Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
: What do you think of 1st USA Presidential Debate?
B5C
Veteran
Mitt Romney dominated the debates. It all started when Mitt basically told Jim Lehrer that he is going to basically be fired if he was elected. Now he killed the moderator and he goes on the attack on Obama. I have not see Obama offering counter moves against Romney. Obama just sit there and took it.
I got annoyed with both candidates when they BOTH agree to like both their ideas Obama doesn't want to cut corporate taxes. Obama believe corporate taxes are too high and the free-markets are the good damn thing on Earth. Hell he basically admitted that the progressive side of his party is not have his own interest.
With Mitt, his big down turn he agreed with a lot of Obama policies on education, health, and medicare. He basically annoyed the right wing of his party.
This debate shows that Mitt is ready to fight fight hard. If Obama is going to win. He better damn fight back.
As for Debates: It's Mitt: 1 and Obama: 0
This was basically Jim Lehrer tonight:
I got annoyed with both candidates when they BOTH agree to like both their ideas Obama doesn't want to cut corporate taxes. Obama believe corporate taxes are too high and the free-markets are the good damn thing on Earth. Hell he basically admitted that the progressive side of his party is not have his own interest.
With Mitt, his big down turn he agreed with a lot of Obama policies on education, health, and medicare. He basically annoyed the right wing of his party.
This debate shows that Mitt is ready to fight fight hard. If Obama is going to win. He better damn fight back.
As for Debates: It's Mitt: 1 and Obama: 0
This was basically Jim Lehrer tonight:
0
Comments
Obama said corporate taxes are too high? Really?? But you said Obama doesn't want to cut corporate taxes. Could you clarify your post? It's difficult to read.
The transcript:
"When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent." ~ President Obama
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57525691/transcript-first-2012-presidential-debate-part-1/
How much sense does it make to have opposing candidates agree on major policy issues? What's the point of having two parties, then? WTF?? Thanks for the link, maybe watching it will clarify some things for me. I really don't get it--keep lowering taxes? Yeah, that's the way to fix the economy! :rolleyes: This is insane.
What I think of the debates: Obama better grow a pair if he wants to win. I hope to see a different Obama at the next debate. Some claims by his campaign about why he didn't bring up some important points, or counter Romney were "Obama is a gentleman." Well, a Gone with the Wind attitude isn't going to win the election. It's not his personality at stake, it's our country.
I'm not going to pretend I wasn't very very disappointed in Obama's performance last night, because I certainly was. But more than that disappointment- I was SHOCKED at how Romney came out guns blazing and sounding like he was hopped up on Honey BooBoo's Go-Go juice! LOL
I mean, he was practically foaming at the mouth, he couldn't say stuff fast enough!
Oh he "dominated" alright, no doubt.
But what did he actually SAY? Not much. Not much at all......
and the few truly declarative statements he did make? (Like cutting PBS funding, the arts and children's programming, and denying his 5 trillion dollar tax cuts) well, I didn't like what he DID say, anyway.
He got his "win" with this one. He played it well. His supporters are energized - just like Mitt was last night. But I still have my fingers crossed that Obama will shine through in the last debate on FOREIGN POLICY, WOMEN'S ISSUES, POVERTY, EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, and support for the middle class. Mitt has no interest in any of those things. He views America as a "corporation" - for profit.
In my opinion, the most substantive thing that came out of yesterdays's debate was a new Big Bird meme.
I will say this -- it was the most boring presidential debate I ever watched, and I was not impressed with the format.
I've lived in places where there is no social safety net. They look like this:
I've lived in places where there is no social safety net. They look like this:
Me too. Thailand in my case.
The one thing I think Obama said that made a lot of sense -- but that was probably lost -- was that a budget expresses the values you, as a society, has.
I've been rather sickened by a new Romney ad that real compassion is making sure there are sufficient jobs out there. Yes, we all want everyone to have a decent job. But real compassion is what you do for those who don't...and not just call them one of the 47%.
I caught the aftermath last night and they were pretty much saying the same things... a lot of people were pro-Romney and it worried me. Before last night, I really wasn't taking him very seriously... but you just never know.
I think Obama talking about cutting corporate taxes is a complicated thing... Did we forget that the government pretty much had to bail out the Big 3 a few years ago? Or do I just remember it because I live in Detroit and the auto-industry stays heavy on our minds? I certainly don't hold the answers on how to get more production in America and less overseas... but I do trust that Obama's heart is in the right place. Could be misguided... but I definitely am not a fan of Romney, the guy who, while giving a speech in WI, laughed about closing plants in Detroit. Oh the problems of the rich, trying to make the peons forget about how you destroyed their jobs...
Don't forget that it was his 20th wedding anniversary. It's nice to see a situation where Love still trumps politics and money.
youtube.com/watch?v=KJPwM8nehkQ
Mitt's task was to pander to the independent voter—sort of looking like a Democrat, but one short on specific details. For example. how does lowering taxes get us out of a depression? Bush tried it and it failed.
