|
|
United States24569 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:07 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote: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:
[quote]
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? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools Because that is rewarding poor management and teaching. The market is based upon destruction, the destruction of poor management and poor performance. If a school is poor at teaching, then it is a good thing that the school dies, and gets replaced by a better once. The concept here is competition, which is what is lacking in public schools and why they are doing such a poor job. In order to get better teaching, you need better teachers. Which we dont have. Sending a student to a different school doesnt solve this problem, it just creates one of overcrowding. You want better schools? Invest in better teachers, not different locations.
I've been steering clear of this voucher debate but I want to comment on a specific thing you said.
Summing up the quality of teaching a student receives as being mostly/entirely determined by who the teachers are is wrong. There are many factors that go into what a student gets out of school, or what the capabilities are of a student after finishing a certain grade. Teachers are indeed very important, but not the only thing by a long shot. In fact, some other factors can prevent the teacher from doing their job. Imagine being a teacher and being given a directive from your boss that you must teach using a certain method, even though you know that method won't work. Alternately, the school screws up and there are no whiteboards, photocopy machines, or classroom technology for the month of October. That's obviously an exaggeration right there from what typically happens, but it is a correct illustration of the types of things that happen through no fault of the teacher.
Improving teachers is one of several important steps to improving student outcomes.
|
On October 04 2012 12:06 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:05 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2012 12:01 Saryph wrote:Romney proposed and for most of the campaign (until tonight's debate) has run on a tax plan that includes a 20% tax cut to each tax bracket. His tax plan has been calculated by independent analysts to reduce revenue by $5 trillion over the next ten years. Does that $5 trillion take into account the reduction of deductions ? No the $5 trillion is what the reduction of deduction needs to make up if the plan is going to be revenue neutral.
Ok, so Romney's plan then is to reduce the rate structure by 20% each bracket, but come up with eliminations of deduction, exemptions and exclusions to make it revenue-neutral. Further, he also said the richest whatever % would not pay a lower share of the total burden than they currently do. So, it's not really fair to call it a $5 trillion tax cut that needs to be paid for, when the rate changes are only one part of the plan.
|
On October 04 2012 12:10 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:54 Saryph wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Romantic wrote: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. Romney has repeatedly said he wants to reduce tax rates by 20% while keeping revenue neutral by getting rid of loopholes. He has repeatedly said he does not want to reduce the share of taxes paid by the rich. He has repeatedly said he wants it to be revenue neutral. If reducing tax rates on income by 20% across the board (hint: not just the rich) ends up being in conflict with the other stated goals, then Romney has to pick one or the other. What these stupid "independent analysts" are doing is assuming Romney will break his revenue neutral and\or not overly reducing taxes for the rich pledge if it conflicts with the tax rate reduction pledge. That is just Democrat spin and bias. Who says which one he will budge on if he has to? They\you are just assuming the worst because you are biased against him for whatever reason. In the debate Romney repeated his pledges not to reduce revenue or lessen the relative burden on the rich. If he didn't know he has been promising this the whole time then I can tell you get your news from partisan sources that like to leave that part out and only talk about the 20% rate reduction. This is all assuming that the pledges are in conflict in the first place. They may be, I don't know I am not a tax expert.
This is exactly right.
|
On October 04 2012 12:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:07 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote: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:
[quote]
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? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools Because that is rewarding poor management and teaching. The market is based upon destruction, the destruction of poor management and poor performance. If a school is poor at teaching, then it is a good thing that the school dies, and gets replaced by a better once. The concept here is competition, which is what is lacking in public schools and why they are doing such a poor job. In order to get better teaching, you need better teachers. Which we dont have. Sending a student to a different school doesnt solve this problem, it just creates one of overcrowding. You want better schools? Invest in better teachers, not different locations. I've been steering clear of this voucher debate but I want to comment on a specific thing you said. Summing up the quality of teaching a student receives as being mostly/entirely determined by who the teachers are is wrong. There are many factors that go into what a student gets out of school, or what the capabilities are of a student after finishing a certain grade. Teachers are indeed very important, but not the only thing by a long shot. In fact, some other factors can prevent the teacher from doing their job. Imagine being a teacher and being given a directive from your boss that you must teach using a certain method, even though you know that method won't work. Alternately, the school screws up and there are no whiteboards, photocopy machines, or classroom technology for the month of October. That's obviously an exaggeration right there from what typically happens, but it is a correct illustration of the types of things that happen through no fault of the teacher. Improving teachers is one of several important steps to improving student outcomes.
