|
|
On October 04 2012 11:44 KaRnaGe[cF] wrote:
All i know is that the ACA for a fact raised the shit out of premiums so that i had to drop my PPO insurance and buy a high deductible HSA.
I am in the opposite position since I had a pre-existing condition. It is currently saving me 300-400/month over what I would normally be paying.
Romney clearly won, but its just hard to tell if he can keep that position throughout the Presidency.
|
On October 04 2012 11:45 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:43 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:39 HazMat wrote:On October 04 2012 11:35 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I still say we institute the British style of floor debate for Prime Minister's Questions type of shit for presidential debates. I'd watch it every day. I say we have the nominees answer questions they're not expected to know and give them points for being interesting. I think Stephen Fry would be a great host for it. With Alan Davies as the side host? Haha I like how there are fans of that show here I would totally watch that. I also don't think Fry would get pushed around quite so much.
Have the buzzers go off every time they mention all too common phrases like "reagan, hope, love america, and change"
|
On October 04 2012 11:47 Kaitlin wrote:
MSNBC is PISSED. Wow. I can't believe Obama didn't even ATTEMPT to refute the $716 Billion cut to Medicare. Romney called Obama out on every claim Obama made that he didn't like. Obama said their Social Security plans were roughly the same ??? Wow. Nobody can fairly argue that Obama came even close on this one. Anybody that saw this, who is even remotely undecided or swayable will move toward Romney. Not saying they will stay there, but this was enough to move any but the immovable.
I suspect how much people were swayed also varied by demographic. Romney's aggressive attitude may have played poorly with a few demographics, and he certainly did not come off well during the Medicare part to soon to be retirees (virtually ignoring Obama's central point about collapsing Medicare with vouchers). Still, tonight was definitely a net positive for Romney, even though his grasp of the facts seemed tenuous at best to me.
On October 04 2012 11:48 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That's because Obama just let Romney spin away from what he said, sometimes, days ago. Heck Romney backed away from his own tax plan tonight. Obama should not let Romney get away with murder like that ... But how? You can't just point at a guy and say they're full of shit. Romney has literally said the exact opposite of some of his claims tonight.
Obama did all he could here with so few last words. I think the extra time he got may have worked against him as well. I mean, he did more or less explicitly call out Romney's lack of clear plans, and Romney's response was "I'll sit down with Congress." What can you say to that?
|
Romney definitely sounded better and had more confidence, but after following many of his statements during the Republican primaries I can't help but think about how flip-floppy he's being. I'm curious to see how Republicans feel about his new stances on many of these topics.
|
The only specific I understood out of Romney that debate was that he plans to cut PBS.
|
On October 04 2012 11:45 imBLIND wrote:
As an American, I absolutely hate how people judge anyone on TV by the tone of their voice, the passive/aggressiveness of their argument, and their overall composure. I'm listening to the ABC news and it's absolutely appalling at how much people don't even analyze the arguments, but rather the individual and how they speak.
Yes, public speaking and composure does have a presence in the overall debates, but this is ludicrous; all Romney did was give a good performance on his party's lies. Anything in politics is always about who is the better liar, but at least Obama made me feel like I was an adult and didn't imply that his opponent was ill-suited for the job, as Romney did multiple times. The mudslinging and lies needs to be kept to a minimum, and I think Obama did just that.
Your username, it is so fitting after making this statement.
|
On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:29 MWY wrote:On October 04 2012 11:25 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:24 MWY wrote:
grading schools? wtf does he think this will solve... school choice. think amazon.com customer feedback. but for schools. I understood what he wants to do.. but seriously this will never do any good. Bad schools get no kids? Or just the poor kids? Whos rating how?... The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault.
okay, just please answer me how the kid GETS to the better school? do these voucher buy cars? does the buss now take 4 hours because it has to pick kids up over the whole city? the reason my city has 4 HS is because its rather large
|
On October 04 2012 11:51 seiferoth10 wrote:
The only specific I understood out of Romney that debate was that he plans to cut PBS.
