RE: Presidential Debate

Who do you think will be elected?

Barack Obama	82.1%	[ 23 ]
Mitt Romney	17.9%	[ 5 ]
Total Votes:			[ 28 ]

[X Better Luck Next Time X]

So I didn't get a chance to watch the entire debate, but from what I did see, I took note of a few things.

First of all, President Obama claims that Governor Romney is going to cut taxes by $5 trillion. Yes. Mitt Romney is fully capable of cutting taxes that exceed our national deficit by $4.1 trillion. Where are these tax cuts taking place? The EU? Our taxes only add up to $2.3 trillion. Obama is either lying to the face of the United States, or he's pulling extremely high numbers out of his a**.

Also, I understand Romney was very unclear about quite a few of his plans, but I also noticed Obama was struggling to counter quite a few of Governor Romney's points. I think both candidates have some good points on their sides, but I do agree that while President Obama has been in the Oval Office, we have had 43 months of unemployment. President Obama has been in office since January of 2008. If I'm not mistaken, that's about 46 months. Despite everything the president has put forth, we have not seen a change in the economy for the better.

Anyway, your thoughts on the debate? How do you think each side performed?

Please respect the opinions of others. I will not tolerate rude remarks in my thread. You have been warned.

[vine leash]

I don't really know. I feel kind of braindead after watching it.

I certainly feel that Romney ought to be elected, though. Obama's had his chance, and his ideas for the economy aren't doing any good. Obama made one point that some number of jobs were created under his presidency, but Romney pointed out that those jobs were created in the private sector, not by the federal government.

[Lord of the Vine]

xosowneb

I don't really know. I feel kind of braindead after watching it.

I certainly feel that Romney ought to be elected, though. Obama's had his chance, and his ideas for the economy aren't doing any good. Obama made one point that some number of jobs were created under his presidency, but Romney pointed out that those jobs were created in the private sector, not by the federal government.

To be fair, a lot of those ideas went through a legislative branch that cares more about mafia-esque family wars than actually getting their s**t together. So it isn't really surprising to see that those ideas didn't come to fruition.

[X Better Luck Next Time X]

xosowneb

Indeed. I also think that if we were to cut this "Obamacare," we could focus the money we're not spending on that, to help improve our private sector insurance, and help to lower insurance costs for middle and lower income families. We wouldn't have a need to cut medicare.

I think that Obama is basing his campaign more on idealism versus hard facts, which is what Romney is doing. While facts may not sound as desirable, they work. Idealism does not, and never has worked. If we want to go forward, we have to look backward. If we can't understand how our country has pulled through an economic recession in the past, we can't pull through one now. No about of saying "this is a good idea, let's try it and see if it works" is going to help. We take what we know works, and we go with that.

[vine leash]

Dion Necurat

xosowneb

I don't really know. I feel kind of braindead after watching it.

I certainly feel that Romney ought to be elected, though. Obama's had his chance, and his ideas for the economy aren't doing any good. Obama made one point that some number of jobs were created under his presidency, but Romney pointed out that those jobs were created in the private sector, not by the federal government.

To be fair, a lot of those ideas went through a legislative branch that cares more about mafia-esque family wars than actually getting their s**t together. So it isn't really surprising to see that those ideas didn't come to fruition.

I hear that a lot. Many die-hard Obama supporters say things like this, and also say that Romney shouldn't attack Obama about his not getting anything done because of this. Yet, they turn around and defend Obama, saying he couldn't get anything done because of how he was set up for failure by the Bush administration.

If the excuse is that the legislative branch only cares about mafia-esque family wars, then what good is four more years of that going to do?

[Steam Punk Adept]

Dion Necurat

xosowneb

I don't really know. I feel kind of braindead after watching it.

I certainly feel that Romney ought to be elected, though. Obama's had his chance, and his ideas for the economy aren't doing any good. Obama made one point that some number of jobs were created under his presidency, but Romney pointed out that those jobs were created in the private sector, not by the federal government.

To be fair, a lot of those ideas went through a legislative branch that cares more about mafia-esque family wars than actually getting their s**t together. So it isn't really surprising to see that those ideas didn't come to fruition.

That, and many of them had to go through a Republican run House that refused to let ANY Obama supported bill through

[X Better Luck Next Time X]

Dion Necurat

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying the representatives who worked with those ideas were more concerned about their own well being than the well being of the majority population? I don't think that's really the issue here, and that statement alone should not be used in any sort of debate, because there's no factual evidence in it. What were these ideas? What were the pros and cons of each? Who voted for and against them, and why do they feel their vote was the better choice? How did they weigh the cost-to-benefit ratio?

[Steam Punk Adept]

xosowneb

Dion Necurat

xosowneb

I don't really know. I feel kind of braindead after watching it.

I certainly feel that Romney ought to be elected, though. Obama's had his chance, and his ideas for the economy aren't doing any good. Obama made one point that some number of jobs were created under his presidency, but Romney pointed out that those jobs were created in the private sector, not by the federal government.

To be fair, a lot of those ideas went through a legislative branch that cares more about mafia-esque family wars than actually getting their s**t together. So it isn't really surprising to see that those ideas didn't come to fruition.

I hear that a lot. Many die-hard Obama supporters say things like this, and also say that Romney shouldn't attack Obama about his not getting anything done because of this. Yet, they turn around and defend Obama, saying he couldn't get anything done because of how he was set up for failure by the Bush administration.

If the excuse is that the legislative branch only cares about mafia-esque family wars, then what good is four more years of that going to do?

Actually, Obama couldn't get anything done after the mid terms because of a hostile Republican controlled House that refused to let any bill pass if Obama supported it.

[X Better Luck Next Time X]

xosowneb

I also feel that regardless of what happened during former president Bush's terms, Obama should be able to take the necessary steps to assure we make a full economic recovery. Saying "it's not our fault, we couldn't help it" is not something you look for in a leader of a country like ours. If something needs to be done, you get it done

[vine leash]

Steam Punk Adept

xosowneb

Dion Necurat

xosowneb

I don't really know. I feel kind of braindead after watching it.

I certainly feel that Romney ought to be elected, though. Obama's had his chance, and his ideas for the economy aren't doing any good. Obama made one point that some number of jobs were created under his presidency, but Romney pointed out that those jobs were created in the private sector, not by the federal government.

To be fair, a lot of those ideas went through a legislative branch that cares more about mafia-esque family wars than actually getting their s**t together. So it isn't really surprising to see that those ideas didn't come to fruition.

I hear that a lot. Many die-hard Obama supporters say things like this, and also say that Romney shouldn't attack Obama about his not getting anything done because of this. Yet, they turn around and defend Obama, saying he couldn't get anything done because of how he was set up for failure by the Bush administration.

If the excuse is that the legislative branch only cares about mafia-esque family wars, then what good is four more years of that going to do?

Actually, Obama couldn't get anything done after the mid terms because of a hostile Republican controlled House that refused to let any bill pass if Obama supported it.

That's what he was referring to as a "legislative branch that cares more about mafia-esque family wars . . .", the House (at least that's my understanding).

Again, what is four more years of Obama being president going to get done, since the Republicans will still be controlling the legislative branch?

[Steam Punk Adept]

xosowneb

Steam Punk Adept

xosowneb

Dion Necurat

xosowneb

I don't really know. I feel kind of braindead after watching it.

I certainly feel that Romney ought to be elected, though. Obama's had his chance, and his ideas for the economy aren't doing any good. Obama made one point that some number of jobs were created under his presidency, but Romney pointed out that those jobs were created in the private sector, not by the federal government.

To be fair, a lot of those ideas went through a legislative branch that cares more about mafia-esque family wars than actually getting their s**t together. So it isn't really surprising to see that those ideas didn't come to fruition.

I hear that a lot. Many die-hard Obama supporters say things like this, and also say that Romney shouldn't attack Obama about his not getting anything done because of this. Yet, they turn around and defend Obama, saying he couldn't get anything done because of how he was set up for failure by the Bush administration.

If the excuse is that the legislative branch only cares about mafia-esque family wars, then what good is four more years of that going to do?

Actually, Obama couldn't get anything done after the mid terms because of a hostile Republican controlled House that refused to let any bill pass if Obama supported it.

That's what he was referring to as a "legislative branch that cares more about mafia-esque family wars . . .", the House (at least that's my understanding).

Again, what is four more years of Obama being president going to get done, since the Republicans will still be controlling the legislative branch?

You assume they won't get voted out of the House

[X Better Luck Next Time X]

Steam Punk Adept

Obama couldn't get anything done after the mid terms because of a hostile Republican controlled House that refused to let any bill pass if Obama supported it.

Can you provide proof of this statement? These are biased claims made by the democratic party to "soil" per say, the republican party's campaign. These statements have no value, and should not be considered from either party, unless there is solid evidence that this was indeed the case, and the support of President Obama was indeed the primary factor in why these bills were not enacted.

[Lord of the Vine]

Eye Laws Dug Aim

Dion Necurat

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying the representatives who worked with those ideas were more concerned about their own well being than the well being of the majority population? I don't think that's really the issue here, and that statement alone should not be used in any sort of debate, because there's no factual evidence in it. What were these ideas? What were the pros and cons of each? Who voted for and against them, and why do they feel their vote was the better choice? How did they weigh the cost-to-benefit ratio?

I'm saying that in the last 2 years, we've been hearing nothing but "we're right, you're wrong" on both sides of the aisle.

[vine leash]

Steam Punk Adept

You assume they won't get voted out of the House

It's definitely not looking like they'll be voted out.

[X Better Luck Next Time X]

Dion Necurat

Are you surprised about that? Both sides are going to assume the chair of "perfection" per say, and the ideals of the other are 100% wrong, regardless of what they are. The republicans could say the world was round, and the democrats would disagree. The democrats could say 2+2=4, and the republicans would argue against it. We're comparing two parties with positions on the complete opposite sides of the spectrum. In order to move forward, we either need to find a middle ground where we can agree on something, or we need to sway the numbers in one side's favor. As xosowneb was saying, with a majority of the house being republican, electing Obama is only going to continue this gridlock for another four years, and for those four years, nothing is going to get done, and our economy will continue to shrink.