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.
As a "liberal" I thought Romney looked acted and sounded better. Romney might have swayed more than a few votes last night. He looked poised, though maybe a bit too aggressive. And for the most part he hid his conservative values well and appeared moderate and reasonable.
Obama, on the other hand, seemed stoic, repetitive and cautious; like he didn't want to debate. Obama deflected a lot and was on what seemed to be a scripted performance.
Either Obama was rusty, not a good debater vs. good debaters, or it was the campaign's plan to feel Romney out.
In general I still like Obama. I think that 1. He inherited the worst financial collapse in history. 2. He had to do something (spend money to keep the economy from crashing) 3. I think the country is on the right track.
The major misstep (which Romney pointed out) was that Obama focused on the healthcare legislation when jobs should have been more of a priority. That's my main criticism of Obama.
Romney's people will no doubt be those of Bush before him, and I'm afraid that once he gets into office that we'd be susceptible to another bubble like situation where everything will look fine, but will hit the fan in 4 years and we'll have to clean it up all over again.
In the end Obama, told the truth when he was running the first time. He wanted to change healthcare, and he said that rebuilding would be tough and take a long time. I'm willing to let him finish out a second term.
I doubt it will change that much. He's a narcissist, who has almost never been challenged and criticized in his life. In his mind, he thinks he's "the one". He might be a bit more peppy, but he has a record now and doesn't have a leg to stand on.
So Obama had an off night. Big deal!
Heck, even young guys sometimes need a Viagra pill for peak performance. Once every couple of years or so. Once in a blue moon.
But Mittens has had off mornings, off afternoons, and off evenings for months. So one night he scores.
DON'T YOU THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME HE SCORED?
George W. Bush had a poor performance in one debate. That poor performance brought his presidency down. Kaput! Kaput!
I sure wish that poor debate performance had brought his presidency down. That poor debate performance was just a minor bump.
As a "liberal" I thought Romney looked acted and sounded better. Romney might have swayed more than a few votes last night. He looked poised, though maybe a bit too aggressive. And for the most part he hid his conservative values well and appeared moderate and reasonable.
Obama, on the other hand, seemed stoic, repetitive and cautious; like he didn't want to debate. Obama deflected a lot and was on what seemed to be a scripted performance.
Either Obama was rusty, not a good debater vs. good debaters, or it was the campaign's plan to feel Romney out.
In general I still like Obama. I think that 1. He inherited the worst financial collapse in history. 2. He had to do something (spend money to keep the economy from crashing) 3. I think the country is on the right track.
The major misstep (which Romney pointed out) was that Obama focused on the healthcare legislation when jobs should have been more of a priority. That's my main criticism of Obama.
Romney's people will no doubt be those of Bush before him, and I'm afraid that once he gets into office that we'd be susceptible to another bubble like situation where everything will look fine, but will hit the fan in 4 years and we'll have to clean it up all over again.
In the end Obama, told the truth when he was running the first time. He wanted to change healthcare, and he said that rebuilding would be tough and take a long time. I'm willing to let him finish out a second term.
Barry could have easily parried that:
Romney: Your healthcare bill KILLED JOBS, Mr. President.
Obama: Well, you would know or thing or two about killing jobs. That's what you did for over a decade at Bain Capital. You killed jobs. That's what you and your lax attitude towards Wall Street did. Killed jobs. That's what leaving Detroit to rot does. Kill jobs. And that's what parking millions of dollars in off shore accounts does, Guvna. Kills jobs.
IMO Romney did better than expected.Obama did less than expected so it looks like Romney won round one but he didnt really bring much if anything new to the table.
I think Obamas problem was he probably over studied and practiced to be taken to task for the poor economy,but when Romney didnt do much more than skim over his usual issues on the matter it kinda left Obama ready for the big fight that never really came.
I thought the debate on the economy was going to be Obamas weakest point,now thats over it should get a whole lot easier for Obama and a whole lot tougher for Romney..
No matter what happens, the right wingers are going to cheerlead Willard. Willard didn't win anything, all he proved is how well he can lie to the american people.
Quote:
Romney committed himself to a lot things that are going to get him in trouble in the next few days when the pundits get over his surface performance and look at what he actually said.
He basically tossed aside his own tax plan or said he would if his numbers didn’t add up. But then he insisted that he could find enough loopholes to close to afford a $5 trillion tax cut for upper income earners. These are more numbers on the table. That’s really what most of the debate was about — budget numbers. Romney insisted with a straight face that up was down….
The numbers simply don’t add up. Over a few news cycles that can build up really fast. He says he’ll push massive upper income tax cuts and those have to come at the cost of much higher deficits or big tax hikes for middle income people. His campaign agenda is based on a massive deception.
That’s the vulnerability Romney brings out of this debate. And it may be bigger than people realize.
IMO Romney did better than expected.Obama did less than expected so it looks like Romney won round one but he didnt really bring much if anything new to the table.
I think Obamas problem was he probably over studied and practiced to be taken to task for the poor economy,but when Romney didnt do much more than skim over his usual issues on the matter it kinda left Obama ready for the big fight that never really came. I thought the debate on the economy was going to be Obamas weakest point,now thats over it should get a whole lot easier for Obama and a whole lot tougher for Romney..
That's another point I was going to make. People already thought Romney had a better understanding of the economy going into this debate and people will probably will still think that.
Foreign policy and social issues will probably be what Obama will focus on next and what will be his main strengths.
It's tricky. Romney may or may not have specifics written down somewhere. Most likely, there are thousands of little deductions that will be removed and/or clarified. Impossible to say in full on national television in the time frame provided. It's also possible he will pull a 'Ralph Klein'.
Ralph Klein was a conservative in Canada - Bombastic, crude. He once stumbled drunkenly in to a homeless shelter, threw a hundred dollar bill on the ground, yelled "Get a job!" and walked out. He was re-elected after that.
Most of that stems from the fact that, like it or not, he was darn good at his job. Alberta was nearly broke when he came in. He sat down on television with a list of programs, said "We're broke. This? Gone. This? Gone. This? Gone."
He then turned Alberta's economy around rather convincingly. Many will claim it was the oil boom that did it. That had a hand, but Ralph Klein was a problem solver, first and foremost. He might throw an obscene gesture at an activist now and then, but he genuinely was good for Alberta.
It's possible Mitt plans on saying, "The buck stops here." and doing the same thing. Unlikely, but it has happened before. Either of those things would explain the lack of specifics on television.
Our tax code is 88,000 pages now, so in regards to specifics which block of 10000 pages do we start with?
I think Romney is going to go through government top to bottom and cut out the useless crap in the tax code and cut government programs that are not essential to our survival. He is softball pitching it now, because he doesn't want to panic the uneducated about the crisis we are in, but after the election I suspect he will be full throttle and he has to be.
We are a broke country with $17 Trillion in debt. Party is over for the gubermint cheese addicts. A lot of people in the business world think we have have 1 to 2 years to get our house in order, otherwise it will be a great depression. I think we are facing a major crash unless we change direction.
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.