Definitely agree. And the burden cant be placed squarely on the teachers. If a student doesnt want to learn or never even shows up to class, how can you teach that person?
|
On October 04 2012 12:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2012 12:07 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
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? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools Because that is rewarding poor management and teaching. The market is based upon destruction, the destruction of poor management and poor performance. If a school is poor at teaching, then it is a good thing that the school dies, and gets replaced by a better once. The concept here is competition, which is what is lacking in public schools and why they are doing such a poor job. In order to get better teaching, you need better teachers. Which we dont have. Sending a student to a different school doesnt solve this problem, it just creates one of overcrowding. You want better schools? Invest in better teachers, not different locations. invest in better teachers? specifically, what does this mean? Raise wages of teachers to make it a more appealing job, get people that want to teach. Look at programs that would train teachers in better teaching methods. Lots of ways to invest in better teachers.
chicago school teachers are paid more than any other teachers... but chicago schools are terrible. private institutions pay their teachers less than the national average for public school teachers... and private schools have, in general, better scores. throwing money at teachers doesn't solve anything.
also, i believe that private school teachers generally have less schooling and training. go figure.
|
On October 04 2012 12:03 DannyJ wrote:
Seems like Obama just tried to play it cool and ride his poll numbers, but Mitt went for it.
Obama is chilling on 3 base not realizing his bottled in opponent has a hidden expansion.
What happened was Romney flipped.
He's rewriting his campaign and running as a Moderate. And Obama didn't know how to attack it.
I'm not sure how to attack it -- You would literally have to be tracking all his lies from the past four years. When every other thing a person says is a contradiction -- how can you say you want to protect when in actuality your plan is to overhaul it? -- what do you do other than interrupt the guy and call him a fucking phoney?
|
Well at least this should be a wake up call for Obama not to be so passive and counterattack more for the next debate.
|
On October 04 2012 12:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:06 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 04 2012 12:05 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2012 12:01 Saryph wrote:Romney proposed and for most of the campaign (until tonight's debate) has run on a tax plan that includes a 20% tax cut to each tax bracket. His tax plan has been calculated by independent analysts to reduce revenue by $5 trillion over the next ten years. Does that $5 trillion take into account the reduction of deductions ? No the $5 trillion is what the reduction of deduction needs to make up if the plan is going to be revenue neutral. Ok, so Romney's plan then is to reduce the rate structure by 20% each bracket, but come up with eliminations of deduction, exemptions and exclusions to make it revenue-neutral. Further, he also said the richest whatever % would not pay a lower share of the total burden than they currently do. So, it's not really fair to call it a $5 trillion tax cut that needs to be paid for, when the rate changes are only one part of the plan.
To be fair, I think the problem Obama (and most of the analysts) have is that Romney has been very wibbly-wobbly on exactly which loopholes and exclusions he's going to eliminate, so they are making do with the information they have. I mean, what can Obama say when Romney won't say what he's going to eliminate besides assuming he's not going to eliminate anything?
|
Honestly I have to say that regardless of whether or not their opinions are right, Obama got his ass kicked in the debate itself.
|
On October 04 2012 12:06 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote: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:
[quote]
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? So do they just hire back all those old teachers from the 'bad school' or was it just the building that was 'bad.' All the students switch, so then you need the teachers... probably the same ones because experience is usually preferred to recent graduates. Besides of which, what is the criteria for a 'good' school and who decides? For instance, I've been in inner city schools that do terribly on the Fraser Institutes rankings (standardized test), but have awesome food programs and other supports to raise help educate students from very low income families. They are teaching the student where they are at and pushing them forward. The staff is passionate about their role in the community and they are making big impacts on the students lives. But the score poorly on the standardized tests. And a school up in the rich suburbs with parents of doctors and the like. They always score high on the standardized tests, does that make the one better than the other? Is that a reflection of the quality of the teachers or the context with which they find themselves? Even without a ranking system like the Fraser Institute, people know where the posh schools are so I don't even know what difference rankings would make. I guess it would be easier for schools to recruit for sports teams. Besides, there are already private schools, home schools, and online education if people are looking for choice. Ranking schools is a nice thing to say, but I don't see it as having a significant, practical benefit. You aren't actually doing anything beyond making a giant list.
Under a voucher system, the criteria for good schools and who decides are the parents themselves. I trust the parents opinion better than any bureaucrat or standardized test.
|
United States24569 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2012 12:07 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:
[quote]
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? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools Because that is rewarding poor management and teaching. The market is based upon destruction, the destruction of poor management and poor performance. If a school is poor at teaching, then it is a good thing that the school dies, and gets replaced by a better once. The concept here is competition, which is what is lacking in public schools and why they are doing such a poor job. In order to get better teaching, you need better teachers. Which we dont have. Sending a student to a different school doesnt solve this problem, it just creates one of overcrowding. You want better schools? Invest in better teachers, not different locations. invest in better teachers? specifically, what does this mean? Raise wages of teachers to make it a more appealing job, get people that want to teach. Look at programs that would train teachers in better teaching methods. Lots of ways to invest in better teachers. chicago school teachers are paid more than any other teachers... but chicago schools are terrible.
The first part is false... I won't argue one way or another on the second part.
private institutions pay their teachers less than the national average for public school teachers I don't doubt it although what's your source... and private schools have, in general, better scores. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Also, what is your source? throwing money at teachers doesn't solve anything. Agreed. Making professionals better at their job isn't as simple as suddenly throwing more money at the system one year... this however does not mean that things such as teacher pay do not impact teacher quality.
also, i believe that private school teachers generally have less schooling and training. go figure. Not relevant unless correlation == causation, aka see above
|
From Andrew Sullivan:
Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.
Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.
The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.
There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive.
Source.
Sums it up pretty well, I think.
|
On October 04 2012 12:06 tarath wrote:
Why didn't they ask about birth control, abortion, gay marriage etc at all? I feel like the social issues are big issues where the candidates are miles apart and that social issues are very important to a significant % of voters.
eg romneys stance on gay marriage and birth control is a deal breaker for me.
Gallup does frequent polling asking voters what the most important issues are. The economy always trumps social issues. If you vote mostly based on social issues, you're in a tiny minority of voters.
|
On October 04 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:From Andrew Sullivan: Show nested quote + Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.
Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.
The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.
There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive. Source. Sums it up pretty well, I think.
I'd have to agree. Romney when he's in control is a significantly better speaker and debater in general than when he's not. He made a living off essentially fucking people over, so when he wears the daddy shoes, he's going to be in his element.
|
On October 04 2012 12:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:11 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2012 12:06 TheFrankOne wrote:On October 04 2012 12:05 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2012 12:01 Saryph wrote:Romney proposed and for most of the campaign (until tonight's debate) has run on a tax plan that includes a 20% tax cut to each tax bracket. His tax plan has been calculated by independent analysts to reduce revenue by $5 trillion over the next ten years. Does that $5 trillion take into account the reduction of deductions ? No the $5 trillion is what the reduction of deduction needs to make up if the plan is going to be revenue neutral. Ok, so Romney's plan then is to reduce the rate structure by 20% each bracket, but come up with eliminations of deduction, exemptions and exclusions to make it revenue-neutral. Further, he also said the richest whatever % would not pay a lower share of the total burden than they currently do. So, it's not really fair to call it a $5 trillion tax cut that needs to be paid for, when the rate changes are only one part of the plan. To be fair, I think the problem Obama (and most of the analysts) have is that Romney has been very wibbly-wobbly on exactly which loopholes and exclusions he's going to eliminate, so they are making do with the information they have. I mean, what can Obama say when Romney won't say what he's going to eliminate besides assuming he's not going to eliminate anything?
