Round 1

[bigbadberry3]

C'mon I know you've got one eye on the TV and one eye on here.

25 minutes in edge Romney. Romney on the offensive, Obama defense stuttering.

[themadscientist]

Watching the tube and the tube. Gary is chiming in via YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVHGJYy4 ... f4875b53bf

[bigbadberry3]

One of the better debates I've viewed, 50 minutes in.

[themadscientist]

s*** piled high from both of them, but watching Obama fume as Mitt just smiles like a mindless jackass is funny as hell.

[themadscientist]

Romney stacked it better and with a nicer smile, he wins this one. I got to tell Debbie Wasserman-Schultz she's stupid on her Twitter feed too, neat!

[stebo0728]

Definitely a win for Romney, but there was no runaway moment in my opinion. Definitely not a lock from Romney.

[300ZXttZMAN]

+1 definate win for Romney!

Romney def did his homework. Loved all the numbers romney was throwing down. Mean while Obama look dumb founded.

[szh]

As a friend of mine put it: "Watching the debate. Just heard one of the candidates evade an issue, twist the truth and change his tune. Oh wait, that was both of them. Bummer."

Z

[stebo0728]

The two lines that pinned in my memory were

"Trickle down government" - dont know if he coined that or not, probably not

"You dont just pick winners and losers, you just pick all the losers" - Classic!

[300ZXttZMAN]

Yea those were good ^

I also liked the parts about Sylendra.

[300ZXttZMAN]

I wish Romney would have some how geniously tied in "We did build it".

[themadscientist]

I think Chris is getting that tingle again.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-chris- ... g-tonight/

[Marenta]

Alrighty, my take:

Romney won this one on presence, poise, and attitude. However, he only addressed the moderator and Obama, and never once spoke to the people at home. He was also very reluctant to explain HOW he was going to do things; the only details he threw out were details that Obama had already given.

For content of what was said: Obama has that. Since he is the incumbant, he has to have firm facts and figures and his budget has to have those details outlined, so we already know all the numbers on Obama's side. Romney doesn't have to provide those facts, and, he REALLY needed to give us those numbers that he's been so reluctant to disclose.

Romney had this one because he was just more polished and appealing. You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd; he had no substance to what he was saying. It was all a rebuff to everything Obama said. I do appreciate the fact that Obama spoke to me at home, and I wished Romney had done the same, just so I could say that if he wins in November I wouldn't feel a disconnect.

[WDRacing]

BO is a fumbling buffoon without a teleprompter. He has been pandered by the mainstream media for so long now he doesn't know what to do when someone calls him on his BS or asks him tough questions. He kept on trying to spin his way into making Romney look like a rich, out of touch, candidate that is only going to give tax breaks to the "wealthy". Only to have his teeth kicked in with facts and stats. To the point that he asked the f*** Moderator to change topics. That was a wow moment imho.

No one has mentioned that Obama didn't deny he raids medicare for a full 716 billion dollars to pay for Obamacare, did everyone miss that? Hello! The friggin Liberals have been ALL over Romney for "changing medicare as we know it"...blah blah f*** blah. Only to have their BS called right out with no frggin way to rebuke or reply.

I loved the part where Romney said something over and over doesn't make it true, while referring to his children telling stories, or something to that extent. He made BO look like a child that's telling lies to avoid being punished.

BO came out and the first few words out of his lying mouth were, lets not look at where we've been, let's look at where we're going or some such shenanigans. Basically saying, please don't judge me on the things I've already done, I know they suck, you know they suck...lets just concentrate on allowing me to continue to suck.

Also, AARP isn't walking away from BO, they are running.

Maranta, I deleted that youtube link, it has no place in a serious conversation.

[300ZXttZMAN]

Brian you hit the nail on the head!!!

BO without a teleprompter is just an idiot.

[Marenta]

Wow, Brian, I put it up for "giggles," meaning it was to lighten the mood. If there were a song for Obama, I would have linked that as well.

I needed Romney to do 2 things: speak to me and give me details. He did neither. He got a D. That still doesn't change the fact that Obama got an F.

[szh]

Romney won this one on presence, poise, and attitude. However, he only addressed the moderator and Obama, and never once spoke to the people at home.

Are you sure about this? Most people are saying that Governor Romney addressed the camera (i.e., the audience at home, no?) far more often than President Obama.

Here is just one example of somebody at Time.com who watched the debate with the sound off: http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/04/le ... e-on-mute/

Her words: "... Romney appeared to be spoiling for a fight. Obama, meanwhile, seemed determined not to give him one. He preferred to direct his speeches to host Jim Lehrer, while Romney more often appealed directly to the camera."

Unfortunately, I could not watch the debate at all (am on a business trip), so I am reading responses from others instead.

Z

[stebo0728]

I found MSNBC to be extremely amusing afterwards. The were on meltdown like the mafia preparing for an IRS audit. I caught their onslaught against Mayor Julianni, and man, the good mayor put that little twerp in his place!

