobs other than lowering tax rates?

Magic?Companies have been tanking all their businesses, but will hire because their politician is in office?Bribing banks to give out loans to anyone?I've been waiting to hear this answer for weeks now and haven't got anything but the same trickle down economics explanation that hasn't worked over the last 30 years.

What is your prescription for job growth?

Vicodin - and lots of it.

 

[Fennis]

Undecided voter here. I didn't appreciate how condescending the President got last night. I get that some of that comes with the territory but many of his remarks came across as downright childish. He spent more time doing that than he did really addressing the issues. Romney scored points for me in that regard.

I believe you are genuinely undecided, JoePlumber!

predictable reply, avoiding the real point here.

Hard to take seriously that someone who goes by JoePlumber is among the undecideds.

Sam The Republican

 

[squistion]

And how is he going to create these jobs other than lowering tax rates?

Magic?Companies have been tanking all their businesses, but will hire because their politician is in office?Bribing banks to give out loans to anyone?I've been waiting to hear this answer for weeks now and haven't got anything but the same trickle down economics explanation that hasn't worked over the last 30 years.

What is your prescription for job growth?

Vicodin - and lots of it.

Well, that certainly explains most of your posts.

 

[wazoo11]

Is there a transcript of last night's debate? TIA.

 

[hook014]

Undecided voter here. I didn't appreciate how condescending the President got last night. I get that some of that comes with the territory but many of his remarks came across as downright childish. He spent more time doing that than he did really addressing the issues. Romney scored points for me in that regard.

I believe you are genuinely undecided, JoePlumber!

predictable reply, avoiding the real point here.

Hard to take seriously that someone who goes by JoePlumber is among the undecideds.

Hi I'm Joebiden. I'm an undecided voter but that Romney guy gives me the creeps.Hi I'm Karlrovefan. I"m an undecided voter but that Obama doesn't seem good.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Romney quit on Libya while he was ahead. People just don't trust the current administration and their disorganized message on this - which was a total gaffe. Why give Obama a chance to clear it up with their latest rendition? Romney's eybrow raising response says it all for how public feels about the shifting narrative. Why give Obama another chance to lay down a narrative which may fit?

Bingo! and we have a winner!

I like the way you guys comfort each other.

They would rather win a political point then anything else.

Not anything else but it is a political thread.

 

[jomar]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending? the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped. is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

 

[Fennis]

Romney quit on Libya while he was ahead. People just don't trust the current administration and their disorganized message on this - which was a total gaffe. Why give Obama a chance to clear it up with their latest rendition? Romney's eybrow raising response says it all for how public feels about the shifting narrative. Why give Obama another chance to lay down a narrative which may fit?

Bingo! and we have a winner!

I like the way you guys comfort each other.

They would rather win a political point then anything else.

Not anything else but it is a political thread.

that's a good point

 

[DoubleG]

Is there a transcript of last night's debate? TIA.

No, the person who was supposed to be taking it down was watching sports. HTH.

 

[17seconds]

Other possible expectations to weigh in on...1. Death of Bin Laden2. Successful drone attacks on other terrorist leaders3. Lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soilI know a case can be made that he shouldn't get much or any credit for these things but the accomplishments during his tenure has exceeded my expectations.

1. I know it sounds funny, but while the death of Bin Laden fulfills a revenge fantasy, in the grand scheme it hasn't accomplished much. Bully for him for doing it though and Bush was wrong to give up the search. 2. I didn't expect him to surrender in the WOT.3. This is a good thing. See response #2.17Seconds just wants to think that I thought things other than what I actually thought. I don't know why.

No I don't. I also don't want to dive into every area of foreign policy here just to fully understand your opinions.So give me 2 numbers out of 10. First one is how you felt in 2008 about how Obama would perform on foreign policy and your rating now.For me I expected 4/10 and he's been 8/10. I think that is a common opinion since the polls show people feel very good about Obama in foreign policy. When he was a candidate this was the #1 knock against him. Yet you are saying it's gone as expected.So go ahead...

 

[Juxtatarot]

Other possible expectations to weigh in on...1. Death of Bin Laden2. Successful drone attacks on other terrorist leaders3. Lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soilI know a case can be made that he shouldn't get much or any credit for these things but the accomplishments during his tenure has exceeded my expectations.