Well, the reason you can't just say exactly what is going to happen is because it's all subject to negotiation with Congress. The important thing to take away was that Romney said he wasn't going to increase taxes on the middle class. That is a framework within which they can work. People who continue to call for specifics should fucking ask Congress, but not this Congress, they should consult their crystal ball because they need to know what the NEXT congress will pass. Obama's been take it or leave it and hasn't passed a single bi-partisan bill aside from extending the Bush tax cuts (might have missed a couple minor things).
|
I give Obama a C on the debate. I think his strategy was to play defense, but he came across as rather passive and hesitant. However, he did press for details from Romney and hit hard on a few key points. Overall though, I felt he was a bit vague. There was a chance for a knockout punch, but he was quite far from it.
Romney... well, I give him a D. Sure his rhetoric and appearance were good (apart from that intense blinking), but then we look at the facts (or lack thereof) which should form the core of his statements and its pretty bad. He reversed (or regressed) to a completely different platform from the one that he's een touting for the last month. I guess other people would give him a B in the idea that he "seemed" better than Obama. I really dislike how he got away with saying some of the most absurd things but Obama was unable to just tell him that he was bullshitting.
I'm viewing this as the first part of a three part game. We'll see how it looks on the 22nd.
|
Jesus Obama, get your damn shit together. There is no reason you can not do better than that.
|
On October 04 2012 12:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
Romney... well, I give him a D. Sure his rhetoric and appearance were good (apart from that intense blinking), but then we look at the facts (or lack thereof) which should form the core of his statements and its pretty bad. He reversed (or regressed) to a completely different platform from the one that he's een touting for the last month. I guess other people would give him a B in the idea that he "seemed" better than Obama. I really dislike how he got away with saying some of the most absurd things but Obama was unable to just tell him that he was bullshitting.
Which things did he reverse? Where did Obama have more facts than Romney? You gave Obama a B, so clearly Obama should have more facts than Romney. Is this actually the case?
|
On October 04 2012 12:04 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:03 Kaitlin wrote:
MSNBC just came out that Obama spoke for 4 more minutes than Romney. Obama's problem is that he took to long in his ramblings, consuming time, where Romney could always just get the last word in. It was hard to let Obama counter a couple of times because he had taken so long to make his original point and Romney's short refutation was short enough for Lehrer to end it after Romney.
That and Obama left that $716 billion Medicare cut out there for seniors to hold against him, and also saying their Social Security plans were basically the same. Seniors don't have much reason to fear Romney based on this debate. Bad for Obama. Yup, I give Romney a B and Obama a C in this debate.
That's grading on a curve though. No one expected Romney to do as well as he did, and almost everyone expected Obama to do a lot better. Objectively they were about the same with Obama slightly ahead, but Obama was far behind expectations and Romney well ahead. Romney won the debate before it began.
|
On October 04 2012 12:06 tarath wrote:
Why didn't they ask about birth control, abortion, gay marriage etc at all? I feel like the social issues are big issues where the candidates are miles apart and that social issues are very important to a significant % of voters.
eg romneys stance on gay marriage and birth control is a deal breaker for me.
The subject matter covered by each of the debates were decided in advance and agreed to by the candidates. Foreign policy also was not scheduled for this debate. I'm not sure what the next debate topics are, I'm quite certain foreign policy is in one of them, probably the last, but I'm not sure about social issues. Based on Obama's performance tonight, don't assume that Obama will tear Romney up on social issues when they come up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
