October 22nd Presidential Debate Opinions

[winex]

Only vote if you watched the debate.

 

[steven]

Romney appeared Presidential.  Obama appeared mean-spirited, condescending, and small-minded.

Obama made a big blunder with his comment on sequestration.  After the debate, his staff had to reinterpret his words.

 

[winex]

Romney appeared Presidential.  Obama appeared mean-spirited, condescending, and small-minded.

Obama made a big blunder with his comment on sequestration.  After the debate, his staff had to reinterpret his words.

I said this before, but after the Biden/Ryan debate it was clear that the strategy was to try to overtalk the opponent and to tell any lie imaginable to get through the debates.

Saying that sequestration won't happen is one example, but there were others.  For example misrepresenting Romney's position on bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler  in both the second and third debates. Personally I would feel better about Romney if what Obama said about his opinion on handling the auto companies was true.

I don't know if you have seen it, but Thomas Sowell has a good article on the pseudo righteous indignation that Obama showed about having his integrity questioned during the second debate.  You can see it athttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/23/libya_and_lies_115873.html

 

[cubiczirconia]

Six people said Obama won, and not one of them bothered to post a good picture of horses and bayonets.
If Romney didn't agree with everything Obama said, it might have been a better debate. I want a refund on my caramel popcorn.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Romney appeared Presidential.  Obama appeared mean-spirited, condescending, and small-minded.

Obama made a big blunder with his comment on sequestration.  After the debate, his staff had to reinterpret his words.

That seems to be the Republican talking point.  I have the opposite view.  Romney looked overly deferential and sounded like an Obama surrogate in praising Obama's strategy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, War on Terrorism, and most foreign policy.  He sounded like he didn't know anything about how the modern military works and still wanted to push forward at least $2 trillion in spending while claiming that the US is broke.   

I also found his China view hilarious.  On the one hand, he claims that China wants to be our ally but then talks about how it is cheating and a currency manipulator.  He also has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Chinese government.  China/CCP does not want to be the ally of the US, it wants to surpass the US and be the dominate force in the world.  It will spare no expense and take any tactic, legal or not, to achieve this goal.  This has been the CCP policy for 60 years and it has not changed.

Obama won by a wide margin based upon the pundit talks and instant poll.  The only question is whether it mattered.  It is quite interesting to me that people cared about this debate less since foreign policy is what the president has most influence and control on.  A president has little control over the economy.

 

[changm55]

RAP BATTLE~!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU&feature=related

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Romney appeared Presidential.  Obama appeared mean-spirited, condescending, and small-minded.

Obama made a big blunder with his comment on sequestration.  After the debate, his staff had to reinterpret his words.

I said this before, but after the Biden/Ryan debate it was clear that the strategy was to try to overtalk the opponent and to tell any lie imaginable to get through the debates.

Saying that sequestration won't happen is one example, but there were others.  For example misrepresenting Romney's position on bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler  in both the second and third debates. Personally I would feel better about Romney if what Obama said about his opinion on handling the auto companies was true.

I don't know if you have seen it, but Thomas Sowell has a good article on the pseudo righteous indignation that Obama showed about having his integrity questioned during the second debate.  You can see it athttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/23/libya_and_lies_115873.html

What?

1)  Sequestration is not going to happen.  No one is going to cut defense funding or domestic policies.  Do you actually think that anyone is going to call Obama out during the lame duck session after he get elected?  And even if they do, who cares.

2)  What was the mischaracterization of Romney's stance?  He called for the companies to go in the BK with no source of liquidity.  No private lenders were going to come to GM or Chrysler's aid and Romney only wanted to provide guaranteed loans after the BK.  That would have resulted in the companies being liquidated.  In fact, even with the bailout, GM had to liquidate a number of brands like Hummer and Pontiac.

 

[steven]

Obama won by a wide margin based upon the pundit talks and instant poll.  The only question is whether it mattered.  It is quite interesting to me that people cared about this debate less since foreign policy is what the president has most influence and control on.  A president has little control over the economy.

This seems like a Democratic talking point. 

A president has a huge effect on the economy when he declares war on job creators
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-obamacare-responsible-for-surge-in.htmlhttp://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/prepping-for-obamacare-olive-garden-and.htmlhttp://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/mish-obamacare-mailbag-expect-more-part.htmlhttp://www.marfdrat.net/2011/07/19/...and-progress-and-job-creation-in-my-lifetime/

 

[winex]

Six people said Obama won, and not one of them bothered to post a good picture of horses and bayonets.
If Romney didn't agree with everything Obama said, it might have been a better debate. I want a refund on my caramel popcorn.

For the record, every Marine is issued a bayonet.

