snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 09:31 am
I said this once before - prior to the Bush v. Gore debates, and was disappointed by Gore's performance against 'likeable good ole boy' Bush.

But I am really looking forward to these upcoming presidential debates. I think the combination of Romney's stiff inability to connect with a crowd, combined with Obama's much more developed ability to take issues on the fly could make for a great couple of nights for the Dems.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 09:38 am
@snood,
Wake me when it's over.

Romney seems unable and/or unwilling to fix has popularity slide. For this and other gaffes, I'm grateful. To say that issues are being soft-pedaled is an understatement. Where's Ross Perot when you need him?

[edit: Oh crap! Perot endorsed Mitt Romney for President. ]
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 09:42 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

Wake me when it's over.

Romney seems unable and/or unwilling to fix has popularity slide. For this and other gaffes, I'm grateful. To say that issues are being soft-pedaled is an understatement. Where's Ross Perot when you need him?

[edit: Oh crap! Perot endorsed Mitt Romney for President. ]



Also Jenna Jameson (snicker) and (more serious and a little disappointing) Clint Eastwood.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 09:56 am
@snood,
On the other hand, expectations for the debates are incredibly high for Obama and incredibly low for Romney. Romney could 'win' simply by hanging on for dear life and thereby exceeding expectations.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 10:00 am
@snood,
oy. A porno star. Now there's gome good company.

Clint Eastwood? Love his movies, but not so much the man (fathered at least seven children by five women and been described as a "serial womanizer").
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 10:04 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

On the other hand, expectations for the debates are incredibly high for Obama and incredibly low for Romney. Romney could 'win' simply by hanging on for dear life and thereby exceeding expectations.


According to whom? Romney is not exactly a bumpkin just off the farm. He did fine in the run-up debates and he will do fine in the presidential debates as well. He will get his shots in and he will take some shots.

I expect we will see about a thousand "uh"s from Obama over the course of the 3 debates.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 10:32 am
@McGentrix,
If Romney's retorts to questions during a debate is similar to how he's been answering questions, he's already dead meat.

He's a smart arse, nothing more. He's hiding too much to reveal anything, and the debates will show that he believes he's owed the presidency just because he's made his wealth at Bain Capital - and nothing more.

Nobody really knows how many jobs he's created and destroyed, but he uses Bain Capital as his only experience at "creating jobs."

Under Obama, 4.5 million jobs were created - and that's after the worst economic recession after the Great Depression.

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 11:41 am
McGentrix says:
Quote:
I expect we will see about a thousand "uh"s from Obama over the course of the 3 debates.

Probably. It's called "actually thinking about what you want to say".
Romney, on the other hand, raely seems to pause for actual thought. He just opens his mouth and let's fly. Which is why he keeps coming up with those real gaffes.

And the nickname worked for Stonewall Jackson, in a totally different meaning of the word. But if we get Stonewall Romney in the debates, it's all over for him. He's going to get called on it if all he does is duck and weave, as he's been doing so far.He's going to have to come clean with his past, and actually propose something substantive for the future.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 12:03 pm
from today's NYT:
Quote:
When consumption and investment are not powering the economy, the government sector has to fill the gap with stimulus to boost consumer demand. Much of the economy’s flat performance since 2011 reflects insufficient stimulus, reinforcing insufficient demand. That means sluggish job growth, lackluster pay and persistently weak demand. It’s not a downward spiral, but it is self-reinforcing stagnation.

Politics, however, has gotten in the way of even basic moves to push the economy upward.

Responding to the latest employment report, the White House noted correctly that major areas of job weakness — including positions in construction and teaching — are precisely those that would have been the subject of the jobs bill proposed in 2011 by President Obama. That legislation was blocked by Congressional Republicans.

Mitt Romney responded to the July report by saying that the numbers reflect the failure of Mr. Obama’s policies when, in reality, they reflect the success of the Republican obstructionism
.

(emphasis added)

Romney 2012? uh, no. Romney, NEVER.

:
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 12:37 pm
@MontereyJack,
Can't imagine why conservatives are hard pressed to kill their own economy with stupidity.

Republicans are obstructionists and destroyers of jobs because they will not approve the legislation to increase jobs or taxes in order to maintain the necessary services to keep our economy growing. They only want to fund our defense department without increasing taxes to pay for it.

On top of all that, they have a candidate who is a known liar, and has no foreign policy skills that he totally destroyed with his recent trips to the UK, Israel and Poland. Most times, it's three strikes and you're out!

What attracts voters to Romney over Obama?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 12:39 pm
@McGentrix,
Yaknow, you mentioned something similar in the debate thread the other day. Do you really not remember that Obama won every debate he's been in, on the national level? That he creamed McCain in all three debates?

His past performances don't match up with the image you're presenting here.

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 12:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yaknow, you mentioned something similar in the debate thread the other day. Do you really not remember that Obama won every debate he's been in, on the national level? That he creamed McCain in all three debates?

His past performances don't match up with the image you're presenting here.

Cycloptichorn


Has Obama debated Romney yet? Did I miss it? Until then, you support your proven failure and I will support my hopeful contender.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 01:18 pm
@McGentrix,
Romney debated Romney, and both lost!

He doesn't know how to "debate."

His response to questions is "put up or shut up." "I don't have to show anything; just trust me!" That will go very well in a presidential debate.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 01:21 pm
McG, The 'proven failure" resurrected the auto industry which was on the ropes, turned around the death spiral of the Great Recession, saved the American economy and started it back upward, took the first giant steps in reforming health care and making it work for everyone, and found and gave the order to do away with Osama binLaden. All in the face of relentless opposition. What has your hopeless contender done, McG?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 01:52 pm
@MontereyJack,
You must know all that by now; that's all secret. You just have to trust him.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 02:47 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

McG, The 'proven failure" resurrected the auto industry which was on the ropes,

You mean threw money at it until the problem went away. Lets save terms like "resurrected" for the religious people.