The only way to get out of a depression is for the government and private industry to invest substantially in the economy. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know anything about economics.
**http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/romneys-sick-joke/
Also, why is it that every politician talks about small businesses, when the trend has been to ever larger globalised corporations swallowing up their competitors, often purchasing them merely to put them out of business, or running at a loss in their local markets for the same purpose? Monopolies and cartels as far as the eye can see.
Historically, people who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debate on the radio felt that Nixon won decisively. Those who watched it on television (the majority) felt Kennedy won decisively.
Yes, most communication is non-verbal. But it's what they're actually going to do that matters, and in the contest of ideas, judging the transcript, I feel I'm essentially hearing two men who feel they don't have many options splitting hairs to define their differences to the electorate.
Interesting analysis. Maybe in his heart, Obama doesn't want to win. 'What's in it for me?' he may be wondering.
I don't need to watch a debate to know their platforms. I can view their voting history- and yes, you can certainly make certain assumptions based on party lines. These candidates don't tend to stray beyond their party platform. Look at what happened to Ron Paul. So it boils down to what you believe will work as a policy, and most people already know that... the "swing" voters are the ones looking to be convinced by their speech patterns, vocal quality, eye contact, tie color, hairline...whatever... because they are not *thinking* about what makes sense, but trying to go with a gut feeling or something.
And if Obama does win, he sure better not sell the country down the river by cutting corporate taxes, wimping out on raising taxes for the wealthy, etc. etc. We have an economy to rescue. He's got to do better in his 2nd term than in his 1st. Otherwise, the Dems will be toast in the next elections after him, unless they come up with a really strong candidate. Something they haven't shown a proclivity for in quite a long time.
Textsfromhillaryclinton.tumbler.com
The President was in a no-win situation, obviously. If he showed any fire at all, the press was ready to jump all over him for being "angry and defensive". And who decided Romney won? When I was in the debating team at school, it was what we said, not how we said it that won the debate. Repeating vague campaign promises while not addressing a single one of the opponent's points would have earned him a failing mark. But this is all about style over substance. We are watching to see a performance, a little passion play and waiting for those 5 second sound bites that could be marketed by one side or another.
And it's always been like this. Look back at history and you'll see political office has always been a circus. An "educated, well informed public" has never existed.
But that's just the viewpoint of an old, cynical, codger who's watched people vote against their own best interest year after year and realized what a joke it all is.
I also thought that to myself when watching the debate. I was almost surprised at how tired (and graying) he looked. The Presidency takes a huge toll on them.
We all need to remember, Romney has had weeks to prepare for nothing else but this campaign and the debates... Obama has been busy - very busy - being president....
I also want to say THANKS GUYS! to all of you who actually give a crap and think about this process and take it seriously. Yes, even if you might not be voting for the correct guy (my guy! LOL) at least you're thinking, assessing and participating. This has given me a little Hope.
There are many people all over the world who have no choices as to how their government runs their lives. We are lucky. It's a huge pain in the butt, and it doesn't always go as we like, or it takes forever to make big changes... but we're still lucky.
I don't think he was in a no-win situation. Remember, I'm an avid supporter of his, but I wanted him to act and speak in a presidential manner. He didn't. He rambled and droned on. Romney looked and spoke more presidential...more like a leader. And that does matter to me -- I want to know that a candidate can actually lead, and frankly I'm puzzled at how Obama turned in what was possibly his worst on-air performance, while Romney turned in an uncharacteristically good on-air performance.
Who decided Romney won? Well, several quick polls showed an overwhelming perception that he won. But you're right, this was not a formal debate in the classic sense, nor was it meant to be. After all, a classic debate structure is about proving the point you are making, whether you believe in it or not.
Last evening I had dinner and spent the evening with 3 close friends. The couple has spent at least 2 days a week for 3 months knocking on doors, registering people, and making telephone calls for Obama/Biden. I have volunteered to drive people to the pools and wrote what was (for me) a pretty hefty campaign contribution. The fourth member of our little group is a little too old (78) and a little too close to the cushion financially to do much actively, but will ardently argue in favor of Obama with the best of them. We were all disappointed and felt let down by our candidate. We all felt Romney won the debate, was uncharacteristically impressive...and a liar...but we are disheartened.
Romney just pulled out a flash-n-dazzle performance the other night. He doesn't have the temperament, the patience, the leadership skills, nor the brain power to stand up to the job's demands and the world's pressures.
It would be absolutely devastating (for us) not to think about this until its waaaay too late - if he's elected.
"The thing that this debate did is it gave people reasons to think about (a) President Romney," said John Geer, chairman of Vanderbilt University's political science department. "This often happens with challengers in the first debate. ...
According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted immediately after the debate, 67% of registered voters who watched the debate said that the Republican nominee won...
According to an analysis by Gallup, televised debates have affected the outcome of only two elections in the past half century -- Nixon-Kennedy in 1960 and Bush-Gore in 2000..."
OMG!! Nixon and Bush II -- The two worst presidents in the last 100 years!! Why are you trying to scare me, Vin?? :eek: