Obama didn't lie about Romney's intentions for tax cuts for the rich. Romney just changed his entire tune on stage, again, for the benefit of the low information voters. Romney has set the table to be creamed later. On FACTS. Watch. You'll see.

Edited October 9, 201213 yr by Jingthing

Obama didn't lie about Romney's intentions for tax cuts for the rich. Romney just changed his entire tune on stage, again, for the benefit of the low information voters. Romney has set the table to be creamed later. On FACTS. Watch. You'll see.

Hope you're right. One more debate like the last one and the only question will be whether Romney has coattails.

Obama didn't lie about Romney's intentions for tax cuts for the rich. Romney just changed his entire tune on stage, again, for the benefit of the low information voters. Romney has set the table to be creamed later. On FACTS. Watch. You'll see.

Hope you're right. One more debate like the last one and the only question will be whether Romney has coattails.

I agree. But highly unlikely. Now that Romney has committed himself to the "New" Romney on the big debate stage, he will be forced to defend his new Romney which is chock full of shockingly BIG lies. You don't need to be a master debater to nail Romney now.

Obama didn't lie about Romney's intentions for tax cuts for the rich.

Well, both CNN and Stephanie Cutter disagree.

BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.

CUTTER: Well with, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.

Obama didn't lie about Romney's intentions for tax cuts for the rich. Romney just changed his entire tune on stage, again, for the benefit of the low information voters. Romney has set the table to be creamed later. On FACTS. Watch. You'll see.

Hope you're right. One more debate like the last one and the only question will be whether Romney has coattails.

I agree. But highly unlikely. Now that Romney has committed himself to the "New" Romney on the big debate stage, he will be forced to defend his new Romney which is chock full of shockingly BIG lies. You don't need to be a master debater to nail Romney now.

Too bad the subject of the next debate is Foreign Policy and not Economics. But I'm sure the voters would love to hear Obama explain his recent debate debacle..."Thank you Mr. Moderator, thank you fine citizens of Hempstead, NY. Before I begin my opening remarks, I would like to tell ya that over the past two weeks, I got together with several speech writers and David Letterman's team of comedy writers and they came up with some real zingers to use on some of the things that President, er,.. Governor Romney told two weeks ago. I, uh, ...er, where's my teleprompter?"

Obama didn't lie about Romney's intentions for tax cuts for the rich. Romney just changed his entire tune on stage, again, for the benefit of the low information voters. Romney has set the table to be creamed later. On FACTS. Watch. You'll see.

Hope you're right. One more debate like the last one and the only question will be whether Romney has coattails.

I agree. But highly unlikely. Now that Romney has committed himself to the "New" Romney on the big debate stage, he will be forced to defend his new Romney which is chock full of shockingly BIG lies. You don't need to be a master debater to nail Romney now.

If they were such bold faced lies it shouldn't have taken a great debater to nail Romney live & in person during the first debate. Now, yes Obama might have enough time to plot out his rebuttals (ala George Costanza in the Seinfeld episode "The Comeback") but the 2nd debate is on foreign policy so the same questions will most likely not come up again. So maybe Obama can nail Romney in the 3rd debate on those questions, or maybe he won't and the Republicans will "steal" the election. Better start rehearsing this line now because it will make you feel better -- "Romney is an illegitimately elected president".

Edited October 9, 201213 yr by OriginalPoster

Correction. No, the second debate is a town hall format about domestic AND foreign policy. The third debate is about foreign policy.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/obama-romney-debate-formats-include-town-hall/1#.UHRgAa7htic

I see we're back to cartoon time. I love US politics. It reminds me of Cbeebies...

This is the first time I have ever read a discussion by a group of Americans on their elections. Its truly fascinating.

Our system of turning up on polling day and X marks the spot seems quite primitive in this context.

I see we're back to cartoon time. I love US politics. It reminds me of Cbeebies...

This is the first time I have ever read a discussion by a group of Americans on their elections. Its truly fascinating.

Our system of turning up on polling day and X marks the spot seems quite primitive in this context.

As you may have begun to notice, most afficianodos of US politics are much more interested in the style and process of elections than they are interested in outcomes which are by and large meaningless. Substantively you have candidates that front a collection of interest groups, often the same ones as their opponents, so not much ever changes, unless the interest group is faces extinction.

