Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (3 Viewers)

[Dickies]

How did BoneYard dog think obama did in the debate? Thats really all that matters.

I think we all know how BYD thinks Obama did....

 

[Mr. Pickles]

We should probably just suspend discussion until Trump's game changer drops.

 

[humpback]

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.

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?

Granted it's not a line by line account, but this gives some detail. You can quarrel with the numbers if you like, but at least there's something there.Here's the Romney plan details. There are some actual numbers there too, but you'll see that they total maybe half a trillion. Which would be fine- better than nothing- except that Romney also proposes massive tax cuts. When you make large cuts to revenue, you need to propose even larger cuts in spending if you hope to make a dent in the deficit. Romney doesn't do this; that's the problem.

Bottom line- neither guy gives tremendous detail about how they'll cut spending, and that's reasonable IMO- there's only so much they can cut without Congress's help, and that's where the rubber meets the road on spending cuts. But only one guy is selling a huge revenue cut too. I think if a candidate sells voters a massive tax cut, he should bear the added burden of explaining how he's gonna pay for it without ballooning the deficit. I'd say the same of a massive spending plan.

Why would lack of detail about spending be reasonable because it has to go through Congress, but a lack of detail about tax policy is not, although that also has to go through Congress?

I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say that a lack of detail about proposals to trim the deficit is OK from both sides, and in some sense is necessary because the difficulty in cutting spending lies with Congress. But a lack of detail about proposals to expand the deficit are not. If a proposal would cut the deficit, I'll give you some leeway on the details because at least you're advocating a step in the right direction, even if you don't give me details about how exactly you'll take that step. If you ultimately get exactly what you want from Congress, fine, and if you ultimately get something that only bears a slight resemblance, also fine. It's good news either way; you're not proposing something that's gonna get us deeper into trouble. But if a proposal appears to increase the deficit, I think you need to make a very clear argument that either (a) it's so important that it's worth the spending; or (b) you'll make other adjustments to the ledger on either side that will pay for it. IMO Romney has done neither when it comes to his tax cuts.

He's saying his proposal will cut the deficit- both guys are. Are you saying you believe one but not the other?Let's be honest here- neither guy is very interested in giving specifics, and the reality is it's all pretty moot since neither plan has any chance at becoming law as proposed.

 

[Don Quixote]

A decrease in unemployment could easily pay for the tax cuts. Everyone pretty much agrees that Romney's plan will cost $7trillion. Romney believes that his plan will create 12 million additional jobs. I think we can all agree that if a person is unemployed they don't have wages on which they have to pay federal taxes on. Let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million additional jobs are created. If everything else currently in place remains equal and those 6 million people each pay $1,167 in federal income taxes, you'd collect $7trillion in additional taxes which would pay for the tax cuts. That doesn't seem all that improbable to me. You don't have to make that much money to pay $1,167 a year in federal income taxes.

Everyone pays less in taxes yet the federal government takes in more total tax revenue. Doesn't getting 12 million americans back to work seem like a much better way to increase tax revenues than just increasing the taxes on just the 1%?

I don't think we can all agree to that. If you receive unemployment benefits, that is taxable income.

I liked the "let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million new jobs are created" shtick.Considering that there's significant debate over whether there's any relationship at all between tax rates and employment, that assumption strikes me as slightly more than "conservative."

Agreed. I missed that on my first read because my tax attorney self only got as far as the fourth sentence before puking all over my keyboard.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

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?

Granted it's not a line by line account, but this gives some detail. You can quarrel with the numbers if you like, but at least there's something there.Here's the Romney plan details. There are some actual numbers there too, but you'll see that they total maybe half a trillion. Which would be fine- better than nothing- except that Romney also proposes massive tax cuts. When you make large cuts to revenue, you need to propose even larger cuts in spending if you hope to make a dent in the deficit. Romney doesn't do this; that's the problem.

Bottom line- neither guy gives tremendous detail about how they'll cut spending, and that's reasonable IMO- there's only so much they can cut without Congress's help, and that's where the rubber meets the road on spending cuts. But only one guy is selling a huge revenue cut too. I think if a candidate sells voters a massive tax cut, he should bear the added burden of explaining how he's gonna pay for it without ballooning the deficit. I'd say the same of a massive spending plan.

