Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone considered the possibility that many undecided voters might be no-shows at the poll come Election Day? If you're undecided at this point, you very well may say f*ck it and not vote at all (especially in inclement weather). It's clear that you could live with either candidate, so why bother?
I love it when people speak for me. Stop acting a fool. I'm "undecided" but it's not because I could "live with either of the candidates". Der.
I'm undecided if I will vote based on my principles or vote to get that complete and utter disaster OUT of the White House.
THAT is all I'm undecided about. I don't like either one. I could NOT live with either candidate. They both suck! One just sucks a little less than the other.
If Obama would have encorporated anything Biden has dreamt about, we might have a different looking administration now. But let's keep in mind, Biden and Obama are two vastly different people.
Biden said that nobody requested support in Libya. That is a flat out lie.
"So VP Biden, on to the economy..."
Biden; "47%! 30%"!
And yet, Ryan is criticized for not giving specifics? That coupled with Biden and Martha interruptions... I still heard it clearly... tax cuts... more folks contributing something rather than taking! It's really simple.
Another thing, you liberal honks are going off about a Biden beatdown? This is like saying a screaming child and his temper tantrum is a beatdown to his parents!
I smell fear.
Bidens strategy was to make Ryan look like a punk kid, wet behind the ears, and sophomoric; a kid that had not yet paid his dues, and didn't know enough to solve our problems. On this, he failed.
If Ryan hadn't been interrupted so many times, 82 by Biden, and 31 by the moderator, and had been allowed to finish his thoughts and make his point, it would have been a devastating blow to Biden. Even so, he did manage to score some points, while Biden, manic in his behavior, had nothing much he could say, so his Cheshire Cat grin, his new "Hollywood whites" on display, his annoying eye-rolls and laughing (often when he shouldn't have) were all part of his strategy.
But, viewers saw Biden as a rude, disrespectful, angry old man. In polls that were out the following morning, it was Ryan who came out on top.
That anyone could say Biden won, is just blind, wishful thinking on the part of Obama acolytes. There was nothing substantive in anything Biden had to say.
Romney was incredibly rude in the last debate--interrupted the moderator constantly--but that was seen as "strong leadership" by you all last week. If I were you, I'd be a little more concerned that Multiple Choice Mitt lied his way through the last debate, and he's being called out on it from this point on. No more free rides and pretending that the last 10 years (or even 6 months) of Romney's career never happened.
What did Romney lie about? Can you be specific? Accusations mean nothing unless they can be proven.
Romney said in the debate that he doesn't have any $5 trillion tax cut plan in response to Obama's point. Obama reiterated the point, and Romney said that if he saw any $5 trillion tax cut plan, he'd reject it.
Meanwhile, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center had already calculated the cost of the tax cut Romney said he would implement- a 20% cut in rates. They calculated it's value at $4.8 trillion over 10 years. This is where the $5 trillion number came from. Romney has said on the stump he would offset the cost of his 20% tax cut BY closing loopholes and eliminating deductions (but not specifically which ones). Therefore according to him, the tax cut would be revenue-neutral. Nevertheless, the AMOUNT that would need to be offset IS STILL $5 trillion, or $4.8 trillion to be precise.
But rather than Romney saying at the debate podium that the $5 trillion rate cut would be offset by closing loopholes (again a point he has reiterated on the stump), Romney said he didn't have a $5 trillion tax cut plan and he'd reject a $5 trillion tax cut plan if one were put in front of him. He was intentionally conflating the revenue-neutrality of the overall plan AFTER offsets to the cost of the rate cut- with the dollar amount itself of the 20% rate cut. He KNEW the $5 trillion value of that rate cut, but he decided to deceive the public by making it seem as if Obama wasn't describing anything he (Romney) had advocated with the $5 trillion tax cut number. On the stump he repeated that loopholes and deductions would cover the cost of the tax rate cut. At the debate he repeated that there is no $5 trillion tax cut. So he with intent and forethought attempted to deceive the public with his debate statements for the purpose of obscuring to the debate-viewers the dollar value of the tax rate cut he's proposing. He will admit to a 20% rate cut on the stump but won't admit to its $5 trillion value at the podium. That intentional obscuring and deceiving is what is being called Romney's lies.
Edited to add:
Romney wasn't trying to explain/defend his tax cut plan in a way that informs the viewing public. He was trying to explain/defend it in a way that DECEIVES the viewing public. Policy wonks like myself and many others will catch something like that. But the vast majority of the viewing public- particularly those watching the debates to DETERMINE how they will vote (as opposed to already knowing based on the POLICY positions already campaigned on to date- and which policies we more agree with), are not policy wonks and are therefore simply listening to find out what is what to simplify their voting decision. And Romney's message to them was a deception- his team probably calculated that those viewers I just described won't be listening to news reports on details of his tax cut plans to find out ABOUT the truth of the $5 trillion number because if they were going to do that, they would have already been investigating, listening to the political reporting, and known the number. And that point was really demonstrated with Erin's interview of an undecided woman in the audience who gave Obama bad reviews for insisting that Romney has a $5 trillion tax cut and "not listening to what Romney was saying." In her estimation, Obama not listening and instead insisting that the cut IS $5 trillion is indicative of what's wrong in Washington. She was totally oblivious to the reality that THE $5 TRILLION VALUE IS A TRUE NUMBER representing the cost of Romeny's 20% rate cut, verified by non-partison economists, and that Romney simply wasn't owning up to it.
