jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (28 posts)

First Presidential Debate

  1. LauraGT profile image86
    LauraGTposted 4 years ago

    Did the first presidential debate change your mind about either candidate?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I thought it was a very good debate, didn't change my mind though. I'm tempted to do a write-up on it.

      One interesting thing was how Obama argued that letting the states make their own solutions to healthcare won't work, and then he lauded how letting the states make their own solutions to education worked in 46 states.

    2. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The debate did not change my mind, however, Romney did win this debate. I thought Obama came in too nice. I have always loved that Obama is a dem with balls, and he just didn't come out strong. I wanted to see  him attack Romney on the 47% comment and Bain Capital and call him out on the lies!

    3. Ruben Rivera profile image78
      Ruben Riveraposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      nope,  Obama wants to reduce the military and its budget and Romney wants to upgrade and reverse the budget cuts.  I'm in the military so do the math.

      1. innersmiff profile image71
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It doesn't seem like an obvious answer to me. Equally many military people would prefer an extension to the military budget as would prefer a cut to the budget, for many different reasons.

    4. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My mind is not changed, eventhough, I believe that Romney did much better than I had expected.

    5. wba108@yahoo.com profile image83
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No, there is no way I would ever vote for Obama. There is no doubt that Obama is an impressive speaker but Romney had him on the ropes most of the debate. No doubt that that Obama's record and the dismal economy made the job for Romney alot easier and having a one on one debate made it more difficult for Obama to hide and distort the issues!

  2. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    No.  Romney refused to lay out his health care plan for people under the retirement age, which deductions he would eliminate to simplify the tax code, or how people under 65 would avoid being screwed by a premium support system when they are older.

    I am going to wade through the transcript and go much more slowly, but these are my first impressions.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Romney did a very good job of explaining why he hasn't been presenting specifics on his plans. He should have been saying this for a long time.

      "which is my experience as a governor is if I come in and -- and lay down a piece of legislation and say, "It's my way or the highway," I don't get a lot done. What I do is the same way that Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan worked together some years ago. When Ronald Reagan ran for office, he laid out the principles that he was going to foster. He said he was going to lower tax rates. He said he was going to broaden the base. You've said the same thing, you're going to simplify the tax code, broaden the base. Those are my principles. I want to bring down the tax burden on middle-income families. And I'm going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what -- what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance?"

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That makes me shudder. It's hitting the usual soft sell stereotypes just like every politician promises they will "reduce waste" with no indication as to how, it's just sales patter that sounds nice without an actual plan, 99.9 percent of the time that's because people won't like the details (that's where the devil is).

        At this point it's way past time to be giving specifics and laying out an actual plan that can be analyzed, critiqued and evaluated by the American people, I don't think that plan actually exists.

        I have nothing against being flexible with that plan later to meet the circumstances but you do need to have a plan before you can start altering it. President is not a job where you just wing it.

      2. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this


        You, of all people, love specifics.  How can you possibly defend this?

        Romney could have given a simple answer and say here are my personal preferences for which deductions should be eliminated.  I will fight for them in Congress to the best of my ability.

        Your defense can easily be applied to anything.

        I am in favor of empowering people by partnering with the government to provide more opportunities to those who have fallen through the cracks.  THAT'S MY PLAN MAN.

        I will govern on principles, and I won't lay out my specifics because I don't want to appear petty, and say "my way or the highway."  This is a LACK of an answer.   You have better critical thinking skills than to defend such an absurd answer.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As for specifics in a plan... Go look at Romney's gubernatorial campaign. He didn't make promises he couldn't keep.

          He's not going to promise "I'm going to eliminate this and this and this" because it's not his choice. It's enough to say he will lower marginal rates, and remove deductions/exemptions/credits to keep revenue neutral. It's enough, because there are different approaches to do it, and it is easy to prove that such a plan is very, very possible.

          Besides, do you really expect him to go through the tax code and look at every deduction/exemption/credit one by one, when he could come up with a much simpler solution?

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Fascinating that after all these months of campaigning and not talking at ALL about his record as governor, or about Romneycare, both of those were front and center tonight. Nary a mention of Bain Capital. Hmmm.

            Here's some interesting perspective on GOVERNOR Romney:

            Romney As Governor: 800 Vetoes And One Big Deal
            by David Welna
            June 13, 2012

            In this installment of NPR's "Parallel Lives" series, we look at how Romney, in his four years as governor, dealt with a Massachusetts Legislature controlled by Democrats.

            Romney clearly did not relish having to work with a Legislature that was 85 percent Democratic. He pushed hard during his first two years as governor to boost the number of Republicans on Beacon Hill. But that effort was a failure; Republicans ended up losing seats in the midterm elections.

            Romney gave up on party building. "From now on," he told The Boston Globe, "it's me-me-me."

            Within weeks, Romney had unveiled a universal health insurance plan that would become his signature accomplishment as he launched a 2008 bid for the White House.

            Passing that bill meant working closely with Democrats, and at its ceremonial signing at Boston's Faneuil Hall, Romney spoke as a political uniter: "What is noteworthy is the uncharacteristic collaboration of so many individuals and groups and partisans," Romney said at the time. "And how did that happen? I think it's because of what this bill can lead to — every citizen with affordable, comprehensive health insurance."

            At Romney's side stood Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, who died in 2009. The two men had debated sharply on the same stage in 1994 during Romney's unsuccessful bid to unseat Kennedy. But in 2006, Kennedy had only praise for Romney: "To our governor, and to our Senate president and our speaker, we all say, 'Well done.' "

            Boston University political historian Thomas Whalen says passing the state's health care law pushed Romney well outside his comfort zone.

            "He was capable, you know, when he was willing to, to get down in the trenches, [to] cut deals, pigeonhole legislators, to get his reform health care package through," he says. "And he did with remarkable success."

            But apart from health care, Romney defined success not with big-picture legislative accomplishments but with confrontation.
            In a 2008 campaign ad, Romney actually bragged about taking on his Legislature: I like vetoes; I vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as governor," he said.

            Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously.

            Democratic legislator Pat Haddad issued this warning, suggesting that if Romney is elected president: "You're gonna get the same guy who never wanted to engage the Legislature. He never wanted to look for new jobs; he was always only looking for his next job."

            But Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams says that's just the kind of flak you get for having been a governor who shook up the status quo: "Obviously, when you do that and make the tough decisions, you're not going to make friends everywhere."

            Democrat Ellen Story recalls a Gov. Romney who had a policeman screen visitors and who did not allow lawmakers to use the bank of elevators just outside his office:

            "He was aloof; he was not approachable," Story says. "He was very much an outsider, the whole time he was here."

            Story remembers something else about the former governor: "The Republican reps would grumble that he didn't even know their names."

            George Peterson was one of those Republicans; he does not take issue with his colleague's characterization of Romney: "It took him a little bit to get used to dealing with elected officials, let's put it that way," he says.

            "The first year was, I'd say, a struggle," Peterson says. "He was used to being a top executive, 'and this is where we're going, and this is how we're going to do it.' And this animal [the state Legislature] doesn't work that way. Not at all. Especially when it's overwhelmingly ruled by one party."

            By the end of his term, Romney's approval rating in Massachusetts was only 34 percent. In recent polls, the number has barely changed.

            Here's a video that gives more detail and first-person accounts from people who worked with Romney during his tenure as governor.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Are you saying it's a bad thing? Not too long ago you were criticizing him for talking about Bain and not his governorship.

              Most of his vetoes were budget-related. He had to balance the budget under state law. To do so, he fought for his budgets, he vetoed hundreds of individual expenses, and used his emergency executive power to cut spending after his vetoes were overturned... you really think that is a bad thing?