 

[changm55]

i like how during the debate theyre talking about iran n the middle east n how the USA brings freedom and destroys dictators, but forgets to mention iran hates us because we propped up their shah to "dictate" them...

n they talk about isreal without talking about the settlements...

n then i realized ppl actually buy this shit... hahaha...

my only highlight was when the moderator said "obama bin laden"... had a chuckle... 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Obama won by a wide margin based upon the pundit talks and instant poll.  The only question is whether it mattered.  It is quite interesting to me that people cared about this debate less since foreign policy is what the president has most influence and control on.  A president has little control over the economy.

This seems like a Democratic talking point. 

A president has a huge effect on the economy when he declares war on job creators
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-obamacare-responsible-for-surge-in.htmlhttp://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/prepping-for-obamacare-olive-garden-and.htmlhttp://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/mish-obamacare-mailbag-expect-more-part.htmlhttp://www.marfdrat.net/2011/07/19/...and-progress-and-job-creation-in-my-lifetime/

Seriously...job creators?  Where in China?  Where were the job creators during the Bush era?  If trickle down works so great, where are the jobs from the 2000-2008?  You think "job creator" stop creating jobs in this country because their feeling got hurt?  Plenty of job creators amd jobs during the Clinton Administration.  Seriously, the 1980s called, they want the Laffer Curve back.

Also, it's not a Democratic talking point...it's the truth.  1)  Economy are largely driven by private force not within any one group or government control, 2) Presidents do not pass laws, and 3) Presidents can do a lot of thing on foreign policies and military on his own, not to mention Congress is usually very deferential to President when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

For the record, every Marine is issued a bayonet.

You know that Obama said that they use fewer bayonets right...not that they don't use bayonets anymore.  I am pretty sure the armed forces still use horses somewhere.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@winex: It's obvious you are pro Republican... is there anything you don't like about Romney?

@irvinecommuter: Same question but about Obama.

 

[changm55]

all our problems stem from some half ass solution we came up with before for a previous recession/crisis... reagan n thatcher tackled over powered unions by opening up markets (began outsourcing)... weakened labor cant afford shit so credit cards were introduced... credit cards introduced causes creditors to be over powerful... over powerful creditors caused todays recession

the only mfging that will come back to the usa is advanced mfging... the mfging of the good old days will never come back... not now, not ever... unless white ppl suddenly have a paradigm shift and say hey ok fine, we will work for crap pay for crap jobs... that would solve MOST of our problems, including illegal immigration laugh...

i dunno... i source from 3 machining centers... the product and cost is the same... so is the quality... in the states, the plant has 30-40 machining centers and ONE dude on rollerblades going to each machine to swap out products everytime a machine goes from red to green... in taiwan we have 1 guy at 1 machining center... in china we have 3 guys at 1 machining center... i dunno... seeing mfging from this angle, u tell me how USA can compete with the global economy unless white ppl wake up one day and be like ok sure, ill mow ur lawn for 3 dollas~...

 

[steven]

1)  Sequestration is not going to happen.  No one is going to cut defense funding or domestic policies.  Do you actually think that anyone is going to call Obama out during the lame duck session after he get elected?  And even if they do, who cares.

Obama has now publicly assured the country that there will be no sequestration.  Now he owns it.  Obama could not get his budget accepted in the past 3 years and this year lost in the Democratically-controlled senate 99 to zero.  But somehow, magically, he's going to prevent sequestration.

Republicans don't have to move an inch.  Why should they?  Obama promised no sequestration and if it comes, it's just another Obama failure.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

@winex: It's obvious you are pro Republican... is there anything you don't like about Romney?

@irvinecommuter: Same question but about Obama.

I didn't like how he handled the homeowner issue...too much hand holding.  I also didn't like how did basically folded on Wall Street Reform.  He was also weak on some issues including trying to push through a budget or setting forth a more clear vision for spending. 

I knew that Obama is a conciliator by nature and rather find a middle ground rather than pushing people to do what he wants.  That was the biggest problem of his administration in that he kinda of lost his way halfway through.  He let the Republicans in Congress dictate the narrative and the storyline for the last year of so.

He has a clear vision what he wants to do but fails to fight for it.  I think he was politically fatigued from the fight over Healthcare reform.  Let's not forget that the same fight almost broke Clinton. 

My sense is that he will be much tougher and more forceful in a second term.  I am concerned that the Republican House/Congress will continue to block. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

1)  Sequestration is not going to happen.  No one is going to cut defense funding or domestic policies.  Do you actually think that anyone is going to call Obama out during the lame duck session after he get elected?  And even if they do, who cares.

Obama has now publicly assured the country that there will be no sequestration.  Now he owns it.  Obama could not get his budget accepted in the past 3 years and this year lost in the Democratically-controlled senate 99 to zero.  But somehow, magically, he's going to prevent sequestration.

Republicans don't have to move an inch.  Why should they?  Obama promised no sequestration and if it comes, it's just another Obama failure.

Because it's a campaign promise...presidents don't care about campaign promises in their second term.  And how many people even knew what "sequestration" means...seriously people will be Christmas shopping and planning their holiday parties.

 

[steven]

Seriously...job creators?  Where in China?  Where were the job creators during the Bush era?  If trickle down works so great, where are the jobs from the 2000-2008?  You think "job creator" stop creating jobs in this country because their feeling got hurt?  Plenty of job creators amd jobs during the Clinton Administration.  Seriously, the 1980s called, they want the Laffer Curve back.

I am disappointed that you obviously didn't read any of the links.  None of those jobs are in China.  Real US employers are announcing that they are not hiring because of Obama policies.

Also, it's not a Democratic talking point...it's the truth.  1)  Economy are largely driven by private force not within any one group or government control, 2) Presidents do not pass laws, and 3) Presidents can do a lot of thing on foreign policies and military on his own, not to mention Congress is usually very deferential to President when it comes to foreign policy.

That's ridiculous.  Governments have the power to raise costs for businesses (e.g. Obamacare).  Businesses that cannot afford to hire will not.  With a shortage of jobs, the economy will suffer.

Presidents with control over both houses of Congress do pass laws.  Obama passed many ill-advised laws in his first two years and he killed the economic recovery.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Seriously...job creators?  Where in China?  Where were the job creators during the Bush era?  If trickle down works so great, where are the jobs from the 2000-2008?  You think "job creator" stop creating jobs in this country because their feeling got hurt?  Plenty of job creators amd jobs during the Clinton Administration.  Seriously, the 1980s called, they want the Laffer Curve back.

I am disappointed that you obviously didn't read any of the links.  None of those jobs are in China.  Real US employers are announcing that they are not hiring because of Obama policies.

Also, it's not a Democratic talking point...it's the truth.  1)  Economy are largely driven by private force not within any one group or government control, 2) Presidents do not pass laws, and 3) Presidents can do a lot of thing on foreign policies and military on his own, not to mention Congress is usually very deferential to President when it comes to foreign policy.

That's ridiculous.  Governments have the power to raise costs for businesses (e.g. Obamacare).  Businesses that cannot afford to hire will not.  With a shortage of jobs, the economy will suffer.

Presidents with control over both houses of Congress do pass laws.  Obama passed many ill-advised laws in his first two years and he killed the economic recovery.

He killed the economic recovery?  Have you looked at corporate earnings or the stock market?  Have you looked at the jobs reports to see what sectors are losing jobs?  If anything, he didn't spend enough to bolster the economy. 

You understand that companies in Japan, Germany, the UK, and every other country in the world with universal healthcare has a competitive advantage over American companies because they don't have to bear the health care costs right?  They leave that to the government. 

 

[winex]

Romney appeared Presidential.  Obama appeared mean-spirited, condescending, and small-minded.

Obama made a big blunder with his comment on sequestration.  After the debate, his staff had to reinterpret his words.

I said this before, but after the Biden/Ryan debate it was clear that the strategy was to try to overtalk the opponent and to tell any lie imaginable to get through the debates.

Saying that sequestration won't happen is one example, but there were others.  For example misrepresenting Romney's position on bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler  in both the second and third debates. Personally I would feel better about Romney if what Obama said about his opinion on handling the auto companies was true.

I don't know if you have seen it, but Thomas Sowell has a good article on the pseudo righteous indignation that Obama showed about having his integrity questioned during the second debate.  You can see it athttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/23/libya_and_lies_115873.html

What?

1)  Sequestration is not going to happen.  No one is going to cut defense funding or domestic policies.  Do you actually think that anyone is going to call Obama out during the lame duck session after he get elected?  And even if they do, who cares.

2)  What was the mischaracterization of Romney's stance?  He called for the companies to go in the BK with no source of liquidity.  No private lenders were going to come to GM or Chrysler's aid and Romney only wanted to provide guaranteed loans after the BK.  That would have resulted in the companies being liquidated.  In fact, even with the bailout, GM had to liquidate a number of brands like Hummer and Pontiac.

Here is what Romney actually said, not what Obama said that Romney said.  (Again, for the record, I would feel better if what Obama said reflected reality)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...auto-industry-post-bankruptcy-patrick-brennan

    If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won?t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

    Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course ? the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

    But don?t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass ? they bet on management and they lost. . . .

    The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

    In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.