who cares really? theyre both just reciting various reiterations of their partys platform. Maybe it's because my drive time radio is always toggling between NPR and WRKO, but i can't imagine there are that many "undecideds" at this point, who are going to be that swayed by any of these debates. It's gonna be idiot hipster/hippies blindly voting for obama and idiot terk errr jerbbs rednecks and blue collar good ol' boys blindly voting for romney, and we'll see who can be coaxed to show up to the polls in greater numbers.
/democracy
Yeah, he didn't want to interrupt romney it seemed. Anyhow, the first reply that obama gave sucked and had nothing to do with what romney said. That pissed me off.
post by ctb0rderpatrol at Oct 4,2012 6:39am
lol @ people getting pissed at warcriminal obama's flops
Yeah, he didn't want to interrupt romney it seemed. Anyhow, the first reply that obama gave sucked and had nothing to do with what romney said. That pissed me off.
Yeah, it definitely seemed like one of those things where he had rehearsed a bunch for what they thought Romney was going to say and when he didn't say it, welllllll let's just try what we rehearsed and see if if sticks.
who cares really? theyre both just reciting various reiterations of their partys platform. Maybe it's because my drive time radio is always toggling between NPR and WRKO, but i can't imagine there are that many "undecideds" at this point, who are going to be that swayed by any of these debates. It's gonna be idiot hipster/hippies blindly voting for obama and idiot terk errr jerbbs rednecks and blue collar good ol' boys blindly voting for romney, and we'll see who can be coaxed to show up to the polls in greater numbers.
/democracy
Exactly. It floors me that people still don't seem to realize that everything is already pre-determined as far as the issues go. All the debate really proves is which candidate is better at acting than the other, because the media is more likely to make a big deal of something ridiculous like a bad facial expression or hand gesture and turn it into a reason why that person is unfit to be President than actually focus on issues, since at this point everyone who would be affected by them is most likely already locked in to a candidate.
i may not care for Obama, but anyone who thinks that Mitt Romney is a good alternative should be rounded up, shot and incinerated.
post by ark at Oct 4,2012 10:46am
it was an alright debate. i thought romney didn't get into specifics as well as obama and circled back into party-line rhetoric now and then. i thought he made a big mistake by saying he wouldn't need to add revenue to lower the deficit.
the best part is every 4 years people think changing presidents frequently will somehow fix the biggest economy in the world and all it's social and environmental issues. if romney wins more democrats will get elected and vice versa.
Romney got into more specifics than he did the entire campaign.
Not enough people pay enough attention to know that senators and congress play a huge role. After all, their job is to create the laws. The executive branch's job is to enforce them.
like how romney wants to repeal dodd-frank and obamacare, except keep some parts of them, except not say which parts, or how he's going to possibly convince a senate majority to do both of those things.
The best way to judge a politician is not by their speeches, but by their pearly white smile and their smug demeanor. Bleached teeth and clean-shaven? Ugh. Bring back gritty presidents; ones who smoked cigars, had beards and were overweight. Bring back real people.
William Henry Harrison died in 30 days, BRING HIM BACK AND GIVE HIM A FAIR CHANCE
post by slow_day_on_rttp at Oct 4,2012 12:13pm
you are all a bunch of HOMOS for talking about politics, go start a rage against the machine band about it
I think there was a lot Obama didn't say, deliberately. It wouldn't be an exciting election season if he stayed ahead the entire time. I do believe that majority of the country has their minds made up. However, it comes down to electoral votes. Those votes are 90% of the time with their party.
My real take on this...Goddamnit we suck. Where are the other options. Where is the none of the above option. You can pick what you want from insurance, to vehicles, houses, hookers, etc. But when it comes to the president it's only two paths. Fuck, I get more cynical every day.
I agree with ark
it is impossible to tackle all of the environmental, social and economic problems with our system of 4 year/term presidencies. They are far too deep seeded, are too interconnected, and require a perspective that is far sighted and based on long term changes beginning at a systemic level. NO ONE policy or president can institute a short term solution for these problems, the linear system itself must be disassembled and then rebuilt from the ground up.
I agree with ark, Romney was all about the illusion of being specific on the questions people actually wanted answers to going into this thing: if there aren't enough tax deductions for the rich to revoke that would pay for the tax cut of 20% which has been in Romney's plan for a year and a half, then where does that money come from if not by eliminating tax deductions for the working and middle class? When questioned or challenged that his numbers don't add up, Romney just ignored it and kept repeating the same figures as if nothing had happened, then he suddenly denied he supported a tax cut for the rich at all and swore it was only a tax cut for the middle class; now he actually has his surrogates going on the airwaves today with the message that yes it's a reduction of 20% across the board, but that means it's a tax cut only for the middle class and NOT a tax cut for the rich because it's only just a tax "reduction" for the rich - that's literally what some assfuck Senator from Utah said on my TV this morning. If America falls for that, we are stupid (fuck, we're still paying for buying into the message ten years ago in our deficit and in our economy).
I think Burnsy is right though that Romney was more specific that he ever had been before. The problem was that the bar he set for specifics was so low before.
I will say this, though, he definitely prepared really hard and got a lot of words in, and made the best use of his time in terms of taking opportunities to make points; I just don't think Romney denying his tax plan for the last year and a half all of a sudden in a debate can work in the age of youtube, or claiming he supports health insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions when his position up until last night has been to do so only in cases of prior continuous health insurance coverage, or claiming in the debate that states should make the calls on issues like education before twenty minutes later in the same debate talking about the importance of the federal government in bypassing the states and giving education money directly to people.
It's only convincing if a person's attention span is four seconds long, and can't see someone pandering to them with rehearsed and often contradictory answers a mile away. The only actual spontaneous line in that entire 90 minute policy debate from either guy was not from Romney, it was from Obama on Romney's sudden dropping of the plan he campaigned on for eighteen months: "his big bold idea is... never mind." When Romney can be spontaneous about an answer other than "happy anniversary", I might be slightly impressed.
post by still_a_slow_day_on_rttp at Oct 4,2012 3:17pm
like how romney wants to repeal dodd-frank and obamacare, except keep some parts of them, except not say which parts, or how he's going to possibly convince a senate majority to do both of those things.
I said he was as specific as he had been. Makes me nervous that he waited until a month from the election to elaborate AT ALL on his tax and healthcare plans. I was saying he was relatively specific.
However, attack Romney on his campaign thus far. That's totally fair. In terms of this debate, he wiped the floor with the President. The President did not show up to win last night and should be embarrassed by his performance, ESPECIALLY given Romney's propensity to say some RETARDED shit.
Rolling Stone has long featured fine, serious political journalism. It's unfortunate that it comes wrapped in a pop-music package and obviously it's not without bias, but it is clearly miles above the "OMG OBAMA SOCIALIST" school of political commentary.
After watching the Daily Show it's apparent that Bill O'Reilly and I agree on something. Obama gave this one away. I don't care which schmo wins the election. But I predict that when Romney is at his most confident he will get buried.
Romney killed Obama in that debate. You guys are all...well, take it Roger The bleeding hearts and artists
Make their stand.
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall.
That may be the first time 'killed' was ever used to describe a performance that included: "I love Big Bird".
If cramming in as many lies as possible and more quickly than they can be rebutted is considered a victory, then we deserve what we get by accepting that standard, whether from a D or a R.
"Meanwhile, there were some really huge issues about the economy that were not addressed at all last night….
1 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the Federal Reserve was not mentioned a single time.
2 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, Ben Bernanke was not mentioned a single time.
3 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, quantitative easing was not mentioned a single time.
4 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the term “derivatives” was not used a single time. Considering the fact that derivatives could bring down our financial system at any moment, this is an issue that should be talked about.
5 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of the millions of jobs that have been shipped out of the country. Considering the fact that both Obama and Romney have played a role in this, it is probably a topic they both want to avoid. Overall, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.
6 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate mentioned that the velocity of money has plunged to a post-World War II low.
7 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the fact that the rest of the world is beginning to reject the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency was not mentioned a single time, but this has enormous implications for our economy in the years ahead.
8 – The fact that the Social Security system is headed for massive trouble was only briefly touched on during the debate. At the moment, there are approximately 56 million Americans that are collecting Social Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to grow to an astounding 91 million. Overall, the Social Security system is facing a134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years. When are our politicians going to honestly address this massive problem?
9 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the nightmarish drought the country is experiencing right now was not mentioned a single time.
10 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the financial meltdown in Europe was basically totally ignored. But considering the fact that Europe has a larger economy and a much larger banking system than we do, perhaps someone should have asked Obama and Romney what they plan to do when the financial system of Europe implodes.
11 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the student loan debt bubble was only briefly mentioned.
12 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was not a single word about the fact that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is now larger than it has been at any point since the Great Depression.
13 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of TARP (which they both supported at the time). Would they both bail out the big banks if another financial crisis erupted?
14 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of the economic stimulus packages (which they both supported at the time). Would they both want more “economic stimulus” if we entered another recession?
15 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate talked about the fact that most of the jobs our economy is producing now are low income jobs. In fact, since the end of the last recession, 58 percent of the jobs that have been created are low paying jobs.
16 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate mentioned that more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government or that more than half of all Americans are now at least partially financially dependent on the government. I can’t blame Romney for avoiding this point though – he probably wanted to avoid the phrase “47 percent” at all costs.
Is this really the best that America can do?
Tens of millions of Americans tuned in hoping to become more informed about the candidates, and instead what they got was an hour and a half of tap dancing as Obama and Romney constantly tossed out buzzwords such as “education”, “energy independent” and “middle class”."
