MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Negative. All we got was "hope and change" - details to come after election (kind of like "let's pass the bill before we find out what's in it"). And that was good enough for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter bigbottom
- Start date
pantherclub
Footballguy
I guess you were asleep or drunk during 2008 because he was pretty detailed and he has pretty much implemented what he could. Sorry for your lack of comprehension.
Ned Ryerson
Footballguy
I was unsure which way I wqs going here, but I THINK the first question to Romney led me away from him. He has talked about lowering the tax rate, but eliminating certain deductions.
My salary is comfortable, certainly upper middle class, but because of where I live, my property taxes, state taxes and mortgage interest are very high, which makes my effective tax rate manageable, around 14%. It seemed as if Romney was going to cap deductions at some arbitrary number, which would kill me (he said 25K in the debate). Am I wrong in thinking that because he is so vague on this front, it is difficult to support him as without significant deductions I would be in a world of hurt, unless I just vote on "at least he's not Obama."
My salary is comfortable, certainly upper middle class, but because of where I live, my property taxes, state taxes and mortgage interest are very high, which makes my effective tax rate manageable, around 14%. It seemed as if Romney was going to cap deductions at some arbitrary number, which would kill me (he said 25K in the debate). Am I wrong in thinking that because he is so vague on this front, it is difficult to support him as without significant deductions I would be in a world of hurt, unless I just vote on "at least he's not Obama."
Uh, Obama was against the Individual Mandate when he was running for President.
pantherclub
Footballguy
He was pretty vocal about health care reform
Right, but without specifics. Romney is pretty vocal about tax reform.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Being vocal and being detailed are two entirely separate things. Thought you would know that.
The Commish
Footballguy
Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
Just absolutely shocking that Romney is being so vague.
Last edited by a moderator:
snowmonkey501
Footballguy
most of the internals of that poll favor romney http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2945896/posts?page=50'Slapdash said:
john king even said that if the numbers dont dramatically change romney wins the election
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
Best thing to come from the debate last night was clearly the "Binders of Women" meme, both for its straight up hilarity and unintended irony.
17seconds
root of all aliai
When did he say that? That would really surprise me as King is supposedly an expert on the electoral college and Romney still has a narrow path through that.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
I think Georgia is one. Maybe the whole SEC.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
I mean it was not like the bill was put through some kind of exceedingly long incredibly drawn-out debates that seems to last for an eternity, and took up many months of congressional time.Oh wait....Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
pantherclub
Footballguy
Are you saying Obama didnt explain how his plan was going to work? Surely you are not that naive.Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
Those are all +8 R.most of the internals of that poll favor romney http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2945896/posts?page=50'Slapdash said:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
That's exactly what he was saying - and he's right. You're being naive if you think Obama gave anywhere near the details you're expecting from Romney.Are you saying Obama didnt explain how his plan was going to work? Surely you are not that naive.Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
He had a definite proposal. Anyone who wanted to see his proposal could see it on his website, where it was explained clearly. If you want to hold him accountable for the final product of the legislative process, that's your prerogative, but that has nothing to do with whether there was any substance to his campaign proposals. Two totally different things.Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
I hate when people reduce candidates to campaign slogans and then complain about a lack of substance. Most candidates in the internet era give plenty of substance to their platforms on their website. Obama in 2008 was no exception. Neither is Mitt- his website gives a lot of detail on things like, say, Iran. Just because you're too lazy to look it up doesn't mean it's not there.
The criticism of the lack of detail on Mitt's tax plan, however, is fair IMO. All he does is describe all the tax cuts he favors. At no point does he provide an estimate of the lost revenue that would result, nor does he reconcile that with his plan to trim the deficit, which makes no mention of his proposed losses on the revenue side of the ledger.
snowmonkey501
Footballguy
they lead to more economic activity/growth. which in turn leads to more job creation.'dparker713 said:Other than tax cuts lead to job growth.'RBM said:No bigger fairy tale than "hope and change".....ever'dparker713 said:Romney has a vision too. Its better known as a fairytale.'chet said:'adonis said:
pantherclub
Footballguy
thank youHe had a definite proposal. Anyone who wanted to see his proposal could see it on his website, where it was explained clearly. If you want to hold him accountable for the final product of the legislative process, that's your prerogative, but that has nothing to do with whether there was any substance to his campaign proposals. Two totally different things.Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
I hate when people reduce candidates to campaign slogans and then complain about a lack of substance. Most candidates in the internet era give plenty of substance to their platforms on their website. Obama in 2008 was no exception. Neither is Mitt- his website gives a lot of detail on things like, say, Iran. Just because you're too lazy to look it up doesn't mean it's not there.
The criticism of the lack of detail on Mitt's tax plan, however, is fair IMO. All he does is describe all the tax cuts he favors. At no point does he provide an estimate of the lost revenue that would result, nor does he reconcile that with his plan to trim the deficit, which makes no mention of his proposed losses on the revenue side of the ledger.
