It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)First Presidential Debate(126 posts)(126 posts)
(126 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 05, 2012
avatar
ginsengsamurai: President Obama is playing the timid card in the debate way too much.
One explanation I heard is that, because of the "angry black man" video that resurfaced just before the debate, he was trying to distance himself from that image. Perhaps he became too distant. I didn't see a problem with his demeanour in that video but I am also not immersed in US culture so it's possible racial prejudices are stronger than I fully realize.
Posted October 05, 2012
avatar
ginsengsamurai: By the way, do you pronounce it Aloo Min Nium or Aloom Min Num?
Depends on how you spell it. The first is spelled aluminium, the other is spelled aluminum. They're both right, by the way, it's just a regional thing. Even the IUPAC doesn't really care.
Posted October 06, 2012
avatar
ginsengsamurai: One explanation I heard is that, because of the "angry black man" video that resurfaced just before the debate, he was trying to distance himself from that image. Perhaps he became too distant. I didn't see a problem with his demeanour in that video but I am also not immersed in US culture so it's possible racial prejudices are stronger than I fully realize.
That's a laughable suggestion. Obama was way out of his league and that was the only factor at play. He's never been held accountable by our media, never been challenged, and has never had any real solutions to America's challenges. He was therefore exposed accordingly during the debate. There was never hope of any outcome besides complete domination by Romney. If these excuses people keep dreaming up get any more pathetic Obama is going to lose the election for simply being represented as a detached, whiny adolescant.

avatar
ginsengsamurai: We had a similar discussion on my friend's FB page.

His post was: "Hey Mitt........You are full of shit!!"

My response was: Romney IS full of shit, but I have to say that President Obama is playing the timid card in the debate way too much. It's like Romney handed the debate a platter full of his BS, but Obama, instead of taking that platter of BS and throwing it back at Romney, he just steps to the side and gives a speech about bipartisanship and a sales pitch to the middle class.
Romney is full of shit? It wasn't Romney surrogates getting called out during post-debate interviews. Obama lied repeatedly throughout the debate, and one lie he told like a dozen times (the $5 trillion tax cut lie). It was very satisfying to see even left-tilting media sources like CNN holding the Obama campaign accountable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q0g8COdYcU0

Also, if you would, I am very interested to know why you consider Obama to be a "good man."
Post edited October 06, 2012 by tangledblue11
Posted October 06, 2012
It's funny how people still repeat "Romney's blatant lies". Don't you have post-debate experts and fact-checkers who point out every mistake and lie during the debate? And you want to say that none of the pro-democrate media hosts and experts who found Obama's lies and pointed them out easily, but it wasn't possible for Romney statements, but still he's a blatant liar?

Oh God, people, please... Use some political arguments instead of "he's a mormon" or "he's rich so he lies about everything" arguments in a debate. I beg you.
Post edited October 06, 2012 by keeveek
Posted October 06, 2012
avatar
Tarm: Hm. True. I guess most people only watch the first debate.

Here in Sweden it's different. The political parties is not reflecting what most Swedes want any more.
For example when people are asked about what they think are most important they constantly say Welfare (Health care, educational system, benefits for those that can't work or don't have jobs and so on.) and Jobs. We don't mind high taxes if our tax money go to that. Since the nineties no Swedish government have listened. All we hear from our politicians is that they say that they think those things and a balanced budget are important but what they really do is cut down on welfare and do some crazy experimental stuff about creating jobs which they seem to think is the most fun part of their job. Oh and experiment on the school system. That's the second most fun for them.

Yes they say they'll do things that'll make those things better so they tell a lot of tales. The truth is that if those things are to get better they have to start spending more on them and that's the one thing that they'll never do. The only thing they do is make sure the budget have a surplus and spend our tax money on other things.

All this is doing is making ordinary Swedes sick of the high taxes because they don't feel they are getting anything back from them. Absurdly enough this is starting to make people want lower taxes when the high taxes isn't the problem. It's politicians not doing what the people want.

Yeah there are political parties that truly do want to really change things but they aren't big enough to have a real say in the matter.

So we Swedes have started to not care. The percentage that's voting is falling fast which is making it even harder for the people to make its voice heard so the politicians listen even less. A vicious circle.

That's why I say my vote doesn't matter any more.

Now that USA will vote soon it would be interesting to know if my views are shared by someone from USA. Maybe we're not that different?
I'm sorry that I missed this and I also apologize for completely whiffing on your nationality. I don't think we're all that different. In a perfect world, I honestly wouldn't be as upset as I am in the real world about the various types of government or the manner of taxation they apply.