You werent paying attention then or went into the debate with your mind already made up.
|
Honestly I think you guys are giving way too much credit to most of the electorate. Romney appearing to be stronger because of how he apparently took liberties with his position to make it stronger, okay. But as a rule of thumb, people are dumb and I doubt most of them will be able to truly evaluate either candidates' position particularly well. Just a conjecture, but I really don't think too many of them will be able to consider both candidates points on a particularly high level.
|
On October 04 2012 11:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:43 CrazedNight wrote:
What was up with that moderator....
He let Obama take so much extra time, and let Romney and Obama both talk over him when he tried to switch topics or cut them off.
I was totaling extra time past part 2 (Above 2 minutes) and got
Romney : 0:47 extra
Obama: 7:02 extra
Yes, I think Romney is the winner of that one.
I'm surprised how well Romney did. I expected Obama to destroy him, given how bad Romney was before this debate. He must have been practicing a lot o.O Regardless of specific timing, I think we can all agree the moderator was way too passive. He also gave Romney virtually every last word (I say virtually because I probably missed one).
I totally agree. Also when he tries to switch topics, they simply talk over him. He needed a button to kill their mics or something. As it is, there was supposed to be 15 minutes for each. Due to the candidates talking to much, it was THREE MINUTES for the last one.
|
On October 04 2012 11:46 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:38 Saryph wrote:
Romney did a great job this debate by completely changing his platform from what it was when he was last out on the campaign trail. Have you actually got Romney's platform from Romney or do you listen to Democrats tell you what Romney's platform is? If you have been doing the latter then obviously you are surprised when you hear him defend himself.
How many times did Romney claim he didn't have a plan that independent analysts have said would reduce revenues by $5 trillion over the next ten years? Did he just drop the 20% reduction to each tax bracket aspect of his tax plan or did he just lie over and over?
I tend to by default assume presidential candidates are not lying on national television.
Perhaps that is my mistake.
|
On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:29 MWY wrote:On October 04 2012 11:25 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:24 MWY wrote:
grading schools? wtf does he think this will solve... school choice. think amazon.com customer feedback. but for schools. I understood what he wants to do.. but seriously this will never do any good. Bad schools get no kids? Or just the poor kids? Whos rating how?... The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault.
Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded.
|
I have always felt that Obama is a terrible debater. He just doesn't seem to be in his element and seems lost when he not performing off of prepared remarks/teleprompter. Doesn't make his case very well, and not quick enough with spur of the moment ad-lib.
|
On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:29 MWY wrote:On October 04 2012 11:25 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
school choice.
think amazon.com customer feedback. but for schools. I understood what he wants to do.. but seriously this will never do any good. Bad schools get no kids? Or just the poor kids? Whos rating how?... The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault. Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded.
and the bad ones will be empty 
|
United States102 Posts
Romney's numbers not working out with his tax cuts and raising defense budget stuck with me.
|
Obama's a good speaker, not a good debater. There's a pretty big difference.
|
it's never about facts or plans or specifics, it's all about who looked stronger on stage, and romney was definitely smooth on stage while obama looked unprepared and unsure
combine that with the way romney won the last word on pretty much every issue (which he fought tooth to nail for) makes him the winner
|
On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:29 MWY wrote:On October 04 2012 11:25 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
school choice.
think amazon.com customer feedback. but for schools. I understood what he wants to do.. but seriously this will never do any good. Bad schools get no kids? Or just the poor kids? Whos rating how?... The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault. Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded.
How is this even an argument? The school will expand like any other business in the country. They will hire new teachers and build more classrooms or open new schools and do what it takes to get the money being offered them. How many businesses do you know that turn away customers because of overcrowding?
|
|
|
as an american i find it highly hilarious that anyone would base who they vote for on the debates, because you can say whatever you want (read: lie) and it doesn't even matter, because you don't get called out on it on the podium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