1. I know it sounds funny, but while the death of Bin Laden fulfills a revenge fantasy, in the grand scheme it hasn't accomplished much. Bully for him for doing it though and Bush was wrong to give up the search. 2. I didn't expect him to surrender in the WOT.3. This is a good thing. See response #2.17Seconds just wants to think that I thought things other than what I actually thought. I don't know why.

Yes, I don't want to predict what any one person thought either. However, I'll bet that if you would have polled conservatives after the 2008 election, it would have shown expectations much lower for Obama's tenure in these regards than what has been accomplished.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

For me I expected 4/10 and he's been 8/10. I think that is a common opinion since the polls show people feel very good about Obama in foreign policy. When he was a candidate this was the #1 knock against him. Yet you are saying it's gone as expected.So go ahead...

Yes, I don't what to predict what any one person thought either. However, I'll bet that if you would have polled conservatives after the 2008 election, it would have shown expectations much lower for Obama's tenure in these regards than what has been accomplished.

I'm saying it's gone about as I expected. That's not saying much since I didn't have much of an opinion on his foreign policy one way or the other.By 17Seconds' rankings, I'd say I gave him a 6/10 going in and that's about where I have him right now.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Other possible expectations to weigh in on...

1. Death of Bin Laden

2. Successful drone attacks on other terrorist leaders

3. Lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil

I know a case can be made that he shouldn't get much or any credit for these things but the accomplishments during his tenure has exceeded my expectations.

1. I know it sounds funny, but while the death of Bin Laden fulfills a revenge fantasy, in the grand scheme it hasn't accomplished much. Bully for him for doing it though and Bush was wrong to give up the search. 2. I didn't expect him to surrender in the WOT.

3. This is a good thing. See response #2.

17Seconds just wants to think that I thought things other than what I actually thought. I don't know why.

I don't think that is accurate; Bush hit a dead end in the mountains of Tora Bora with the search being called off since we were unsure if UBL was even alive. The covert tracking of Bin Laden began under Bush when the first tapes of UBL messages started to surface after Tora Bora and it was obvious he survived.

 

[apalmer]

And how is he going to create these jobs other than lowering tax rates?

Magic?Companies have been tanking all their businesses, but will hire because their politician is in office?Bribing banks to give out loans to anyone?I've been waiting to hear this answer for weeks now and haven't got anything but the same trickle down economics explanation that hasn't worked over the last 30 years.

He's already started this. Judging from the number of phone calls I've gotten asking for donations, he's put at least 3 million people to work as telephone solicitors.

 

[greenroom]

The apology tour represents how Obama represents America to the world. It is a weak "leading from behind" FA. It does not show leadership. Romney was showing a strong contrast in FA, which is what debates are all about.

Link to show where President Obama apologized on this tour? CNN fact checked it last night and proved it is a myth that Republicans are passing as fact! Last I checked we still have the best miltiary in the world. But hey you are the one passing judgement saying that US is weaker today. So Romney was strong by agreeing to everything that President Obama did???? But you say it is weak "leading from behind" that is what Romney did last night. That is not leadership!. Are you sure your not Mitt Romney, you seem to flip flop on your stances if it fits your POV.

 

[pittstownkiller]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending? the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped. is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

 

[JoePlumber]

Undecided voter here. I didn't appreciate how condescending the President got last night. I get that some of that comes with the territory but many of his remarks came across as downright childish. He spent more time doing that than he did really addressing the issues. Romney scored points for me in that regard.

I believe you are genuinely undecided, JoePlumber!

predictable reply, avoiding the real point here.

Hard to take seriously that someone who goes by JoePlumber is among the undecideds.

Hard to imagine an undecided using a shticky username? How does JoePlumber=Repub? Actually I don't care. It's impossible to take part in a discussion here.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as "above average" — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile.We're just as undiscerning about the skills of others as about ourselves. "To the extent that you are incompetent, you are a worse judge of incompetence in other people," Dunning said. In one study, the researchers asked students to grade quizzes that tested for grammar skill. "We found that students who had done worse on the test itself gave more inaccurate grades to other students." Essentially, they didn't recognize the correct answer even when they saw it.The reason for this disconnect is simple: "If you have gaps in your knowledge in a given area, then you’re not in a position to assess your own gaps or the gaps of others," Dunning said. Strangely though, in these experiments, people tend to readily and accurately agree on who the worst performers are, while failing to recognize the best performers.The most incompetent among us serve as canaries in the coal mine signifying a larger quandary in the concept of democracy; truly ignorant people may be the worst judges of candidates and ideas, Dunning said, but we all suffer from a degree of blindness stemming from our own personal lack of expertise.Mato Nagel, a sociologist in Germany, recently implemented Dunning and Kruger's theories by computer-simulating a democratic election. In his mathematical model of the election, he assumed that voters' own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve — some were really good leaders, some, really bad, but most were mediocre — and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won.Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I hear TitoBuilder broke hard for Mitt last night.

 

[squistion]

I hear TitoBuilder broke hard for Mitt last night.

I miss Tito. With an accent that sounded like a bad Cheech Marin impression, I was never sure if he was for real or a democratic plant.

 

[Slapdash]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

The math doesn't add up, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Just got off of FactCheck.org and it dawned on me just how effective Obama technique is to paint Romney as a liar. Now, not saying Romney isn't a liar - but on several of the major point swhere Obama flat out told the American people that Romney was lying...turns out he wasn't...and also turns out that it is clear he wasn't lying (not just some clever word trick...actual verifiable contradiction to the presiden't's assertion).

Why do I say it is effective? I walked away fromt he debate last night thinking damn that Romney is a shyster with all of those lies and Obama called him out on them. Garantee 100% of his party takes it as fact that Romney lied and probably 60-70 % of independents believed it - of course 0% of the GOP believed it nor would they have believed it even if he had lied.

But Obama is effectively using this Peter and the Wold defense to his advantage - everything Mitt says just claim it is a lie and hope people don't check...because if they don't then it is easy to paint Romney however you want to paint him.

 

[DoubleG]

Last I checked we still have the best miltiary in the world. But hey you are the one passing judgement saying that US is weaker today.

Point of order: the two bolded are not mutually exclusive. We can still be the best and have gotten weaker. Carry on.

 

[DoubleG]

Just got off of FactCheck.org and it dawned on me just how effective Obama technique is to paint Romney as a liar. Now, not saying Romney isn't a liar - but on several of the major point swhere Obama flat out told the American people that Romney was lying...turns out he wasn't...and also turns out that it is clear he wasn't lying (not just some clever word trick...actual verifiable contradiction to the presiden't's assertion).Why do I say it is effective? I walked away fromt he debate last night thinking damn that Romney is a shyster with all of those lies and Obama called him out on them. Garantee 100% of his party takes it as fact that Romney lied and probably 60-70 % of independents believed it - of course 0% of the GOP believed it nor would they have believed it even if he had lied.But Obama is effectively using this Peter and the Wold defense to his advantage - everything Mitt says just claim it is a lie and hope people don't check...because if they don't then it is easy to paint Romney however you want to paint him.

As an example:ROMNEY: Said that when he was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter "got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning."OBAMA: "That happened before you came into office."ROMNEY: "That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong."THE FACTS: Romney was right. The John and Abigail Adams scholarship program began in 2004 when he was governor.and again here:ROMNEY: "I said that we would provide guarantees, and that was what was able to allow these (auto) companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstance would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry. Of course not. That's the height of silliness. I have never said I would liquidate the industry."OBAMA: "Gov. Romney, you keep on trying to airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true. They would have gone through a liquidation."THE FACTS: It's true that Romney didn't preach liquidation of GM and Chrysler and that he saw his approach as a way to save the auto companies. Sadly, for many Americans that take everything at face value and "it must be true because the President said so" - well, let's just hope some of those who will be voting will actually take a few minutes to read fact checks.

 

[TobiasFunke]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

He doesn't have a plan. A plan actually requires, you know, planning. You can't just say "capping of deductions" pays for tax cuts and leave it at that. If Obama said that he was gonna pay off the entire debt by auctioning off a round of golf with him to the three highest bidders, would you consider that a "plan"? Why not?

 

[adonis]

I have a 5 point plan for getting america back on track.

1) Lower unemployment. it's way too high

2) Increase jobs. I'll create 12.1 million

3) Decrease taxes for all without increasing our deficit

4) Balance the budget

5) Free ice cream for everyone

With my 5 point plan, I'll get america back on track. I have a vision for the country, and that vision is a better american future. My five point plan is full of good ideas on how to get us back to the america we want to be.

If you want to see more details, go to my website at www.we[cough] err, dot com.

 

[Abraham]

He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates;

You are 100% correct. he has repeatedly stated that he has a plan.What he has not done is provide any detail as to what that plan is. This just in: I have a plan to fly to Mars. Broadly stroked details on my website...sort of...