Why would lack of detail about spending be reasonable because it has to go through Congress, but a lack of detail about tax policy is not, although that also has to go through Congress?

I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say that a lack of detail about proposals to trim the deficit is OK from both sides, and in some sense is necessary because the difficulty in cutting spending lies with Congress. But a lack of detail about proposals to expand the deficit are not. If a proposal would cut the deficit, I'll give you some leeway on the details because at least you're advocating a step in the right direction, even if you don't give me details about how exactly you'll take that step. If you ultimately get exactly what you want from Congress, fine, and if you ultimately get something that only bears a slight resemblance, also fine. It's good news either way; you're not proposing something that's gonna get us deeper into trouble. But if a proposal appears to increase the deficit, I think you need to make a very clear argument that either (a) it's so important that it's worth the spending; or (b) you'll make other adjustments to the ledger on either side that will pay for it. IMO Romney has done neither when it comes to his tax cuts.

He's saying his proposal will cut the deficit- both guys are. Are you saying you believe one but not the other?Let's be honest here- neither guy is very interested in giving specifics, and the reality is it's all pretty moot since neither plan has any chance at becoming law as proposed.

It's not about one guy but not another. It's about one idea but not another. I don't much care about the details of your proposal to trim spending. Both guys are proposing that, and even if you completely fail to implement your plan we're no worse off than we started budget-wise. But if you are proposing to drastically cut taxes (which only one guy is doing), it's entirely possible that we're gonna be a LOT worse off than we started budget-wise. If you want to sell that to me, I'm gonna need to see your work.

 

[humpback]

Granted it's not a line by line account, but this gives some detail. You can quarrel with the numbers if you like, but at least there's something there.

Here's the Romney plan details. There are some actual numbers there too, but you'll see that they total maybe half a trillion. Which would be fine- better than nothing- except that Romney also proposes massive tax cuts. When you make large cuts to revenue, you need to propose even larger cuts in spending if you hope to make a dent in the deficit. Romney doesn't do this; that's the problem.

Bottom line- neither guy gives tremendous detail about how they'll cut spending, and that's reasonable IMO- there's only so much they can cut without Congress's help, and that's where the rubber meets the road on spending cuts. But only one guy is selling a huge revenue cut too. I think if a candidate sells voters a massive tax cut, he should bear the added burden of explaining how he's gonna pay for it without ballooning the deficit. I'd say the same of a massive spending plan.

Why would lack of detail about spending be reasonable because it has to go through Congress, but a lack of detail about tax policy is not, although that also has to go through Congress?

I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say that a lack of detail about proposals to trim the deficit is OK from both sides, and in some sense is necessary because the difficulty in cutting spending lies with Congress. But a lack of detail about proposals to expand the deficit are not. If a proposal would cut the deficit, I'll give you some leeway on the details because at least you're advocating a step in the right direction, even if you don't give me details about how exactly you'll take that step. If you ultimately get exactly what you want from Congress, fine, and if you ultimately get something that only bears a slight resemblance, also fine. It's good news either way; you're not proposing something that's gonna get us deeper into trouble. But if a proposal appears to increase the deficit, I think you need to make a very clear argument that either (a) it's so important that it's worth the spending; or (b) you'll make other adjustments to the ledger on either side that will pay for it. IMO Romney has done neither when it comes to his tax cuts.

He's saying his proposal will cut the deficit- both guys are. Are you saying you believe one but not the other?Let's be honest here- neither guy is very interested in giving specifics, and the reality is it's all pretty moot since neither plan has any chance at becoming law as proposed.

It's not about one guy but not another. It's about one idea but not another. I don't much care about the details of your proposal to trim spending. Both guys are proposing that, and even if you completely fail to implement your plan we're no worse off than we started budget-wise. But if you are proposing to drastically cut taxes (which only one guy is doing), it's entirely possible that we're gonna be a LOT worse off than we started budget-wise. If you want to sell that to me, I'm gonna need to see your work.

You could have just said "yes".

 

[Daywalker]

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.

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?

Granted it's not a line by line account, but this gives some detail. You can quarrel with the numbers if you like, but at least there's something there.Here's the Romney plan details. There are some actual numbers there too, but you'll see that they total maybe half a trillion. Which would be fine- better than nothing- except that Romney also proposes massive tax cuts. When you make large cuts to revenue, you need to propose even larger cuts in spending if you hope to make a dent in the deficit. Romney doesn't do this; that's the problem.

Bottom line- neither guy gives tremendous detail about how they'll cut spending, and that's reasonable IMO- there's only so much they can cut without Congress's help, and that's where the rubber meets the road on spending cuts. But only one guy is selling a huge revenue cut too. I think if a candidate sells voters a massive tax cut, he should bear the added burden of explaining how he's gonna pay for it without ballooning the deficit. I'd say the same of a massive spending plan.

Why would lack of detail about spending be reasonable because it has to go through Congress, but a lack of detail about tax policy is not, although that also has to go through Congress?

I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say that a lack of detail about proposals to trim the deficit is OK from both sides, and in some sense is necessary because the difficulty in cutting spending lies with Congress. But a lack of detail about proposals to expand the deficit are not. If a proposal would cut the deficit, I'll give you some leeway on the details because at least you're advocating a step in the right direction, even if you don't give me details about how exactly you'll take that step. If you ultimately get exactly what you want from Congress, fine, and if you ultimately get something that only bears a slight resemblance, also fine. It's good news either way; you're not proposing something that's gonna get us deeper into trouble. But if a proposal appears to increase the deficit, I think you need to make a very clear argument that either (a) it's so important that it's worth the spending; or (b) you'll make other adjustments to the ledger on either side that will pay for it. IMO Romney has done neither when it comes to his tax cuts.

He's saying his proposal will cut the deficit- both guys are. Are you saying you believe one but not the other?Let's be honest here- neither guy is very interested in giving specifics, and the reality is it's all pretty moot since neither plan has any chance at becoming law as proposed.

It's not about one guy but not another. It's about one idea but not another. I don't much care about the details of your proposal to trim spending. Both guys are proposing that, and even if you completely fail to implement your plan we're no worse off than we started budget-wise. But if you are proposing to drastically cut taxes (which only one guy is doing), it's entirely possible that we're gonna be a LOT worse off than we started budget-wise. If you want to sell that to me, I'm gonna need to see your work.

Romney's plan is closer to "9-9-9" then real policy. Just smoke and mirrors. Wouldn't worry about it being enacted.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's not about one guy but not another. It's about one idea but not another. I don't much care about the details of your proposal to trim spending. Both guys are proposing that, and even if you completely fail to implement your plan we're no worse off than we started budget-wise. But if you are proposing to drastically cut taxes (which only one guy is doing), it's entirely possible that we're gonna be a LOT worse off than we started budget-wise. If you want to sell that to me, I'm gonna need to see your work.

You could have just said "yes".

Both lack detail. But only one proposal is counterintuitive. I hold crazy to a different standard. Otherwise I'd be voting for Newt and making plans for my vacation home on Mars.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

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?

Granted it's not a line by line account, but this gives some detail. You can quarrel with the numbers if you like, but at least there's something there.Here's the Romney plan details. There are some actual numbers there too, but you'll see that they total maybe half a trillion. Which would be fine- better than nothing- except that Romney also proposes massive tax cuts. When you make large cuts to revenue, you need to propose even larger cuts in spending if you hope to make a dent in the deficit. Romney doesn't do this; that's the problem.

Bottom line- neither guy gives tremendous detail about how they'll cut spending, and that's reasonable IMO- there's only so much they can cut without Congress's help, and that's where the rubber meets the road on spending cuts. But only one guy is selling a huge revenue cut too. I think if a candidate sells voters a massive tax cut, he should bear the added burden of explaining how he's gonna pay for it without ballooning the deficit. I'd say the same of a massive spending plan.

Why would lack of detail about spending be reasonable because it has to go through Congress, but a lack of detail about tax policy is not, although that also has to go through Congress?

I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say that a lack of detail about proposals to trim the deficit is OK from both sides, and in some sense is necessary because the difficulty in cutting spending lies with Congress. But a lack of detail about proposals to expand the deficit are not. If a proposal would cut the deficit, I'll give you some leeway on the details because at least you're advocating a step in the right direction, even if you don't give me details about how exactly you'll take that step. If you ultimately get exactly what you want from Congress, fine, and if you ultimately get something that only bears a slight resemblance, also fine. It's good news either way; you're not proposing something that's gonna get us deeper into trouble. But if a proposal appears to increase the deficit, I think you need to make a very clear argument that either (a) it's so important that it's worth the spending; or (b) you'll make other adjustments to the ledger on either side that will pay for it. IMO Romney has done neither when it comes to his tax cuts.

He's saying his proposal will cut the deficit- both guys are. Are you saying you believe one but not the other?Let's be honest here- neither guy is very interested in giving specifics, and the reality is it's all pretty moot since neither plan has any chance at becoming law as proposed.

It's not about one guy but not another. It's about one idea but not another. I don't much care about the details of your proposal to trim spending. Both guys are proposing that, and even if you completely fail to implement your plan we're no worse off than we started budget-wise. But if you are proposing to drastically cut taxes (which only one guy is doing), it's entirely possible that we're gonna be a LOT worse off than we started budget-wise. If you want to sell that to me, I'm gonna need to see your work.

Romney's plan is closer to "9-9-9" then real policy. Just smoke and mirrors. Wouldn't worry about it being enacted.

Don't diss the Cain! 9-9-9 is 9x the plan Romney has.

 

[humpback]

It's not about one guy but not another. It's about one idea but not another. I don't much care about the details of your proposal to trim spending. Both guys are proposing that, and even if you completely fail to implement your plan we're no worse off than we started budget-wise. But if you are proposing to drastically cut taxes (which only one guy is doing), it's entirely possible that we're gonna be a LOT worse off than we started budget-wise. If you want to sell that to me, I'm gonna need to see your work.

You could have just said "yes".

Both lack detail. But only one proposal is counterintuitive. I hold crazy to a different standard. Otherwise I'd be voting for Newt and making plans for my vacation home on Mars.

Yeah, it's pretty clear you hold them to different standards, just like most people. I didn't think you'd take it as far as saying it's okay for one to be lacking details but not the other, but nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[Boston]

I find it fascinating how the discussion on the left is always on what Romney MAY do but not on what Obama HAS done...I have truly never seen a dynamic quite like this in Presidential politics...

 

[cosjobs]

[

Romney went with the same strategy from the first debate. Agree with things so there's little to attack. The difference was this time he was less comfortable so his overall performance wasn't as strong. His demeanor reminded me a lot of Obama in the first debate.

That makes one of you. Updating notebook to reflect completely unreliable opinions.

If your task for the day is updating unreliable opinions in this thread, you're going to need a bigger notebook and another day or two.

 

[Abraham]

I find it fascinating how the discussion on the left is always on what Romney MAY do but not on what Obama HAS done...I have truly never seen a dynamic quite like this in Presidential politics...

Was exactly the same for the other side of things in 04.

 

[17seconds]

I find it fascinating how the discussion on the left is always on what Romney MAY do but not on what Obama HAS done...I have truly never seen a dynamic quite like this in Presidential politics...

WTF are you talking about?The left is constantly defusing lies from the right wing bubble, which by nature gets into exactly what Obama has done. Far more effort spent towards that than anything else.

 

[identikit]

Almost 60 million tune into last debate:

My link

 

[BoneYardDog]

Democrat Jewish NY Assemblyman Heads to FL to Stump for Romney

In a move to enlighten the Jews of Florida about the dangers of reelecting Barack Obama, Orthodox Jewish Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat, is heading to South Florida to convince Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney.

Hikind is convinced that the election is of huge importance for America and Israel, saying:

“This is one of the most important elections I have ever been a part of. I hope to convince my fellow democrats that the choice this year should be a Republican. Looking at the last four years, I can’t think of a single area where we have been successful. People in Florida have asked me to come down and speak to Democratic voters. I am more than happy to do my part to help and, in fact, I made that offer on national television when I appeared with Neil Cavuto on Fox News. I am going down there, as a Democrat, to speak to Democrats about my concerns.”

 

[BoneYardDog]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

 

[drummer]

When is BYD gonna get a ####### job?

 

[Slapdash]

Romney Won

 

[MaxThreshold]

You progressives can hold onto your "zingers" from last night - it's really all you have left. At least you can say, "remember the time Obama really got Romney good?. Yeah, those were the days."

If the president has to rely on zingers to win, then he's already lost.

My Link

 

[Bo Skiboski]

You progressives can hold onto your "zingers" from last night - it's really all you have left. At least you can say, "remember the time Obama really got Romney good?. Yeah, those were the days."

My Link

That's the best anti-zinger zinger ever!

 

[Jewell]

Almost 60 million tune into last debate:

My link

That's a drop from the second debate which had over 65 million viewers which in turn was a drop from the first debate which had about 68 million. Overall from past years, though, the viewing audience for each debate was way up. People are tuned into this election, and I'm guessing that's a sign that we'll also see higher than usual voter turnout.

 

[identikit]

Almost 60 million tune into last debate:

My link

That's a drop from the second debate which had over 65 million viewers which in turn was a drop from the first debate which had about 68 million. Overall from past years, though, the viewing audience for each debate was way up. People are tuned into this election, and I'm guessing that's a sign that we'll also see higher than usual voter turnout.

Was much better than I thought it would be, considering the sports going on last night.

 

[Otis]

Almost 60 million tune into last debate:

My link

That's a drop from the second debate which had over 65 million viewers which in turn was a drop from the first debate which had about 68 million. Overall from past years, though, the viewing audience for each debate was way up. People are tuned into this election, and I'm guessing that's a sign that we'll also see higher than usual voter turnout.

Was much better than I thought it would be, considering the sports going on last night.

This. That's good news for Obama.

 

[Jewell]

Almost 60 million tune into last debate:

My link

That's a drop from the second debate which had over 65 million viewers which in turn was a drop from the first debate which had about 68 million. Overall from past years, though, the viewing audience for each debate was way up. People are tuned into this election, and I'm guessing that's a sign that we'll also see higher than usual voter turnout.

Was much better than I thought it would be, considering the sports going on last night.

Me too.

 

[pettifogger]

A decrease in unemployment could easily pay for the tax cuts. Everyone pretty much agrees that Romney's plan will cost $7trillion. Romney believes that his plan will create 12 million additional jobs. I think we can all agree that if a person is unemployed they don't have wages on which they have to pay federal taxes on. Let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million additional jobs are created. If everything else currently in place remains equal and those 6 million people each pay $1,167 in federal income taxes, you'd collect $7trillion in additional taxes which would pay for the tax cuts. That doesn't seem all that improbable to me. You don't have to make that much money to pay $1,167 a year in federal income taxes.

Everyone pays less in taxes yet the federal government takes in more total tax revenue. Doesn't getting 12 million americans back to work seem like a much better way to increase tax revenues than just increasing the taxes on just the 1%?

I don't think we can all agree to that. If you receive unemployment benefits, that is taxable income.

I liked the "let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million new jobs are created" shtick.Considering that there's significant debate over whether there's any relationship at all between tax rates and employment, that assumption strikes me as slightly more than "conservative."

If tax cuts for high-income earners generate substantial real economic activity and job creation, then we should expect to see two things in the data. First, employment growth should be stronger in the years after tax cuts for these earners. Second, parts of the country with a larger share of high-income earners should experience stronger employment growth after national tax cuts for these taxpayers, because the places where they live receive a larger share of the national tax cuts. What do we actually see after combing through a half-century of economic data? Neither of these predictions is borne out.



*****

Tax cuts for everyone else are a much more effective path to job creation. Our research found a statistically significant and positive relationship between tax cuts for the bottom 95 percent and job growth at both the national and state levels. The graph below shows the relationship for the national data. Our results indicate that almost all of the stimulative effect of income and payroll tax cuts on job creation in the short to medium run result from such cuts for the bottom 95 percent.

