The First Presidential Debate

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-25-2008
The First Presidential Debate
68
Thu, 10-04-2012 - 8:30am

I wasn't going to watch the debate because my mind is already made up but I did anyways. I thought President Obama was horrible. He kept repeating strange statements and he didn't appear to know what he was talking about. It was like he had rehearsed for a different topic and was determined to stick to it no matter what. I'm so disappointed in the President. This is the guy who has been running our country for the last four years?

 

Brenda

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2009
Mon, 10-08-2012 - 5:11pm
"What a hoot! If you read his paper, people making over $100,000 but under $200,000 will pay more in taxes via loss of deductions. At least the truth is that his plan is far from a progressive tax plan. Maybe, Romney should just state that fact."


huh? Is this what you are talking about?
"Some people would regard a family with an income of $175,000 as being rich, while others would say that it is middle-class. Since who is “high- income” is in the eyes of the beholder, I again do the analysis twice, once for households with $100,000 or more in income, and once only for households with $200,000 or more.9"
So I take it that you are going with the left's brilliant collective response to Romney, Liar liar pant's on fire because that's all you have.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Mon, 10-08-2012 - 10:20am
What a hoot! If you read his paper, people making over $100,000 but under $200,000 will pay more in taxes via loss of deductions. At least the truth is that his plan is far from a progressive tax plan. Maybe, Romney should just state that fact.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2009
Mon, 10-08-2012 - 9:08am
This economics prof. Is a liar too? Sad that the catastrophic failure that is Obama, and Keynesian theory has no rebuttal but liar liar pants on fire.
https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf
"In this paper, I analyze the Romney proposal taking into account the additional income that might be generated by economic growth. The main conclusion is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral"
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 10-07-2012 - 7:25pm
My favorite lie of the night was Romney's tax scheme.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Sun, 10-07-2012 - 11:14am
How does one "get schooled" by someone flinging lies left and right?
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2011
Sat, 10-06-2012 - 9:53pm

Sooooo after you clarify, you think Romney lied but Obama only evaded????  And you say the fact checkers back you up????  Well let's see if this holds up?

From Politifact....

Says 50 million people would lose their health insurance if Obamacare is repealed.

Barack Obama, Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012.

Ruling: Mostly False 

 

Under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business."

Barack Obama, Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012.

Ruling: False 

Because of Obamacare, "over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up -- it's true -- but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years."

Barack Obama, Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012.

Ruling: False 

 

It is laughable how the Obama supporters are whining about Romney lying when Obama has been lying about everything from Libya to reducing the deficit.  And they think America will take them seriously???  

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sat, 10-06-2012 - 9:12pm

To "clarify" is to make clear what might not have been made clear the first time.  I explained very carefully (in all of my posts) exactly what issues I had with the truthfulness/untruthfulness of each candidate.  I made it clear that Obama evaded one issue and did not explain another clearly.  I made it clear that Romney told dozens of whoppers, which was also noted by fact  checkers.  Obama may have clrified his positions after that debate (so did Romney), but for those who were listening to the words, Obama provided responses to Romney's lies (at least some of them...there were so many that it's hard to see how he could cover them all and still explain his position.  The transcript is available.  So are several fact checking articles.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2011
Sat, 10-06-2012 - 7:12pm

""To clarify (although I thought my previous post was quite clear), I said that the president had a couple of omissions/evasions""

Noooo, you said they both lied/evaded. It seemd quite clear that you meant Obama lied also or else you would have said Romney  lied and Obama evaded.  

""Apparently Hitler had great body language..""

Whoa!!!!!  Now I know the left is getting desperate when the they have to resort to using Hitler to try to make a point.  

""Well, Obama DID call Romney on his lies, with reasoned arguments. ""

AFTER it the debate was over and using his teleprompter and speech writers, but even then his "reasoned" arguments don't hold any water.  

 


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sat, 10-06-2012 - 6:38pm

" So you are saying they both lied, but Romney lied better?"

To clarify (although I thought my previous post was quite clear), I said that the president had a couple of omissions/evasions (like not responding to one of Romney's asseerrtions and by not making a clear argument about the Medicare cut), but the challenger spouted one whopper after another...dozens.  Because I'm a news junkie with access to multiple sources, I spotted most of them during the debate (and my hunches were corroborated by fact checkers later), but I swallowed Romney's claim of bipartisanship (why would he lie about that???), but not everyone did:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/politics/romney-claims-of-bipartisanship-as-governor-face-challenge.html

The link includes the following text:

"But on closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them."

and this:

"But in contrast to his statements in the debate, many say, Mr. Romney neither mastered the art of reaching across the aisle nor achieved unusual success as governor. To the contrary, they say, his relations with Democrats could be acrimonious, and his ability to get big things done could be just as shackled as is President Obama’s ability to push his agenda through a hostile House of Representatives."

"Part of a debate is watching body language and it was apparent that Obama was in over his head.  He couldn't even look at Romney when speaking. If you have kids you know that when they can't look you in the eye, they are not telling the truth. He also kept looking down and smirking when Romney was speaking. I think without his teleprompter and speech writers  telling him what to say, he couldn't respond, which shows that there is really no substance to him."

"Reading" body language is by no means as easy as this passage suggests.  The fact is that "without his teleprompters and speech writers", he was able to come up with reasoned replies to the lies of his opponent, who spoke mostly in soundbites.  Apparently Hitler had great body language...but his vision for Germany was not one that civilized people share.  And legislation is made of words and ideas, not body language.  My cat has great body language...he's the very epitome of cat-ness, confident, aggresive or friendly as needed, able to drape himself on narrow ledges with every appearance of comfort.  But I don't think he'd be a very good president...maybe the "smirk" (another often misunderstood expression) disqualifies him?  

"Again, IF Romney lied so much, then Obama should have refuted those lies during the debate like Romney did with Obama. Obama  couldn't, and now the only thing Obama supporters have to cling to is this sad meme."


Well, Obama DID call Romney on his lies, with reasoned arguments.  Romney didn't so much "call Obama on his lies" as he did flagrantly lie about and misconstrue Obama's positions.  If Obama hadn't called Romney on his lies, would that have meant they were okay?  Obama didn't call Romney directly on the "I could reach across the aisle in Massachussets" whopper...but he did say something along the lines of "I can see that you're going to have a busy first day, sitting down with the other party when you've just repealed the ACA"...he DID call Romney's bluff but some were so focused on the "smirking" and "low energy" and trying to render that into English that they missed the actual words...and proclaimed the pathological liar as the big winner. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-28-2012
Sat, 10-06-2012 - 12:23pm
my3sonsjej2 wrote:

I am guessing not too many people think or realize something. How long it took our country to get out of the Great Depression. And how long it took FDR to do it. Plus he had alot more cooperation from his Congress.

Really? I can't believe you are using FDR's horrible failure of getting us out of that recession as an excuse for Obama's failure in getting us out of this one.