 

[DoubleG]

I have a 5 point plan for getting america back on track.1) Lower unemployment. it's way too high2) Increase jobs. I'll create 12.1 million3) Decrease taxes for all without increasing our deficit4) Balance the budget5) Free ice cream for everyoneWith my 5 point plan, I'll get america back on track. I have a vision for the country, and that vision is a better american future. My five point plan is full of good ideas on how to get us back to the america we want to be.If you want to see more details, go to my website at www.we[cough] err, dot com.

Oh, see? You're just trying to split the "people who actually pay attention to platforms" vote. The idiots have already won.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Details of the Romney deficit plan.

 

[pittstownkiller]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

He doesn't have a plan. A plan actually requires, you know, planning. You can't just say "capping of deductions" pays for tax cuts and leave it at that. If Obama said that he was gonna pay off the entire debt by auctioning off a round of golf with him to the three highest bidders, would you consider that a "plan"? Why not?

Your point is certainly a fine angle to take in a debate and I think it is fair request. Romney has said that he will not utter specifics because these waypoints have to be argued in Congress and he does not want to reveal his hand; not the precise formula I would like to hear but it beats the non-specifics of "everything is getting better" b.s. that I hear from the administration.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This is pretty much how Romney's "plan" works.

 

[cstu]

This is pretty much how Romney's "plan" works.

 

[squistion]

Paul Ryan on Obama's horses and bayonetts comment, which might be funny except it is coming from someone who may be a heartbeat away from being commander-in-chief of the United States.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82742.html

To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just dont understand that comparison, the GOP vice presidential nominee said on This Morning on CBS.

Look, we have to have a strong Navy to keep peace and prosperity and sea lanes open, Ryan said. The presidents all these defense cuts, if all these defense cuts go through, our Navy will be smaller than it was before World War I. Thats not acceptable. And, yes, the ocean hasnt shrunk. You still have to have enough ships to have a footprint that you need to keep sea lanes open, to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Just got off of FactCheck.org and it dawned on me just how effective Obama technique is to paint Romney as a liar. Now, not saying Romney isn't a liar - but on several of the major point swhere Obama flat out told the American people that Romney was lying...turns out he wasn't...and also turns out that it is clear he wasn't lying (not just some clever word trick...actual verifiable contradiction to the presiden't's assertion).Why do I say it is effective? I walked away fromt he debate last night thinking damn that Romney is a shyster with all of those lies and Obama called him out on them. Garantee 100% of his party takes it as fact that Romney lied and probably 60-70 % of independents believed it - of course 0% of the GOP believed it nor would they have believed it even if he had lied.But Obama is effectively using this Peter and the Wold defense to his advantage - everything Mitt says just claim it is a lie and hope people don't check...because if they don't then it is easy to paint Romney however you want to paint him.

As an example:ROMNEY: Said that when he was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter "got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning."OBAMA: "That happened before you came into office."ROMNEY: "That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong."THE FACTS: Romney was right. The John and Abigail Adams scholarship program began in 2004 when he was governor.and again here:ROMNEY: "I said that we would provide guarantees, and that was what was able to allow these (auto) companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstance would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry. Of course not. That's the height of silliness. I have never said I would liquidate the industry."OBAMA: "Gov. Romney, you keep on trying to airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true. They would have gone through a liquidation."THE FACTS: It's true that Romney didn't preach liquidation of GM and Chrysler and that he saw his approach as a way to save the auto companies. Sadly, for many Americans that take everything at face value and "it must be true because the President said so" - well, let's just hope some of those who will be voting will actually take a few minutes to read fact checks.

Obviously both sides have been loose with the truth. I don't buy that this is some sort of strategy that Obama is using that is different than Romney.

 

[cstu]

Your point is certainly a fine angle to take in a debate and I think it is fair request. Romney has said that he will not utter specifics because these waypoints have to be argued in Congress and he does not want to reveal his hand; not the precise formula I would like to hear but it beats the non-specifics of "everything is getting better" b.s. that I hear from the administration.

I'll take "Things A Con Man Would Say" for $1000, Alex.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I have a 5 point plan for getting america back on track.1) Lower unemployment. it's way too high2) Increase jobs. I'll create 12.1 million3) Decrease taxes for all without increasing our deficit4) Balance the budget5) Free ice cream for everyoneWith my 5 point plan, I'll get america back on track. I have a vision for the country, and that vision is a better american future. My five point plan is full of good ideas on how to get us back to the america we want to be.If you want to see more details, go to my website at www.we[cough] err, dot com.

