Support NeoGAF

[beastmode]

romney pushing moving power to states. smh. it's the perfect point to bring up in a debate, as obama can't say the obvious - that states are fairly corrupt and ineffective compared to the federal govt.

 

[Eidan]

I wish Obama was Knope last night, but instead he was just nope....

Bravo.

 

[mernst23]

What's your experience with coal mining? Do you live near any coal mines? Have you ever seen one? How about coal-powered plants?

As someone who works for a utility that utilizes coal and has seen many of these coal plants shut down or begin to shut down:

"Because coal is dirty as fuck, dangerous, and extremely detrimental to a healthy environment and population..." is a pretty valid assessment for why these places are getting shut down. The regulation that is crippling the coal industry is a direct result of this fact. Carry on.

 

[agrajag]

The most interesting thing out of this debate, is that suddenly there are republican gaffers. They just don't show up all that often...

fair weather republicans

 

[ronito]

You know after thinking about it and re-seeing some highlights I'm just stunned that Obama did so poorly.

 

[chaosblade]

Does anyone actually know any swing voters?

This basically describes my mom. She's not really into politics all that much. Oddly enough, I think to date she has voted for the winner of every single election since she's been eligible. Including Bush twice, she didn't like Bush after his first term, but something made her really hate Kerry.

She usually seems to lean Dem, at least as far as her beliefs go. But clearly that hasn't stopped her from voting for Republicans in the past.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

You know after thinking about it and re-seeing some highlights I'm just stunned that Obama did so poorly.

It was shocking to me. The next debate is a town hall style debate. I think Obama does much better in that type of atmosphere. My early prediction is that Obama will win that one or it will at least be close. This was a slaughter.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Obama did try to call out Romney on some of his bullshit early in the debate when they were arguing over that $5 trillion thing but Romney just said "No that's not my plan" and it became a "he said-she said" thing.

 

[Byakuya769]

Ouch. That is not the way to make friends with our neighbor.

Been on this collision course for far too long.

 

[ronito]

This was a slaughter.

For once, you and I agree. Let's hug!

Obama did try to call out Romney on some of his bullshit early in the debate when they were arguing over that $5 trillion thing but Romney just said "No that's not my plan" and it became a "he said-she said" thing.

But that's the thing. He should've called him out.
"So you're saying you're not going to lower taxes?"
"Oh you are? To what extent?"
"Oh and you're going to pay it how? Tell me programs. I can say I too can cut taxes without saying how I'm going to pay for it. But the American people are smarter than that. That's why I tell you how I'm going to pay for it."

He let Romney dance all around him. He should have held him down.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

LOL. That's the thing . . . you don't have to be anywhere near coal to suffer from it. If you eat a lot of fish your mercury levels with rise . . . because of coal.

Do you have a source for this? I wouldn't doubt this being the case in the past but regulations (in this case regulations that I agree with) have made great strides in protecting streams, rivers, and other areas of concern from potential negative impacts due to coal mining.

Coal is bad news. There are just too many bad aspects to it. From the mountain-top removal mining harming rivers & streams; to the NO2, SO2, mercury pollutants; to the heavy CO2 greenhouse gas emissions; to the radioactive & heavy-metal laden ash. I'll take natural gas & nukes over coal while we should be continuing building wind & solar.

I don't advocate shutting down plants . . . but we should avoid building new ones. Those coal miners can go find jobs drilling for natural gas. That will be much better for them and everyone else.

It certainly isn't perfect and the emissions are definitely an issue but it's something that's being worked on all the time. Even if you looked at a plant built within the past 5 years versus one that is 10 or 15 years old you would see extreme differences in the amount of emissions; we're able to burn it much cleaner these days. Regardless, as of right now it's the best option we have in certain areas of the country and it doesn't make sense to put all of these people out of work when there are no other options available for them. It might sound good on paper to say what's best for coal miners but unless you are here in this area with a very solid understanding of all of the potential factors it's hard for me to put much trust in your opinion. It just isn't as simple as telling them to go find a job at a natural gas company.

Here's some good information on air quality trends in southeastern states in the US: Air Quality Trends - SE States

Coal is actually responsible for a much lower percentage of emissions than you might think.

As someone who works for a utility that utilizes coal and has seen many of these coal plants shut down or begin to shut down:

"Because coal is dirty as fuck, dangerous, and extremely detrimental to a healthy environment and population..." is a pretty valid assessment for why these places are getting shut down. The regulation that is crippling the coal industry is a direct result of this fact. Carry on.

It's a vague assessment, if you ask me. The regulations are fine to a certain extent, I don't disagree with that. I don't even mind them becoming stricter, I just think the time-frame is unreasonable and I think the effect these regulations will have on communities that depend on this industry doesn't make them worth it.

And by the way, environmental groups don't exactly love Natural Gas either. It just hasn't received as much publicity as coal because it isn't the major player. That will probably change in the near future, though.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

For once, you and I agree. Let's hug!

I don't usually hug. I cut straight to the fucking part. But for you I'll make an exception.

 

[GaimeGuy]

This is true. I didn't realize there were so many right-leaning dudes around here. Where y'all been?

If you look at any thread that touches on world events in the OT, you will find tons of conservatives complaining about liberal gaf bias and how they can't participate in political discussions.

They complain about echo chambers when they're the ones choosing to not participate.

 

[Shrennin]

I'm a conservative poster, I just don't get involved with political discussions on forums anymore. So...conservative GAF represent? That doesn't mean that I don't sometimes read and post occasionally, but it's usually not very political when I do.

My opinion on the election is that I expect Obama to win. That doesn't mean that I want Obama to win (because I don't) but I try to be realistic with my expectations in elections. I didn't expect McCain to win in 2008 either. The only way I see Romney pulling off the election is if he wins the next two debates like he did this one (especially the town hall debate); then he has a greater chance to win the election. I'm also not saying that Romney can't win the election now, I just think it's in Obama's favor right now.

 

[mernst23]

And by the way, environmental groups don't exactly love Natural Gas either. It just hasn't received as much publicity as coal because it isn't the major player. That will probably change in the near future, though.

Environmental groups don't love any sort of power source that isn't renewable or environment impacting so i'm not sure what the point of this is. The natural gas mining is ripe for better regulations as well; but what's killing the coal industry is a direct result of the environmental impact the fuel expenditure is causing. of course there are impacts from using natural gas as well but they are not as severe. I know it's Wikipedia but I don't have the numbers memorized otherwise:

"Natural gas burns more cleanly than other hydrocarbon fuels, such as oil and coal, and produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy released. For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 30 per cent less carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and about 45 per cent less than burning coal.[23] [24] Coal-fired electric power generation emits around 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour generated, which is almost double the carbon dioxide released by a natural gas-fired electric plant per megawatt hour generated. Because of this higher carbon efficiency of natural gas generation, as the fuel mix in the United States has change to reduce coal and increase natural gas generation carbon dioxide emissions have unexpectedly fallen. Those measured in the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest of any recorded for the first quarter of any year since 1992."

I see from your profile that you are a mining engineer; which leads me to believe you work in some sort of coal extraction. It's my guess that you do not believe in the severity of the impact of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The truth is, coal is dying because it has zero upside to natural gas. It's more expensive to produce, transport, and drastically more harmful than natural gas.

When fuel cell technology becomes commercially viable, we'll have the same conversation about natural gas.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Jeez, overreact much? Good thing you can feel free to belittle my intelligence over having something to say about the attitude of the contemporary electorate. Note that I didn't say "olol both parties suck, vote for Ron Paul!". I said that having the candidate of your choice lose will not usher in the apocalypse. 50% of the population has had their favored candidate not win for the last couple hundred years and so far things have turned out more or less okay. There are fundamental checks and balances in place throughout our government that prevents one part from fucking everything else up.

The only people who think the "other guy" is out to destroy america are republicans. They think the president hatets america and wants to destroy the american dream and punish people who want to better themselves. You can't rationalize with that. They think he's evil.

Democrats just thinking Romney's ideas suck, are unfeasible, and will set the country back. But you don't hear Al Franken saying Mitt Romney hates America or doesn't care about protecting people. You just don't hear that rhetoric from the Democratic Party. Or at least, you don't see people embrace that thought, because it would be sickening if it were true. When Mitt Romney says his job is not to worry about the 47% of people who won't vote for him... it's not good for someone wanting to be president, because your job as president isn't to write off half the country like that. I'd like to think his views are based on not having seen things from their perspective rather than actual disdain or lack of care for others.

So when you say "Lol guys, it's not like the other guy is satan," you don't need to tell most democrats that. Especially not the ones in office. We don't elect people who demonize their political opponents as enemies of the state

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Environmental groups don't love any sort of power source that isn't renewable or environment impacting so i'm not sure what the point of this is. The natural gas mining is ripe for better regulations as well; but what's killing the coal industry is a direct result of the environmental impact the fuel expenditure is causing. of course there are impacts from using natural gas as well but they are not as severe. I know it's Wikipedia but I don't have the numbers memorized otherwise:

"Natural gas burns more cleanly than other hydrocarbon fuels, such as oil and coal, and produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy released. For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 30 per cent less carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and about 45 per cent less than burning coal.[23] [24] Coal-fired electric power generation emits around 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour generated, which is almost double the carbon dioxide released by a natural gas-fired electric plant per megawatt hour generated. Because of this higher carbon efficiency of natural gas generation, as the fuel mix in the United States has change to reduce coal and increase natural gas generation carbon dioxide emissions have unexpectedly fallen. Those measured in the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest of any recorded for the first quarter of any year since 1992."

I see from your profile that you are a mining engineer; which leads me to believe you work in some sort of coal extraction. It's my guess that you do not believe in the severity of the impact of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The truth is, coal is dying because it has zero upside to natural gas. It's more expensive to produce, transport, and drastically more harmful than natural gas.

When fuel cell technology becomes commercially viable, we'll have the same conversation about natural gas.

First of all, I've made it very clear in my posts in this thread that I am a mining engineer working for a coal company. I'm obviously biased on this issue but I've already covered my feelings on that in previous posts.

Now, everything you've said in your post is true. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, I have no problem admitting that fact. It's also true that in general it is more economically viable than coal right now which is a large reason for the downturn in the market for steam coal. So again, you're right.

However, natural gas is not the only factor keeping coal from being economically feasible. Very specific regulations were passed this year that made a cut-off for various emissions in power plants, and they just so happen to be just below what coal is capable of achieving. Effectively, the EPA has made it impossible for a new coal powered plant to be built without losing money (on purpose, obviously), so of course it won't happen. Similarly, there are other new regulations that are forcing older power plants into what I consider to be an early retirement. I believe that the effects of some of these regulations (again, I've talked about this at length in previous posts) on certain areas in the US, primarily the central Appalachian region, are simply not worth what we gain at this point in time. Obviously for environmentalists living outside of this region this is all great news, but there are consequences of these policies that will severely hurt this area of the country.

That's about as concise as I can make it without going over a bunch of stuff I've already talked about more than I would have liked to to begin with (that's how these discussions always go though, right? haha). This isn't the first time natural gas has been cheaper than coal but it is the first time coal has seen such a drastic downturn in such a short amount of time, so it makes sense that other factors are involved.

 

[Dirtsaw]

The model is to transition to an economy based on tech, services, and locally-specific goods -- that's what a post-industrial economy looks like. It's commercial. The result of this, yes, will be less mining and timber. That's why I wasn't talking about saving mining but about helping the people who work for the decaying mining industry. They're going to need different jobs, and the whole area is going to need a different financial center, and it's our responsibility to create an economy that provides those jobs and that center.

