Official VP Debate Thread

Mott the Hoople said:
Good luck with that. You'll need it. I don't think Obama will rest on his laurels after the first debate and considering Republicans past giant failures in foreign policy and considering Romney's tendency to put his foot into his own mouth on Foreign policy and considering he probably is not as up to speed on these issues (he's only been gettiing briefs since his nomination and Obama has been getting them for four years.) as Obama, Romney could be at a real disadvantage if Obama puts his feet to the fire.

Personally Romney scares the hell out of me on Iran. I don't know if he's just talking tough or if he's hell bent for another unneeded and unneccessary war.
Click to expand...

I notice you completely discarded or overlooked any of the substance about Obamas prior debate performances.

On the issue of national security, what experience did Obama have other than being "raised in Indonesia" (his words)? McShamnesty had all of the so called experience but that didn't stop people from voting for Obama. The fact that you guys think Obama has an edge on foreign policy is laughable given the failures in the Middle East

As it pertains to Iran, how does Obama's words differ? Obama says he will not let Iran have a nuclear weapon. Now if you take him at his word then you have to conclude that he will consider going to war with Iran.

Does anyone see any signs of Iran stopping their march toward a nuclear weapon? I sure don't and if you are honest than neither do you.

If you take each candidate at their word then there will be an inevitable war with Iran if you agree that Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. The only thing that is left is that you believe that Romney will actually do it and that Obama is merely saying the words but won't actually go to war with Iran. Of course there is option B and that is that there are some heretofore unspoken words or threat that will finally get Iran's Mullahs to finally say "You know what, we were wrong we are going to scrap our nuclear ambitions now". That is naive in the extreme and if you are honest you will admit it.
 
Rana said:
They wouldn't limit it though, would they.
Click to expand...

According to you guys the stock market is going gang busters under OWEblahblah. So why not privatize?

FDR promised a 3% annual return on Socialist inSecurity. Where is it? It doesn't do better than 1%. People are being robbed
 
Rana said:
They wouldn't limit it though, would they.
Click to expand...

Actually that was what the plan was. To allow younger people to take 1% of their SS and put it in specific "safe" government options. The whole, "Privatize it" was a simplistic scare tactic, I still can't believe it worked.
 
Damocles said:
Actually that was what the plan was. To allow younger people to take 1% of their SS and put it in specific "safe" government options. The whole, "Privatize it" was a simplistic scare tactic, I still can't believe it worked.
Click to expand...
You must be niave then. I have a modest $30,000 in stock investments outside of my 401K and I can tell you for a fact that I don't trust Wall Street any further than I can throw your average stock broker, who's main function in life seems to be charging me fees for doing absolutely nothing. Trust any of my SS with those Wall Street sharks? You gotta be kidding me! Hell I don't trust them with my current stock investments but I'm willing to take risk with those shameless thieves in order to increase my returns. SS is my low to non-risk supplement to my retirement income and I am very risk adverse when it comes to my SS.

BTW, I lost significantly on my stocks (both private and 401K) during the credit bubble collapse. I'm now banking on making some of that back with insurance companies when the Universal Mandate of the ACA goes into affect in 2014.
 
Superfreak said:
If you are talking about normal debating rules... you are correct. I am talking about in terms of public perception. Those two are completely different and you know it.

The vast majority of people watching have never debated. The vast majority care more about their particular party than what was actually said by both parties. Even the independents/undecideds tend to vote more on that perception rather than the reality. It is why Kennedy won the Presidency over Nixon. It certainly didn't hurt Clinton or Reagan either. Even GW Bush benefited from Gore sighing. Those things matter in terms of perception. That is why you can score it both on content and overall and not end with the same conclusion.

It is one of the reasons I chose to read the text prior to watching the debates. I didn't want the body language/tone to set my perception of the content.
Click to expand...


Well, that's why the CNN poll is bunk. It was an all adults poll. Republicans aren't willing to say that their guy lost (Democrats, on the other hand, are pants-shitters and bitch and moan about how poorly their guy did instead of arguing decorum, courtesy and "image" stuff). The uncommitteds resoundingly gave the debate to Biden.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Tell ya what. Why don't you list the administrations "specific plans". I didn't hear anything from Biden except "let the top marginal rates expire". What are the specifics? Plugs didn't have any.