Obama's plan of taxing the wealthy comes nowhere near close to covering any of the costs of his plan of non-specifics; does this upset you?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

 

[DoubleG]

Just got off of FactCheck.org and it dawned on me just how effective Obama technique is to paint Romney as a liar. Now, not saying Romney isn't a liar - but on several of the major point swhere Obama flat out told the American people that Romney was lying...turns out he wasn't...and also turns out that it is clear he wasn't lying (not just some clever word trick...actual verifiable contradiction to the presiden't's assertion).Why do I say it is effective? I walked away fromt he debate last night thinking damn that Romney is a shyster with all of those lies and Obama called him out on them. Garantee 100% of his party takes it as fact that Romney lied and probably 60-70 % of independents believed it - of course 0% of the GOP believed it nor would they have believed it even if he had lied.But Obama is effectively using this Peter and the Wold defense to his advantage - everything Mitt says just claim it is a lie and hope people don't check...because if they don't then it is easy to paint Romney however you want to paint him.

As an example:ROMNEY: Said that when he was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter "got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning."OBAMA: "That happened before you came into office."ROMNEY: "That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong."THE FACTS: Romney was right. The John and Abigail Adams scholarship program began in 2004 when he was governor.and again here:ROMNEY: "I said that we would provide guarantees, and that was what was able to allow these (auto) companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstance would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry. Of course not. That's the height of silliness. I have never said I would liquidate the industry."OBAMA: "Gov. Romney, you keep on trying to airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true. They would have gone through a liquidation."THE FACTS: It's true that Romney didn't preach liquidation of GM and Chrysler and that he saw his approach as a way to save the auto companies. Sadly, for many Americans that take everything at face value and "it must be true because the President said so" - well, let's just hope some of those who will be voting will actually take a few minutes to read fact checks.

Obviously both sides have been loose with the truth. I don't buy that this is some sort of strategy that Obama is using that is different than Romney.

Don't get me wrong - I do agree that both sides have been less than 100% honest (I realize that's not exactly going out on a limb). I think the point by Mr. Know It All is that if the President calls Romney a liar over a point, it comes off a lot different then if Romney tries to say the President is lying. It's a calculated risk on Obama's part. People, in general, are more likely to believe him simply because he is the current POTUS. Not suggesting that Romney doesn't do the same, it just wouldn't likely have the same effect.

 

[Juxtatarot]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

He doesn't have a plan. A plan actually requires, you know, planning. You can't just say "capping of deductions" pays for tax cuts and leave it at that. If Obama said that he was gonna pay off the entire debt by auctioning off a round of golf with him to the three highest bidders, would you consider that a "plan"? Why not?

Your point is certainly a fine angle to take in a debate and I think it is fair request. Romney has said that he will not utter specifics because these waypoints have to be argued in Congress and he does not want to reveal his hand; not the precise formula I would like to hear but it beats the non-specifics of "everything is getting better" b.s. that I hear from the administration.

If you keep some of the most common deductions that Romney has promised to (like the mortgage and charity deductions), there simply aren't enough other deductions to make up for hole. It's not just a matter of specifics. As Clinton said, "it's about arithmetic."

 

[Slapdash]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

He doesn't have a plan. A plan actually requires, you know, planning. You can't just say "capping of deductions" pays for tax cuts and leave it at that. If Obama said that he was gonna pay off the entire debt by auctioning off a round of golf with him to the three highest bidders, would you consider that a "plan"? Why not?

Your point is certainly a fine angle to take in a debate and I think it is fair request. Romney has said that he will not utter specifics because these waypoints have to be argued in Congress and he does not want to reveal his hand; not the precise formula I would like to hear but it beats the non-specifics of "everything is getting better" b.s. that I hear from the administration.

So he can lay out specifics about the ways he is going to increase the deficit, but doesn't want to tip his hat on the ways to decrease it? Makes perfect sense.

 

[pittstownkiller]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Just got off of FactCheck.org and it dawned on me just how effective Obama technique is to paint Romney as a liar. Now, not saying Romney isn't a liar - but on several of the major point swhere Obama flat out told the American people that Romney was lying...turns out he wasn't...and also turns out that it is clear he wasn't lying (not just some clever word trick...actual verifiable contradiction to the presiden't's assertion).

