URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 37780
[ Go back to previous page ]

Original Message
"Presidential debates, round one: Economics."

Posted by Estee on 10-03-12 at 03:12 PM
I am prepared to treat everything from the handshake on as a lie.

Including the handshake.

Most especially the handshake.


Table of contents

Messages in this discussion
"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 10-03-12 at 05:17 PM



sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Snidget on 10-03-12 at 06:13 PM
Instead of us drinking, can we make them drink whatever they have in the cups over at AI?


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Estee on 10-03-12 at 06:24 PM
So which one is Nikki, which is Mariah, and who threatens to decapitate whom?

"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by dabo on 10-03-12 at 06:02 PM
LAST EDITED ON 10-03-12 AT 06:04 PM (EST)

I understand from various reports that Romney has really been practicing hard on his prepared "spontaneous" zingers.

Cue the laughtrack.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Tummy on 10-03-12 at 09:54 PM
In all seriousness - this is one of the best presidential debates I've watched in numerous elections. They're both intelligent guys and well-spoken, with definite opposite viewpoints.

I know it's all just hot air, but...


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by foonermints on 10-03-12 at 10:00 PM
It floats a pretty balloon.

"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by cahaya on 10-04-12 at 10:45 AM
But it's gotta land sometime once the hot air cools off!

"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Molaholic on 10-04-12 at 06:23 PM
...of course, there are other things that float </inner 13-year-old>

"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Tummy on 10-03-12 at 10:12 PM
It's nights like this that I miss the old OT. An hour and 15 minutes in to a presidential debate and we have 6 posts?


"Not Really"
Posted by foonermints on 10-03-12 at 10:16 PM
A foonerpost counts for a negative one on a political thread.
Ergo: you may swoop @ 67 as of now.

"RE: Not Really"
Posted by Tummy on 10-03-12 at 10:25 PM
Lol - I don't think we'll break 20 at this point.

This last 3 minutes is a waste of time - there will always be political party gridlock.


"RE: Not Really"
Posted by foonermints on 10-03-12 at 10:36 PM
I'm just here because Netflix jammed up.

CTgirl ObamaChupacabra!
Ah well, I watched a real life Chupacabra!
I'm barfing right now at the instant recap and critique.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by jbug on 10-03-12 at 10:38 PM
a lot of the political OT debaters are rarely seen in these parts anymore.

"Maybe "
Posted by foonermints on 10-03-12 at 10:42 PM
I't difficult to find inert gas fascinating. Ask Snidget.

"RE: Maybe "
Posted by cahaya on 10-04-12 at 10:46 AM
You mean like... arg! on?

"RE: Maybe "
Posted by jbug on 10-04-12 at 11:22 AM
I said
"in these parts

not farts.


"I know."
Posted by foonermints on 10-04-12 at 10:43 PM
There is slight chance of you morphing into Bravie.

not an inert girl


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Breezy on 10-04-12 at 09:21 AM
Word.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Silvergirl1 on 10-03-12 at 10:57 PM

I wish I had a nickel for every time Mitt said "the middle class". He was really trying to make up for his gaff about the 47 percent.



"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by bondt007 on 10-03-12 at 11:32 PM
Obama looked as bad as he is.


>Issued by "Q" and RollDdice


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by dabo on 10-04-12 at 01:09 AM
LAST EDITED ON 10-04-12 AT 01:10 AM (EST)

Myself, I consider this debate to be a draw. Romney seemed very harried "caught in the headlights" much of the time, the pressure got to him. But President Obama fumbled and had a lot of "uhs", he got the pressure as well.

Instant polling gives Romney a slight win here, despite my impression he was desperate whereas Obama, on the ropes, had better intell on his side.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Tummy on 10-04-12 at 01:46 AM
I disagree dabo, I thought Mitt seemed well prepared and didn't get the "caught in the headlights" vibe at all. I think his "you've given 90 billion for green projects" scored some points.

Obama seemed tired, but as it's his 20th Anniversary maybe he has a right to be tired. Bowchicabowwow.

I'd given Romney a slight win. Which he desperately needed after the 47% leak.

For what it's worth - I do not like Mitt's voucher system for elderly healthcare. I didn't like it for schools, I don't like it for healthcare. I think he scored more points on what Obama hasn't accomplished than on what he would do as President.

I do want to know for those of you that has made up their minds (which I have not) - what say you about the "offshore" bank accounts of Romney's and his history of shipping jobs overseas. Yes, this knowledge just comes from attack ads, that's why I'm asking you.

