USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
On TV they talk about the possibility of Obama being instructed by his campaign team to not attack on purpose.
Come across as presidential was the device. Interesting... gives me more hope that this can change next time.
EDIT: Meanwhile:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/debate-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Obama accuses Romney of dishonesty in debate
(CNN) -- A day after losing the first presidential debate to Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama and his campaign accused the Republican challenger of dishonesty over tax policy and other issues.
"If you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth," Obama told a campaign rally Thursday in Denver in reference to the former Massachusetts governor who is challenging him in next month's election. "So here's the truth: Governor Romney cannot pay for his $5 trillion tax plan without blowing up the deficit or sticking it to the middle class. That's the math."
The president's senior campaign adviser was even more blunt.
"Governor Romney came to give a performance and he gave a good performance and we give him credit for that," David Axelrod told a conference call with reporters. "The problem with it was none of it was rooted in fact."
However, Axelrod acknowledged that Obama would examine his debate strategy for the next two contests -- on October 16 in New York and October 22 in Florida. .....
Come across as presidential was the device. Interesting... gives me more hope that this can change next time.
EDIT: Meanwhile:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/debate-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Obama accuses Romney of dishonesty in debate
(CNN) -- A day after losing the first presidential debate to Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama and his campaign accused the Republican challenger of dishonesty over tax policy and other issues.
"If you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth," Obama told a campaign rally Thursday in Denver in reference to the former Massachusetts governor who is challenging him in next month's election. "So here's the truth: Governor Romney cannot pay for his $5 trillion tax plan without blowing up the deficit or sticking it to the middle class. That's the math."
The president's senior campaign adviser was even more blunt.
"Governor Romney came to give a performance and he gave a good performance and we give him credit for that," David Axelrod told a conference call with reporters. "The problem with it was none of it was rooted in fact."
However, Axelrod acknowledged that Obama would examine his debate strategy for the next two contests -- on October 16 in New York and October 22 in Florida. .....
I just watched the debate in its entirety. I would indeed say that Romney won this one. He simply had a better appearance, he worded his points a lot better and more concise, and he represented a clearer profile. Obama was stuttering to the very end, he was far from the media figure we had four years ago. If I was a swing voter without strong opinions, I'd probably go for Romney now. Of course, I think Romney had a better starting position: He is a fiery, motivated challenger who has everything to win and nothing to lose. Obama has been a president for four years now, he knows what he is talking about, and I dare say he is a bit tired, especially because the time since the 2010 elections must have been hell for him.
Thing is, when it comes to contents, there were a lot of things Romney said I didn't like, there were a lot of things he said I really didn't like, and there were a number of points I agree with. As expected, I found myself agreeing mostly with Obama, although there were a few things he said I didn't like. But one thing really struck me: I didn't really see any major difference between the two candidates. Romney couldn't convince me that his medicare plan is so fundamentally different from Obamacare - despite the fact that both spent most of the time talking about it! Neither candidate could convince me that their respective tax plan was the only way to go to create new jobs. Obama couldn't convince me that Romney's educational policy was inferior to what he has in mind. I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt on the latter point, because I live in a country myself that has educational policy ruled on state level, and I still haven't made up my mind whether I think this is good or bad. I believe Romney if he says that MA has the best schools of the country. I don't know how much of this is his doing. But what I do know is that I would prefer to see every state in the US having the same quality education as MA does.
The dealbreaker for me, I guess, are two points that were dealt with rather secondary. First, Romney's statements about energy. He wants to drill for oil in Alaska, build pipelines through Canada and support coal power. No way. I see the future of our respective countries in technological competition. America has always been great at it, and Germany has never had any other fundamental resource. That's the way of the future, helping the environment and creating new jobs. Unfortunately, Germany is selling out all its academic capacities as we speak, so I guess America will be on its own there.
The second one is Romney's statement about military spending. How much more to the teeth do you want to arm this planet? It's obvious that if America starts the arms race, China is going to follow suit. Russia too, probably. Obama had the balls four years ago to speak of arms reduction, and this lunatic wants a new cold war! It's quite telling that Bush, probably the greatest hawk the US has ever seen, has stirred a lot of shit with no idea of either knowing what he's doing, or how to end it, and Obama drew most of those conflicts to a - whisper it - successful close. Remember how in 2006, everybody was talking about the grand failure of the US in Iraq, and how Obama somehow managed to actually win the war? Despite not supporting it in the first place?