Why do I say it is effective? I walked away fromt he debate last night thinking damn that Romney is a shyster with all of those lies and Obama called him out on them. Garantee 100% of his party takes it as fact that Romney lied and probably 60-70 % of independents believed it - of course 0% of the GOP believed it nor would they have believed it even if he had lied.

But Obama is effectively using this Peter and the Wold defense to his advantage - everything Mitt says just claim it is a lie and hope people don't check...because if they don't then it is easy to paint Romney however you want to paint him.

As an example:

ROMNEY: Said that when he was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter "got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning."

OBAMA: "That happened before you came into office."

ROMNEY: "That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong."

THE FACTS: Romney was right. The John and Abigail Adams scholarship program began in 2004 when he was governor.

and again here:

ROMNEY: "I said that we would provide guarantees, and that was what was able to allow these (auto) companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstance would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry. Of course not. That's the height of silliness. I have never said I would liquidate the industry."

OBAMA: "Gov. Romney, you keep on trying to airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true. They would have gone through a liquidation."

THE FACTS: It's true that Romney didn't preach liquidation of GM and Chrysler and that he saw his approach as a way to save the auto companies.

Sadly, for many Americans that take everything at face value and "it must be true because the President said so" - well, let's just hope some of those who will be voting will actually take a few minutes to read fact checks.

Obviously both sides have been loose with the truth. I don't buy that this is some sort of strategy that Obama is using that is different than Romney.

Don't get me wrong - I do agree that both sides have been less than 100% honest (I realize that's not exactly going out on a limb). I think the point by Mr. Know It All is that if the President calls Romney a liar over a point, it comes off a lot different then if Romney tries to say the President is lying. It's a calculated risk on Obama's part. People, in general, are more likely to believe him simply because he is the current POTUS. Not suggesting that Romney doesn't do the same, it just wouldn't likely have the same effect.

Why not? I just don't see a difference. Edit: I think we've seen giving the POTUS special respect has taking a big hit in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies.

 

[pittstownkiller]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

He doesn't have a plan. A plan actually requires, you know, planning. You can't just say "capping of deductions" pays for tax cuts and leave it at that. If Obama said that he was gonna pay off the entire debt by auctioning off a round of golf with him to the three highest bidders, would you consider that a "plan"? Why not?

Your point is certainly a fine angle to take in a debate and I think it is fair request. Romney has said that he will not utter specifics because these waypoints have to be argued in Congress and he does not want to reveal his hand; not the precise formula I would like to hear but it beats the non-specifics of "everything is getting better" b.s. that I hear from the administration.

So he can lay out specifics about the ways he is going to increase the deficit, but doesn't want to tip his hat on the ways to decrease it? Makes perfect sense.

He has laid out specifics about his plan, he just hasn't laid out a specific about where the cap on deductions will be set.

 

[Abraham]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

He was already President and it was published for all to read. Primarily CONGRESS had a chance to discuss it. If they didn't do so to your satisfaction than you should let them know with your vote. I don't recall Obama saying, "I'm going to get everyone free health care but I don't want to tell you how I'm going to do it until you elect me!"

 

[pantherclub]

I cannot decide who is more entertaining in here, Jon, Jim or Pittstown?

Leaning Pitts at this point

 

[Ursa M]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

He doesn't have a plan. A plan actually requires, you know, planning. You can't just say "capping of deductions" pays for tax cuts and leave it at that. If Obama said that he was gonna pay off the entire debt by auctioning off a round of golf with him to the three highest bidders, would you consider that a "plan"? Why not?

Your point is certainly a fine angle to take in a debate and I think it is fair request. Romney has said that he will not utter specifics because these waypoints have to be argued in Congress and he does not want to reveal his hand; not the precise formula I would like to hear but it beats the non-specifics of "everything is getting better" b.s. that I hear from the administration.

So he can lay out specifics about the ways he is going to increase the deficit, but doesn't want to tip his hat on the ways to decrease it? Makes perfect sense.

He has laid out specifics about his plan, he just hasn't laid out a specific about where the cap on deductions will be set.

From what I've seen, there can't be a cap at all. In order to raise defense spending as he has said he wants to AND lower taxes AND lower the debt / deficit, all deductions have to be eliminated and even then, the math says that's not possible. There must also be very significant spending cuts and entitlement reform too.