Lower-income taxpayers spend a higher share of their tax cuts. Many of these taxpayers often have more difficulty borrowing money and tapping into their housing wealth than higher-income individuals. These demand-side forces explain why consumption goes up much more after tax cuts for the bottom 95 percent than after equivalently sized cuts for the top 5 percent. An increase in consumption, which still accounts for about 70 percent of G.D.P., fuels increases in demand, and that leads companies to create more jobs. In survey after survey, businesses confirm that changes in demand are the primary determinant of their employment decisions.

*****

What about the long run? A recent report by the Congressional Research Service found no clear relationship between cuts in marginal tax rates that primarily benefit high-income taxpayers and economic growth and job creation. A recent review by three distinguished academic economists also found no convincing evidence that real economic activity responds materially to tax-rate changes on top income earners, although such rate changes do affect their tax-avoidance behavior.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-job-creators-102406681.html

 

[Soonerman]

Right-wingers are going ape#### on Twitter over Obama's bayonet smack-down. Michelle Malkin is shrieking to the Four Winds, insisting this was a huge gaffe ... for Obama! Reminds me of how they tried to spin Romney's "binders full of women" gaffe into "Obama's empty binder" after the second debate. I don't want to start gloating about conservative desperation, but this is some seriously ridiculous stuff. And I have to believe it's mainly aimed at the oblivious base, not at undecideds.

What is really funny is that many are claiming that Obama said that the military no longer uses horses or bayonets, not understading that "fewer" does not mean "none."

Obama was wrong on bayonets even by that standard. They currently have way more than they had back then.

 

[timschochet]

Almost 60 million tune into last debate:

My link

That's a drop from the second debate which had over 65 million viewers which in turn was a drop from the first debate which had about 68 million. Overall from past years, though, the viewing audience for each debate was way up. People are tuned into this election, and I'm guessing that's a sign that we'll also see higher than usual voter turnout.

Was much better than I thought it would be, considering the sports going on last night.

This. That's good news for Obama.

Disagree. When the public is paying more attention than usual, it typically indicates that the public is unhappy with the way things are, and wants a change. I'm not suggesting this means Obama is going to lose, but I don't think increased public scrutiny is ever good for the incumbent.

 

[Ursa M]

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.

Remember to add back the 700 billion in medicare costs.

Meh. Peanuts.

 

[17seconds]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

 

[chet]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

 

[Otis]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

He is the president dude. Membership has its privileges.

 

[17seconds]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

You're right. World leaders should really be nicer to everyone.Churchill was such a ####

 

[chet]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

You're right. World leaders should really be nicer to everyone.Churchill was such a ####

Obama isn't good enough to shine Churchill's shoes.

 

[17seconds]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

You're right. World leaders should really be nicer to everyone.Churchill was such a ####

Obama isn't good enough to shine Churchill's shoes.

The fact you give our president no deference says a lot about you dude. I mean, I could infer you think Obama is somehow less of a man that doesn't deserve your respect but since you aren't even a US Citizen maybe you just don't care. And that's fine with me.GWB was a total moron but IMO he had the right to be condescending to any other politician. He was the leader of the free world.

 

[chet]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

You're right. World leaders should really be nicer to everyone.Churchill was such a ####

Obama isn't good enough to shine Churchill's shoes.

The fact you give our president no deference says a lot about you dude. I mean, I could infer you think Obama is somehow less of a man that doesn't deserve your respect but since you aren't even a US Citizen maybe you just don't care. And that's fine with me.GWB was a total moron but IMO he had the right to be condescending to any other politician. He was the leader of the free world.

And the Dems really gave a lot of respect to GWB. You display typical American ethnocentrism.

Obama's a clown who's in way over his head.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Been busy tonight but will go with this, 5 at a time so they are easy for you to read...

100 Reasons to Vote Against obama / For Mitt Romney 1 - Mitt Romney believes in a second American century. He believes in American exceptionalism and that the 21st century should be the second American century.2 - Mitt Romney is a very good man with a great heart and a big vision for the country. He has character, which matters most in the office of the President.3 - Romney is a turnaround specialist. He knows how to prioritize tasks. This contrasts with obama’s disinterested approach to the failing economy.4 - obama is the least generous political person in recent memory at the national level. Never have we had a president who is so ungenerous to his opposition.5 - obama is the most partisan president we’ve ever had. We have always passed big laws in this nation with bipartisan support. On obama’s biggest initiatives, he has had no Republican support.

