2012 Presidential Debates

[BigRedBuster]

Funny....no comments on the point of my post.

They're late by a week...

 

The mug at the top and the tone of the words tells me that there is an agenda behind the site anyways, even if it is .gov.

 

I used that as one example. Look at how late he was for his first budget. (close to 100 days). So, when all these people who loved Obama last time (OK, you didn't vote for him but someone did) claim Romney doesn't have anything, I have to laugh. Challengers don't have specific legislation completely written out and submitted.

 

I just got a chuckle from a memory of the debate. Romney was explaining that what Obama should have done was take Simpson Bowles and at least take parts of it (if not all of it) and push it through to help with our budget issues. Obama (sort of under his breath) said...."We are now". Romney shot back that it's been 3 years since it was submitted.

 

So....we have a sitting President that these people support that can't get budgetary legislation submitted in a timely manner and they complain that a challenger that isn't even IN office doesn't have a complete set of legislation written up and ready to submit????

 

Now, you can argue that you don't agree with Romney. That's fine and we can debate that. BUT, to sit and complain that he doesn't have legislation written up is laughable and weak at best.

[ZRod]

I used that as one example. Look at how late he was for his first budget. (close to 100 days). So, when all these people who loved Obama last time (OK, you didn't vote for him but someone did) claim Romney doesn't have anything, I have to laugh. Challengers don't have specific legislation completely written out and submitted.

Did you even look at the other Presidents first dates of submission? The deadline is a few weeks after they are inaugurated, no one get's the budget out on time the first time *I guess I should amend this, the last 3 Presidents didn't get their's out on time either*. The extra 30 days is curious, but maybe it had something to do with the situation at the time. Guessing you won't agree though.

 

*Even Reagan had to have extensions and was 45 days late in the middle of his second term.

[carlfense]

Challengers don't have specific legislation completely written out and submitted.

Forget specific legislation . . . Willard won't even give basic details!

 

Romney was explaining that what Obama should have done was take Simpson Bowles and at least take parts of it (if not all of it) and push it through to help with our budget issues.

Romney's own VP candidate killed Simpson-Bowles. If you're trying to blame Obama for the failure of SB . . . well . . . you are truly blind. You can go look at who voted against it if you'd like. Heading that list? One Paul Ryan.

[sd'sker]

I just got a chuckle from a memory of the debate. Romney was explaining that what Obama should have done was take Simpson Bowles and at least take parts of it (if not all of it) and push it through to help with our budget issues. Obama (sort of under his breath) said...."We are now". Romney shot back that it's been 3 years since it was submitted.

 

So....we have a sitting President that these people support that can't get budgetary legislation submitted in a timely manner and they complain that a challenger that isn't even IN office doesn't have a complete set of legislation written up and ready to submit????

 

Now, you can argue that you don't agree with Romney. That's fine and we can debate that. BUT, to sit and complain that he doesn't have legislation written up is laughable and weak at best.

gosh, i wonder why obama has had such a hard time passing legislation. oh, wait, no i don't:

[ZRod]

^ No kidding I couldn't figure out why when Romney was talking about working with the other party Obama didn't just say, "Well it's a little easier to work with them when their top priority isn't to get you out of office". Or something to that effect. I'm a layman and I was coming up with some pretty good zingers just watching the debate on TV.

[BigRedBuster]

I used that as one example. Look at how late he was for his first budget. (close to 100 days). So, when all these people who loved Obama last time (OK, you didn't vote for him but someone did) claim Romney doesn't have anything, I have to laugh. Challengers don't have specific legislation completely written out and submitted.

Did you even look at the other Presidents first dates of submission? The deadline is a few weeks after they are inaugurated, no one get's the budget out on time the first time *I guess I should amend this, the last 3 Presidents didn't get their's out on time either*. The extra 30 days is curious, but maybe it had something to do with the situation at the time. Guessing you won't agree though.

 

And, that is exactly my point.....it is common for the challenger to not have specific legislation written out and ready for submission. BUT, for some reason, liberals right now are up in arms that Romney doesn't.

[BigRedBuster]

^ No kidding I couldn't figure out why when Romney was talking about working with the other party Obama didn't just say, "Well it's a little easier to work with them when their top priority isn't to get you out of office". Or something to that effect. I'm a layman and I was coming up with some pretty good zingers just watching the debate on TV.

 

Let's see.....Democrats submit and try to push through legislation that goes specifically against everything the Republicans are wanting to do and you're surprised that they fought against it???

 

Trying to cut back on entitlements and the Dems put in place what will end up being the biggest entitlement in US history and you're shocked they didn't just go along with it??? Really???

[zoogs]

Funny....no comments on the point of my post.

Probably due to its vitriolic nature, but I think you have hit a good point.

 

Lots of flak Romney is taking for lack of specifics. And to be sure there are some real concerns there. He wants to use that "China test" to cut programs, for example, which might amount to a lot of effort and the elimination of exactly 0% of our federal budget issues. Not exactly, but close enough in magnitude relative to the big sinkholes. And Romney doesn't have convincing answers to these hard, unsolved problems that he is making it sound like there are easy, philosophically based solutions for.