But the process is not unlike any sports campaign where you root for your team regardless, talk trash against opponents, take a bad call when it goes your way, etc. Process and worthless commentary has overwhelmed the substance of sports as well now and I've given up on it just as I have politics. I don't want to know what some athlete is making in his current contract just as much as I don't want to know what is on some politician's tax returns.

My opinion is that the outcomes are very much not meaningless.

Obama and Romney would govern very differently on a number of issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/issueengine/issueengine.html

Edited October 9, 201213 yr by Jingthing

I see we're back to cartoon time. I love US politics. It reminds me of Cbeebies...

This is the first time I have ever read a discussion by a group of Americans on their elections. Its truly fascinating.

Our system of turning up on polling day and X marks the spot seems quite primitive in this context.

This is a very unusual election. This is the first time that I can remember that I have been adamantly against one of the candidates.

My opinion is that the outcomes are very much not meaningless.

Obama and Romney would govern very differently on a number of issues.

http://www.washingto...ssueengine.html

It's hard to say with Romney, he's either said nothing or he says one thing one week then something else the next. I agree with UG that this election is unusual but not for the same reason. Both candidates lie and it can be shown that they have done so but this is not unusual, what is unusual is the bare faced lies that Romney is telling all of the time and he is getting away with it. It's an insult to the people of America that he is not even putting the slightest effort into trying to hide it, nothing.

My opinion is that the outcomes are very much not meaningless.

Obama and Romney would govern very differently on a number of issues.

http://www.washingto...ssueengine.html

It's hard to say with Romney, he's either said nothing or he says one thing one week then something else the next. I agree with UG that this election is unusual but not for the same reason. Both candidates lie and it can be shown that they have done so but this is not unusual, what is unusual is the bare faced lies that Romney is telling all of the time and he is getting away with it. It's an insult to the people of America that he is not even putting the slightest effort into trying to hide it, nothing.

Someone said to me yesterday that Romney is basically lying, that he really isn't as right wing as he claims. I said that as a self-described right winger, I'm happy to hear that. I would prefer a center-right President, not some far right winger (or center-left, or far left, obviously). I want someone who is more able to compromise and that isn't someone on the far right. If Romney disguised himself as far right in order to get the base to vote for him, good, better than someone from the real far right winning. After all, didn't Obama do the same 4 years ago, deceive his voters? Some of his harshest critics are on the far left for continuing much of Bush's policies that he criticized during the campaign. Or, even more ironic, claiming that adding to the national debt was unpatriotic then, well, we all know what he did.

Edited October 10, 201213 yr by koheesti

Lets be honest the guy who said whatever to whomever, wherever to get a vot was Clinton so to continue to harp on about Mitts tax returns or his fluxations as if it is something unique in politics is a bit short sighted

I would prefer a center-right President, not some far right winger (or center-left, or far left, obviously). I want someone who is more able to compromise and that isn't someone on the far right.

That is my feeling exactly. I am happy that Romney is moving to the center as that is exactly what I was hoping for. Because of the way Obama has conducted himself in office and this election, most conservatives accept almost any compromise to defeat him.

Yeah sure, moving to the center is he?

Just gave a foreign policy which was pure Bush Neocon rhetoric.

Lies that people with preexisting conditions will be covered when it is well documented under his intentions, his plan for them is: EMERGENCY ROOMS.

Just gave a foreign policy which was pure Bush Neocon rhetoric.

Refreshing, wasn't it? Most Americans are sick and tired of Neville Chamberlain style foreign policy and judging from what is happening in the Middle East lately, it is not helping much..

Edited October 10, 201213 yr by Ulysses G.

Refreshing?

From a certified chickenhawk who ran off to France to play Mormon missionary, a man who actively protested FOR the draft during the Vietnam war but unwilling to volunteer himself or subject himself to the draft. It's the same old same old. Send off the underclass which are heavily black and Latino to die in mistake wars like Iraq.

Yeah sure, moving to the center is he?

Just gave a foreign policy which was pure Bush Neocon rhetoric.

Yeah, he was over the top about how Israel is such an important ally, how the US will always stand with Israel if he is president, how Israel will be the first country he visits as president if he wins. It must drive you crazy that your preferred candidate has the exact opposite feelings regarding Israel. So, at least if your second worst nightmare comes true and Obama loses, you can take comfort that Romney will be much more pro-Israel than we have seen the last 3 years.

. It's the same old same old. Send off the underclass which are heavily black and Latino to die in mistake wars like Iraq.

Your buddy Charlie Rangel tried that lie and had it thrown back in his face so fast he forgot to report rental income on his condos to the IRS.

Lies that people with preexisting conditions will be covered when it is well documented under his intentions, his plan for them is: EMERGENCY ROOMS.

To be fair he has been quite clear that they will both be covered and will not be covered. Slippery as a greesed hog is our Romney and a friend the other day compared him to a particle at the quantum level.

One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that exact simultaneous values can be assigned to all physical quantities, quantum mechanics denies this possibility, the prime example being the position and momentum of a particle. According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for position and momentum.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

Refreshing?

From a certified chickenhawk who ran off to France to play Mormon missionary, a man who actively protested FOR the draft during the Vietnam war but unwilling to volunteer himself or subject himself to the draft. It's the same old same old. Send off the underclass which are heavily black and Latino to die in mistake wars like Iraq.

Uh, the current military is an ALL VOLUNTEER force. Didn't Clinton get a deferment from military service?

From the link below: White personnel make up the following percentages of US military personnel in the enlisted ranks. Percent of whites serving as Officers is even higher.

The US Military is hardly a ghetto.

Army - 72.7%

Navy - 62.8%

Marine Corps - 83.2%

Air Force - 75.6%

The remainder are all minorities.

http://prhome.defens...mmary/chap5.pdf

Refreshing?

From a certified chickenhawk who ran off to France to play Mormon missionary, a man who actively protested FOR the draft during the Vietnam war but unwilling to volunteer himself or subject himself to the draft. It's the same old same old. Send off the underclass which are heavily black and Latino to die in mistake wars like Iraq.

Uh, the current military is an ALL VOLUNTEER force. Didn't Clinton get a deferment from military service?

From the link below: White personnel make up the following percentages of US military personnel in the enlisted ranks. Percent of whites serving as Officers is even higher.

The US Military is hardly a ghetto.

Army - 72.7%

Navy - 62.8%

Marine Corps - 83.2%

Air Force - 75.6%

The remainder are all minorities.

http://prhome.defens...mmary/chap5.pdf

Yeah, but apparently to some the enemy only targets poor minorities.

Refreshing?

From a certified chickenhawk who ran off to France to play Mormon missionary, a man who actively protested FOR the draft during the Vietnam war but unwilling to volunteer himself or subject himself to the draft. It's the same old same old. Send off the underclass which are heavily black and Latino to die in mistake wars like Iraq.

what's the latest on his underwear?

Refreshing?

From a certified chickenhawk who ran off to France to play Mormon missionary, a man who actively protested FOR the draft during the Vietnam war but unwilling to volunteer himself or subject himself to the draft. It's the same old same old. Send off the underclass which are heavily black and Latino to die in mistake wars like Iraq.

what's the latest on his underwear?

Still magic.

But don't fret, learn how to eat like the Obamas!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/this-presidents-day-eat-like-the-obamas/2012/02/10/gIQAVJHCGR_gallery.html

Edited October 11, 201213 yr by Jingthing

what's the latest on his underwear?

Why blacks voters reject Romney

It's worth recognizing that the unwillingness of black voters to offer any measurable support for the Republican presidential candidate is unprecedented. It's not enough to say that blacks are voting for President Obama because he's black and that racial solidarity trumps politics. Or to note that black voters are overwhelmingly affiliated with the Democratic Party.

McCain

received 4% of the black vote

. Black voters offered measurable levels of support to George W. Bush, 8% in 2000 and 11% in 2004; Ronald Reagan, 11%; and even Richard Nixon, 18%.

...But what is certain is that black voters have collectively cut ties with the "Party of Lincoln."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/ifill-black-voters-romney/index.html#disqus_thread

And what have blacks gained by supporting the Democrats so heavily the past 40 years? They should really ask themselves that someday instead of blindly giving the Dems their vote. Or not.

Why blacks voters reject Romney

It's worth recognizing that the unwillingness of black voters to offer any measurable support for the Republican presidential candidate is unprecedented. It's not enough to say that blacks are voting for President Obama because he's black and that racial solidarity trumps politics. Or to note that black voters are overwhelmingly affiliated with the Democratic Party.

McCain

received 4% of the black vote

. Black voters offered measurable levels of support to George W. Bush, 8% in 2000 and 11% in 2004; Ronald Reagan, 11%; and even Richard Nixon, 18%.

...But what is certain is that black voters have collectively cut ties with the "Party of Lincoln."

http://edition.cnn.c...l#disqus_thread

And what have blacks gained by supporting the Democrats so heavily the past 40 years? They should really ask themselves that someday instead of blindly giving the Dems their vote. Or not.

I believe the answer there is a little...compared with others who have given nothing at all.

Not giving this answer from a US perspective but a UK one regarding two party politics. Hearts and minds are the same anywhere however.

Why blacks voters reject Romney

It's worth recognizing that the unwillingness of black voters to offer any measurable support for the Republican presidential candidate is unprecedented. It's not enough to say that blacks are voting for President Obama because he's black and that racial solidarity trumps politics. Or to note that black voters are overwhelmingly affiliated with the Democratic Party.

McCain

received 4% of the black vote

. Black voters offered measurable levels of support to George W. Bush, 8% in 2000 and 11% in 2004; Ronald Reagan, 11%; and even Richard Nixon, 18%.

...But what is certain is that black voters have collectively cut ties with the "Party of Lincoln."

http://edition.cnn.c...l#disqus_thread

And what have blacks gained by supporting the Democrats so heavily the past 40 years? They should really ask themselves that someday instead of blindly giving the Dems their vote. Or not.

I believe the answer there is a little...compared with others who have given nothing at all.

Not giving this answer from a US perspective but a UK one regarding two party politics. Hearts and minds are the same anywhere however.

You should check out why Smokie.

Obviously Mormons are not racist. That would be a terrible generalized statement to make. The question to ask though, is whether or not the religion that current Latter Day Saints devote their lives to is racist. On September 30^th 1978 it was declared that the 12th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Spencer Kimball – a Mormon prophet, received a revelation from God that African American men would no longer be restricted from the Priesthood. This was a tremendous leap of social progress for the Church. Essentially, no African American men could have any authority in the Church prior to 1978. Since then, “all worthy male members of the church” were able to receive the priesthood and temple blessings.

http://thethinkeasy.info/2012/04/10/is-mormonism-racist/

It 'just happend' that this revelation was moments before the Mormon church was due to be declared a racist organization in the US. Great timing huh?

Why blacks voters reject Romney

It's worth recognizing that the unwillingness of black voters to offer any measurable support for the Republican presidential candidate is unprecedented. It's not enough to say that blacks are voting for President Obama because he's black and that racial solidarity trumps politics. Or to note that black voters are overwhelmingly affiliated with the Democratic Party.

McCain

received 4% of the black vote

. Black voters offered measurable levels of support to George W. Bush, 8% in 2000 and 11% in 2004; Ronald Reagan, 11%; and even Richard Nixon, 18%.

...But what is certain is that black voters have collectively cut ties with the "Party of Lincoln."

http://edition.cnn.c...l#disqus_thread

And what have blacks gained by supporting the Democrats so heavily the past 40 years? They should really ask themselves that someday instead of blindly giving the Dems their vote. Or not.

I believe the answer there is a little...compared with others who have given nothing at all.

The "others" you are alluding to can't be Republicans...

The whole history of the role of the Democrats and the Republicans in black civil rights issues is taken apart and examined, showing with documented fact after documented fact how the truth turns out repeatedly to be the opposite of what has been portrayed in most of the media.

It has long been a matter of official record that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats, in both Houses of Congress, voted for the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Yet the great legend has come down to us that Democrats created the civil rights revolution, over the opposition of the Republicans.

Since this all happened nearly half a century ago, even many Republicans today seem unaware of the facts, and are defensive about their party's role on racial issues, while Democrats boldly wrap themselves in the mantle of blacks' only friends and defenders.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/race_cards_115714.html