Quote:
turned around the death spiral of the Great Recession

He did? When did that happen?

Quote:
saved the American economy and started it back upward

By telling business people that they didn't make their business, telling everyone the private sector was doing fine and keeping unemployment over 8%? Way to save America! Woohoo!

Quote:
took the first giant steps in reforming health care and making it work for everyone

Some good stuff, some bad stuff. Remains to be seen what the results will be.

Quote:
and found and gave the order to do away with Osama binLaden. All in the face of relentless opposition

Right, because no other person would have done so if they were President... Rolling Eyes
JamesMorrison
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 02:56 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
from today's NYT:

Quote:

When consumption and investment are not powering the economy, the government sector has to fill the gap with stimulus to boost consumer demand. Much of the economy’s flat performance since 2011 reflects insufficient stimulus, reinforcing insufficient demand. That means sluggish job growth, lackluster pay and persistently weak demand. It’s not a downward spiral, but it is self-reinforcing stagnation.

Politics, however, has gotten in the way of even basic moves to push the economy upward.

Responding to the latest employment report, the White House noted correctly that major areas of job weakness — including positions in construction and teaching — are precisely those that would have been the subject of the jobs bill proposed in 2011 by President Obama. That legislation was blocked by Congressional Republicans.

Mitt Romney responded to the July report by saying that the numbers reflect the failure of Mr. Obama’s policies when, in reality, they reflect the success of the Republican obstructionism.


Well, leaving aside the argument that Keynesian spending by government may or may not have a multiplier effect greater than one, we do have agreement on both sides that Obama's stimulus just didn't work. So the Republicans made their decision based on empirical evidence. Enough Congressional Democrats (in the 1st two years of the Obama Admin) made the same decision, based on the political reality that a significant number of voters were against another stimulus bill thereby making passage a political impossibilty.

The Times here accuses politicians in general and Congressional Republicans specifically of obstructionism and in the process implies that some Congressional action (in the form of government spending) is needed. Nowhere in the quote is the the reasoning for the Republican position explored (perhaps it is in the article but we have no link).

Neither does the quote mention that during the first two years of the Obama Admin the Dems had complete control of the executive and legislative branches of government and could have passed any legislation they wanted. It is at this point where we can retroactively view Obama and the Dems taking possession of the present economy. After all, as Obama was campaigning in 2008 against the 'Bush Economy', did he not lead Americans to believe that the main reason for his election was that he would fix it? Has he?

The American voter must decide first whether he wants to rehire an Obama that has not presented any plan substantially different than what he has done in the past and the result of which is manifest in his record. Given that the voters are uncomfortable in returning Obama to office, Romney's task then is to convince them that he is an acceptable alternative with the skills to enact those solutions he has put forth and conceivably places the U.S. on the road to recovery.

JM
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 03:03 pm
@McGentrix,
All lame responses.
He didn't throw money at it until the problem went away. How did you arrive at such a lame response.

The auto industry workers add a huge amount to state and federal taxes, and that's from WORKING! Otherwise, they would be part of the unemployed, and the rate would be higher than it is today.

They also spend money to increase retail sales; FYI consumer spending represents 70% of our economy. That in turn allows those working in retail keep jobs - and they also pay taxes.

That you have no idea about the Great Depression or Great Recession just proves your ignorance about economics.

Then, you had to add another one of your ignorant opinions by saying,
Quote:
By telling business people that they didn't make their business,


Taking statements out of context just shows another reason why you are ignorant.

Again, you wrote,
Quote:
Some good stuff, some bad stuff.


What are the "bad stuff?" Please delineate them for me?

No one else would have done it like the GW Bush administration who said "he really wasn't concerned about bin Laden."

This is from YouTube.
Quote:
Remember, this is just SIX MONTHS after 9/11. In response to a reporters question, President Bush tells the world that he is "truly not that concerned" with catching the man who murdered 3,000 Americans just six months and two days earlier because "we've marginalized him."

Please note that he ALMOST says "I don't know where he is, nor do I... (really care)." but catches himself in mid-sentence.

"He hides in caves while sending young people off to die."







0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 03:06 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Who says that Obama's stimulus didn't work?

From bobcesca.com.
Quote:
Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked
Posted on 07/24/2012 at 3:15 pm by JM Ashby
Bloomberg ran a column yesterday debunking the entire economic argument against the policies of President Obama titled “The U.S. Economic Policy Debate is a Sham,” and, not surprisingly, a poll conducted by the University of Chicago found very few economists that agree with the opposition.

The first and most obvious result they found was that economists agree the stimulus worked, but for the purposes of this campaign, the latter is probably more important.

Let’s start with Obama’s stimulus. The standard Republican talking point is that it failed, meaning it didn’t reduce unemployment. Yet in a survey of leading economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.


Who are you using as your source? FOX News?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 04:53 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Quote:
Neither does the quote mention that during the first two years of the Obama Admin the Dems had complete control of the executive and legislative branches of government and could have passed any legislation they wanted.

Since that isn't true would you like to look at reality again?
The Senate requires 60 votes to overcome the GOP filibuster. The Dems had 60 votes for about 2 months of that time period. Franken wasn't seated until July of 2009. Kennedy died in late August of 2009.
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 33
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 07:45:24