2012 Presidential Debates

[BigRedBuster]

You fit in so well here it's hard to remember sometimes that you just registered in August.

 

 

Gee thanks.... I think

 

Fact is, I'm enjoying it here because there are liberal people here to debate. The last board I was on was filled with nothing but conservatives and the kind of conservatives I really don't match up with. SO...I actually found myself being one of the more liberal people on the board.....I was there for a long time and just lost interest in the board.

 

 

 

Now if I could just get people to get my sense of humor. I guess my stand up comedy career needs to be put on hold.

[carlfense]

...I actually found myself being one of the more liberal people on the board.....

That's sort of my experience. I'd probably be a right-wing extremist at Berkeley but in Nebraska I'm apparently considered left-wing.

[knapplc]

...I actually found myself being one of the more liberal people on the board.....

That's sort of my experience. I'd probably be a right-wing extremist at Berkeley but in Nebraska I'm apparently considered left-wing.

I am constantly amused by the "liberal" tag being applied to me. I'm anything but. I'm quite conservative on some things, somewhat liberal on others, but I'm a Moderate through-and-through. I've never been a Democrat or liberal - but I've been staunchly Reagan Republican before.

[carlfense]

I am constantly amused by the "liberal" tag being applied to me. I'm anything but. I'm quite conservative on some things, somewhat liberal on others, but I'm a Moderate through-and-through. I've never been a Democrat or liberal - but I've been staunchly Reagan Republican before.

Yeah. I've only been registered with one of the two major parties . . . and it definitely wasn't the Democrats. The independent label is much more liberating.

[zoogs]

Well, the point is, and it's a fair one: should candidates be held to different standards for campaigns when running against incumbents vs when not?

Who is being held to different standards, exactly? I want as many specifics as possible from both Romney and Obama. That's holding them to the same standard, right?

 

You're right, I wasn't reading your previous post correctly here. Although I am growing in my opinion that specifics being important, or a criteria, is overblown. We're voting for a president, not plans which thinktanks could come up with, and dissect.

 

On the other hand, a president who makes his principles clear, tells you how and who he's going to work with to address the problems he wants to target - that's the sort of promise Obama earned my faith in 2008 with and I don't think it was wrong.

 

I feel that Romney made a pretty good case for himself in the debate, although I know you disagree there.

 

It's funny, count me in the crazy liberals group who has never considered himself democrat, but at one point identified fairly closely with the Republican party. A lot of hardcore D-party schills we are here

[BigRedBuster]

Here are my thoughts on specifics in campaigns.

 

A) They are so easily forgotten. For instance, Obama claimed he would sit down with Iran and talk. That was a specific. He never has. Bush I claimed..."no new taxes". Obviously he forgot that.

 

B) Things change. Cirumstances change. Bush II came into office and less than a year later 9/11 hit and totally changed the world for Americans for the forseeable future. No way can he then be expected to stick with certain "specifics" he said in his campaign.

 

C) A candidate doesn't have the vast information on certain topics like national security that the President does. So, sometimes things happen or are happening behind the scenes and the public doesn't know about it along with the challenging candidate. To us it looks like in certain situations certain things need to be done and in reality, that isn't possible. I believe this happened to Obama on some national security issues. I believe he got into office and said..."OH sh#t" about some things he found out about reality in this world.

 

So, yes, specifics in campaigns are nice. BUT, I look more at the direction the candidate wants to take the country. I don't believe more government right now is the right thing for America. I don't believe that having a President with absolutely no business experience running anything is a good thing right now. In that case, it is obvious to me that Obama is the opposite of what I want. Romney isn't perfect. But, at least he has the back ground of someone I think we need right now.

 

So, we can sit here and argue specifics all we want. But, no matter who is elected, the world can be totally different 12 months from now and cause all of it to be thrown out the window.

[lo country]

Didn't post right. Missing text

[JJ Husker]

I'm of the opinion that we should be working towards single payer like the rest of the industrialized world.

If Obamacare doesn't work I don't know what else we can try other than single payer. Obamacare was the Republican alternative to single payer.

 

Correction- Obamacare was completely the Democrats idea and got watered down so that more moderate Democrats would support it. The Republicans had nothing to do with it. Not trying to claim that makes the repubs better, just not letting you pawn it off as some republican plan because it wasn't.

[JJ Husker]

"This mess that we're in" was largely created by the last election cycle where people blindly voted for a persons skin color and empty but catchy promises of hope and change. How's that hope holding out? How much change did we see? How many promises were fulfilled? How's that real unemployment doing? If you're in the middle class, how has your situation improved? Does it feel like your income is keeping up with ever increasing costs for groceries and gas? Step back and ask yourself if you really want another four years as bad or worse as the last four.

 

Stop being part of the problem. Stop supporting these idiots. Stop mindlessly following people like Barack freaking Obama. Just. Stop.

 

First off, your insinuation that the reason people voted for Barack Obama is that he's black is childish and insulting. You should be ashamed of this line.

 

Second, don't sit there and lecture anyone for voting for "empty but catchy promises of hope and change" when you're openly supporting a man who's told you nothing about what he'll do to fix this country's problems. The people who voted for Obama in 2008 had exactly the same info on him and his plans as you do on Mitt Romney - oops, scratch that - Obama wasn't hiding his tax returns.

 

Third, for every issue you want to cast at the feet of Obama like unemployment, the situation of the middle class, slipping incomes, increasing gas and groceries, tell me two things: First, where is the help from the Republican-held Congress on any of these issues? Second, how, specifically, is Mitt Romney going to fix these problems? If they're Obama's fault, Romney should be able to fix them, right? But he has no plan for doing this. How do we know? He said so in his now-infamous 47% speech. He thinks it will just "get better" because he's president. He confidently stated this to his rich cronies.

 

Finally, I appreciate the flattery inherent in copying my line. But the reality is, I don't "mindlessly follow" Barack Obama. I'm not a Barack Obama supporter, and I never have been. I simply recognize that he's the lesser of two evils, both in 2008 and today.

I thought it about it long and hard before including the skin color reference because I knew it would not be received well by some. But the facts would appear to support my claim. Obama garnered a huge percentage of the black vote and much of the rejoicing surrounding his taking office focused on the fact that he was the first black President. It is apparent that many supported him based on his color just as many have been accused of not supporting him because of it. Hey, I don't like it either but it is what it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

I didn't intend to "lecture" but you do have a little tiny bit of a point. You are correct that Romney has not been extremely forthcoming with specific plans. However, don't act like Romney has not given any indication of how he would generally try to lead. The debate (which you refused to watch) was filled with a lot of his thought process and feellings about economic issues. I simply prefer his thinking and expressed preferences to Obama's.

 

There has been no help from either side of the aisle or from the President. That is one of the main reason I will be voting for Romney. You have said it before and I'll prove you right; I will vote for anyone other than Obama at this point. He is a proven failure at solving our biggest problems. Romney (or the main opposing candidate) does not need to work very hard for my vote. BTW, Romney was absolutely right about 47% wanting the government to take care of them. Only problem with saying it out loud was getting caught. I believe one of the main problems with our economy is lack of confidence in the future and a feeling that Washington, led by Obama, wants to collect more taxes and make it tougher for the people. I do think the economy will improve with Romney in the White House, not because of any plan or policy position but, just because he is not Obama.

 

I know you have claimed to not be an Obama supporter but you'll have to forgive me if it appears otherwise from time to time. You do a lot of posting in favor of Obama and against Romney. However, I can understand that and accept you're not a big fan of his because I am much the same way with Romney. I don't particularly like him but I still support him and oppose Obama and I feel Romney is the lesser of two evils. So, I get it. We're just on opposite sides of the crappy choice fence.

[carlfense]

JJ- I'm talking about the core of obamacare. The individual mandate. That was the GOP alternative to single payer.

 

Also, could you expand on your 47% comment? What do you mean exactly and what facts lead you to believe as you do? Does it bother you that Romney has flip flopped and now says that his comments were completely wrong?

[JJ Husker]

JJ- I'm talking about the core of obamacare. The individual mandate. That was the GOP alternative to single payer.

 

Also, could you expand on your 47% comment? What do you mean exactly and what facts lead you to believe as you do? Does it bother you that Romney has flip flopped and now says that his comments were completely wrong?

 

It doesn't bother me if he is now retracting his statement. It was stupid of him to get caught saying it and it isn't completely bright to now issue another flip flop but he is a politician and cannot afford to alienate any potential vote.

 

I don't have any facts to offer about the 47% thing. What I do have are powers of observation and many personal experiences which help form my opinion. I have seen rapid growth in the mentality that many people feel they are owed something. I understand feeling entitled to collect social security and medicare benefits because a person and their employer contributed taxes to fund it. But there has been a seemingly large expansion of other things people feel entitled to. These are largely anecdotal experiences I have observed as an employer, parent involved in achool systems, and generally as a citizen. If you haven't felt or experienced the same gravitation towards a society that has less personal responsibility and more of a gimme what's due me attitude, then I can't help prove it exists for you.

[carlfense]

So after carefully analyzing your admittedly anecdotal evidence you reach the exact figure of 47%?

 

Heh.

 

(Along with more excusing of lying.)

[strigori]

And I have as much or more anecdotal evidence contrary to yours. and Romney's view of half the country. I don't know what groups you have a lot of contact with, but I have a massive amount of contact with the '47%' And I'm sure you are aware that much of the '47%' are only in that grouping as they are earn the household median, have a couple of kids and deduct the mortgage interest, that can get you down to paying no income taxes. Hardly what I would call 'feeling like they are owed something'

[zoogs]

I don't for a second believe that Romney doesn't want what is best for 100% of Americans.

 

He was just trying to play up the 'I'm an underdog' card at a private fundraising event. Pretty loose with the numbers. There should be zero big deal over that statement.

[strigori]

I don't believe for a second that Romney cares about anyone but his own. My take on him is he cares about making himself richer. He cares about businesses and their owners, not people. And there is a difference. I do not believe you can care about people when you can't understand them.