Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:I thought it was a good debate for both candidates, actually. I sort of felt sorry for the moderator. <grin>

Next time, let's get a couple of good candidates in there (<mumble>...Jill Stein...<grumble>...Gary Johnson).

Agreed, I'm thinking about voting Jill Stein since I found out I have to vote in WY instead of CO.

I didn't think much of this debate, but it should be interesting to see how the rest of them go

Bones2484 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Mitt Romney wins.

Not even close

Agreed, but only because Obama was terrible and clearly not prepared. Romney did a great job getting ready for this.

In saying that, Romney really needs to start giving some specifics on his plans if he wants a chance in this. I'm really getting tired of the "budget will be balanced" mantra without any details.

Agreed also. I wish Romney would make the point that presidential candidates should not be making certain promises that will depend on an unknown future Congress's cooperation and legislation and how the executive and the legislative branch will work together.

I too want specifics, but I do not want to hear more empty promises that their position is not able to execute on it's own, or by executive order or signing statements alone...

patrickaa317 wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Mitt Romney wins.

Not even close

Agreed, but only because Obama was terrible and clearly not prepared. Romney did a great job getting ready for this.

In saying that, Romney really needs to start giving some specifics on his plans if he wants a chance in this. I'm really getting tired of the "budget will be balanced" mantra without any details.

Pretty sure he said he'd cut Obamacare and stop funding PBS; combine government agencies and reduce public employment through attrition. Those are a few pieces in balancing the budget though there is still a lot more that needs to happen.

He did mention the above, indeed. All grand moves, and he also asserted that healthcare and social services would be returned, largely, to the State to administer. Loved his rhetoric, and I know it's what won elections in times gone by.

Obama looked a little reserved and shaky, I think. He sounded like a squeaky, repetitive wheel, to start, and only gradually improved.

Religion? Only in reference to the Constitution and brief comments of faith. Nothing to be in arms about, for certain.

My favorite part is the Randy Jackson comment at the end:
http://imgur.com/mDrvt

Phatscotty wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Mitt Romney wins.

Not even close

Agreed, but only because Obama was terrible and clearly not prepared. Romney did a great job getting ready for this.

In saying that, Romney really needs to start giving some specifics on his plans if he wants a chance in this. I'm really getting tired of the "budget will be balanced" mantra without any details.

Agreed also. I wish Romney would make the point that presidential candidates should not be making certain promises that will depend on an unknown future Congress's cooperation and legislation and how the executive and the legislative branch will work together.

Don't all Presidential candidates have to do that?

Phatscotty wrote:I too want specifics, but I do not want to hear more empty promises that their position is not able to execute on it's own, or by executive order or signing statements alone...

Gary Johnson has specifics!

Romney definitely won, IMO. Not by a lot but it seemed pretty clear.

saxitoxin wrote:Romney definitely won, IMO. Not by a lot but it seemed pretty clear.

Hell, even Van Jones and Bill Maher agree that Mitt Romney won.

Phatscotty wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Romney definitely won, IMO. Not by a lot but it seemed pretty clear.

Woodruff wrote:A STUNNING statement coming from you. I'm so glad you could make a statement that held real thought.

Hell, even Van Jones and Bill Maher agree that Mitt Romney won.

That doesn't at all change my point.

saxitoxin wrote:Romney definitely won, IMO. Not by a lot but it seemed pretty clear.

This. He was a complete dick too. Whether that will help him is to be seen.

Neoteny wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Romney definitely won, IMO. Not by a lot but it seemed pretty clear.

This. He was a complete dick too. Whether that will help him is to be seen.

Lehrer was a dick to Romney, it' okay for him to be a dick back.

On the other hand, did you catch Obama literally winking at Lehrer a couple times?

Romney was steamrolling Lehrer from the start. I wouldn't necessarily call ol' Jimmy impartial, but he's not running for president, is he?

You grumpy that Obama was getting flirty on national TV? OR IS IT A LIBRUL CONSPIRACY

Neoteny wrote:Romney was steamrolling Lehrer from the start. I wouldn't necessarily call ol' Jimmy impartial, but he's not running for president, is he?

You grumpy that Obama was getting flirty on national TV? OR IS IT A LIBRUL CONSPIRACY

it was 2 on 1, and Romney still won. Why would I be grumpy?

Want to see grumpy? viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179207

"ROMNEY WON THE DEBATE BECAUSE OF CITIZENS UNITED."

first

Phatscotty wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Romney was steamrolling Lehrer from the start. I wouldn't necessarily call ol' Jimmy impartial, but he's not running for president, is he?

You grumpy that Obama was getting flirty on national TV? OR IS IT A LIBRUL CONSPIRACY

it was 2 on 1, and Romney still won. Why would I be grumpy?

Want to see grumpy? viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179207

It's not two on one when the moderator is pushing for clarifications, nor is it two on one when one of the candidates winks at the moderator while saying "We're pretty much going to keep ignoring you."

I did not watch the debate. Instead, I read the transcript this morning. I think Romney definitively "won" if anyone can win one of these types of things; I mostly think that because I thought he would be horrendous and Obama is a wonderful speaker.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/ ... index.html

I thought it was interesting that the president did not know Romney's plans (or else purposefully stated them incorrectly). I wonder if that was a product of, generally, the challenger not revealing plans prior to this type of debate. For example, right at the beginning the president accused Romney of wanting a $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy. Romney's response, I thought, was really well done:

Mittens wrote:First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am.

I like this a lot. Rhetoric, yes, but it was pretty good stuff.

Romney's tax plan is also pretty interesting and something I don't think I've ever heard from Republicans:

Mittens wrote:The second area, taxation, we agree, we ought to bring the tax rates down. And I do, both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions, so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.