 

[DoubleG]

Romney Won

Ummm....even CNN had it 48% to 40% Obama. It's not like many considered it one sided (HINT: 48% is less than half). You can say whoever you want won - but acting like this one was clear is just silly - it was the closest of the 3 looking at post debate polls.

 

[Dickies]

Been busy tonight but will go with this, 5 at a time so they are easy for you to read...

100 Reasons to Vote Against obama / For Mitt Romney 1 - Mitt Romney believes in a second American century. He believes in American exceptionalism and that the 21st century should be the second American century.2 - Mitt Romney is a very good man with a great heart and a big vision for the country. He has character, which matters most in the office of the President.3 - Romney is a turnaround specialist. He knows how to prioritize tasks. This contrasts with obama’s disinterested approach to the failing economy.4 - obama is the least generous political person in recent memory at the national level. Never have we had a president who is so ungenerous to his opposition.5 - obama is the most partisan president we’ve ever had. We have always passed big laws in this nation with bipartisan support. On obama’s biggest initiatives, he has had no Republican support.

You mean to say you are posting 19 more of these?

 

[urbanhack]

Been busy tonight but will go with this, 5 at a time so they are easy for you to read...

100 Reasons to Vote Against obama / For Mitt Romney 1 - Mitt Romney believes in a second American century. He believes in American exceptionalism and that the 21st century should be the second American century.2 - Mitt Romney is a very good man with a great heart and a big vision for the country. He has character, which matters most in the office of the President.3 - Romney is a turnaround specialist. He knows how to prioritize tasks. This contrasts with obama’s disinterested approach to the failing economy.4 - obama is the least generous political person in recent memory at the national level. Never have we had a president who is so ungenerous to his opposition.5 - obama is the most partisan president we’ve ever had. We have always passed big laws in this nation with bipartisan support. On obama’s biggest initiatives, he has had no Republican support.

Which site are these from again?

 

[17seconds]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

You're right. World leaders should really be nicer to everyone.Churchill was such a ####

Obama isn't good enough to shine Churchill's shoes.

The fact you give our president no deference says a lot about you dude. I mean, I could infer you think Obama is somehow less of a man that doesn't deserve your respect but since you aren't even a US Citizen maybe you just don't care. And that's fine with me.GWB was a total moron but IMO he had the right to be condescending to any other politician. He was the leader of the free world.

And the Dems really gave a lot of respect to GWB. You display typical American ethnocentrism.

Obama's a clown who's in way over his head.

I'm speaking for myself, not for Democrats. I have a basic respect for all US Presidents as leaders, regardless of their politics or capability. Being a leader means holding the high ground and being "condescending" has always been an asset. Unless it's Obama of course.(and I don't even think he was condescending)

 

[Slapdash]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

You're right. World leaders should really be nicer to everyone.Churchill was such a ####

Obama isn't good enough to shine Churchill's shoes.

The fact you give our president no deference says a lot about you dude. I mean, I could infer you think Obama is somehow less of a man that doesn't deserve your respect but since you aren't even a US Citizen maybe you just don't care. And that's fine with me.GWB was a total moron but IMO he had the right to be condescending to any other politician. He was the leader of the free world.

Chet doesn't give a #### about our president, he just want a guy to lower the taxes he pays into the system he is benefiting from.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

Are you suggesting that it's unconstitutional to tell the president to wait his turn? You know, it's also considered rude to interrupt people while they're talking. Maybe he should wait his turn like he's supposed to.

 

[Slapdash]

Romney Won

Ummm....even CNN had it 48% to 40% Obama. It's not like many considered it one sided (HINT: 48% is less than half). You can say whoever you want won - but acting like this one was clear is just silly - it was the closest of the 3 looking at post debate polls.

Losing a poll 48-40 that an 8 point Republican bias over the electorate is a funny way to claim you won.

 

[Dickies]

BTW, what is up with republicans saying you need to watch the debate on mute to see that Romney won? Seems silly to watch a debate on mute.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

THERE AREN'T ANY RULES FOR OBAMA DURING THE DEBATE!!!

He is the president dude. Membership has its privileges.

I find this funny considering what GWB went thru with the left when he was President.I'll wait for the expected "yeah, but..." posts from the liberals condoning the past behavior of their colleagues.

 

[17seconds]

Been busy tonight but will go with this, 5 at a time so they are easy for you to read...

100 Reasons to Vote Against obama / For Mitt Romney 1 - Mitt Romney believes in a second American century. He believes in American exceptionalism and that the 21st century should be the second American century.2 - Mitt Romney is a very good man with a great heart and a big vision for the country. He has character, which matters most in the office of the President.3 - Romney is a turnaround specialist. He knows how to prioritize tasks. This contrasts with obama’s disinterested approach to the failing economy.4 - obama is the least generous political person in recent memory at the national level. Never have we had a president who is so ungenerous to his opposition.5 - obama is the most partisan president we’ve ever had. We have always passed big laws in this nation with bipartisan support. On obama’s biggest initiatives, he has had no Republican support.

this is shtick, right? This bait is way too stinky. Looks like it's from a pamphlet the GOP would pass out at a hospice.nice try tho

 

[BoneYardDog]

Thanks for the bump...

Which one of these "lies" do you want to defend???

11 - He won’t deal with the truth. He gave a massive stimulus to the congress. He is responsible for it and for its failure. He has never accepted responsibility for it.

12 - He won’t accept responsibility for Van Jones and all of the other czars he has appointed. They are unaccountable to anyone and unconstitutional attempts to assert his rule.

13 - Solyndra. Solyndra sits empty. They were the recipient of 500 million dollars, which were lost on bankruptcy, big conference rooms, special glass and other wastes.

14 - The Boeing plant in Charleston. Boeing wanted to open a plant in Charleston and create 1000 jobs and the obama administration labor relations board said no. This is a glimpse of the futures.

15 - The raid on Gibson Guitars. The obama justice department accused Gibson guitars of improperly importing special wood for their guitars from India, even as India never raised a complaint. They show up and they beat up on companies in the name of regulation so that other companies “get the message.”

 

[Bo Skiboski]

Been busy tonight but will go with this, 5 at a time so they are easy for you to read...

100 Reasons to Vote Against obama / For Mitt Romney 1 - Mitt Romney believes in a second American century. He believes in American exceptionalism and that the 21st century should be the second American century.2 - Mitt Romney is a very good man with a great heart and a big vision for the country. He has character, which matters most in the office of the President.3 - Romney is a turnaround specialist. He knows how to prioritize tasks. This contrasts with obama’s disinterested approach to the failing economy.4 - obama is the least generous political person in recent memory at the national level. Never have we had a president who is so ungenerous to his opposition.5 - obama is the most partisan president we’ve ever had. We have always passed big laws in this nation with bipartisan support. On obama’s biggest initiatives, he has had no Republican support.

Convinced another girl in the office today to vote for Obama because of your horrible posts.

 

[urbanhack]

Thanks for the bump...Which one of these "lies" do you want to defend??? 11 - He won’t deal with the truth. He gave a massive stimulus to the congress. He is responsible for it and for its failure. He has never accepted responsibility for it. 12 - He won’t accept responsibility for Van Jones and all of the other czars he has appointed. They are unaccountable to anyone and unconstitutional attempts to assert his rule.13 - Solyndra. Solyndra sits empty. They were the recipient of 500 million dollars, which were lost on bankruptcy, big conference rooms, special glass and other wastes.14 - The Boeing plant in Charleston. Boeing wanted to open a plant in Charleston and create 1000 jobs and the obama administration labor relations board said no. This is a glimpse of the futures.15 - The raid on Gibson Guitars. The obama justice department accused Gibson guitars of improperly importing special wood for their guitars from India, even as India never raised a complaint. They show up and they beat up on companies in the name of regulation so that other companies “get the message.”

Are you going to link the source or not?