 

But on the other hand, what grand specifics are part of the Obama plan going forward? What grand specifics did he have in 2008? A political principles message is all that anybody runs on.

 

I do think Romney ought to be held accountable for these holes in his argument. But let's not pretend that Obama is offering up great details (am I wrong here?), or that he won in 2008 on detailed proposals as opposed to an inspiring message, principles, and a demonstrated eagerness to tackle the problems open-mindedly.

[knapplc]

"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.

[knapplc]

Funny....no comments on the point of my post.

Probably due to its vitriolic nature, but I think you have hit a good point.

 

Lots of flak Romney is taking for lack of specifics. And to be sure there are some real concerns there. He wants to use that "China test" to cut programs, for example, which might amount to a lot of effort and the elimination of exactly 0% of our federal budget issues. Not exactly, but close enough in magnitude relative to the big sinkholes. And Romney doesn't have convincing answers to these hard, unsolved problems that he is making it sound like there are easy, philosophically based solutions for.

 

But on the other hand, what grand specifics are part of the Obama plan going forward? What grand specifics did he have in 2008? A political principles message is all that anybody runs on.

 

I do think Romney ought to be held accountable for these holes in his argument. But let's not pretend that Obama is offering up great details (am I wrong here?), or that he won in 2008 on detailed proposals as opposed to an inspiring message, principles, and a demonstrated eagerness to tackle the problems open-mindedly.

 

zoogies, I think you may be forgetting some conversations where Obama was castigated for failing to offer specifics by the Anybody-But-Obama crowd here. The current backlash against Romney having zero specifics in his plans is an ongoing response to that.

[zoogs]

Oh, I guess. I'm not referencing the presence or absence of specific conversations here...just what I feel is a general sentiment, widely proclaimed, about Romney.

 

Which, at this point, I'm wondering if it is a very big deal or not -- given the history. There are some questions that I feel he really should address, some holes in his plans that seem to go unchallenged. But broadly speaking, a president who demonstrates willingness, knowledge of policy, and resourcefulness to tackle problems, that sort of is the bar for me. Both these candidates, on the surface, pass that test.

 

What I have a harder time figuring out is where the merits of their principles fall. So I suppose what I was attempting to say (badly) is not that 'Well, Obama should be hit over the head for it too' but 'Maybe it isn't a super valid criticism for either guy.'

[ZRod]

And, that is exactly my point.....it is common for the challenger to not have specific legislation written out and ready for submission. BUT, for some reason, liberals right now are up in arms that Romney doesn't.

He did get some what specific in this debate, and I'm glad because it further proves that he doesn't understand what he is saying. He wants to cut funding for PBS because it adds to China owning us? PBS is a drop in the ocean that is the Federal budget. He has flip flopped from his campaign trail pledges and primary promises to cut taxes for the top earners, now he wants to do it across the board. But wait, he doesn't really want to cut taxes he just wants to stop loopholes and write offs and collect at the same effective tax rate. Well you can't have it both ways Mr. Romney, either you're cutting taxes or your not. If you want tax reform then just say so, the majority of the nation is all for it, but don't hide it under the guise of cutting taxes for everyone.

 

Let's see.....Democrats submit and try to push through legislation that goes specifically against everything the Republicans are wanting to do and you're surprised that they fought against it???

 

Trying to cut back on entitlements and the Dems put in place what will end up being the biggest entitlement in US history and you're shocked they didn't just go along with it??? Really???

Did I say that anywhere, I was stating that I felt he could have had some pretty good rebuttals for Romney but he didn't.

[knapplc]

Let's see.....Democrats submit and try to push through legislation that goes specifically against everything the Republicans are wanting to do and you're surprised that they fought against it???

 

Trying to cut back on entitlements and the Dems put in place what will end up being the biggest entitlement in US history and you're shocked they didn't just go along with it??? Really???

 

To what legislation are you referring that the Democrats "pushed through?" Obamacare? Because universal healthcare was a Republican platform plank in the 1990s. You know this, right? 1993. Bob Dole, John Chafee. Mandated healthcare. You realize this happened, yes?

[carlfense]

I do think Romney ought to be held accountable for these holes in his argument. But let's not pretend that Obama is offering up great details (am I wrong here?),

The AJA does have great details. The ACA is already passed. Etc. We know Obama's details.

 

. . . or that he won in 2008 on detailed proposals as opposed to an inspiring message, principles, and a demonstrated eagerness to tackle the problems open-mindedly.

Agreed but the difference in 2012 is that we have one candidate with detailed proposals and another that steadfastly refuses to provide any sort of details on any issue.

[krc1995]

Let's see.....Democrats submit and try to push through legislation that goes specifically against everything the Republicans are wanting to do and you're surprised that they fought against it???

 

Trying to cut back on entitlements and the Dems put in place what will end up being the biggest entitlement in US history and you're shocked they didn't just go along with it??? Really???

 

To what legislation are you referring that the Democrats "pushed through?" Obamacare? Because universal healthcare was a Republican platform plank in the 1990s. You know this, right? 1993. Bob Dole, John Chafee. Mandated healthcare. You realize this happened, yes?

as it was on Bill Clinton's. You have the alot to say for someone who didn't watch the debate.