• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2012 Debates

DavidJames said:
Romney has effectively taken the 47% issue off the table last night as he said he was "completely wrong" about those comments
Click to expand...

It's so cute the way people apologize for their remarks after they realize they've been caught and people are pissed off at them. Mel Gibson, Kramer, Leona Helmsley, Rosie O'Donnell. They all said awful things, apologized, and were completely forgiven by an understanding public. Because that's what the public is, full of niceness and forgiveness.
 
For me the debate was a wash, not a tie exactly.

I would have to see logical arguments presented and defeated to call a "winner" in a debate. Romney seemed manic or hyperactive and Obama appeared merely bemused by Romney's claims. Romney clearly dominated the stage, but for me that does not constitute a "win". Romney's smirk and head tilting is very likely a "tic", and Obama's stuttering is equally annoying but also not something he can easily avoid. If one becomes conscious of politicians' appearance in general, you will find that many of them have "pasted on" smiles. The public sees this as friendly.

I agree that initially I thought Obama should have done a little more to shoot down Romney's easily falsified claims, but when I listened to the debate again, I see that he actually did more than I had at first thought in that regard. He was interrupted often by Romney (reminding me of the O'Reilly interview) and by the moderator, and he pretty much acquiesced to all of their intrusions. A fair minded viewer would see Romney's behavior as juvenile and rude.

I was reminded of the problems that an atheist has trying to debate a seasoned creationist. Fast talking, Gish Gallop, lies, smiling inappropriately, bullying the moderator, etc. is how I viewed Romney, and very little content that was true. I think Obama may have been caught off guard by Romney's shifts in positions.
 
This was one of my favorite moments in the debate.

ROMNEY: And the answer is neither the president nor I are proposing any changes for any current retirees or near retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you're 60 or around 60 or older, you don't need to listen any further.

OBAMA: And the essence of the plan is that you would turn Medicare into a voucher program. It's called premium support, but it's understood to be a voucher program. His running mate...
LEHRER: And you don't support that?
OBAMA: I don't. And let me explain why.
ROMNEY: Again, that's for future...
OBAMA: I understand.
ROMNEY: ... people, right, not for current retirees.
OBAMA: For -- so if you're -- if you're 54 or 55, you might want to listen 'cause this -- this will affect you.

Romney was basically trying to appeal to current/near retirees. Such an idiotic remark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g6Vj058tXQ

it's at around 43:30 if you want to watch it.
 
Did anyone else notice during the list of taxes Romney's anecdotal businessman had to pay he listed sales tax?

Sales tax money was never his to begin with, it's not coming out of his pocket and is not an expense. He's essentially an agent collecting it for the state at point of sale.
 
SkepticalDrew said:
This was one of my favorite moments in the debate.
Click to expand...

For me, it was this moment. Romney had criticized Obama for not jumping onto Simpson-Bowles (though IIRC, Obama and Boehner were working on a very similar compromise at the time):

MR. LEHRER: Governor, what about Simpson-Bowles. Will you support Simpson-Bowles?

MR. ROMNEY: Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that.

MR. LEHRER: No, I mean do you support Simpson-Bowles?

MR. ROMNEY: I have my own plan. It’s not the same as Simpson- Bowles. But in my view, the president should have grabbed it. If you wanted to make some adjustments to it, take it, go to Congress, fight for it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That’s what we’ve done, made some adjustments to it; and we’re putting it forward before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan, (a balanced ?) --

MR. ROMNEY: But you’ve been -- but you’ve been president four years. You’ve been president four years.
Click to expand...

So Romney thinks Obama should have supported Simpson-Bowles, but he won't say whether or not he himself supports Simpson-Bowles. (And that's being generous. I think it's clear he does not.)

[ETA: And I have no idea what the relevance of Obama's having been president for nearly 4 years now. He most certainly hasn't been president for 4 years since the Simpson-Bowles commission. They convened in 2010 and issued their recommendation in December of 2010.]
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Too late, Mitt. People have already seen his true colors.

Nice flip-flop, though.
Click to expand...
I would love to see an extended Obama ad documenting Romney's blatant flip flopping over the past 6 months.

I would also like to see some Tea Party people interviewed regarding his latest charade of ideas.
 
Alareth said:
Did anyone else notice during the list of taxes Romney's anecdotal businessman had to pay he listed sales tax?

Sales tax money was never his to begin with, it's not coming out of his pocket and is not an expense. He's essentially an agent collecting it for the state at point of sale.
Click to expand...

Not legally but you would be surprised how many mom and pop cash businesses treat it as their own.
 
DavidJames said:
I would love to see an extended Obama ad documenting Romney's blatant flip flopping over the past 6 months.
Click to expand...

It would be an easy one to make.

Start off with his campaign guy's "etch-a-sketch" remark from late in the primaries.

Then do a series of before and after clips shown framed on an Etch-a-Sketch with hands shaking to erase it between each before and after flip flop.

Even if there's no video, you can have the quoted text drawn on the Etch-a-Sketch.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
For me, it was this moment. Romney had criticized Obama for not jumping onto Simpson-Bowles (though IIRC, Obama and Boehner were working on a very similar compromise at the time):



So Romney thinks Obama should have supported Simpson-Bowles, but he won't say whether or not he himself supports Simpson-Bowles. (And that's being generous. I think it's clear he does not.)

[ETA: And I have no idea what the relevance of Obama's having been president for nearly 4 years now. He most certainly hasn't been president for 4 years since the Simpson-Bowles commission. They convened in 2010 and issued their recommendation in December of 2010.]
Click to expand...

I suspect his strategy was to at some point mention you have had four years and this seemed like a good time to him.
 
SkepticalDrew said:
This is an oldie but a goodie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g
Click to expand...
There are few if any fundamental principles this guy stands for. I think the most pathetic example is his flip-flop on preexisting conditions. He said he would keep that in his plan but hours later his staff said it wasn't true.

I couldn't honestly tell you what this guy is for other than, "whatever you want him to be for".
 
eeyore1954 said:
I suspect his strategy was to at some point mention you have had four years and this seemed like a good time to him.
Click to expand...

Probably. And shoehorning canned "responses" to questions on other topics is pretty common in this sort of thing, but this came when Lehrer repeated a yes/no question to him (pointing out that he had evaded answering).

(Tangent: I really like Clinton's method of dealing with questions like this. He'd answer in one breath, "No, and let me tell you why." No one could take the "No" without the explanation without obviously lifting something out of context. Trouble is, there can be no good explanation for Romney saying "no" when he kept saying Obama should have supported it.)

I wonder if he also realizes that his running mate sat on that Commission (created by President Obama) and himself voted against its recommendations.

It just seems really strange for Romney then to say during this debate that Obama should have glommed onto Simpson-Bowles. It's almost as if he wants to rewrite history.
 
RandFan said:
There are few if any fundamental principles this guy stands for. I think the most pathetic example is his flip-flop on preexisting conditions. He said he would keep that in his plan but hours later his staff said it wasn't true.

I couldn't honestly tell you what this guy is for other than, "whatever you want him to be for".
Click to expand...

I think he may be a nihilist. :D
 
At one point during the debate, Romney dodged a question by talking about working across the isle to find solutions. While negotiating can be a good thing, shouldn't a candidate for high office be able to outline a proposal for starting negotiations?

ETA: I only heard a small part of the debate, did Romney do this more than once?
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
Not legally but you would be surprised how many mom and pop cash businesses treat it as their own.
Click to expand...

I can vouch for that. When I first opened my coffee shop I treated it like extra income but then on the 20th each month you have to start mailing checks and it can cause problems. Found its much much smarter to deposit sales tax into a separate account and only use it if you have to. I certainly don't consider it a part of paying my own or my business' taxes. I think of it as something nice I do for the state because that makes writing those checks a little easier.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom