Obama v Romney 1st debate - who won ?

[Lerxst]

I really don't understand why it's assumed that that particular remark was "honest" and that everything else Romney says is designed to appease the crowd.

(By the way, judging by your third comment [posted12:36 ET, if I've converted correctly] it's quite obvious that you didn't watch since Obama mentioned both the Bush wars and non-fossil energy, and I only watched the first 15 minutes of the debate.)

Because the remark was taken at a private meeting where Romney sounded remarkably lucid and even "comfortable" compared to his normally stiff appearance. In other words, he was "in his element" or else he wouldn't have even mentioned disowning almost half of the population of the country he wants to run. That's a nice recipe for revolution if he ever does get elected...

And Obama didn't mention or peruse it with the same fervor a true Progressive would have. If you want a show, watch the 1992 Presidential debates with Ross Perot not holding any punches while the other two main candidates sat there with their phony faces and rehearsed lines staring at the camera. For another example, watch clips of Dennis Kucinich giving speeches to Congress; that's the kind of passion and values both candidates lack.

A story supporting what I just said: here

 

[just me]

My English professor would have said "sit down" with the first "umm" and given them an F.

I remind myself this is Hollywood, for some reason. Still have to deal with someone stealing my retirement years ago.
Health insurance is ten times what it was 9 years ago. Jobs have been going overseas many years. Inflation was like a bubble or a zit that needed popping. Too many people taking advantage of government programs meant to help those that REALLY need it. Heck: I wish there was someone I could enjoy watching run this country. Too many changes in the world and no real answers. What debate?

 

[the]

I saw about half of it. Obama came off as he usually does. Romney still looks like a creep.

 

[Sriracha]

Coming from one of the 47% Mitt doesn't believe is worthy of his time or efforts... or is that such ancient history that people actually forgot that Romney really does feel that way? No debate, no matter how well staged, will ever make up for that one truth Romney did tell.

At this point he should be trying to dig himself out of a hole with chopsticks. But thanks to people's painfully short-sightedness, he's still in the running. I don't understand why middle-class people would vote for the one candidate who's promised to make his millionaire friends richer, ship jobs overseas and drive the non-rich into welfare after cutting welfare.

Are we all that detached form the guys washing car windows on street corners that we think it could never happen to us?

Where I understand your point about those who need a helping hand, should receive ... but the following shyt has got to stop:

[video=youtube;Z5tqH7UrzOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z5tqH7UrzOw#![/video]

There are far too many undeserving people who abuse the system. All it does is hurt those who benefit. I do realize that the fallacy of this video implies that the person themself is actually GETTING the welfare. They are only getting it because they have children, and when they are in need ... that is what it is for. Trust me, the system is abused horribly.

ETA: Instead of cutting welfare, they should invest in more measures to qualify individuals. Of course the dude with 4 baby mamas doesn't want to work, it will all go to child support ... but the azz himself chose to spread his seed and it is unfair that he makes it everyone else's problem.

 

[the]

Where I understand your point about those who need a helping hand, should receive ... but the following shyt has got to stop:

[video=youtube;Z5tqH7UrzOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z5tqH7UrzOw#![/video]

There are far too many undeserving people who abuse the system. All it does is hurt those who benefit. I do realize that the fallacy of this video implies that the person themself is actually GETTING the welfare. They are only getting it because they have children, and when they are in need ... that is what it is for. Trust me, the system is abused horribly. Instead of cutting welfare, they should invest in more measures to qualify individuals.

So you think Romney is the solution to welfare fraud? Surely there are other, better reasons to vote for him. I hope.

 

[Sriracha]

So you think Romney is the solution to welfare fraud? Surely there are other, better reasons to vote for him. I hope.

I'm not voting based on welfare. I don't need it. Why can't I vote for a candidate based on my and my family's needs? Everyone else is. I just happen to know more than the avg Joe about how welfare works and how it is abused.

ETA: I never said I would vote for Romney, but you can sure as heck bet I'm not voting for Nobama.

 

[Lerxst]

I'm not voting based on welfare. I don't need it. Why can't I vote for a candidate based on my and my family's needs? Everyone else is. I just happen to know more than the avg Joe about how welfare works and how it is abused.

ETA: I never said I would vote for Romney, but you can sure as heck bet I'm not voting for Nobama.

What's worse, a person who will abuse the system to get money/drugs/"stuff" or a person who will die without that system? You might work with people who abuse the system, but I work with people who need that system - low-income/elderly. I will guarantee several, if not all of them, would be dead within the year had they not received government-backed assistance.

Even in Animal Welfare, it was a victory when a state would pass a law against animal abuse. But.... then, all the Libertarian/Extreme Right-Wingers would come out and argue about feeling slighted that their rights were "trampled" because of a few dogs. As if their right to choose whether or not to feed their dog was more important than making sure that dog didn't die. Not all of these people would abuse the animal, but how's that ounce of prevention against those that would, a bad thing for those that don't?

Is that little bit of tax money you already pay making sure these things are funded, or a law making it illegal to do something you don't do anyway, such a huge violation of a person's rights? The only people who should actually be protesting these are the ones who would be taking advantage...

 

[MindYourHead]

I watched a replay that was On Demand.
Even though I have never found President Obama interesting or inspiring to listen to, his lackadaisical appearance did surprise me.
Romney on the other hand was sharp, and on game. Clicking off responses in an articulate manner. Boom, boom, boom. Take that! And that!
The next debate between them could be the exact opposite though. We'll see.

If you want a show, watch the 1992 Presidential debates with Ross Perot not holding any punches while the other two main candidates sat there with their phony faces and rehearsed lines staring at the camera.

Oh man! Those were some great debates with Perot involved!

 

[Sriracha]

What's worse, a person who will abuse the system to get money/drugs/"stuff" or a person who will die without that system? You might work with people who abuse the system, but I work with people who need that system - low-income/elderly. I will guarantee several, if not all of them, would be dead within the year had they not received government-backed assistance.

Even in Animal Welfare, it was a victory when a state would pass a law against animal abuse. But.... then, all the Libertarian/Extreme Right-Wingers would come out and argue about feeling slighted that their rights were "trampled" because of a few dogs. As if their right to choose whether or not to feed their dog was more important than making sure that dog didn't die. Not all of these people would abuse the animal, but how's that ounce of prevention against those that would, a bad thing for those that don't?

Is that little bit of tax money you already pay making sure these things are funded, or a law making it illegal to do something you don't do anyway, such a huge violation of a person's rights? The only people who should actually be protesting these are the ones who would be taking advantage...

I'm not sure why your tone assumes I want to do away with welfare altogether. That's soooo off-base. I'm done.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Obama looked like his mind was elsewhere. He looked distraught. Prior to the debate I thought Romney didn't have a chance in hell. Now I think he has a pretty good chance.

It looked like Obama was tired of dancing.

 

[Billy]

Obama looked like his mind was elsewhere. He looked distraught. Prior to the debate I thought Romney didn't have a chance in hell. Now I think he has a pretty good chance.

It looked like Obama was tired of dancing.

Yeah its like his mind was on being the president, and not just the election.

 

[MindYourHead]

Obama looked like his mind was elsewhere. He looked distraught. Prior to the debate I thought Romney didn't have a chance in hell. Now I think he has a pretty good chance.

It looked like Obama was tired of dancing.

Obama's arrogant smugness was more evident than usual.
He had the body language of "Look, why do I even have to do this?"
That is one thing that has always turned me off about him.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Obama's arrogant smugness was more evident than usual.
That is one thing that has always turned me off about him.

Yeah it was. Like [MENTION=4423]Sriracha[/MENTION] said all the "wells" and "umms" with that cocky smirk. I couldn't see through it the first time around quite as well but now it's transparent. While Obama was doing his "wells" and "umms" Romney was rippin him a new one with new ideas. I really liked the charter school idea Romney mentioned, schools will get better if they are forced to compete against one another and we can still keep them socially funded.

 

[Billy]

Obama's arrogant smugness was more evident than usual.
He had the body language of "Look, why do I even have to do this?"
That is one thing that has always turned me off about him.

Its good to have "important" issues for your leader like how smug they appear.

 

[Rferraris]

I watched a replay that was On Demand.
Even though I have never found President Obama interesting or inspiring to listen to, his lackadaisical appearance did surprise me.
Romney on the other hand was sharp, and on game. Clicking off responses in an articulate manner. Boom, boom, boom. Take that! And that!
The next debate between them could be the exact opposite though. We'll see.




Oh man! Those were some great debates with Perot involved!

I'm jumping in late here,but I'm going to assume you are conservative or in the Romney camp. My problem is its nice to say things, but I need them to be backed up by something. He said he wanted to lower taxes for all by 20%.
I'm going to suggest you need to think about that a little. Maybe I should run for president. I'll reduce your taxes by 59%. No wait. 89%. Hell ill make it do we don't tax you at all. I'll even send you money back.

So how is he going to pay for his plan.
Thing is. I doesn't matter if he lies his ass off. If you're not for Obama, I don't think you care. This guy could tell you in tape he wants to poison and kill the 47% and you'd still vote for him. Why watch the debates? They aren't changing anyone's mind. To me, there isn't anything believable about what Romney says. And I am not convinced he as president would try to get congress to do one thing that would make my life better. I'd just have a pretty white guy back in office and that's all I care about. At least that what I suspect most people are thinking.
If you can't tell, I'm not much for racists.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Its good to have "important" issues for your leader like how smug they appear.

Word. It's important to not let his smugness affect the voting decision. Look at his philosophy and false promises, not his appearance. lol

 

[MindYourHead]

I'm jumping in late here,but I'm going to assume you are conservative or in the Romney camp. My problem is its nice to say things, but I need them to be backed up by something. He said he wanted to lower taxes for all by 20%.
I'm going to suggest you need to think about that a little. Maybe I should run for president. I'll reduce your taxes by 59%. No wait. 89%. Hell ill make it do we don't tax you at all. I'll even send you money back.

So how is he going to pay for his plan.
Thing is. I doesn't matter if he lies his ass off. If you're not for Obama, I don't think you care. This guy could tell you in tape he wants to poison and kill the 47% and you'd still vote for him. Why watch the debates? They aren't changing anyone's mind. To me, there isn't anything believable about what Romney says. And I am not convinced he as president would try to get congress to do one thing that would make my life better. I'd just have a pretty white guy back in office and that's all I care about. At least that what I suspect most people are thinking.
If you can't tell, I'm not much for racists.

I have found I am more of a Libertarian if anything.
Neither Romney or Obama have my vote. All I was doing was making an observation on how they appeared.
I didn't endorse or dismiss what either had to say on policy. Candidates always paint a pretty and idyllic picture of how life will be with them in office. It never turns out that way.
And why is it, anytime someone says they don't care for President Obama they are automatically called racist?
I could as easily say since you don't care for Romney that you have something against Mormons and it would be equally as valid.

Its good to have "important" issues for your leader like how smug they appear.

Just an outward observation. Nothing more.

 

[Billy]

I have found I am more of a Libertarian if anything.
Neither Romney or Obama have my vote. All I was doing was making an observation on how they appeared.
I didn't endorse or dismiss what either had to say on policy. Candidates always paint a pretty and idyllic picture of how life will be with them in office. It never turns out that way.
And why is it, anytime someone says they don't care for President Obama they are automatically called racist?
I could as easily say since you don't care for Romney that you have something against Mormons and it would be equally as valid.




Just an outward observation. Nothing more.

I understand that, but don't you feel that it is a little irresponsible to focus in on such irrelevance when there is so much more to talk about? It kind of detracts away from the meat of the issues when we focus on such shallow perceptions like how the candidate "looks"... its a major flaw of American culture IMO that we do this. Its embarrassing for me as an American for non-Americans to see us judging our candidates on such ridiculous qualities as "who would you prefer to have a beer with" or "who looks the most presidential" I mean, egads! This is not me talking shit about you, I am just asking.

 

[Cherokee]

I'm not voting based on welfare. I don't need it. Why can't I vote for a candidate based on my and my family's needs? Everyone else is.

This kind of thinking makes me lose hope for humanity. Other people matter just as much as you do. The needs of other people matter just as much as your needs do. Other people are just as real and valid as you are.
You are wrong when you say everyone votes that way, I vote based on my needs, but I also vote based on the needs of other people, because I know that they matter just as much as I do.

Another thing to consider is that the society around you has an effect on your own well being. The better off the world you live in the better off you will be to.

 

[Cherokee]

The debates are really primitive. It's all abut body language. It gos back to the idea that we need the biggest bad ass to defend us, but that is no where near true in modern times. We need the person with the best ideas, the best plan, and a person who will actually give a dam about the people.


Personally I'm not voting for either of these liars. My vote is for Jill Stein.