At the end of the day, most people just want to live pleasant, happy, reasonable lives. The problem - as you touched on - is that people are not angels nor are they infallible. This notion is the crux of American government. We cannot and should not trust that other men will do well for us especially when we are perfectly capable of doing well for ourselves.

America has endured circumstances just like you described in your own country; we have politicians who are detached from the reality of our nation. And, if you look at the recent polls, what Americans really want is for government to just get out of the way and let us live our lives. America is different from Sweden culturally. In a small country with a strong sense of civic pride a strong central government may not be a bad thing at all. Everyone kicks in, everyone contributes to the system.

Unfortunately, America is 1) very large, 2) very diverse, and 3) has a long-established culture of dependency. Moreover, we have a history of politicians enriching themselves in the name of populism (Barack Obama and Harry Reid are two cases in point). An overbearing central government doesn't work for us because it's too inefficient given the size of our nation and because it relies heavily on what we today call "makers" while an equally sized portion of "takers" don't contribute to the system.

Do not misunderstand me: makers vs. takers is not rich vs. poor. Many rich people and big corporations are takers under our system. That is a huge reason why I support Mitt Romney: if he can make everyone pay into the system - and reduce the burden for some of us who have been paying more than our fair share - he'll be a wonderful success in my eyes.
Post edited October 06, 2012 by tangledblue11
Posted October 06, 2012
avatar
tangledblue11: and reduce the burden for some of us who have been paying more than our fair share
Honest question: When you say "fair share", what do you consider your fair share?

I only ask because in my experience most Americans actually are not paying "their fair share" but they seem to believe they are. Depending how you wan to divide it up (per household, per person, or per working age person) it's actually quiet a bit higher than most people expect. I'm just talking Federal Income Tax here.
Posted October 06, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: Honest question: When you say "fair share", what do you consider your fair share?

I only ask because in my experience most Americans actually are not paying "their fair share" but they seem to believe they are. Depending how you wan to divide it up (per household, per person, or per working age person) it's actually quiet a bit higher than most people expect. I'm just talking Federal Income Tax here.
That is an awesome question. You and I would probably disagree on what a fair share looks like but I concede you are definitely right that many Americans are not paying that share.

To answer you directly, I don't have a number in mind. My bigger concern is that whatever that number may be, everyone pays it. If I were to pull a number out of thin air, I'd say 10-15%, but with caps on deductions as you go up the income brackets. The effective tax rate for a huge number of people (and corporations) has dropped over the past few decades. Surprisingly, only the highest earners have remained (mostly) consistent with what they're paying into the system. The lowest four quintiles continue to pay at a lower effective rate year after year. This is why I oppose additional "tax the wealthy" initiatives so strongly.

Here's a really cut and dry tax data resource from the CBO. You can sum up everything I said above with the very first table: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Post edited October 06, 2012 by tangledblue11
Posted October 06, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: Honest question: When you say "fair share", what do you consider your fair share?
For me, right now, it is, let me see... $141,118. I would like each tax paper to write a check for that, then we shoot any lawmaker that proposes a law that puts us over-budget. Heck, I am fairly well off, I'll write a check for twice that, given those conditions... fair? :)

And, when I say 'shot', I don't mean by firing squad. I mean someone with a hand-gun just face-shoots them dead on the spot. :P

Edit: And, yes, that was hyperbole. I just got back from a dinner where there was some rather feverish political debate going on.

My real opinion is that a flat tax (maybe 20% or 25%), with say, a $20k flat deduction for each taxpayer ($40K for married couples) should be 'fair'. No other deductions. No preferential rates for capital gains. Even if you use something (car, whatever) through your corporation, you pay taxes on it. On the flip side, corporations and businesses would be taxed at 0% (which should be fine, since they couldn't be used as a personal tax shelter). So, no loopholes, no double standards, just one rate with one simple deduction that applies to everyone.

Yeah, it isn't perfect, and issues such as small businesses worked out of a home would need to be addressed, but it is the direction I would go with it.
Post edited October 06, 2012 by Krypsyn
Posted October 07, 2012
Romney looked better in the debate, though he said nothing about how he would keep a 20% tax cut budget neutral other then pbs. Very little content overall and Romney sadly lied about quite a few things, cuts to medicare etc and confused me about positions he had in the primaries. Obama just looked tired/sad.

Obama was polling in Ohio +9% before the debate not sure where it is now but many have done early voting already. I plan on voting sometime next week. Ohio might be decided well before election day. Also the voter ID law in Pennsylvania and RNC funded but not orchestrated throwing out of democratic voter registrations in Florida might have evangelized groups they didn't want voting. I'd say it's still anyone's game but if I was a gambling man probably Obama.
Post edited October 07, 2012 by deavir
Posted October 07, 2012
avatar
deavir: Romney looked better in the debate, though he said nothing about how he would keep a 20% tax cut budget neutral other then pbs. Very little content overall and Romney sadly lied about quite a few things, cuts to medicare etc and confused me about positions he had in the primaries. Obama just looked tired/sad.

Obama was polling in Ohio +9% before the debate not sure where it is now but many have done early voting already. I plan on voting sometime next week. Ohio might be decided well before election day. Also the voter ID law in Pennsylvania and RNC funded but not orchestrated throwing out of democratic voter registrations in Florida might have evangelized groups they didn't want voting. I'd say it's still anyone's game but if I was a gambling man probably Obama.
Here's a report from a Princeton professor regarding Romney's plan: https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf. It is absolutely workable (Ryan has been pushing this tax code overhaul for years) and Obama was explicitly lying about the particulars of the plan during the debate.

Romney and Ryan have both suggested numerous deductions but you have to understand there are so many deductions floating around for special interests out there that they have to be extremely careful in mentioning them otherwise they're going to end up in an Obama campaign ad. Ryan said this himself. For example, if they choose to go after the mortage interest deduction, we're going to see a "Romney plans to raise taxes on the middle class" ad the very next day. Obama's campaign is comprised entirely of bloc voters and special interests so Romney/Ryan have to be cautious not to fire up any particular base. As a person who keeps up with this stuff consistently I have a very good idea of what deductions will be going away under President Romney.

Also, I thought I would point out that Ohio was never a 9 point race. That same poll showed Romney leading indepdendents by double digits which means the poll sample wasn't valid. Last weeks polls show either Obama +1 or Romney +1. Also, Republicans are currently at 105%+ of the ballot count from 2008, while Democrats are at 60%. Not good news for Obama.
Posted October 07, 2012
I'm watching the John Stewart vs. Bill O'Reilly debate from last night. It's 100x more interesting than the presidential debate.
Posted October 07, 2012
avatar
mondo84: I'm watching the John Stewart vs. Bill O'Reilly debate from last night. It's 100x more interesting than the presidential debate.
I've been a huge Stewart fan since college but not so much O'Reilly. I love how those two always partner up even though they disagree on so much. Still, I found the presidential debate way more interesting. It's easy to get on stage and debate unhinged opinions although maybe I just don't find it novel.
Posted October 07, 2012
Tangleblue11: I'm not going to bother debating with you. I just wanted to give my 2 cents.

I've spent probably a good 50-60 pages single spaced, font 11 typography on saying why Romney is full of shit and why President Obama IS a good man and why his policies are the best for the long term of the country.

I WILL VOTE for President Obama if I can. Unfortunately, I can't. I'm Canadian. Governor Romney can take his "I will abolish freedom of choice" and "give more to the rich" and "I do not believe in common sensibility in human equality" and shove it up his deep religious asshole. People like that won't make it far in a country like Canada. Yet Americans put up with shit like that. Seriously?

You should watch this, it of course dings Romney for his retardedness, but it also makes fun of President Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbXE6ZMDaqY&feature=plcp
Posted October 07, 2012
I have a lot to say when it comes to this election, especially with how things have been the past, 12 years since I've been eligible to vote. A lot of concerns that haven't been addressed by either party, and a lot of behavior that makes me hang my head in utter shame.

But I will touch on the big one. The people themselves. Maybe this has been going on for longer, maybe I've seen the world through the eyes of a child for longer than I should have...but I am amazed and dismayed by how people handle poltics. How fast they are to get into a rage, and feel downright hostile when in a debate with someone who isn't from their side. How they go to the facts that benefit them no matter what the source, and how they're so quick to take things to such an extreme that they blow by the current argument (It seems to be a personal favorite whenever the idea of gun control comes up).

I've seen the hostility here too. There's no calm reasoned debate (Oddly enough, I think some of the most reasonable comments have been coming from people OUTSIDE of the US), but plenty of vitrol. And I speak this way as an independent, with views that dance along the line of common sense instead of party loyalty.

I wish I could be something other than scared, but I think we might be past that point where I think things can be saved in that regard. We get pulled more and more by the extremes and it makes things worse, not better.
Posted October 07, 2012
While I hate the radical, narrow minded, greedy republican party with a passion, Romney slam dunked Obama.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)First Presidential Debate(126 posts)(126 posts)
(126 posts)