The model needs an update, "locally-specific goods" are dirt and trees. Your post industrial economy still needs as much or more of them. We just get it from places with less or little environmental regulations. So make the externalities worse by exporting them at the same time making your populace poor. Again, your model needs an update before the same thing happens with coal.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Wow, I forgot how bad Obama was at debates. Wasn't he on a debate team?

 

[RustyNails]

It was shocking to me. The next debate is a town hall style debate. I think Obama does much better in that type of atmosphere. My early prediction is that Obama will win that one or it will at least be close. This was a slaughter.

It certainly came from the left field. But again, Obama spent the entire week preparing for the debate against Romney. But little did Obama know that yesterday's Romney came equipped with the latest firmware update.

 

[RustyNails]

But that's the thing. He should've called him out.
"So you're saying you're not going to lower taxes?"
"Oh you are? To what extent?"
"Oh and you're going to pay it how? Tell me programs. I can say I too can cut taxes without saying how I'm going to pay for it. But the American people are smarter than that. That's why I tell you how I'm going to pay for it."

He let Romney dance all around him. He should have held him down.

Yeah, it was an average performance. I honestly thing Obama was dumbstruck that he was going against someone who suddenly disavowed everything he said previously. Doesn't exonerate Bams though. Should've been quick on his feet.

 

[Violater]

My coworker "hey they found a giant pot garden in Chicago, Its probably Obama's"
smh

 

[ezrarh]

Wow, I forgot how bad Obama was at debates. Wasn't he on a debate team?

People know Obama isn't the best debater but it befuddles me how he can screw up one against Romney talking points. They're so easy to dispel but Obama just looked to be defensive all night long. If the moderator isn't gonna call out the bullshit, Obama needs to call Romney out on it.

 

[Shrennin]

I think the defining moment for me for how bad Obama was at the debate last night was when Romney, for the last time, countered Obama's claim of the 5 trillion - Obama looked down and just said "okay" like he was in defeat. That was pretty bad.

 

[Pinzer]

I think the defining moment for me for how bad Obama was at the debate last night was when Romney, for the last time, countered Obama's claim of the 5 trillion - Obama looked down and just said "okay" like he was in defeat. That was pretty bad.

I felt like that was more "well okay you aren't listening to reason, you're a lost cause" sort of thing.

 

[Shrennin]

I felt like that was more "well okay you aren't listening to reason, you're a lost cause" sort of thing.

There are better ways to handle that if Obama was trying to give off that impression -- looking down and saying "okay" in a meek way doesn't give off confidence.

 

[Measley]

There are better ways to handle that if Obama was trying to give off that impression -- looking down and saying "okay" in a meek way doesn't give off confidence.

He said okay with a smirk on his face. There's no point in getting into a tit-for-tat with a guy who is openly lying about something over and over again. The funny part is that everyone knew Romney was lying about it as well. So there's no need for the president to harp on it.

 

[Diablos]

I think the defining moment for me for how bad Obama was at the debate last night was when Romney, for the last time, countered Obama's claim of the 5 trillion - Obama looked down and just said "okay" like he was in defeat. That was pretty bad.

I don't get it. I just don't get it.

He let Romney completely lay out his platform with very little opposition.

Now, you look at Obama campaigning today and he's a completely different person. Where was he last night?

Is he that afraid to debate Mitt Romney? It's either fear or some kind of feeling bad over what he feels are unfair attacks towards Mitt. What's wrong with this guy?

I just don't get it. He threw out everything he's been working so hard for, that his party has been working so hard for, spending so much money on, to be completely passive and not give a fuck about Romney lying his ass off for 90 minutes straight. 60 million people watched the President get bullied on stage for 90 minutes straight. What Obama says today doesn't matter nearly as much. He completely wasted a golden opportunity to provide a stark contrast and make a good first impression to many undecided voters.

I think this is even worse than Gore in 2000.

 

[BotoxAgent]

People know Obama isn't the best debater but it befuddles me how he can screw up one against Romney talking points. They're so easy to dispel but Obama just looked to be defensive all night long. If the moderator isn't gonna call out the bullshit, Obama needs to call Romney out on it.

seriously, it was pathetic. There were so many many moments he could have called Romney out on...but he look totally neutered.

 

[Shrennin]

He said okay with a smirk on his face. There's no point in getting into a tit-for-tat with a guy who is openly lying about something over and over again. The funny part is that everyone knew Romney was lying about it as well. So there's no need for the president to harp on it.

When I was watching it, I didn't really see a smirk. I've seen him smirk before in the debate, but not there.

Either way, if everyone knew he was lying then I doubt Romney would be doing as well as he is from the reactions from the debate.

 

[pigeon]

The model needs an update, "locally-specific goods" are dirt and trees. Your post industrial economy still needs as much or more of them. We just get it from places with less or little environmental regulations. So make the externalities worse by exporting them at the same time making your populace poor. Again, your model needs an update before the same thing happens with coal.

This is silly, though. The Bay Area's economy is doing well, even in the recession, because Silicon Valley produces so much money that everybody near it does better. In fact, the biggest problem right now is our failure to properly zone for density in the Bay Area so that all the people who want to live here can actually do so. And that money supports Marin and Napa, too. Are there people in Eureka who are broke? Probably. That's the point -- they're relying on industries that are phasing out! So I was wrong to say we've solved this problem completely. The point I was trying to make is that there are several areas in California that are already post-industrial economies.

 

[eBay Huckster]

late post because i am drowning in papers but i can't resist this

All the tears acquired would rival the Dead Sea.

I'd imagine you know quite a bit about tears judging from your avatar

 

[Diablos]

I'm not enthused about voting again. I'll vote for him, but I feel less compelled to want to volunteer. How can you defend him to a testy undecided voter who saw that performance? It's impossible. Even I can't.

Frankly, I'm getting so fed up with this election that I almost feel like not giving a shit and sitting it out, but unlike a lot of more casual voters I know how much of a loon Mitt Romney has become this past year.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

The only people who think the "other guy" is out to destroy america are republicans. They think the president hatets america and wants to destroy the american dream and punish people who want to better themselves. You can't rationalize with that. They think he's evil.

You can't be serious.

Edit to add specific examples:
Republicans suppress women's rights
Republicans want to repeal the 19th Amendment
Republicans wipe their ass with the Constitution
Republicans are like the Taliban
Republicans are rapists
Over 87 million hits on "bush evil -axis." (54 million on "republican evil.")
Over 21 millions GIS hits on "bush devil."

 

[eBay Huckster]

You can't be serious.

what is with you people and refusing to actually source your claims about other posters

e: like really, it can't be that hard for you to actually link to one or two of these abortion threads

 

[NullPointer]

He said okay with a smirk on his face. There's no point in getting into a tit-for-tat with a guy who is openly lying about something over and over again. The funny part is that everyone knew Romney was lying about it as well. So there's no need for the president to harp on it.

Disagree with both of these.

Its a debate - you should go tit for tat on the issues, especially when a candidate is lying about his own platform.

And everyone knows Romney was lying?

Regardless, for the next debate Obama needs to be fired up and ready to go.

 

[Rentahamster]

The only people who think the "other guy" is out to destroy america are republicans. They think the president hatets america and wants to destroy the american dream and punish people who want to better themselves. You can't rationalize with that. They think he's evil.

Now you're generalizing. There are extreme opinions in both parties about the intent of their political opponents, but for the most part I think you might be lumping in the crazy from our punditry with the crazy in our elected officials. I'm not condoning it or saying that they are 100% equivalent. It's just that I don't think it's as one sided as it may appear to you.

So when you say "Lol guys, it's not like the other guy is satan," you don't need to tell most democrats that. Especially not the ones in office. We don't elect people who demonize their political opponents as enemies of the state

Mmhmmm.

http://www.worldcantwait.net/flier/nyt.pdf

People look at all this and think of Hitler—and they are right to doso. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/DWS_GOP_wants_to_bring_back_Jim_Crow.html

Raising the rhetorical stakes around local battles over voting laws, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz yesterday compared Republican efforts to tighten access to the polls to notorious segregation-era Jim Crow laws.

"...now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws..."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27726.html

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) warned Americans that "Republicans want you to die quickly" during an after-hours House floor speech Tuesday night.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...u-to-the-wolves/2011/05/31/AG8y9lFH_blog.html

What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, ‘You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the health-care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...blicans-are-going-to-put-yall-back-in-chains/

VP Biden Says Republicans Are ‘Going to Put Y’all Back in Chains’

And no, it's not the "shackles of Wall Street".

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...angel-bidens-gaffe-was-clearly-about-slavery/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI4Q8rQYBRU

 

[RustyNails]

Disagree with both of these.

Its a debate - you should go tit for tat on the issues, especially when a candidate is lying about his own platform.

And everyone knows Romney was lying?

Regardless, for the next debate Obama needs to be fired up and ready to go.

Agreed. It's sort of bitter sweet too, because the democrats might have gotten totally complacent if Obama bodyslammed Mitt Romney in the first debate, especially at the prospect of a near impossible electoral math for Romney, soaring positive approval rating for Obama, Romney stuck in 47% quagmire, and Obama surging popularity post convention in swing states. I'd say this wake up call was needed.

 

[Rentahamster]

For the billionth time it isn't that they were both lackluster. It's that Obama was expected to win this thing by a wide margin and solidify himself as the frontrunner and Romney as a clueless yuppie, but it completely backfired. Romney owned the debate.

Not if his campaign had anything to do with it. Cutter was saying that she expected Romney to win. I didn't really understand that kind of political strategy myself. Lowering expectations? Did that even help.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...tter_mitt_romney_is_likely_to_win_debate.html

"They [debate challengers] normally come into these things as underdogs so we're coming into this debate very realistic that Mitt Romney is likely to win, if he plays his cards right," Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on CNN's "Piers Morgan" program on Friday.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I'm a conservative poster, I just don't get involved with political discussions on forums anymore. So...conservative GAF represent? That doesn't mean that I don't sometimes read and post occasionally, but it's usually not very political when I do.

My opinion on the election is that I expect Obama to win. That doesn't mean that I want Obama to win (because I don't) but I try to be realistic with my expectations in elections. I didn't expect McCain to win in 2008 either. The only way I see Romney pulling off the election is if he wins the next two debates like he did this one (especially the town hall debate); then he has a greater chance to win the election. I'm also not saying that Romney can't win the election now, I just think it's in Obama's favor right now.

I want to know why you don't want obama to win, though. There isn't much liberal about any of his economic initiatives, he's hawkish militaristically, though not as recklessly gung-ho or adamant about doing everything by ourselves as republicans, his health care plan puts in basic standards for coverage establishes a market-based approach to providing it to everyone (exactly what conservatives have prpoposed for the last 25 years), the stimulus had more tax cuts than anything else, payroll taxes have been slashed by 2% under him, his proposal for long term deficit reduction actually saves more money than simpson bowles and IIRC had a higher ratio of spending cuts to tax increases than it, as well. He has expanded offshore oil more than any other president, and has an "all of the above" approach to energy independence overall. I really don't understand how any conservative could not support Obama.

If your problem is the deficits, those were well over $1T when obama came in, and underreported because there was an additional $50B in social security spending and over $100B in iraq and afghanistan spending each year (1.67-2% of GDP per year depending on the year). These expenses were passed as approprations. They were not included in the budget, they wouldn't show up in any annual budget deficit report, but they did end up being directly added to the national debt along with the deficits described in the budget. These expenses actually get put into the budget under Obama so the deficit more accurately reflects the new debt for the year. The problem has been that the economic downturn caused the tax revenues to drop significanty after the financial collapse at the end of 2008. 2009, 2010, and 2011 tax receipts were all lower than receipts in 2008 (by a combined total of over $1T in 2005 dollars). And actually, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 tax receipts were all lower than receipts in 2007 (by a combined total of $1.55T in 2005 dollars). All of Obama's proposed budgets actually decrease government spending as a % of GDP year over year compared to where Bush left us, and keep in mind that this is even with the bush administration leaving out ~2% of GDP in in government spending that did happen, but did not get written into the budget (in other words, Obama's budgets decrease spending as GDP % despite including 2% of GDP in military and social security expenses that Bush simply left off the books.)

 

[Clay Davis]

I am sure people have already mentioned it, but the reporting of this in the uk press has been that of mitt romney winning the debate. I haven't watched all of it, but from the clips I have watched, it doesn't look all that different from a standard week of prime minister's questions but in a different format.

my understanding is the debates happen once every four years? that's surprising, us hopefuls and the sitting president have it pretty easy in my opinion. would be a sight to see them having to do this week in and week out.

are elections really decided by these? or are they a process that undecided voters use to make up their minds? I've read all about richard nixon losing because of how poorly he came across in his debate with kennedy, do they still hold that much power of voters or was that a one off?

 

[Shrennin]

I want to know why you don't want obama to win, though. There isn't much liberal about any of his economic initiatives, he's hawkish militaristically, though not as recklessly gung-ho or adamant about doing everything by ourselves as republicans, his health care plan puts in basic standards for coverage establishes a market-based approach to providing it to everyone (exactly what conservatives have prpoposed for the last 25 years), the stimulus had more tax cuts than anything else, payroll taxes have been slashed by 2% under him, his proposal for long term deficit reduction actually saves more money than simpson bowles and IIRC had a higher ratio of spending cuts to tax increases than it, as well. He has expanded offshore oil more than any other president, and has an "all of the above" approach to energy independence overall. I really don't understand how any conservative could not support Obama.

If your problem is the deficits, those were well over $1T when obama came in, and underreported because there was an additional $50B in social security spending and over $100B in iraq and afghanistan spending each year (1.67-2% of GDP per year depending on the year). These expenses were passed as approprations. They were not included in the budget, they wouldn't show up in any annual budget deficit report, but they did end up being directly added to the national debt along with the deficits described in the budget. These expenses actually get put into the budget under Obama so the deficit more accurately reflects the new debt for the year. The problem has been that the economic downturn caused the tax revenues to drop significanty after the financial collapse at the end of 2008. 2009, 2010, and 2011 tax receipts were all lower than receipts in 2008 (by a combined total of over $1T in 2005 dollars). And actually, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 tax receipts were all lower than receipts in 2007 (by a combined total of $1.55T in 2005 dollars). All of Obama's proposed budgets actually decrease government spending as a % of GDP year over year compared to where Bush left us, and keep in mind that this is even with the bush administration leaving out ~2% of GDP in in government spending that did happen, but did not get written into the budget (in other words, Obama's budgets decrease spending as GDP % despite including 2% of GDP in military and social security expenses that Bush simply left off the books.)

I'm not going to get into a debate over policy and whatnot because, like I said, I try to stay away from it on forums because I don't have the time investment to do it anymore so I apologize if it looks like I'm ignoring a lot of your points - I'm just going to tell you the gist of why I don't want Obama to win (although, again, it's not really that I want Romney to win either).

I don't believe in bigger government, I don't believe in federal education, and I don't believe in a lot of liberal social ideology (things like abortion). I'm actually fairly libertarian and I have considered voting third party. Honestly, however, I know Romney is closer (albeit not by much) to the values that I believe in than Obama is, even if Romney tries to appear like he's far more conservative than he actually is.

I will comment on one thing: military. I believe we should cut our defense budget. With that said, I don't believe we should leave the troops defenseless, but the defense budget entails a whole lot more than that. Also, I don't believe in intervening in other countries' affairs either. Essentially, I'm definitely not a clear cut Republican - I disagree with Republicans on a lot of issues.

Also, I'm not really a Ron Paul supporter either -- although out of all the candidates throughout this entire election process, he does have the values closest to mine.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I'm not going to get into a debate over policy and whatnot because, like I said, I try to stay away from it on forums because I don't have the time investment to do it anymore so I apologize if it looks like I'm ignoring a lot of your points - I'm just going to tell you the gist of why I don't want Obama to win (although, again, it's not really that I want Romney to win either).

I don't believe in bigger government, I don't believe in federal education, and I don't believe in the liberal social ideology (things like abortion). I'm actually fairly libertarian and I have considered voting third party. Honestly, however, I know Romney is closer (albeit not by much) to the values that I believe in than Obama is, even if Romney tries to appear like he's far more conservative than he actually is.

I will comment on one thing: military. I believe we should cut our defense budget. With that said, I don't believe we should leave the troops defenseless, but the defense budget entails a whole lot more than that. Also, I don't believe in intervening in other countries' affairs either.

Also, I'm not really a Ron Paul supporter either -- although out of all the candidates throughout this entire election process, he does have the values closest to mine.

Okay, so essentially you're a coolidge/hoover republican. Were it not for your social views, I'd say you'd fit in closest to the blue dog democrats or goldwater republicans. I still don't get how outlawing abortion isn't big government, but whatever. I appreciate the response

 

[Shrennin]

Okay, so essentially you're a coolidge/hoover republican. Were it not for your social views, I'd say you'd fit in closest to the blue dog democrats or goldwater republicans. I still don't get how outlawing abortion isn't big government, but whatever. I appreciate the response

No problem - the abortion thing stems from my belief that it's legalized murder and that's something that I think the federal government should outlaw. On the other hand, I don't think gay marriage should be outlawed, at least as the Constitution currently stands.

To clarify, I don't want to get into an abortion debate -- just stating why I don't think it's big government.

 

[Ken Masters]

When going up against conservatism it's hard to win a debate

Lower taxes, less government control...

 

[Eidan]

When going up against conservatism it's hard to win a debate

Huh?

 

[ThisWreckage]

Obama did try to call out Romney on some of his bullshit early in the debate when they were arguing over that $5 trillion thing but Romney just said "No that's not my plan" and it became a "he said-she said" thing.

And if he tries to call him out more in depth in other debates the same thing will happen. Romney is not some dumb Sarah Palin type character. He'll remain vague, cite studies, and smirk back at him every time he is accused or criticized over something.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I am sure people have already mentioned it, but the reporting of this in the uk press has been that of mitt romney winning the debate. I haven't watched all of it, but from the clips I have watched, it doesn't look all that different from a standard week of prime minister's questions but in a different format.

my understanding is the debates happen once every four years? that's surprising, us hopefuls and the sitting president have it pretty easy in my opinion. would be a sight to see them having to do this week in and week out.

are elections really decided by these? or are they a process that undecided voters use to make up their minds? I've read all about richard nixon losing because of how poorly he came across in his debate with kennedy, do they still hold that much power of voters or was that a one off?

The debates are held just a month before each Presidential election and are really the only time the candidates have to explain their positions in any detail, even though there still isn't enough time to get into the details of their policies (if there even are details). So, these debates turn into short sound bites and jabs at each other and are primarily judged by stage presence and style over substance.

I don't think debates weigh too heavily into the outcomes of the elections. It's mostly theatrics. But, if they are as lopsided as this one, it may make a larger difference.
Basically, 60 million people saw our President get dressed down on stage and that's not going to be looked upon too favorably.

 

[Ken Masters]

Huh?

When debating against someone who is about lowering taxes and having less government intervention it just doesn't look good

 

[apana]

When going up against conservatism it's hard to win a debate

Lower taxes, less government control...

Democrats have won most of the previous Presidential debates I think. Really what matters is how the public reacts. If Obama is still ahead going into next week then he is fine. He will be better during the next debate, it's not like he can get any worse. Also expectations are now high for Romney.