[Marenta]

I watched it, and Obama looked at the camera FAR more often than Romney. Romney was always looking at Lehrer or Obama when he was speaking.

I *might* have switched my vote to Romney if he had just given me a how. What loopholes are you closing? Are you going to give the higher tax brackets more tax write offs for hiring, because, that's the only way that "trickle down" works, and it doesn't even work that well.

Give me a how and don't put in magic, it's simple math. But, that's just what I wanted and needed, others could have been more easily swayed by his assertive answers.

[stebo0728]

I completely understand where you're coming from Marenta. I'm hearing that Romney is supposed to get more specific in the coming days, and I hope he does. If Obama had one consistency last night, it was his criticism against Romneys lack of specificity. If Romney had been more specific before the debate, much of Obama's only few attacks would have been DOA. I also understand Romney's defense against specificity, that historically specificity has not been a campaign issue. I think, though, with our technological boom of the past few decades, specificity has become more of a pressing issue. People have come to expect it, even if they don't understand it.

Romney definitely has Obama into a corner. Will he persist? Will he get specific and seal the deal? Time will tell.

[WDRacing]

Wow, Brian, I put it up for "giggles

If Howie had posted that link I would have erased it, letting you post it would be special treatment. We don't need anything to "lighten the mood". I didn't think that video lightened anything at all and I have a very loose sense of humor. Links like that can be made in a separate thread or not at all, it wasn't even work safe btw. No big deal really, I'm not calling you out...just saying keep it on topic and don't infuse the thread with junk youtube links.

I needed Romney to do 2 things: speak to me and give me details. He did neither. He got a D. That still doesn't change the fact that Obama got an F.

You're more then welcome to your own opinion. I'm not sure I understand how you're arriving at it, but that's on ME, not you. We have opposing views on most topics so

I agree that BO receives an F though

For me, I didn't need to be "spoken to". I needed him to define the differences between himself and BO. I needed him to call BO on all of his BS that he's been allowed to spew forth in an unchecked manner because the friggin mainstream media refuses to hold his feet to the fire for anything. Which is exactly what he did and he did so in a very clear and concise manner.

BO has NO plan. Raise taxes on the rich...that's it. For one, 250k isn't rich. For 2, taxing the rich an additional 10% doesn't even cover the interest we pay on our already accrued debt. THAT'S the plan? Really? GTFO!!! Take your propaganda and your lies and your divisiveness and G T F O.

[Marenta]

It doesn't matter which side of the swing set you're on or which media outlet it is, but it's painfully obvious that the fact checkers (regardless of political association) are going to be in full swing. FactCheck already has some initial facts pulled out for the debates.

And, you know, I don't care whose feet get held to what fire, I just want them all to be held to the same fire. If you lie, you get called out and you take your slap on the wrist and stop doing it. Unfortunately, the slap on the wrist just seems to be a stern talking-to and there is no stoppage in lying. I'm really tired of the lying, by both sides.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-de ... larations/

[Bubba1]

I initially felt Romney won the night due to his confident performance, but if you factor in fact-checking, I think it was closer to a draw. I don't see either of them swaying any swing voters based on this one debate.

[WDRacing]

I disagree. For the simple fact that Obama has painted Romney as evil in all ways. Last night Romney was able to illustrate to the total opposite and make BO look like a fool while doing so. If you remove this imagery of Romney being some evil rich guy that's only seeking to further his financial mongering, you're left with one question that needs an answer. Do you want 4 more years of Obama?

It's really that easy. If you believe BO has done a good job and you like the direction our Nation and it's foreign interests are heading then you'll vote for him.

People keep talking about requiring exact details from Romney. This strikes me as absurd, why? The people that previously voted for BO and are continuing to vote for him did so without any substance at all. When he ran the first time all he had was propaganda about hope and change. Seriously, that's it. Where did that get us? He ran on the emotions of a country that was fed up with it's Congress by saying he was going to change it for us. Bring it back to the people. He said he was going to do all kinds of things without laying down detailed plans of how he was going to do so. Things like reducing the debt by half, creating millions of jobs, running the most transparent Gov in the history of the country. It's similar to his current plan really accept now he's coming straight out and saying he believes in "economic patriotism", which is just a ncie way of saying raise the taxes on the supposed rich. His only solution is to raise taxes. He mentions cutting spending in a "balanced manner". Where's the out cry for details on that? What's he going to cut? Our problem isn't Gov revenue, it's Gov spending. All of his plans call for more Gov and more Gov spending. How are we supposed to get out of debt if he's already spent the money he's taking from the rich on more Gov programs?

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

It's very easy to appeal to everybody and debate well when you can say whatever you want, true or not. I didn't expect anything less from Romney, he is a calculating sociopath.
Disappointed the president couldn't tell one end of the mic from the other though.

