Presidential debate thread

[Larry]

Now, now.

Romney specifically promised that he will cut taxes on job creators.
He specifically promised that he will not raise anybody's taxes whatsoever.
And he specifically promised that this will not cause a drop in revenues.

So I'm absolutely certain that he's going to do all three of those things.

[alexey]

Romney specifically promised that he will cut taxes on job creators.
He specifically promised that he will not raise anybody's taxes whatsoever.
And he specifically promised that this will not cause a drop in revenues.

So I'm absolutely certain that he's going to do all three of those things.

And he said that it will not add to the deficit, so no economist can say that it will add to the deficit.

[skinsfan_1215]

Now, now.

Romney specifically promised that he will cut taxes on job creators.
He specifically promised that he will not raise anybody's taxes whatsoever.
And he specifically promised that this will not cause a drop in revenues.

So I'm absolutely certain that he's going to do all three of those things.

A quick view of America under a Romney presidency...

[Duckus]

This is going to break the internet - especially Twitter.

The Daily Beast: Hanky or Notes: Did Mitt Cheat?

A Romney spokeswoman says it was a handkerchief, but the Internet isn't buying it. A video circulated on Friday showing Romney pulling an item out of his pocket and putting it on the podium before the debate. The liberal blogosphere immediately suggested he had prepared notes for the debate, which is assumed to be against the debating rules.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...itt-cheat.html

For the record, I think it is a handkerchief. I just think it is funny how crazy the internet gets.

[visionary]

I saw that yesterday, lmao. People will come up with any excuse.
(see reactions to today's job numbers by some conservatives for example)

[MattFancy]

This is going to break the internet - especially Twitter.

The Daily Beast: Hanky or Notes: Did Mitt Cheat?

A Romney spokeswoman says it was a handkerchief, but the Internet isn't buying it. A video circulated on Friday showing Romney pulling an item out of his pocket and putting it on the podium before the debate. The liberal blogosphere immediately suggested he had prepared notes for the debate, which is assumed to be against the debating rules.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...itt-cheat.html

For the record, I think it is a handkerchief. I just think it is funny how crazy the internet gets.

Hard to tell anything from that angle. Only way to tell would be if you see him use a handkerchief at some point during the debate.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

http://front.moveon.org/10-pieces-of...pid/?rc=dtwcap

10 Pieces Of Proof That Mitt Romney Thinks You're Stupid

He talked a great game during the first debate. But as Think Progress revealed, a lot of it was just bald-faced lying. Here are 10 of the worst:

1) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.”

A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amount to $5 trillion over the decade.

Those Republicans and their math!

2) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.”

If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

3) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.”

This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

4) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.”

Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.

5) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake.

There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

6) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.”

Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

7) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.”

Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

8) “But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.”

The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.

9) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.”

Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.

10) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.”

Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.

Hail.

[mistertim]

Hard to tell anything from that angle. Only way to tell would be if you see him use a handkerchief at some point during the debate.

[USS Redskins]

He didnt have to cheat. Obama was terrible. It was Obama's arrogance that ultimately doomed him - he listens to all of his people and worshipers who tell him he can do wrong and was totally unprepared and looked like a tool.
He made Mitt Romney look presidential.
That was freaking hilarious... nice job, Barack!

[Bang]

Looks are, of course, what matters the most to the American voter.
this week should be an eye opener.

Unfortunately, most will only open their eyes to see how something looks.

we have no substance.
Plastic, image-absorbed society.

Weak.

~Bang

[DaveMason]

Can't tell if you're kidding or not, Bang, but I don't think USS is talking about "looks" as in visuals. If we're talking strictly visuals, then they are both reasonably handsome, well-dressed guys.

The truth is, Obama was unprepared for the debate. I don't necessarily buy USS's argument that it's because he's arrogant or surrounded by yes-men or whatever (sometimes, **** happens. Nobody wins every single time. I expect him to do a lot better in the town hall debate)...but yeah, Obama was certainly unprepared. Romney had better answers, he delivered them with more confidence, and just generally knew his stuff. I don't think superficial looks had anything to do with that...

[Switchgear]

Romney had better answers, he delivered them with more confidence, and just generally knew his stuff. I don't think superficial looks had anything to do with that...

I would agree Dave, except that as GHH shows in post 532, a lot of what Romney was saying was not true. Bang's (rightfully) saying people care less about truth and substance than they do about style and appearance. Otherwise Romney would be getting lambasted instead of praised.

[DjTj]

I would agree Dave, except that as GHH shows in post 532, a lot of what Romney was saying was not true. Bang's (rightfully) saying people care less about truth and substance than they do about style and appearance. Otherwise Romney would be getting lambasted instead of praised.

But it's Obama's fault for not calling him on those lies. Obama had many opportunities to challenge Romney on his contradictions on tax breaks, to explain how Obamacare affects Medicare, or cite the Democratic legislation seeking to eliminate business deductions when jobs go overseas. But he didn't. So Obama lost the debate at the debate. The candidates can try to supplement the record in commercials or other forums afterwards, but Obama definitely didn't do it at the debate.

[Duckus]

The truth is, Obama was unprepared for the debate. I don't necessarily buy USS's argument that it's because he's arrogant or surrounded by yes-men or whatever (sometimes, **** happens. Nobody wins every single time. I expect him to do a lot better in the town hall debate)...but yeah, Obama was certainly unprepared. Romney had better answers, he delivered them with more confidence, and just generally knew his stuff. I don't think superficial looks had anything to do with that...

You could say Romney's win was superficial because it had little to do with reality. It was based on how both look and sounded . . . but was it really about what they SAID?

Romney essential stood up and changed every position he has held during this campaign. How can you be the winner of a debate and not actually advocate for positions that you are running on? But he did. Romney absolutely won the debate - the results are clear.

As DjTj said - Obama lost because he didn't fight back. Obama should have said multiple times "you are a liar" but instead he avoided the confrontation.

[DaveMason]

I would agree Dave, except that as GHH shows in post 532, a lot of what Romney was saying was not true. Bang's (rightfully) saying people care less about truth and substance than they do about style and appearance. Otherwise Romney would be getting lambasted instead of praised.

If Romney were wrong or lying, it's Obama's job to explain why he's wrong or where he's lying. Why didn't he do that?

Also, I'm not knowledgable enough to go through every point that GHH posted, but some of them seem kind of silly to me.

The first point, for instance: Obama claims Romney is providing a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. Romney says there are no cuts of that kind of scale, on his plan.

Tax center analysis says that by 2015, it'll cut $480 billion which will account for 5 trillion over the following 10 years. So by 2025, it'll be 5 trillion? I guess anything can be a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, if you wait long enough...