THAT is the type of voter Romney was trying to take advantage of and influence with his lies.
Bidens strategy was to make Ryan look like a punk kid, wet behind the ears, and sophomoric; a kid that had not yet paid his dues, and didn't know enough to solve our problems. On this, he failed.
If Ryan hadn't been interrupted so many times, 82 by Biden, and 31 by the moderator, and had been allowed to finish his thoughts and make his point, it would have been a devastating blow to Biden. Even so, he did manage to score some points, while Biden, manic in his behavior, had nothing much he could say, so his Cheshire Cat grin, his new "Hollywood whites" on display, his annoying eye-rolls and laughing (often when he shouldn't have) were all part of his strategy.
But, viewers saw Biden as a rude, disrespectful, angry old man. In polls that were out the following morning, it was Ryan who came out on top.
That anyone could say Biden won, is just blind, wishful thinking on the part of Obama acolytes. There was nothing substantive in anything Biden had to say.
Sounds like excuses, much like we heard with Obama's first debate. Also do you mind showing the polls that had Ryan as the winner of that debate because just about every poll I saw had Biden as the winner. You might not of liked Biden, but many people disagreed with you.
I love it when people speak for me. Stop acting a fool. I'm "undecided" but it's not because I could "live with either of the candidates". Der.
I'm undecided if I will vote based on my principles or vote to get that complete and utter disaster OUT of the White House.
THAT is all I'm undecided about. I don't like either one. I could NOT live with either candidate. They both suck! One just sucks a little less than the other.
You are ONE person.
The other undecideds really just don't give a crap. They're uninterested. Apathetic. There's nothing to deliberate over in this election. The positions of the two parties never really change from election to election so "undecided" voters pretty much have their whole entire lives to make their minds up. For most of them, they feel the election really doesn't make a difference, and many will probably just choose to stay home.
Romney said in the debate that he doesn't have any $5 trillion tax cut plan in response to Obama's point. Obama reiterated the point, and Romney said that if he saw any $5 trillion tax cut plan, he'd reject it.
Meanwhile, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center had already calculated the cost of the tax cut Romney said he would implement- a 20% cut in rates. They calculated it's value at $4.8 trillion over 10 years. This is where the $5 trillion number came from. Romney has said on the stump he would offset the cost of his 20% tax cut BY closing loopholes and eliminating deductions (but not specifically which ones). Therefore according to him, the tax cut would be revenue-neutral. Nevertheless, the AMOUNT that would need to be offset IS STILL $5 trillion, or $4.8 trillion to be precise.
But rather than Romney saying at the debate podium that the $5 trillion rate cut would be offset by closing loopholes (again a point he has reiterated on the stump), Romney said he didn't have a $5 trillion tax cut plan and he'd reject a $5 trillion tax cut plan if one were put in front of him. He was intentionally conflating the revenue-neutrality of the overall plan AFTER offsets to the cost of the rate cut- with the dollar amount itself of the 20% rate cut. He KNEW the $5 trillion value of that rate cut, but he decided to deceive the public by making it seem as if Obama wasn't describing anything he (Romney) had advocated with the $5 trillion tax cut number. On the stump he repeated that loopholes and deductions would cover the cost of the tax rate cut. At the debate he repeated that there is no $5 trillion tax cut. So he with intent and forethought attempted to deceive the public with his debate statements for the purpose of obscuring to the debate-viewers the dollar value of the tax rate cut he's proposing. He will admit to a 20% rate cut on the stump but won't admit to its $5 trillion value at the podium. That intentional obscuring and deceiving is what is being called Romney's lies.
Edited to add:
Romney wasn't trying to explain/defend his tax cut plan in a way that informs the viewing public. He was trying to explain/defend it in a way that DECEIVES the viewing public. Policy wonks like myself and many others will catch something like that. But the vast majority of the viewing public- particularly those watching the debates to DETERMINE how they will vote (as opposed to already knowing based on the POLICY positions already campaigned on to date- and which policies we more agree with), are not policy wonks and are therefore simply listening to find out what is what to simplify their voting decision. And Romney's message to them was a deception- his team probably calculated that those viewers I just described won't be listening to news reports on details of his tax cut plans to find out ABOUT the truth of the $5 trillion number because if they were going to do that, they would have already been investigating, listening to the political reporting, and known the number. And that point was really demonstrated with Erin's interview of an undecided woman in the audience who gave Obama bad reviews for insisting that Romney has a $5 trillion tax cut and "not listening to what Romney was saying." In her estimation, Obama not listening and instead insisting that the cut IS $5 trillion is indicative of what's wrong in Washington. She was totally oblivious to the reality that THE $5 TRILLION VALUE IS A TRUE NUMBER representing the cost of Romeny's 20% rate cut, verified by non-partison economists, and that Romney simply wasn't owning up to it.
THAT is the type of voter Romney was trying to take advantage of and influence with his lies.
Just compare all the threads and posts, not to mention the mod bias. There is no doubt of a hard right lean to this site.
It's actually mostly this forum that's right-leaning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I were you, I'd be a little more concerned that Multiple Choice Mitt lied his way through the last debate, and he's being called out on it from this point on. No more free rides and pretending that the last 10 years (or even 6 months) of Romney's career never happened.