OutofDate1980

It appears Mr. Romney came prepared to the exam.

The Romney Hankie Conspiracy: Was It a Cheat Sheet?: Video - Bloomberg

RazorSharp

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says Barack Obama has 'doubled' the deficit - False

Straight up lie.

__________________
These teeth are razor sharp...
ROM: JDX 13.3
Kernel: leanKernel v6.3.1

A.Nonymous

Pew research poll shows Romney ahead of Obama after the debate. People seem to be seeing him as a guy who actually has answers and knows how to take command.

Poll Suggests Swing Toward Romney - ABC News

Gmash

Yes, he has answers for everything, usually two or three contradictory ones. Makes me sad for this country that they can't see through this guy.

__________________
"Machete don't text"

A.Nonymous

If it wasn't a handkerchief then he's wiping his face with his cheat sheet.

OutofDate1980

Not till closing. Waste not, want not.

Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

A separate video has confirmed for many that the item indeed was a handkerchief. Romney is seen wiping his face with it during the closing statements of the debate.

A.Nonymous

You're really not going to argue that Romney used a cheat sheet and then, to cover this up, wiped his face with it to make it look like it was a handkerchief. Please tell me you're not serious.

Gmash

Why would he need a cheat sheet to make stuff up out of thin air? The problem Obama had was he over estimated the intelligence of the American people, thinking they had actually been paying attention to what Romney had been saying the last 2-6 years he's been running for president.

A.Nonymous

Obama's record speaks for itself. It's not like he's pure as the driven snow with the truth himself. Truth is the victim of both parties sadly because the truth makes both parties look bad.

A.Nonymous

Anyone plan on watching the VP debate tonight? Sadly I've got someplace to be so I'll miss it. I'm unsure who to put money on. Both of these guys are a bit nutty.

NYCHitman1

Negative, but I think the next Presidential debate is at my alma mater in my neck of the woods coming up, which I'll likely go check out if I can get my hands on a ticket.

__________________
I talk to corporate like a BAWSS!

DEVICE ► SGS3 / Nexus 10
ROM ► RootBox / AOKP
KERNEL ► BMS / Trinity

ElasticNinja

Ah God, Biden's nutty? The man seems terribly normal.

__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!

A.Nonymous

Biden did recently state that if Romney was elected he would put people back in chains. This triggered a huge uproar from people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Oh wait. They said nothing. Can you imagine if Paul Ryan had said that? Anyway, regardless of who's saying it, it's a nutty thing to say. Biden has a history of saying ridiculously silly things like that. Maybe he believes them, maybe he doesn't. I dunno. Remember when Bush said all kinds of ridiculous things? The right chalked it up to him not being a good speaker and the left chalked it up to him just being stupid. Biden is worse than Bush in some way. Even money says he makes some sort of significant gaffe tonight. Obama has the potential to lose even more ground in the debate with Biden being out there. Of course this is off set by Ryan being at the other podium though so it's even money.

ElasticNinja

Biden says a lot of things off the cuff. A great man for the gaffes.

Ryan on the other hand seems to believe in his voodoo economics... he seems alright at the maths which is more than one can say Romney, but at least Romney doesn't really seem to believe in his economic ¨plan¨. What I find disturbing is that he is a policy wonk. He should have quite a solid knowledge of economics and the effect of taxation, legislation and spending on the economy.

A.Nonymous

I admit I'm just catching the very tail end of this, but why is Biden spending all of his time looking down? He's not looking at Ryan. He's not looking at the moderator. He's looking down. And he sounds bored.

OutofDate1980

It was in the context of Romney's plan to reverse the Wall Street reforms.

Romney campaign tripped by Biden’s ‘chains’ - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

"Press reports “included hundreds of black people,” and he warned the assembled that Romney wanted to do away with the post-2008 regulations on Wall Street. “Unchain Wall Street,” Biden said. “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.” Yeah, that was wince-worthy. It shall join all the others on the Biden blooper reel. But the high dudgeon of the Romney campaign is rather precious."

Gmash

No gaffes for Biden. Pretty entertaining debate. I thought Biden showed much deeper knowledge of the issues, which he should since he's been around forever, but Ryan had his answers well memorized and rehearsed. Don't think either one did much damage or changed many minds, both did pretty well.

A.Nonymous

The consensus seems to be that it was a draw. I didn't see it and would have to see the context, but Biden laughing at Ryan seems unprofessional to me. That's the perspective of a guy who didn't see it though.

A.Nonymous

Fact check of the debate - FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations

Apparently both guys are rather liberal with their interpretations of the facts.

copestag

well it says a lot when possibly the most liberal newspaper on the planet ... the NY Times...... described Biden's behaviour as "childish"

OutofDate1980

Well, Ryan can't separate his faith from his politics. Therefor his faith proscribes birth control, he will enforce that faith upon those that don't proscribe to his faith. Taliban anyone ?

NYCHitman1

Something funny I stumbled across lol

For all the details on Mitt Romney's 5 trillion dollar tax plan visit ROMNEYTAXPLAN.COM

A.Nonymous

Debate tonight. My guess is the town hall setting will favor Obama and not Romney. We'll see.

Last edited by A.Nonymous; October 16th, 2012 at 04:58 PM.

A.Nonymous

So incredibly sick of the "rich people are evil" talking point. Ugh.

bberryhill0

Obama sounded whiny and Romney sounded condescending. If I could I would vote to abolish the Presidency.

__________________
My Eris apps

JohnLaird

In regard to the brief mention of "assault weapons" during the debate...