Basically eliminating deductions, credits and exemptions will do a number of things I've been (politically, but not professionally) in favor of for a while. Those types of things tend to benefit the wealthy and certain companies over other companies.

I did not like the rhetoric of this statement:

Mittens wrote:What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it.

What does that even mean? It means he's going to cut the stuff he wants to cut and keep "borrowing money from China" to pay for the stuff he wants to keep. So annoying.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama wrote:Now, we all know that we've got to do more. And so I've put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. It's on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise.

I need to get to this website.

The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don't get.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama wrote:Now, does anybody think that ExxonMobil needs some extra money, when they're making money every time you go to the pump? Why wouldn't we want to eliminate that? Why wouldn't we eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? My attitude is, if you got a corporate jet, you can probably afford to pay full freight, not get a special break for it.

I can get behind these types of things, except the president just wants to take those tax breaks and give them to other companies that support him. The same with Romney. It's not an overall increase in revenue when you're giving tax breaks to solar companies (in Obama's case) or coal companies (in Romney's case).

So Romney calls Obama out on it:

Mittens wrote:to oil, to tax breaks, then companies going overseas. So let's go through them one by one. First of all, the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it's actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that's been in place for a hundred years. Now...

Barack HUSSEIN Obama wrote:It's time to end it.

Mittens wrote:And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

Good job on Romney.

After the tax debate there was all this rhetoric on seniors and Medicare/Medicaid and social security which just pissed me off. Talk about pandering.

I like this too:

Mittens wrote:Dodd-Frank was passed. And it includes within it a number of provisions that I think has some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that's been given to -- to New York banks I've ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There've been 122 community and small banks have closed since Dodd- Frank.

It basically calls out Dodd-Frank for the stuff I've been saying for the past few months.

And the president's response was merely "Romney wants to repeal Dodd-Frank." That's not what Romney said he wants to do. He wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and then replace it. I don't believe Romney, but, well, he said it and the president ignored it.

This is where Obama gets his 5 trillion number, btw. It is misleading, and I wish he'd stop.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-tax-cut/

I think all the presidential debates will be pretty stalemated. The vice-presidential debate is the only one in which I think someone will really win.


--Andy

I am a pretty staunch conservative, and I thought Obama won.

The couple of times that he said, <paraphrasing> 'I want to tell the American people, if you believe that Romney can cut taxes and increase spending, and you won't have to pay for it, vote for him.' was fucking money. I laughed.

Romney did pretty much sound like an idiot to someone who values substance over flash. He kept saying he wants to cut tax rates to give money back to the businesses and individuals, but he wants to close loopholes so the revenue stays the same. To anyone who is not an imbecile, if the revenue stays the same, you haven't cut taxes or given any money back. It's not rocket science. A dollar is a dollar, regardless of how you try to spin it.

72o wrote:I am a pretty staunch conservative, and I thought Obama won.

The couple of times that he said, <paraphrasing> 'I want to tell the American people, if you believe that Romney can cut taxes and increase spending, and you won't have to pay for it, vote for him.' was fucking money. I laughed.

Romney did pretty much sound like an idiot to someone who values substance over flash. He kept saying he wants to cut tax rates to give money back to the businesses and individuals, but he wants to close loopholes so the revenue stays the same. To anyone who is not an imbecile, if the revenue stays the same, you haven't cut taxes or given any money back. It's not rocket science. A dollar is a dollar, regardless of how you try to spin it.

When did Romney say that he was going to cut taxes and increase spending? I thought he said he was going to cut taxes and DEcrease spending.

You are correct that if the revenue stays the same, you have not cut taxes. However that is not what Romney said. He's going to cut tax revenue from certain individuals and businesses (i.e. certain individuals and businesses will pay less taxes) and he's going to increase tax revenue from certain other individuals and businesses (i.e. certain individuals and businesses will pay more taxes). For example, let's say Romney lowers the corporate tax rate by 1%, but then also does away with the deduction for interest (not going to happen, but let's say it does). All corporations pay less tax because the rate is reduced, but those corporations that take a deduction for interest expense will pay more tax because the deduction is removed.

He said he wanted to lower taxes, but not decrease revenue "so the government wouldn't run out of money".

That's around 9 minutes something of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkrwUU_YApE

Phatscotty wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Romney definitely won, IMO. Not by a lot but it seemed pretty clear.

This. He was a complete dick too. Whether that will help him is to be seen.

Lehrer was a dick to Romney, it' okay for him to be a dick back.

On the other hand, did you catch Obama literally winking at Lehrer a couple times?

SOCIALISM!!!!! PROGRESSIVES!!!! OBAMA!!!!!! SOROS!!!!!

Algore blames God for Obama's failure, for placing Denver at high altitude:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gor ... 53613.html

Breaking News:

If you re-arrange the letters in Barrack Hussein Obama's name, you get:
A Barbarian Hocks Muse

If you re-arrange the letters in Willard Mitt Romney's name, you get:
A Dimmer Wintry Toll


--Andy

....

I hear you 100%. However, the time to get more voices in these debates was loooong ago. I will give Gary Johnson a shot in that if he has the balls to interrupt the debates in protest and get arrested and actually DO something, ANYTHING, I would vote for him and I bet millions more would too. I am disappointed in Ron Paul for the same reason. These guys are not trying their hardest. We need someone who is seriously ready to put their life on the line, risk it ALL.... I'm not seein JACK

AndyDufresne wrote:I think all the presidential debates will be pretty stalemated. The vice-presidential debate is the only one in which I think someone will really win.


--Andy

I would have agreed with you before the debate last night. Kinda odd you posted this after 95% of people have said Romney won the first debate hands down.