I understand that the US want to show off their power in the world, and that the military actually creates a shitload of jobs, but there really has to be a way other than bringing our species to the brink of extinction... again!
Thing is, when it comes to contents, there were a lot of things Romney said I didn't like, there were a lot of things he said I really didn't like, and there were a number of points I agree with. As expected, I found myself agreeing mostly with Obama, although there were a few things he said I didn't like. But one thing really struck me: I didn't really see any major difference between the two candidates. Romney couldn't convince me that his medicare plan is so fundamentally different from Obamacare - despite the fact that both spent most of the time talking about it! Neither candidate could convince me that their respective tax plan was the only way to go to create new jobs. Obama couldn't convince me that Romney's educational policy was inferior to what he has in mind. I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt on the latter point, because I live in a country myself that has educational policy ruled on state level, and I still haven't made up my mind whether I think this is good or bad. I believe Romney if he says that MA has the best schools of the country. I don't know how much of this is his doing. But what I do know is that I would prefer to see every state in the US having the same quality education as MA does.
The dealbreaker for me, I guess, are two points that were dealt with rather secondary. First, Romney's statements about energy. He wants to drill for oil in Alaska, build pipelines through Canada and support coal power. No way. I see the future of our respective countries in technological competition. America has always been great at it, and Germany has never had any other fundamental resource. That's the way of the future, helping the environment and creating new jobs. Unfortunately, Germany is selling out all its academic capacities as we speak, so I guess America will be on its own there.
The second one is Romney's statement about military spending. How much more to the teeth do you want to arm this planet? It's obvious that if America starts the arms race, China is going to follow suit. Russia too, probably. Obama had the balls four years ago to speak of arms reduction, and this lunatic wants a new cold war! It's quite telling that Bush, probably the greatest hawk the US has ever seen, has stirred a lot of shit with no idea of either knowing what he's doing, or how to end it, and Obama drew most of those conflicts to a - whisper it - successful close. Remember how in 2006, everybody was talking about the grand failure of the US in Iraq, and how Obama somehow managed to actually win the war? Despite not supporting it in the first place?
I understand that the US want to show off their power in the world, and that the military actually creates a shitload of jobs, but there really has to be a way other than bringing our species to the brink of extinction... again!
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
67.2 million Americans watched the debate, a 28% increase over the first debate of 2008.
Also, Al Gore stikes again, he claimed the altitude was to blame for Obama's performance. I am going to Denver Saturday for a short vacation. I'll have to see if my debating skills with my wife diminish after we land
Also, Al Gore stikes again, he claimed the altitude was to blame for Obama's performance. I am going to Denver Saturday for a short vacation. I'll have to see if my debating skills with my wife diminish after we land
We Ask America and Rasmussen are both leaning right, and those polls were taken before the debate. It won't be until Tuesday that we see post-debate polls.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
You hear that quite a bit about Rasmussen, but in 2008 they were (along with Pew) the closest to the actual margin.
Unemployment down is good for the country for sure, but it is still worth noting that even with this drop, it is now exactly the same as when Obama took office. We spent tons of money on a program that was sold as getting unemplyment down into the low 5% range.
Also those new polls were from yesterday, so they are post debate.
Unemployment down is good for the country for sure, but it is still worth noting that even with this drop, it is now exactly the same as when Obama took office. We spent tons of money on a program that was sold as getting unemplyment down into the low 5% range.
Also those new polls were from yesterday, so they are post debate.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Yeah, they are as of now. Obama will have a much tougher time in these debates than in 2008 ... Romney is better than McCain and he has to defend his own record. In this last debate, he sounded like he was trying to be part of the Clinton Administration. Next debate will be Foreign Policy, where he will have to come up with something better than "We killed bin Laden"
Polls take a lot longer than 1 day to do. They're usually done over 3 days, that's why it takes awhile for the results to show up.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
My dealbreakers would be:
1. Healthcare, a more fair tax division. More honest than the Reps want.
2. Trust. I don't trust Romney. Romney has lied his ass of coming this far. He's said some very asocial things. So has Ryan.
Yes, it'd be better if Obama could have handled the following in the debate (hopefully the next), since that's more important nowadays, but why not read what the Dems say about the content of Romney's input. Launched on Obama site (links to media included):
Foregoing the facts
October 3, 2012
President Obama and Mitt Romney met in Denver, Colorado, for the first debate. President Obama laid out a clear, achievable plan to move the country forward and create millions of jobs. What did Mitt Romney do? He launched another round of the same false, already-debunked attacks—his tried and true tactic to mislead voters about his plan to double-down on the failed policies of the past.
Take a look at how fact-checkers and reporters graded Romney’s ability to tell the truth about the issues that are important to the middle class in the first debate:
Taxes
Romney claimed that he could balance the deficit and cut $5 trillion in tax cuts weighted toward the wealthy without raising taxes on the wealthy. The Los Angeles Times’s verdict:
Romney incorrectly insisted that we can expect trillion dollar deficits if the President is re-elected. But as the Washington Post points out, “Romney needs to spend a little more time with his budget reports.” Here are the details Romney failed to mention:
Romney revived a well-known falsehood about Obamacare, erroneously claiming that President Obama’s health care law creates a board that will somehow decide what kind of treatments patients can get. As the Los Angeles Times notes, this attack has been “debunked consistently by independent fact-checkers.” Here are the facts about what the board actually does:
1. Healthcare, a more fair tax division. More honest than the Reps want.
2. Trust. I don't trust Romney. Romney has lied his ass of coming this far. He's said some very asocial things. So has Ryan.
Yes, it'd be better if Obama could have handled the following in the debate (hopefully the next), since that's more important nowadays, but why not read what the Dems say about the content of Romney's input. Launched on Obama site (links to media included):
Foregoing the facts
October 3, 2012
President Obama and Mitt Romney met in Denver, Colorado, for the first debate. President Obama laid out a clear, achievable plan to move the country forward and create millions of jobs. What did Mitt Romney do? He launched another round of the same false, already-debunked attacks—his tried and true tactic to mislead voters about his plan to double-down on the failed policies of the past.
Take a look at how fact-checkers and reporters graded Romney’s ability to tell the truth about the issues that are important to the middle class in the first debate:
Taxes
Romney claimed that he could balance the deficit and cut $5 trillion in tax cuts weighted toward the wealthy without raising taxes on the wealthy. The Los Angeles Times’s verdict:
The gap would need to be filled by closing loopholes for those at lower ends of the income scale, those earning less than $200,000. Estimates say those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would be significantly hit.
Also, the report said the trade-off between lower rates and loopholes would benefit higher-income households, which would see their overall tax burden go down while middle- and lower-income households would see their taxes rise.
The deficitRomney incorrectly insisted that we can expect trillion dollar deficits if the President is re-elected. But as the Washington Post points out, “Romney needs to spend a little more time with his budget reports.” Here are the details Romney failed to mention:
Government spending eats up nowhere near 42 percent of the national economy, as Romney claimed. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says outlays are on track to fall to about 23 percent of gross domestic product this year, down from about 24 percent of GDP in 2011.
Health careRomney revived a well-known falsehood about Obamacare, erroneously claiming that President Obama’s health care law creates a board that will somehow decide what kind of treatments patients can get. As the Los Angeles Times notes, this attack has been “debunked consistently by independent fact-checkers.” Here are the facts about what the board actually does:
The board—known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board—was set up to recommend ways to reduce Medicare spending if it increases too rapidly.
The panel of independent experts is empowered to suggest cuts to how much the federal government pays healthcare providers. These cuts would go into effect unless Congress votes to overturn them.
But the panel is explicitly prohibited from cutting benefits for people on Medicare.
As CNN’s David Gergen noted, Romney got through the first debate by “flat-out lying.” But voters will not decide who they’ll stand by based on attack lines and blatant falsehoods—they will choose the candidate that has the clear, achievable plan to build an economy based on a strong middle class.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that still OUTRAGEOUS??
No, they were last balanced under Bush, but he evaporated the surplus with tax cuts and wars.
Budgets are set at the end of FY usually, but Bush carried a surplus through his first full year and some.