If I remember correctly Obama and Romney both stated (or at least implied to varying degrees) that law abiding and "not mentally ill" (whatever the hell that means) citizens should be guaranteed only the right to own guns for the purpose of hunting and "sporting". However "ak-47 style weapons"(again whatever the hell that means) should not be allowed.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't understand the logic. A militia would have modern weapons designed for killing people, not just for hunting. At the time of the American Revolution which inspired the constitution, a musket WOULD have been considered the "ak47 style" assault weapon of it's time. After the incident in Colorado (and others) the gun issue is going to be pivotal in this election. Any thoughts on the logic that guns should only be allowed for hunting as it relates to this election?

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20121017/US.Debate.Assault.Weapons/

Last edited by JohnLaird; October 16th, 2012 at 11:44 PM. Reason: link to relevant news article

bberryhill0

Few people vote just on gun issues but the ignorance shown by both candidates about guns will probably spike gun sales just like it did four years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-DGaNmtA0

Attached Images

uploadfromtaptalk1350452716698.jpg (22.6 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by bberryhill0; October 17th, 2012 at 12:59 AM.

A.Nonymous

I felt the whole debate boiled down to this:

Obama: You're a dirty liar!!!
Romney: No. You're a dirty liar!!!

I thought Romney looked more presidential, but Obama had some great quips. Caught both of them lying through their teeth several times though which was very disappointing. Just once I want to hear one of them tell the truth and admit they screwed up something.

ElasticNinja

I think a prime minister chosen from Congress would certainly be less divisive.

At the very least it would be nice if the President had to have a governing majority in Congress.

A.Nonymous

Horrible idea imo. Also, if Congress is controlled by the other party, then both parties are basically forced to work together instead of one party being able to force their agenda.

ElasticNinja

It is far, far less divisive, however.

And hasn't both parties having to work together being utterly disastrous in the last few decades? Would also dramatically reduce the whole issue of people voting for candidates rather than parties in federal elections.

If a president from one party has to work with a congressional government from another, so be it. Mitterand did it, why couldn't an American President?

A.Nonymous

I'll give you a pass since you're not from this country, but there have been quite a few times in recent years when the party in the White House also had a majority in Congress. Hasn't made things better.

Last edited by A.Nonymous; October 17th, 2012 at 04:46 PM.

copestag

ya like 2 years ago when Obama had a 2 year super majority in congress......

its amazing how quick everyone is to blame the Republicans in congress for Obamas failure...... when for 2 years there was absolutely nothing any Republican could say or do to prevent Obama from doing anything he wanted

Gmash

That's pretty simplistic, since the republicans forced him to have a filibuster proof majority to pass anything and the democrat majority was razor thin, I think it was one or two seats in the senate, and a couple of those were independents that just got lumped in as democrats. Meaning the republicans would vote lock step unanimously against anything and everything and just one or two democrats voting against it would kill the bill. Obama tried to compromise and negotiate with republicans many times, but they wouldn't have it, seeing how their #1 priority was making sure Obama was a one term president.

Last edited by Gmash; October 17th, 2012 at 08:14 PM.

A.Nonymous

That's certainly one way to look at it. The other viewpoint is that Obama refused to offer any real compromises and was more interested in shoving his agenda down everyone's throats as he only needed to convince one or two Republicans to switch sides as well.

ElasticNinja

By a majority you mean that he had a majority of Democrats. What the President needs is a governing majority, and neither party is cohesive enough to provide that in the current system.

A.Nonymous

He had a filibuster proof majority. Not sure what more he needs than that. He's not the first President to have that either.

ElasticNinja

He needs to have loyal deputies is what. In America there is not the same party cohesiveness that there is in most places, as there is no need for it the way the system works.

A.Nonymous

There have been a few times in recent years where Congress has voted on an issue on straight party lines. In most cases when that happens the general public is displeased.

ElasticNinja

And? The public have their vote every few years. They should be electing governments, not candidates.

bberryhill0

Sadly the main criteria for electing candidates seems to be who can bring home the pork.

ElasticNinja

Sadly so. Politicians supporting bills only if funds go to their constituents needs to end.
If a politician refuses to toe the line, they should be quite simply kicked from the parliamentary party.

A.Nonymous

No. They should be voting for the candidate who best represents them, not the party who represents them.

ElasticNinja

Which leads to rubbish governance.

A.Nonymous

How do you boot a guy from a party? He/she simply runs as an independent the next year. Not sure I like the idea of parties being able to dictate who joins them.

Gmash

I have to say, I don't like that idea at all. If that was the case, why even have candidates? Just vote for the party and have them pick who they want. I'd rather see people who can think for themselves, (more than they do now, actually) than just take orders from the party bosses.

ylexot

Our better yet, just skip Congress and become a dictatorship. Yeah, bad idea.

OutofDate1980

BS. Republicans are on record and have demonstrated that their goal to prevent progress under Obama, i.e. no compromise, even for bills the Republicans once supported. This is a political game of the Republicans, hoping the voters don't notice who is to blame for inaction. By your post they are winning this game.

Notice the filibusters under Obama. The Republicans have forced a Senate 60 vote minimum.

The history of the filibuster, in one graph - The Washington Post

"There’s an interesting question around exactly when this change in norms happened. If you look at the graph, you have three major moments of discontinuity. One, around 1972, that appears to provoke reform of the filibuster rules so cloture is easier to achieve. Another, in the early 1990s, that seems covers the latter half of George H.W. Bush’s administration and the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency. And then the practice absolutely skyrockets when Barack Obama takes office."

ElasticNinja

They only get booted from the parliamentary party, not the party itself. They basically lose the influence or chance of promotion they once had.

A.Nonymous

Parties censuring their members for refusing to toe the party line is usually frowned upon here. Remember that we tend to favor free thinking here. McCain and Obama both ran on the idea that they didn't do things the way their party did.