[Bubba1]

I agree, our problem is government spending, not revenue. for the last 3 decades, Our Congresses and presidents (including Obama) have been spending borrowed money like idiots. I think what Obama was saying by a "balanced manner", was that his solution to the deficit would require a combination of less gov't spending and more revenue (taxes).

I think the reason Romney's under fire for his lack of details is because his arithmatic does not add up without adding revenue.

We all know higher taxes are coming, given the size of the debt. it seems inevitable regardless of which candidate wins.

[stebo0728]

Why Romney's plan doesn't make sense, without details, to liberals is because they are used to making plans without factoring in market forces and reactions. Just look at the rules provisioning CBO studies. Now I'm not claiming that Romney's plan will absolutely work, but the idea is, lowering this rate, but closing loopholes will level the playing field. You will get more revenue from companies who lost their loophole, and maybe even break even based on reaction to the loss of the tax break. And then companies who were ill advantaged by the tax break will up their market share, and thus increase revenue. This is a "growth leads to revenue" approach, and makes sense, at least in theory, if presumed market reaction plays out as expected. Again, it depends on implementation, and I think that is part of why detail and specifics are not as forth coming, because if you laid it out now, some proposed specifics, they're likely to change. Personally I think all subsidies and loopholes should be closed, let companies compete unimpeded by government sponsored advantages, and while we're at it, lose some of the freakish regulation we've acquired. Again Romney stressed, SOME regulation is needed. I'm with him on thinking that we've gone too far.

Now with all that said, will Romney implement things as he proposes? I like to think so, but dont we all have a sour taste in our mouths from Bush's conservatism? I totally understand the skepticism. And I share in a great deal of it, still I think it beats the alternative. I truly believe that. Both sides are chocked full of fact problems. Both sides have misinterpretations of their opposition that they refuse to let lose of.

I can tell you this, IF Romney wins, and he's just another Bush domestically, you can bet your a** that'll be the end of major republican endeavors. I think likewise, to some degree, if Obama wins again, and continues his current trend, he might just shoot the last leg liberals have been standing on.

[C-Kwik]

People keep talking about requiring exact details from Romney. This strikes me as absurd, why? The people that previously voted for BO and are continuing to vote for him did so without any substance at all.

It an issue of relativity. Last election, there was no incumbent so there wasn't much in the way of specifics we could really derive. That is, neither party had 4 years of records to look at nor any record that would extend into the the future to really argue specifically about. At least not publicly, so it becomes harder to attack specifics. So those debates were more general. This time around, we have 4 years of history to look at and some projections based on the current course. So Romney is able to attack those. But in doing so, its not unreasonable to expect some sort of specifics on how he would change those. But he's likely going to play it safe. He either doesn't know, doesn't want to piss off the wrong group(s), and certainly doesn't want to like a fool if he's wrong. Its a safer approach, but I suspect those who are on the fence still, are more interested in what changes are to be made. Ironically, if you are claiming that those who voted for Obama did so simply due to seeking change, then couldn't we fall into the same trap this time around by doing the same? Any real change occurs at our level. Meaning, we, as the people who decide who represents us, must demand more transparency about what we can expect for the next 4 years. Perpetuating the same expectations merely perpetuates the same results.

[stebo0728]

CK - makes alot of sense, regarding specifics. Seems Reagan pulled it off with more principle than specifics against Carter. We basically have another Carter here, so I think the same COULD be possible, if Romney doesn't relent. Mind you, just because Obama is a new Carter, does not make Romney a new Reagan. Ive heard some say that, I dont agree.

[WDRacing]

People keep talking about requiring exact details from Romney. This strikes me as absurd, why? The people that previously voted for BO and are continuing to vote for him did so without any substance at all.

It an issue of relativity. Last election, there was no incumbent so there wasn't much in the way of specifics we could really derive. That is, neither party had 4 years of records to look at nor any record that would extend into the the future to really argue specifically about. At least not publicly, so it becomes harder to attack specifics. So those debates were more general. This time around, we have 4 years of history to look at and some projections based on the current course. So Romney is able to attack those. But in doing so, its not unreasonable to expect some sort of specifics on how he would change those. But he's likely going to play it safe. He either doesn't know, doesn't want to piss off the wrong group(s), and certainly doesn't want to like a fool if he's wrong. Its a safer approach, but I suspect those who are on the fence still, are more interested in what changes are to be made. Ironically, if you are claiming that those who voted for Obama did so simply due to seeking change, then couldn't we fall into the same trap this time around by doing the same? Any real change occurs at our level. Meaning, we, as the people who decide who represents us, must demand more transparency about what we can expect for the next 4 years. Perpetuating the same expectations merely perpetuates the same results.

I see where you're going and understand your point. But what are his plans now and why should I believe they will be any different then the previous 4 years? The only thing I see that's different now is that he's going to raise taxes on the "rich". To me, that's just giving a runaway Gov more money to blow. I have zero faith that he'll balance anything.