Here is the bottom line. Substance matters definitely, although given the partisan that you are, I doubt Ryan could have said anything that would have swayed you so your charges are laughable. But, style matters as well. Biden actually could have scored a knockout if he hadn't been so churlish, condescending and rude. At the end of the day, partisans from both sides took away from last nights debate what they wanted to take away. I said before, on substance, although I disagree Biden probably made a better case for his arguments except for Libya. On style, Biden lost miserably.

The question is what do those who aren't die hard partisans and dont' follow this stuff everyday and live on message boards think? My guess is they will find Biden's behavior unbecoming. You of course are thrilled by it which says more about OWEblahblah's poor performance and your need to feel jazzed again than it does about Biden's performance.

And for you to talk about transparency when you support the most secretive administration since Nixon is laughable
Click to expand...

Get real, FRS. We KNOW what the administration's positions are because they're the incumbents. We don't know the Romney-Ryan facts because they aren't talking. It's your boy Ryan who said he can't explain their tax plan because it would take too long. You guys criticized the ACA when it was actually out there to be read, yet we're supposed to take the R-R plan(s) on faith. Ain't happenin', punkin.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Fair points. The left are over emphasizing Bidens performance exactly because of OWEblahblah's piss poor performance. The question I have is what evidence is there that OWEblahblah can overcome his poor debate performance? If you look at the past, he didn't perform that spectacularly in his debates with McShamnesty. Compared to the little troll, he was the skinniest kid in fat camp. Going back to the democrat primaries, I don't remember anyone saying he won any of those debates. Hell, he was outperformed by Tawawna Sharpton.

So where is the evidence that OWEblahblah will perform any better in the next two debates?

My personal opinion is that the next two debates will do little to change the narrative and here is why.

The American people have already decided that they do not want to re-elect OWEblahblah as evidenced by his inability to climb above 50% in his approval ratings. What Romney needed to do and was unable to do until last weeks debate was make people feel comfortable that he could do the job. He didn't even have to convince them that they agreed with his policies, he just needed to make them feel comfortable enough seeing him as President. He more than accomplished that last week. That is why you see such a huge move in the polls for Romney.

It is going to take one huge gaffe or October surprise to change the winds that are blowing against OWEblahblah right now. He blew his entire wad in August and September trying to define Romney and was largely successful. But, with 70 million people watching in 90 minutes Romney erased all of it.

I am more confident today that Romney wins in a landslide at least 52-48% in the popular vote and at least 330 electoral votes taking North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado and even Wisconsin. Pennsylvania has always been fools gold for the GOP since Reagan, but there may be a chance.
Click to expand...

Dream on. Even your wet dream Rasmussen has PA going for Obama 51%-46%.
 
Damocles said:
Actually that was what the plan was. To allow younger people to take 1% of their SS and put it in specific "safe" government options. The whole, "Privatize it" was a simplistic scare tactic, I still can't believe it worked.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. Paul Ryan and John Sunnunu actually put out a plan in 2005 that would allow people to divert the entirety of their half of the Social Security payroll tax to private accounts. And the money wasn't to be invested in specific "safe" government options. Instead:

Under the plan, personal savings account (PSA) assets, once credited on an individual basis, would be automatically invested in the Tier II fund through a central administrative authority that would maintain all records of individual transactions and balances. Participants would be offered three investment options, including one with 80 percent in equities and another with 50 percent in equities. Unless otherwise specified, PSA balances would be maintained in the default portfolio with 65 percent in a specified broad index fund consisting of private equities for corporations based in the United States (such as the Wilshire 5000) and 35 percent in a broad index of corporate bonds issued by companies based in the United States. The central administrative authority would group the assets of individuals for the purpose of transactions with private firms. Upon achieving a total PSA balance equivalent to $2,500 in 2005 (CPI-indexed thereafter) a broader range of investment options would be available in the Tier III fund. These options would be provided by qualified private investment companies, but would still be grouped by the central administrative authority for transactions with the investment firms. Due to the nature of the accounts, an ultimate administrative cost of 0.25 percent of assets is assumed to be reasonable.
Click to expand...

So wrong on both counts, Damo.


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/oact/solvency/PRyan_20040719.html
 
christiefan915 said:
Get real, FRS. We KNOW what the administration's positions are because they're the incumbents. We don't know the Romney-Ryan facts because they aren't talking. It's your boy Ryan who said he can't explain their tax plan because it would take too long. You guys criticized the ACA when it was actually out there to be read, yet we're supposed to take the R-R plan(s) on faith. Ain't happenin', punkin.
Click to expand...

All you had to do was say you can't list them
 
By the way, this was probably my favorite exchange of the debate:

RYAN: … income adjusts (inaudible) these premium support payments by taking down the subsidies for wealthy people.
Look, this is a plan — by the way, that $6,400 number, it was misleading then, it’s totally inaccurate now. This is a plan that’s bipartisan. It’s a plan I put together with a prominent Democrat senator from Oregon.

BIDEN: There’s not one Democrat who endorses it.

RYAN: It’s a plan…

BIDEN: Not one Democrat who (inaudible).

RYAN: Our partner is a Democrat from Oregon.

BIDEN: And he said he does no longer support (inaudible).

RYAN: We — we — we put it — we put it together with the former Clinton budget director.

BIDEN: Who disavows it.

RYAN: This idea — this idea came from the Clinton commission to save Medicare chaired by Senator John Breaux.
Here’s the point, Martha.

BIDEN: Which was rejected.
Click to expand...

Basically, Ryan put together a string of complete falsehoods and Biden called him out on each one. It was like he was annotating Ryan's talking points in real time. Pretty impressive.
 
christiefan915 said:
Get real, FRS. We KNOW what the administration's positions are because they're the incumbents. We don't know the Romney-Ryan facts because they aren't talking. It's your boy Ryan who said he can't explain their tax plan because it would take too long. You guys criticized the ACA when it was actually out there to be read, yet we're supposed to take the R-R plan(s) on faith. Ain't happenin', punkin.
Click to expand...

1. his plan is out there for you to read

2. the ACA was not out there for us to read before it was passed. pelosi made the infamous remark that we will have to find out what is in it AFTER it is passed.
 
cannabis said:
1. his plan is out there for you to read
Click to expand...

Point out to me what specific deductions and loopholes Romney will close to make up the $5T in revenue losses the would result from his 20% across the board tax cut would.

Goals are not plans. Goals are goals. Plans detail how you hope to achieve those goals. Romeny's plan has a series of goals but not plans to get there and when you do the work to figure out how he could get there, the results are increases in taxes for low and middle income people.


cannabis said:
2. the ACA was not out there for us to read before it was passed. pelosi made the infamous remark that we will have to find out what is in it AFTER it is passed.
Click to expand...

Actually, is was out there for you to read before it was passed.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Point out to me what specific deductions and loopholes Romney will close to make up the $5T in revenue losses the would result from his 20% across the board tax cut would.

Goals are not plans. Goals are goals. Plans detail how you hope to achieve those goals. Romeny's plan has a series of goals but not plans to get there and when you do the work to figure out how he could get there, the results are increases in taxes for low and middle income people.


Actually, is was out there for you to read before it was passed.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm not getting into it with yurt anymore.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You must be niave then. I have a modest $30,000 in stock investments outside of my 401K and I can tell you for a fact that I don't trust Wall Street any further than I can throw your average stock broker, who's main function in life seems to be charging me fees for doing absolutely nothing. Trust any of my SS with those Wall Street sharks? You gotta be kidding me! Hell I don't trust them with my current stock investments but I'm willing to take risk with those shameless thieves in order to increase my returns. SS is my low to non-risk supplement to my retirement income and I am very risk adverse when it comes to my SS.

BTW, I lost significantly on my stocks (both private and 401K) during the credit bubble collapse. I'm now banking on making some of that back with insurance companies when the Universal Mandate of the ACA goes into affect in 2014.
Click to expand...

Again, 1% of the total of their SS. And what is amazing is that over a 40 year work cycle it would ensure they had a way better return than SS by itself. And you didn't "have" to do it. If you are afraid of the market, even such options as they would let you choose (which would have been very safe investments), then don't. Just take your SS and move on with your life. Stop trying to fit my life into your mold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top