US presidential debate

[Bikerdude]

Been watching this from the fence for the most part, but one thing that jumps straight out is Romney is as useless at public speaking as Bush was. So I have to ask, despite how much money these republican (we call them conservative in the UK) candidates have, how the hell can an educated elctorate vote for these imbeciles when they have such glaringly poor skills you'd think some one going for public office should have..?

 

Like him or loath him at least Obama speaks like has more than two brain cells to rub togther.

[nbohr1more]

Our rural populations love voting for folks that "they relate to" especially if they think these relate-able candidates will

help their Christian agendas. They'd vote-in the Antichrist if they thought he would appose abortion and allow prayer in school.

 

That said, I can still see Christians balking at a Mormon president. That has to be frightening of it's own right (for both Christians

and Atheists alike).

 

Will the US turn into Las Vegas ("Holy Mormon Churches" everywhere, yet gambling and prostitution in sanctioned "fun zones" )...?

 

Maybe I will vote for Romney...

[7upMan]

Obama has basically lost the election even before it started. Have a look at this article. It is highly probable that the election results will be phony.

 

I don't get it: The Dems had the Congress as well as the Senate, and they knew that the voting machines are used for major vote-rigging (see Presidential election in 2004, where Dubja Bush won the state of Florida). Yet they did nothing to amend that, say, by completely banning voting machines and do it manually, like we do in Germany. This is really the only reliable way to do it, because it is much more difficult to manipulate the results.

[Professor Paul1290]

If you want a simpler explanation that doesn't involve conspiracy, the impression I've been getting is that a lot of people who would/will vote for Romney don't actually like Romney that much, they just hate Obama. For them it's more a matter of getting Obama out than it is getting Romney in.

 

The thing is, people aren't happy with how things have been going, and usually when people aren't happy with how things are going they tend to vote out whoever is currently in office.

 

If Romney was actually a decent candidate he would already be the clear winner just because of the general dissatisfaction with Obama, but as you've probably noticed he's been a pretty terrible one. I guess you could say he's so awful that he's turned what would have been an easy win for him into a close tie.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Professor Paul1290

[Radiant]

About Romney: I don't understand, why people believe in this man. It's a business man all through with all it's pros and cons. But even this guy wouldn't bring the US back into business, he would rather feece the folk.

He was against the reform of the healthcare system as well, despite the fact it met his own plans earlier. (Ah, politics: Don't listen, what your opponent says, just say it's bad for people...)

 

About abortion: Isn't this a silly season topic? (Well, maybe it is less important for me and I underestimate that.)

 

This is really the only reliable way to do it, because it is much more difficult to manipulate the results.

I think I must destroy this illusion. A teller who is a member of a party said once to me: "Well, when there is a blank voting paper I make a cross for them." So make sure to place your crosses everywhere if you don't would like to vote for someone.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Radiant

[7upMan]

@Professor Paul: Why exactly is Obama hated so much? I must admit I don't watch American News closely, so I have no idea what all the fuzz is about (I only noticed the fact, that's all).

 

@Radiant: Well, the easiest (and most reliable) way to spoil your ballot is to either write something on it along the lines of "Screw You All!!!111" or, yes, to make crosses everywhere. To go voting and not place your cross on some candidate is plain stupid. I'd vote for the Grey Panthers if no other half-decent candidates were available.

[lost_soul]

@Bikerdude: Ever see one of the Carmack interviews? He perhaps isn't one of the best public speakers, but the things he creates are awesome. My point? Just because someone isn't good at public speaking doesn't mean they are inept or anything like that.... not that I know anything about this election or the candidates.

[Professor Paul1290]

@Professor Paul: Why exactly is Obama hated so much? I must admit I don't watch American News closely, so I have no idea what all the fuzz is about (I only noticed the fact, that's all).

 

I guess the biggest thing is that a lot of people have been feeling the effects of the not-so-great economy while Obama has been president.