And...I'll be honest - I'm open to voting for Romney as I don't think he can turn it around in 4 years either and would open the door for a Hilary run.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by dabo on 10-04-12 at 09:52 PM

Oh, I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind about it, but to me it seemed a draw. President Obama was certainly off his game. (Former VP Gore thinks it was the thin air, I'd say they were both suffering from altitude sickness in that case.)

To me it seemed as if Governor Romney was a bit off, something disturbing him maybe, and it showed many times in his odd facial expressions, and his voice was a bit off as well. Plus I thought he spoke a little too fast at times, seemed liked scrambling.

In any event, both men spent too much time attacking each other's plans. Don't care for that. Some of Romney's claims were overblown, such as his vast over-estimation of how Obamacare hurts job growth, in fact one of the major factors that held off would-be entrepeneurs venture into small business start-ups over the past decade or so has been the costs of health insurance and healthcare.

Anyway, Romney has been polled as the winner, and he certainly needed that boost. I think expectations were high for the president, he had a bad night, expectations weren't so high for the governor.


"Nary a peep about"
Posted by moonbaby on 10-04-12 at 09:18 AM
a few hot topics, including:
immigration
foreign policy
gun control
abortion
gas prices
unless I just missed it, zoning out as they both yessed each other to death about how more things need to be done for the middle class. Shut up and DO it.

Romney was fully engaged, extremely hyped up and Obama could have just phoned it in. I half expected him to sigh and look at his watch. He missed some golden opportunities.

I did not like how they both ran roughshod over the format. Tsk tsk. The moderator totally lost



"RE: Nary a peep about"
Posted by cahaya on 10-04-12 at 10:50 AM
Yeah, I agree with this summary in a nutshell.

Romney was obviously geared up for this, while Obama probably wished he was still in D.C. instead of flying out to Denver.

I think it's harder for an acting President to make the time and energy for a debate, with so much on his plate already, while the challenger has ample time to prepare without the distractions of the job.

In summary, I didn't really learn anything new from this debate.


"RE: Nary a peep about"
Posted by newsomewayne on 10-04-12 at 11:11 AM
Those weren't discussed because that wasn't the point of this debate. This was all about our economy, and with the exception of gas prices, these are topics for another day. I'm sure that foreign policy and immigration, at least, will be discussed at one of the other two debates. I think gas prices were mentioned a time or two, but never a focus.

As for the format and moderator, I enjoyed it. As long as the two aren't wrestling on the floor and punching each other in the throat, the moderator just needs to throw out topics and allow for equal time. But yes, the moderator had lost control of the time clock very early on.


Paid for by AgPAC, a 2008 registered 527 organization.
"We will eventually pay for it, but we can argue about that later.” – Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA.)


"Gas prices?"
Posted by AyaK on 10-05-12 at 05:49 PM


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Bebo on 10-04-12 at 09:32 AM
Mitt Romney, leave Big Bird alone. What has he ever done to you? Are you mad that Snuffalupagus is his best friend and not you?



"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by moonbaby on 10-04-12 at 12:08 PM

"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Bebo on 10-04-12 at 06:28 PM
I didn't realize that Big Bird's salary and Cookie Monster's cookies were such a huge chunk of the federal budget. Thank you, Romney, for letting me know that Oscar's love of collecting trash was making it difficult to balance the budget.



"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by kingfish on 10-04-12 at 08:22 PM
That bird is freakishly big.

"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by AyaK on 10-05-12 at 03:57 PM
LAST EDITED ON 10-05-12 AT 07:35 PM (EST)

Just popped in for a moment. Love the picture.

The reason to cut funding for PBS isn't the share of the budget. It's simply because governing is about making choices, and in the current environment, with 200,000 or so for-profit cable channels out there, federal funding of PBS is dispensable.

NET (National Educational Television), the predecessor to PBS, dates back to the death of the DuMont Network in the 1950s. VHF was saturated, and the FCC was trying to make a role for UHF. The Ford Foundation decided to fund an educational television network on UHF in 1952 and then expanded it in order to utilize the stations (including a few VHF stations) that had been started to be part of DuMont but had been left high and dry when DuMont failed.

When the Ford Foundation withdrew its support in the mid-1960s, the federal government stepped in, because it was considered so problematic to let NET fail, because that would only leave 3 networks in the US. The feds set up the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967 as a stopgap means to keep NET from going off the air.

But NEVER did anyone discuss that the U.S. government would permanently fund a TV network. And yet the U.S. government's stopgap funding has now gone on for 45 years, DESPITE the addition of hundreds of cable channels. To keep Sesame Street on PBS, CPB allows Children's Television Workshop (the show's creators) to retain almost every penny of the tens of millions that the show generates annually in marketing revenue.

So ... we're borrowing money from China so that CTW can produce versions of Sesame Street around the world. Most of them lose money, but the marketing revenue from the US keeps them going. In effect, US citizens are stuck with the bill for Sesame Street being shown in foreign countries. How does that make any sense when our current deficit is over $1 trillion per year and our federal debt is over $16 trillion?

When you look at it like that, continued US support for CPB is preposterous. Part of governing means realizing that the U.S. Constitution provides only a limited role for government. In some cases, government may be able to help a transition, as it did when it set up CPB. But 45 years is more than long enough for NET/PBS to transition....

P.S. The US set up limitations on sugar imports from Latin and South America during WWII as a temporary wartime measure. They're still around. But they shouldn't be. It's a question of political courage, something both Bush and Obama completely lack.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by mrc on 10-04-12 at 09:35 AM
Obama's major problem seemed to be that he needed to talk about his administration has made things better. Talking about how he'll change things in his second term doesn't carry a lot of weight. Fair or not, he promised to change things when he entered office, and the only changes have been minimal or regressive in terms of the economy.

A Slice of Manga


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Tummy on 10-04-12 at 10:42 AM
Obama's problem with defending his term, imo, is that when he did get into office he tried to compromise with everyone and watered down everything he promised. That's one of the reason's I'm open to voting for someone else. Repulicans were going to hate him no matter what. And it doesn't matter who's in office, the other party is never going to help a President improve the country - that would be seen as being a traitor and helping lose the next election.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by cahaya on 10-04-12 at 10:55 AM
And it doesn't matter who's in office, the other party is never going to help a President improve the country - that would be seen as being a traitor and helping lose the next election.

That's part of the problem, right there. The most recent Congress is also the least productive one in decades. In addition to this, non-partisan studies of voting patterns has demonstrated a clear trend towards strong polarization between the two parties in Congress. In short, unless a President has a productive Congress that is willing to compromise across the aisle, it won't matter who is President.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by newsomewayne on 10-04-12 at 11:20 AM
when he did get into office he tried to compromise with everyone and watered down everything he promised.

Completely disagree. When Obama came in it was "my way or the highway". Pubs were told to get to the back of the bus. During healthcare debate, Pubs sent idea after idea and plan after plan to try to compromise and were shot down every time.

it doesn't matter who's in office, the other party is never going to help a President improve the country

I'm no history buff, but isn't this kind of what happened in '94 with Clinton and Newt?


Paid for by AgPAC, a 2008 registered 527 organization.
"We will eventually pay for it, but we can argue about that later.” – Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA.)


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by Tummy on 10-04-12 at 11:51 AM
Wayne - the healthcare reform that did take place in no way resembles what he campaigned on because he did too many compromises and it became this mess that's known as Obamacare. Which is NOT universal healthcare. If he hadn't compromised the healthcare system would be moving more towards what Canada has, instead of this convoluted program.

It's interesting to me how we see it so differently. Not our ideas on healthcare it's self, but on how Obama handled it. I'm not happy with the watered down version because he compromised - and you're not happy because you think he didn't.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by AyaK on 10-05-12 at 08:23 PM
Hmmm. What you call Obama's compromises, left-wing commentator Paul Krugman said in 2008 were just weaknesses in the Obama plan compared to the Clinton plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=0

The only real difference between Krugman's Feb. 2008 description of Obama's plan and Obamacare is that state exchanges replaced the idea of a government-sponsored "safety net" plan.

Oh, and of course, the actual cost of the plan, which is magnitudes higher than Krugman believed.


"RE: Presidential debates, round one: Economics."
Posted by newsomewayne on 10-04-12 at 11:21 AM
My favorite comment from Mitt came early on when he quoted Biden saying the middle class has been buried these past four years.

"The Best ‘Zingers’ At The Presidential Debate"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 10-04-12 at 11:26 AM
Best Zingers


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman


"The ultimate contest."
Posted by Estee on 10-04-12 at 11:42 AM
http://tinyurl.com/wholiesmore

Before you freak about partisanship and that darn librul media, it's a Time article which challenges each party to vet the other's claims. In other words, equal opportunity bashing.


" Romney on '47 percent': I was 'completely wrong'"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 10-04-12 at 10:30 PM
So much for those who were defending the comments: Romney on '47 percent': I was 'completely wrong'

I've also seen his campaign manager walk back his tax comments and another walk back his Wall Street comments plus his main adviser walked back his Obamacare repeal and replace.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman