đź”· Open Thread

The debate looked to me like a draw, with neither candidate scoring especially effective points.
 
Mitt Romney clearly won. And by won, I mean was appealing to swing voters who were looking for someone who sounded like they knew they were talking about. Romney sounded calm, cool, collected. That's all it takes to win, doesn't matter if he lied, made anything up, or has no intention of going by what he says.
 
I'd imagine that when a president is running for a second term, any president, the advantage has to go a little bit to the challenger. All the challenger is focusing on , or at least in this case, is campaigning while the incumbent president is both campaigning and running a country.
 
datadyne007 said:
The 5-minute speech that Obama just gave about an hour ago to the crowd in Denver was better than the entire debate performance. Where the HELL was that Obama? Last night was an absolute disaster.
Click to expand...

Without TOTUS he's just another middling asshole politician, who from the looks of it has a real bitch for a wife ...

r620-f366f40a01a5917f4c85c3c187874318.jpg


dat be da honky who be takin' my jet away?
 
If Romney was spewing off a lie every three minutes of the debate then where was your boy Obama to call him on it?
 
kmp1284 said:
If Romney was spewing off a lie every three minutes of the debate then where was your boy Obama to call him on it?
Click to expand...

He wasn't there. We're still trying to figure out where he was. I honestly believe he was in shock and was blindsided from all the severe policy changes that Romney was spewing last night.

Obama's miserable loss actually falls in line with history though. 5 (6 with Obama) of the 6 (7) incumbent presidents since 1976 have lost the first debate. 3 went on to win and 3 went on to lose the election. The only incumbent to win the first debate was of course Clinton in 1996.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#49296606
Very interesting analysis!
 
Interesting, except this time Romney's going to clean his clock twice more in the debates, and come November 6 around 10pm will be declared the 45th president-elect of the United States after unexpected victories in New Jersey and Connecticut in addition to substantial victories in the "swing states" of Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.
 
kmp1284 said:
Interesting except this time Romney's going to clean his clock twice more in the debates, and come November 6 around 10pm will be declared the 45th president-elect of the United States after unexpected victories in New Jersey and Connecticut in addition to substantial victories in the "swing states" of Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're serious.

As someone who hates both candidates equally, I think Obama has got this. As someone who talks with alot of people who hate both candidates equally, they all (or most) agree that Obama has got this. My grandfather who is die hard for Romney this year thinks Obama is probably going to win.

Unless things change, and I mean more than just this debate, then I can't see Romney winning...
 
If Romney continues this illusion of walking on this dead-center path then he very well could win. A lot of Americans don't care about facts at all. Most care about stupid things like if the candidate smiles or looks at the camera and not policy.
 
Sort of serious, I fully believe that Romney will win. I think it's a very real possibility that Romney could pull off New Jersey. Christie is hugely popular and there's an awful lot of money there. Earned money isn't going for Obama this time around. Connecticut would be nice but there are probably just enough fuck-ups and elderly around the cities to swing the state for Obama but it will be close, probably within five points. I'd say the same about MA. Do away with the Brocktons, Lowells, etc. and Romney would win hands down.

Virtually everyone I associate with is for Romney, including a lot of people who four years ago were for Obama either on his perceived merits or a sense of obligation to vote for the black guy.
 
Do away with the Brocktons, Lowells, etc. and Romney would win [MA] hands down.
Click to expand...

Only if your "etc." also includes Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Arlington, Brookline, Newton, Sharon, Amherst, Northampton, Great Barrington, ...
 
Yup, just eliminate all the poor, immigrant, and elderly areas (the 47%) and your red fantasy comes true. Your party's already trying to do this with all the horrific disenfranchisement and scare tactics going on. Luckily MA has consistently had Romney losing by a margin of over 20% (23 right now, often as high as 30). There's a reason we don't want him back.

Btw, this morning another shocker from the Romney campaign happened: Romney pulled a 180 and apologized for the 47% comment saying "I was completely wrong." It took 17 DAYS, after initially refusing to apologize after it happened AND Paul Ryan backed him up by accusing 30% of Americans of "not wanting the American dream."

The whole nation was taken for the most ridiculous ride over the past year. Romney campaigns on ridiculous extremist platforms and then a few weeks before the election changes to look like a moderate. It's a brilliantly orchestrated scam.
 
I'll refrain from including the elderly in this as a good number of them have paid their dues so to speak, but besides being reliably Democractic voting blocs, what value do the poor and the immigrants really provide in this country? Other than 'color' and diversity what are they good for? Most don't pay taxes and if they had any worthwhile skills, abilities or even a work ethic and some self-respect they wouldn't be sitting at home cashing a check every month or be out slinging drugs or working some sketchy under the table landscaping job. Basically what I'm getting at is if you don't have any ownership in this country - if you don't contribute anything or pay taxes, if you are not invested - what place do you deserve in the electoral process?
 
kmp1284 said:
dat be da honky who be takin' my jet away?
Click to expand...

What an insightful comment.

What value do the poor and the immigrants really provide in this country? Other than 'color' and diversity what are they good for? Most don't pay taxes and if they had any worthwhile skills, abilities or even a work ethic and some self-respect they wouldn't be sitting at home cashing a check every month or be out slinging drugs or working some sketchy under the table landscaping job.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see your cites on this.

Basically what I'm getting at is if you don't have any ownership in this country - if you don't contribute anything or pay taxes, if you are not invested - what place do you deserve in the electoral process?
Click to expand...

Not paying taxes gets you kicked out? Wait, I thought right wingers LIKED corporations?!
 
Honesty, anyone who is voting for Romney because of his tax plan needs to take himself out of the mountain and take an economic course.

This isn't about Democrat or Republican, this is about simple math logic. I was watching the debate and I am at awe how someone with a business background is laying out a plan to cut taxes, increase spending, and then with a straight face, says he won't increase the deficit.

If you cut taxes, your revenue drops and the deficit will grow. If you increase spending, your deficit will grow. You can eliminate all the loopholes all you want (which I think is complete bullcrap because Romney is doing everything to benefit large corporation which loopholes tend to help) but it won't make enough of a dent to lower the deficit.
 
kmp1284 said:
I'll refrain from including the elderly in this as a good number of them have paid their dues so to speak, but besides being reliably Democractic voting blocs, what value do the poor and the immigrants really provide in this country? Other than 'color' and diversity what are they good for? Most don't pay taxes and if they had any worthwhile skills, abilities or even a work ethic and some self-respect they wouldn't be sitting at home cashing a check every month or be out slinging drugs or working some sketchy under the table landscaping job. Basically what I'm getting at is if you don't have any ownership in this country - if you don't contribute anything or pay taxes, if you are not invested - what place do you deserve in the electoral process?
Click to expand...

Well you better hope you have a full native american heritage because otherwise, you need to ask your ancestors what the hell they were good for. Producing a descendant who would generalize all the poor and immigrant as a waste of space?

I'm guessing Albert Einstein has no value to you. The problem is most first generation immigrants come into the country as poor and older people who do not have the time or opportunity to go to school and better themselves. Their second generation or third generation, however, do and many of them do make themselves better. Those that don't, you may criticize them but the bunch them together is wrong.

But if you speak in such a cocky, my "people" is better than the rest of you tone, then let me humble you. Asians have the highest household and individual median income and have the highest percentage of people who hold degrees from higher education than any other race. And guess what, they are of color and they all recently came from immigrants.

But you don't see us saying, the rest of you guys suck and should just disappear.

Oh and you don't need to pay taxes to contribute to the country. The fact that you have money somehow, whether under the table or not, and are using it to spend means that someone is getting his income from that expenditure. Take out all the immigrants and poor, where does your demand go? I'll tell you. They go with the poor and the immigrants. Where do all the jobs go? They disappear and people like you kmp, will become the new poor as demand disappears and nobody needs your services anymore.
 
kmp1284 said:
Most don't pay taxes and if they had any worthwhile skills, abilities or even a work ethic and some self-respect they wouldn't be sitting at home cashing a check every month or be out slinging drugs or working some sketchy under the table landscaping job.
Click to expand...

Don't want to get in a obama/romney debate, but sounds like you lay out a no win situation for people that are poor. They either collect a check every month and do nothing or they have a job is sketchy and doesn't count? You just need to be straight about it and say you don't like poor people.
 
choo said:
Don't want to get in a obama/romney debate, but sounds like you lay out a no win situation for people that are poor. They either collect a check every month and do nothing or they have a job is sketchy and doesn't count? You just need to be straight about it and say you don't like poor people.
Click to expand...

Ah now I know why he sounds familiar.

Kmp is actually Herman Cain!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top