17seconds
root of all aliai
Every candidate has a slogan. Romney's is "Believe in America". Pretty silly to call that out. I didn't vote for Obama because I stared wistfully into the distance dreaming of "hope and change"...
When you have an economic plan that claims a specific number which sounds great to everyone, you also need numbers to justify it.
The Commish
Footballguy
And they still had no clue everything that was in it or how it affected the bottom lineI mean it was not like the bill was put through some kind of exceedingly long incredibly drawn-out debates that seems to last for an eternity, and took up many months of congressional time.Oh wait....Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
snowmonkey501
Footballguy
unemployment not going over 8%? yeah, about that...
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
What??And they still had no clue everything that was in it or how it affected the bottom lineI mean it was not like the bill was put through some kind of exceedingly long incredibly drawn-out debates that seems to last for an eternity, and took up many months of congressional time.Oh wait....Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
I don't understand this line. Obama and McCain both had very detailed plans that were debated heavily n 2008. The biggest difference between what he campaigned on and what was implemented was dropping the government run in favor of the mandate, not exactly a liberal change.That's exactly what he was saying - and he's right. You're being naive if you think Obama gave anywhere near the details you're expecting from Romney.Are you saying Obama didnt explain how his plan was going to work? Surely you are not that naive.Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
The Commish
Footballguy
This is a lot of words to say "Obama had his vision of what he wanted, but after everyone got their mits on it, they didn't have any idea what was in it". You're missing my point though. I don't question that what Obama put out as his proposal was detailed. It was...especially compared to Romney. But the reality is, his proposal was NOT what was put through in it's original form so in the end, his proposal really means nothing. Especially given the fact no one could keep track of all the changes in a way that they knew how things would be affected. If you want to credit Obama for giving details larger than Romney that's cool, but let's not pretend that what Obama proposed was put into law and let's not pretend that once they started screwing around with it that Obama kept us up to date on how it was going to affect us.He had a definite proposal. Anyone who wanted to see his proposal could see it on his website, where it was explained clearly. If you want to hold him accountable for the final product of the legislative process, that's your prerogative, but that has nothing to do with whether there was any substance to his campaign proposals. Two totally different things.Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
I hate when people reduce candidates to campaign slogans and then complain about a lack of substance. Most candidates in the internet era give plenty of substance to their platforms on their website. Obama in 2008 was no exception. Neither is Mitt- his website gives a lot of detail on things like, say, Iran. Just because you're too lazy to look it up doesn't mean it's not there.
The criticism of the lack of detail on Mitt's tax plan, however, is fair IMO. All he does is describe all the tax cuts he favors. At no point does he provide an estimate of the lost revenue that would result, nor does he reconcile that with his plan to trim the deficit, which makes no mention of his proposed losses on the revenue side of the ledger.
The Commish
Footballguy
Do you think Obama's original proposal is what was passed into law? Simple yes/no and we can go from there.ETA: Nevermind.Are you saying Obama didnt explain how his plan was going to work? Surely you are not that naive.Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
Last edited by a moderator:
You can say this about any bill ever.And they still had no clue everything that was in it or how it affected the bottom lineI mean it was not like the bill was put through some kind of exceedingly long incredibly drawn-out debates that seems to last for an eternity, and took up many months of congressional time.Oh wait....Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
DoubleG
Footballguy
Pretty sure Bush aint running in this election. Hey, but if you keep throwing enough #### at the wall, some might stick.
snowmonkey501
Footballguy
didnt we do the road/bridges thing already and it failed miserably? stimulus 1, stimulus 2...
He had a definite proposal. Anyone who wanted to see his proposal could see it on his website, where it was explained clearly. If you want to hold him accountable for the final product of the legislative process, that's your prerogative, but that has nothing to do with whether there was any substance to his campaign proposals. Two totally different things.Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
I hate when people reduce candidates to campaign slogans and then complain about a lack of substance. Most candidates in the internet era give plenty of substance to their platforms on their website. Obama in 2008 was no exception. Neither is Mitt- his website gives a lot of detail on things like, say, Iran. Just because you're too lazy to look it up doesn't mean it's not there.
The criticism of the lack of detail on Mitt's tax plan, however, is fair IMO. All he does is describe all the tax cuts he favors. At no point does he provide an estimate of the lost revenue that would result, nor does he reconcile that with his plan to trim the deficit, which makes no mention of his proposed losses on the revenue side of the ledger.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I hear you, but the thing is, the bolded is the only topic that was being discussed in the thread prior to your post. That's why your posts have confused everyone. You've taken a discussion about whether and how much candidates explain their positions during campaigns, and turned it into your own Obamacare rant. What you say about the legislation may be true, but we've had thread upon thread upon thread about it already. All we're talking about here is detail in campaigns.
The Commish
Footballguy
sorry...yes, "what"What??And they still had no clue everything that was in it or how it affected the bottom lineI mean it was not like the bill was put through some kind of exceedingly long incredibly drawn-out debates that seems to last for an eternity, and took up many months of congressional time.Oh wait....Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
I agree that it should be done more often.It was inappropriate because:1. The second half of what she said was drowned out by the crowd.2. Her job wasn't to fact check, it was to facilitate them talking to eachother. They could go "yes I am" "No you're not" for 90 minutes. It isn't her job to be the lie detector.3. She only did it once. They both were playing loose with exact truths, they both said things that weren't entirely true, and they both said things back and forth that were manipulating facts/statistics to best serve them, if she is going to fact check she should fact check everything or nothing.If I had my way, they'd be on lie detectors during the whole thing. Not sure why calling someone on their lie is inappropriate. It should be done more often IMO.So she memorized the exact quote?Or did she decide to have the transcript right there with her?Either way, not really appropriate. It isn't her place to fact check (and if she's going to, she should be fact-checking everything).(and before you say its because it hurt Romney, I'd say the same thing if it was done to Obama)'GroveDiesel said:The questions were all pre-screened and Crowley picked which ones were going to be discussed. This was talked about before the debate.'larry_boy_44 said:'chet said:
The Commish
Footballguy
Apologies....I figured folks understood "Obamacare" to be what was actually passed. Obama's original proposal was more detailed than what Romney's provided, but even I think that's setting the bar awfully low. His math didn't add up either on it's face, and I remember some specifics that folks speculated about or took liberty with depending on their agenda.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
Your statement does not make any sense - much like your argument.sorry...yes, "what"What??And they still had no clue everything that was in it or how it affected the bottom lineI mean it was not like the bill was put through some kind of exceedingly long incredibly drawn-out debates that seems to last for an eternity, and took up many months of congressional time.Oh wait....Obamacare, NO ONE had a clue as to what was in it and how it was going to affect the bottom line. Remember "we have to pass it to see what's in it" lines? Get out of here with that crap
Fennis
Footballguy
The families of the deceased have repeatedly asked Romney to stop politicizing their deaths.
snowmonkey501
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
So you think Pelosi was lying and she really DID know what was in it?
Last edited by a moderator:
DoubleG
Footballguy
And....Wisconsin is back in play.
Linky
The coming days should be interesting in terms of rolling polls. Several sources have Obama "winning" the debate, but Romney "winning" the discussion on specific topics (especially the economy). How that shifts things - especially in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, etc, will be interesting, as it will give an indication of what voters think are the important issues and who they trust to handle them.
Linky
The coming days should be interesting in terms of rolling polls. Several sources have Obama "winning" the debate, but Romney "winning" the discussion on specific topics (especially the economy). How that shifts things - especially in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, etc, will be interesting, as it will give an indication of what voters think are the important issues and who they trust to handle them.
snowmonkey501
Footballguy
well unless you make more than 250k/yr the deductions you mentioned aren't going away.
17seconds
root of all aliai
I should hope so. That would be pathetic if Ryan can't deliver Wisconsin.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Do you honestly not know what a "national poll" is?Rasmussen still has it:Obama: 237What's funny about this? Obama's lead in national polls completely disappeared after the first debate, with many polls now giving Romney a modest lead.
Romney: 181
Toss-up: 120
RBM
Footballguy
What does that have to do with calling it a "trivial blunder"?
Last edited by a moderator:
DoubleG
Footballguy
True - but the numbers in Wisconsin hadn't really moved much since the campaign had started. The article stated that the President held an 11 point lead just a few weeks ago. Just thought it was interesting.
larry_boy_44
Footballguy
I don't have a clue how the polls are being run, but I'm in awe that Obama has been polling ahead of Romney in Wisconsin at all...I (and most everyone I know) would be shocked if Obama carried Wisconsin. After the whole recall nonsense and with Ryan on the ticket, Wisconsin is gonna be a Romney win.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is the kind of thing that "the electoral college is all that matters" people need to keep in mind. State-level polling in swing states is highly correlated with national polls. When national polls move in Romney's favor, swing states move along with them. If national polling moves back in Obama's direction, poll results in those states will move back in his direction too. A few weeks ago, when Obama enjoyed a solid national lead, the electoral math looked almost impossible for Romney if you just focused on the state-by-state map, but amazingly a ~6 point swing in national poll coincided with a bunch of states moving in Romney's direction. Completely predictable.Theoretically it's possible for Romney to gain in national polls by padding his support in Texas and other solidly Republican states, but realistically that's highly unlikely. If Romney wins the national vote by even 1%, he'll bring along enough states to get to 270 electoral votes.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Wisconsin hasn't gone Republican since 1984. Having Ryan on the ticket helps, but the consensus at the time he was chosen as VP was that the state would still end up going for Obama anyway.
snowmonkey501
Footballguy
it was after the flash poll came in and they were digging into the internals. cant find a video of it but I heard an audio clip of it. there are several google links that come up with what he said.