 

You might have noticed a lot of Obama's campaign is about trying to demonstrate that the economy has been getting better somehow, this is because a lot of people (perhaps the majority) don't believe this to be so and that's probably one of the biggest, if not biggest, thing working against Obama.

That probably sounds rather simplistic and yes it's probably a bit more complicated than that, but like I've said before people tend vote out whoever is in office when they're unhappy (which would work out just fine in most cases, except for maybe right now).

 

I'm definitely not an expert on this so anyone else feel free to correct me on anything.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Professor Paul1290

[Sotha]

Ooh, politics. Like religion debates, there may come some heat around here. Anyways, these here are my views, feel free to disagree. Please don't get upset.

 

I saw newspaper article where a study indicated that if the whole world got to choose the president of the US, Obama would win easily. This is an interesting thought. Because the score is close to 50/50 in the US, it means that the perception of the reality between a snapshot of the whole world and the snapshot of the US citizens differ a lot! It would be fun to discuss why it is so. Many points have already been mentioned here, like the ability to relate with the candidate, which, in turn, gives additional indications.

 

Me personally? Well I agree with the world, but alas, I cannot vote.

 

Like in my country, the economical and EU problems have given rise to populistic party full of crazies who scramble around in public like a herd of monkeys under drugs, kept together by a one single man (a sort of zoo director ). For us, this is great since the success of the zoo party indicates that the democracy is working: some analysis show that people who would not ordinarily vote have been activated, and these people vote the populists. Anyways, like in our case, in the end, the US citizens will get the president they DESERVE. The voters have a great responsibility.

 

The most beautiful thing and the greatest horror in democracy, I think, is the fact that the vote of a moron equals the vote of the average joe equals the vote of a genius.

[Midnight]

I saw newspaper article where a study indicated that if the whole world got to choose the president of the US, Obama would win easily. This is an interesting thought. Because the score is close to 50/50 in the US, it means that the perception of the reality between a snapshot of the whole world and the snapshot of the US citizens differ a lot! It would be fun to discuss why it is so.

 

Don't forget that most of the world probably doesn't know that much about Romney and that could skew that study in favour of Obama since familiarity with candidates will have some influence (not saying that if Romney were better known it would improve his chances!).

 

My personal opinion is that in general it's often irrelevant who the president is, corporate interests and lobbyists are the ones who really shape policy for the most part. The division of the house only serves to slow down or speed up policies that are inevitable based on forces outside of government.

[Professor Paul1290]

I guess you could say the current republican party is our "party of crazies spawned from economic troubles" in the US.

 

I'm not sure how apparent it is from the outside, but the current republican party is not the same as the republican party from before. It has changed a lot and has become more extreme far right in general. There's a lot more to it than that, but I'm not the right person to explain it in detail.

 

It seems like economic trouble can shake up a lot of things.

From what I can see, the only reason someone like Romney can reach close to 50/50 with someone like Obama is because the current situation so strongly favors "not-Obama".

I think under "normal circumstances" (if such a thing exists) Romney wouldn't stand a chance.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Professor Paul1290

[Sotha]

Don't forget that most of the world probably doesn't know that much about Romney and that could skew that study in favour of Obama since familiarity with candidates will have some influence (not saying that if Romney were better known it would improve his chances!).

 

This may be possible, but at least in my country the media follows extra carefully all the debates and the differences of the candidates have been gone through in the media many times. It is, of course, different how many of those people voting in the world, have acquainted themselves with the info.

 

My personal opinion is that in general it's often irrelevant who the president is, corporate interests and lobbyists are the ones who really shape policy for the most part. The division of the house only serves to slow down or speed up policies that are inevitable based on forces outside of government.

 

I cannot comment whether it is true or not, but I only hope so it is not. The logical ramification of this belief is that you, perhaps, do not vote at all because it will not make any difference in the world? Many intellectuals seem to hold this belief. This is problematic, since the democratic process requires involvement. The populist's rise is the non-voters suddenly voting. What if the intellectuals took up and swarmed the ballot?

 

 

 

It seems like economic trouble can shake up a lot of things.

From what I can see, the only reason someone like Romney can reach close to 50/50 with someone like Obama is because the current situation so strongly favors "not-Obama".

I think under "normal circumstances" (if such a thing exists) Romney wouldn't stand a chance.

 

This is a bit bizarre. Why would economic problem provoke people to vote a businessman who runs concessions for businesses and rich people? Wouldn't it be more logical to vote, in times of economical crisis, a person who is more in the left side, running concessions for ordinary people? (Obama healthcare plan, for example). I suppose the ordinary/poor people are not voting for some reason?

[RPGista]

My personal opinion is that in general it's often irrelevant who the president is, corporate interests and lobbyists are the ones who really shape policy for the most part. The division of the house only serves to slow down or speed up policies that are inevitable based on forces outside of government.

 

This seems to be quite close to what actually happens; still, it is not useless to press and reward certain politicians over others, as socialist governments in South America have shown that differences in policy tendencies mean a lot of impact (in this case positive) on misery and poverty, for example.

 

That the world population would even care about US elections maybe comes from the fact that, as some point out, it is the country perceived by most of the world as the biggest threat to their national security, so whoever is in "charge" there matters a lot to everyone else. The more moderate guy will always be preferred to war mongers. This has nothing to do with US citizens of course, which are consistently at odds and against the state's acts of war abroad (and will appearently be concerned mostly with national issues on the election day, as you would expect anywhere).

 

States are out of control (or captured, I dont know) for the most part and that is the saddest part - for those living in Europe just look at what the bailouts and public stimulus to the corporate and financial sector (all in detriment of social structures, and against the overwhelming public opinion) has caused and will continue to in most of the countries' economies there, specially the more vulnerable ones. It is a crisis soo deep it will surely have a very long lasting effect.

Edited October 24, 2012 by RPGista

[Professor Paul1290]

This is a bit bizarre. Why would economic problem provoke people to vote a businessman who runs concessions for businesses and rich people? Wouldn't it be more logical to vote, in times of economical crisis, a person who is more in the left side, running concessions for ordinary people? (Obama healthcare plan, for example). I suppose the ordinary/poor people are not voting for some reason?

 

From what I can see, the situation doesn't really favor the "Romney the business man" as much as it favors "not-Obama". By "not-Obama" I mean anyone who isn't Obama and/or anyone who can replace Obama, not necessarily a businessman.

 

The thing is that in general Obama is very likable and he makes a lot of sense, but in the eyes of many he's already tried and failed. Obama says and wants to do a lot of things people want to happen, but lot of people (perhaps the majority) believe he has failed to follow through with his plans.

That's pretty much what's working against Obama at this point, people don't feel like the economy has gotten better during his term and people feel like he's failed to live up to his promises.

 

Romney doesn't have this problem, he just has to be an alternative. His "competent business man" angle actually doesn't seem to be working as well right now as it was a month or so ago due to a lot of things in his past that are being brought up, but he has been catching up recently anyway.

 

I suppose to clarify my earlier point, if there was such a thing as a hypothetical "generic, ordinary, average" candidate you could somehow magically put in Romney's position, I think that candidate would automatically win. The fact Romney is only keeping up about 50/50 and not the clear winner is due to how awful Romney is.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Professor Paul1290

[ungoliant]

 

Abraham Lincoln pretty much sums up my thoughts in the latest 'presidential debate'

[Midnight]

I cannot comment whether it is true or not, but I only hope so it is not. The logical ramification of this belief is that you, perhaps, do not vote at all because it will not make any difference in the world? Many intellectuals seem to hold this belief. This is problematic, since the democratic process requires involvement.

 

I wouldn't argue that voting doesn't achieve anything, but in reality you're given only two options and are left to choose what you decide to be the lesser of two evils. The decision of which candidates will be represented is increasingly falling to big money, so by the time it comes to vote you're struggling to find those few (largely inconsequential) issues that differentiate the candidates in your mind, but the issues that really define those candidates might be, for example, which has a stance that is more amenable to big oil or big pharma. See this news item for some interesting developments since the last US election:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/01/22/yesterdays-supreme-court-ruling-that-corporations-have-more-first-amendment-rights-than-citizens

 

 

[Bikerdude]

@Bikerdude: . My point? Just because someone isn't good at public speaking doesn't mean they are inept or anything like that.... not that I know anything about this election or the candidates.

I would agree if the person in question wasnt running for the president of the united states, if the guy can afford to own 4 dancing horses and then some then he can afford to pay someone to teach him how to vocalise.

[Flanders]

When people say Obama disappointed them i wonder if any other president would have done better in the last four years. I don't think a president has that much influences on the economy only maybe in the critical days of the crisis and then he acted pretty well if you ask me. It could have been a lot worse, but Obama cannot run on a slogan like that.

 

Romneys public appearances have improved over time (watch the first presidential debate) but still, what they see in Romney i don't understand. It is quite obvious that this man has no interest in the wellfare of the general public. I still think his main concerns are benefits for companies and for the rich. He doesn't even want to explain how he wants to pay for his 'plans' (because he can not). He is just saying what his campaign team thinks is expected of him to say. On other topics he remains vague, so either he has no plan or worse, has some plans he doesn't want to tell. Even a 'numbers guy' like Paul Ryan doesn't want to explain how Romney will pay for tax benefits on one hand and a decrease of the national debt on the other hand. Or he changes his position on a topic just to make people like him. I doubt he really believes himself in what he says when he does that. Maybe he has his own plans for when he is president and now he just says whatever will get him in office.

 

Here in this country all political parties are expected to present their plans to the 'court of audits', a independent body of economical smart guys that audits the spending of the national government and gives advice about state finances and economics. So after the plans are calculated through by the court of audits they present the outcomes of their research. Something like party A will create about 20.000 more jobs, party B wil increase the wealth of the poorest by 5.000 euros etc. These outcomes are presented to the general public and so we know that the political parties are not selling us BS like Romney tries, saying he will not increase revenue, give tax cuts and lower the national debt.

[Melan]

So is it going to be the Wall Street candidate or the Wall Street candidate?

[Springheel]

The most beautiful thing and the greatest horror in democracy, I think, is the fact that the vote of a moron equals the vote of the average joe equals the vote of a genius.

 

That's not the way democracy was supposed to work, of course....democracy is designed for informed and educated citizens, and unfortunately there are precious few of those in most countries.

[nbohr1more]

I fear this is a cyclical pattern:

 

1) Long looming economic issue is about to happen

2) Democrat ascends to Office

3) Repercussions from step 1 are blames on Democrat

4) Republican is voted into office

5) Regulations are loosened

6) Businesses start doing "dodgy things"

7) Long running looming economic issue about to happen

 

It seems that they are using a stick and carrot approach. They put Democrats into office during the worst

periods and enact feeble progressive social legislation. Then those feeble measures are blamed for the

bad economy and they put Republicans in charge to "fix things" which creates a new scam\bubble.

When the bubble bursts and the Republicans and their thieving friends steal all they can, Democrats are

voted-in again to take the blame for the "bad economy". The exception being Bill Clinton who was hardly

a Democrat and essentially pulled the same scam with the Dot-Com bubble and was the author of

many of the laws that allowed things like Enron to happen (Republican in Democrat's clothing).

 

So the progression being:

 

Stock Market crash early 80's

Savings and Loan scandal

Dot-Com bubble

Enron

Housing bubble (current world financial meltdown)

 

as far as I can trace back.

[Ladro]

I prefere this debate:

 

[/media]

 

Or this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ti2S7Py25w&feature=share&list=UUNYrK4tc5i1-eL8TXesH2pg

 

You can find all the songify here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/schmoyoho

 

I recently discovered GregoryBorthers, they are really good on make these instant (and funny) viral :-D

Edited October 25, 2012 by Ladro

[Xarg]

From the articles I've read about the debates, it seems there was precious little discussion on poverty, the Palestinians and climate change, it seems the politicians were more interested in scoring points off each other for differences in their platforms. Add to that the confusion that Mitt "the chameleon" Romney has flip-flopped and changed his stances on issues multiple times but still has this much support... Then there's the false dichotomy between Republican and Democrat, meanwhile the Presidential candidate of the Green party was arrested after turning up to the debates to protest her exclusion..

 

Then there's the insanity of things like the NDAA and the policy on drone strikes, Israel and Iran, China, military spending, lack of prosecution over the housing bubble, the student debt bubble, union busting, voter disenfranchisement, the list goes on...

[7upMan]

It gets better and better... this is not a civilized country anymore, it seems, but actually a banana republic with an overly large military. It is only fitting that Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General, now threatens to arrest U.N. elections observers.

[jay pettitt]

I thought Mitt did pretty well as it happens. That's not to say that I don't think he's a psychopath and a liar and would be a unmitigated disaster not just for America but also for the entire world - but he held it together in the debates well enough to make the right noises to woo someone who might consider voting Republican. But generally I thought the debates were pretty poor. Enough to put anyone off politics really.

 

 

Romneys public appearances have improved over time (watch the first presidential debate) but still, what they see in Romney i don't understand. It is quite obvious that this man has no interest in the wellfare of the general public.

 

I think most conservative types would probably consider that the best way to care about the welfare of the general public is for government to get out of the way. I think they equate taxes with creating hardship. I think most conservative types need slapping, but it's a sort of plausible narrative if you enjoy sleep walking.

 

e doesn't even want to explain how he wants to pay for his 'plans' (because he can not). He is just saying what his campaign team thinks is expected of him to say. On other topics he remains vague, so either he has no plan or worse, has some plans he doesn't want to tell.

 

I've listened quite hard to Mitt, and that's not actually what you need to watch out for. His tax breaks are paid for from the rapid growth which he assumes he'll magic from thin air once he takes office and waves his American flag really hard. He does actually have a plan. But if the US economic woes are deep set and more difficult than he imagines - then his plan to balance the books goes out the window. In fact, Mitt is counting on not just growth but record growth.

 

What you need to look out for with Mitt is that he's a disingenuous lying bastard. Giving tax breaks to help small companies sounds fantastic. But Mitt has redefined small companies to include large wealthy companies. His tax breaks are aimed at those. Most small companies as we know them - those that are starting out or are small local employers - are of all things too small to qualify for Mitt's tax breaks.

 

Same with breaks for the squeezed middle class. With Mitt it's households with high incomes (redefined by Mitt as middle class) that will get the tax breaks. Households with median incomes won't qualify - but will be squeezed because those with high incomes will be paying less. His figures actually add up here. He's just lying about who will benefit.

 

Same with Obama care. It really is more expensive than before - oh noes. Trouble is, every projection for every sort of medical cover in the US sees costs going up and rapidly too. Obama care goes up less than everything else and provides more health cover and short of ideology is thus a good deal for Americans. Mitt is torturing innocent words for effect.

 

What is comedy is his plan to cut programmes by his simple test 'if we need to borrow Chinese money, I cut the programme'. It plays to people's fears, but it's vaccuous dribble otherwise. Seriously, what the fuck sort of a policy is that? Actually it's got a name. Beggar your neighbour. Last time it was tried it lead to a world war followed by a cold war.

 

Oh and there was the Government doesn't create jobs Government doesn't create jobs Government doesn't create jobs mantra. Tell that to a teacher or the ladies and gents of the armed services or a policeman. Perhaps Mitt just means that an educated workforce, the defence of trade links for oil and exports and security on the streets at work and at home so you don't live and work in fear of theft and violence doesn't contribute to economic well being and thus they aren't proper jobs.

 

He's a good salesman though. He makes that lot sound very seductive.