              I don't have the exact numbers, but he came in with a deficit in the existing year(not his budget). He balanced that budget retroactively. He balanced every other budget for his 4 years. He put billions into the state's rainy day fund. All this, on top of taking the state from 50th in job creation the year before he was there, to 27th by the time he was done.

            2. HowardBThiname profile image89
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No mention of Bain Capital because Obama knows it's a non-starter. If Obama starts dipping into conspiracy theories he risks turning off the thinking side of his base.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this


                (sorry, couldn't help myself)

  3. rfmoran profile image91
    rfmoranposted 4 years ago

    No. I am a Mitt supporter, but I hope undecideds watched the debate. That could be the game changer.

  4. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 4 years ago

    If the Presidential Debate had been a little league baseball game the ten run rule would have been called in the second inning. Someone please get Mr. Obama some ice, because this is gonna leave a bruise.

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What was up with Obama? You know it's bad when even Chris Matthews is critical of the POTUS.

  5. cmlindblom profile image79
    cmlindblomposted 4 years ago

    Romney smashed this debate... Just look more comfortable up there. Obama is usually a very confident guy but tonight he didn't show it.

  6. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Why are none of you commenting on the substance of the debate?

    Obama smashed Romney on deductions, and Romney never answered.  Romney admitted he favored oil subsidies, and drilling in Alaska!  He admitted he wouldn't even CONSIDER any revenue increases, and he admitted to supporting Ryan's voucher program.

    Evaluation based on personal characteristics and not substance is completely irrelevant to who won.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I've been posting on other things.

      No, Obama didn't smash Romney on deductions. First, Obama was trying to attribute non-existent costs to Romney. The costs of extending the Bush tax cuts. Our budget, the way it is, already adjusts for that, so keeping them next year isn't an additional cost.

      Second, if you lower tax rates and eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits, you can lower the marginal rate without changing the effective rate. As one example of how to do that, Romney mentioned limiting all deductions to a certain dollar amount, like $25,000. If the tax rate is 25%, and the wealthiest individuals can only deduct $25,000, then their effective rate will be very, very close to 25%. A person with $10 million in income would pay 24.94%, which is more than they pay now, on average. So yes, it is actually very feasible.

      Romney admitted that oil subsidies would be on the table for being eliminated. Don't bring that up, Obama was destroyed on the subsidies.

      What's wrong with drilling in Alaska? We should be energy independent. We have over 200 years worth of oil under American soil(and yes, I can prove that if you don't believe me).

      He said he wouldn't increase taxes, but he will increase revenues by putting more people to work.

      As to the voucher system, it's not really a voucher system. Additionally, Romney will leave traditional medicare on the table, so if private insurance can't match it, then nothing will change(I can guarantee private insurance will find a way to match it, look at how Obama praised the innovation of the free market in lowering costs).

  7. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Guess what the most-tweeted term was during the debate?

    Big-bird. That makes me lose hope for our nation.

  8. innersmiff profile image71
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Things I'd rather do than watch a debate between Obama and Romney:
    Talk to myself
    Walk over broken glass
    Watch darts  . . .

  9. innersmiff profile image71
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    If Romney wins, are all you liberals going to re-acquire critical thinking skills when it comes to the government? If so, welcome back, just don't start arguing that the police state is a revert back to Bush's policies - it will simply be a continuation of Obama's agenda, and Clinton, and Bush Sr. They're all puppets of the New World Order, and the sooner you guys wake up the better, we need you. I just hope that conservatives don't suddenly go blind and deaf if Romney wins - I still want to see Tea Party protests - don't choke like the liberals when they suddenly stopped protesting war when it was Obama doing the murdering.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama has expanded the police state.  Romney will continue.

      Their only differences are domestic policy.

      1. innersmiff profile image71
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And still these are only superficial differences. Neither of them are offering any significant cuts in spending or bureaucracy, a balanced budget, a check on the Federal Reserve or a curb on the drug war.

  10. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago