Politics: D bate 2 nite
- Thread starter skyraider
- Start date
Falligator
Expert Expediter
On one hand they actually debated.. which was good.. and better than the first two..
On the other hand.. it would have been nice if they both actually answered the question that was asked, instead of bringing it back to what THEY wanted to talk about!
Very annoying.
Dale
On the other hand.. it would have been nice if they both actually answered the question that was asked, instead of bringing it back to what THEY wanted to talk about!
Very annoying.
Dale
You listened to a different fox news than me.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums
Instant Reaction Polls Show Narrow Obama Advantage in Second Debate - NYTimes.com
A CBS News/Knowledge networks poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 37 percent giving an advantage to Mr. Obama, 30 percent favoring Mitt Romney and 33 percent calling the debate a tie. That represents a narrower lead for Mr. Obama than Mr. Romney had after the first debate in Denver, when a similar poll gave Mr. Romney a 46-22 edge.
{The term "undecided voters" is a euphemism for "morons, who a month before the election, still don't have a clue who they want to vote for"}
A CNN poll of registered voters who watched the debate — not just undecided voters, as in the CBS News survey — also gave the debate to Mr. Obama by a seven-point margin, 46 percent to 39 percent. Mr. Romney had won by a much larger margin, 67 percent to 25 percent, in CNN’s poll after the first debate.
Mr. Obama may have benefited in the CNN poll from diminished expectations: 73 percent of voters in the poll said he performed better than they expected, against just 10 percent who said he did worse.
{Because they didn't expect him to do well, yet he did, he therefore won. Got it.}
What I found particularly interesting was the "fact check" analysis that was going on after the debates by the different news outlets. CNN was clearly the funniest (most biased in the way they formed the "facts" they were checking), although many people who watched the debate, and then the analysis, probably didn't catch it.
On the issue of oil and natural production on government lands, Romney said production is down, Obama said production is up. The way CNN characterized it was, production of oil on government lands has dropped from 2 million barrels a day to 1.8 million barrels a day, but that was because of the impact from the Gulf oil spill, and if it were not for that spill, the oil production on federal lands would not have dropped, therefore Romney's statement, while technically true, is misleading. What a hoot.
CNN completely dodged the fact-checking of whether Obama has reduced drilling leases by one half, which Obama vehemently denied and avoided addressing when asked pointedly by Romney, "How many then?" Turns out, land leases have been reduced by 62% and offshore leases by 30%, and combined is right at 50%, just like Romney said. But CNN didn't address that one at all.
After some thought, CNN sort of (but not exactly) comes clean on the Internet, and points out the numbers for both, except they throw Indian lands into the federal lands equation, which is not normally combined together, and which neither Romney nor Obama did in the debate, to skew the numbers in Obama's favor. It's just another example of how a biased media can craft things to dupe the American public into hearing something that wasn't said, into believing as true something other than the full truth.
A CBS News/Knowledge networks poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 37 percent giving an advantage to Mr. Obama, 30 percent favoring Mitt Romney and 33 percent calling the debate a tie. That represents a narrower lead for Mr. Obama than Mr. Romney had after the first debate in Denver, when a similar poll gave Mr. Romney a 46-22 edge.
{The term "undecided voters" is a euphemism for "morons, who a month before the election, still don't have a clue who they want to vote for"}
A CNN poll of registered voters who watched the debate — not just undecided voters, as in the CBS News survey — also gave the debate to Mr. Obama by a seven-point margin, 46 percent to 39 percent. Mr. Romney had won by a much larger margin, 67 percent to 25 percent, in CNN’s poll after the first debate.
Mr. Obama may have benefited in the CNN poll from diminished expectations: 73 percent of voters in the poll said he performed better than they expected, against just 10 percent who said he did worse.
{Because they didn't expect him to do well, yet he did, he therefore won. Got it.}
What I found particularly interesting was the "fact check" analysis that was going on after the debates by the different news outlets. CNN was clearly the funniest (most biased in the way they formed the "facts" they were checking), although many people who watched the debate, and then the analysis, probably didn't catch it.
On the issue of oil and natural production on government lands, Romney said production is down, Obama said production is up. The way CNN characterized it was, production of oil on government lands has dropped from 2 million barrels a day to 1.8 million barrels a day, but that was because of the impact from the Gulf oil spill, and if it were not for that spill, the oil production on federal lands would not have dropped, therefore Romney's statement, while technically true, is misleading. What a hoot.
CNN completely dodged the fact-checking of whether Obama has reduced drilling leases by one half, which Obama vehemently denied and avoided addressing when asked pointedly by Romney, "How many then?" Turns out, land leases have been reduced by 62% and offshore leases by 30%, and combined is right at 50%, just like Romney said. But CNN didn't address that one at all.
After some thought, CNN sort of (but not exactly) comes clean on the Internet, and points out the numbers for both, except they throw Indian lands into the federal lands equation, which is not normally combined together, and which neither Romney nor Obama did in the debate, to skew the numbers in Obama's favor. It's just another example of how a biased media can craft things to dupe the American public into hearing something that wasn't said, into believing as true something other than the full truth.
cubansammich
Not a Member
Honestly, the question of who wins in a debate is like asking "how long is a piece of string?" It cannot be quantified.
Falligator
Expert Expediter
My philosophy is this: I'm looking for a candidate who can create jobs. That's what it's about. Romney insists on labeling China a "currency manipulator", which may have little effect on companies going to China seeking cheap labor.
They talked a little bit about gun control but how about this: Why not come up with a bill that requires psychologists to report to the FBI about individuals seeking treatment. Then determine whether the individual should be placed on a Do not buy list or something like that?
They talked a little bit about gun control but how about this: Why not come up with a bill that requires psychologists to report to the FBI about individuals seeking treatment. Then determine whether the individual should be placed on a Do not buy list or something like that?
Politicians do not creat jobs.
How about "shall not be infringed". The Federal government has NO business in gun control. The 2nd Amendment is about protection, including protection FROM the feds. Getting them involved is a conflict of interest. Any 'bill' that requires the FBI or BATFE or any government bums get involved is not good.
NO president can 'create jobs'. Obama has not and Romney CANNOT, as president. Want jobs? Get government OUT of the way. Government is the primary reason business is not 'creating jobs'.
Falligator
Expert Expediter
Ok...so if government can't create jobs, what do you think we should do with those companies like "Apple" that seek nothing but cheap labor in China? I feel that a hefty tax would be a good start.
We need to LOWER the corporate income tax, it's already one of, if not the, highest in the world. Which, along with lower wages, are driving industry OUT of the U.S.
Government is the CAUSE of the problem, it cannot ever be the solution, unless they just fade away.
Falligator
Expert Expediter
Lowering taxes would only add to the deficit. Good fiscal responsibility would help to pay it off, but we would have to vote all the democratic jokers out of the Senate to get anything done.
Falligator
Expert Expediter
Romney did mention one thing. Canadian companies pay only about a %15 tax rate while US companies are around %35. So where would we come up with the money to pay for this? Getting rid of Obamacare isn't the only solution. We need to fix Medicare and Social security also. At the same time it does tick me off that middle class Americans are paying a higher tax than corporations or wealthier individuals. It needs to be fixed.
Yea that's it add a tax that is passed right on to you when you buy a phone. Taxing the next guy more is never the answer.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums
Falligator
Expert Expediter
Then I'd be buying a cheaper phone. Lol the new Samsungs look cool or something made in the USA
You just don't get it. Corporate taxes are paid by the consumer. Curious what your tax percentage was last year. I am sure you take advantage of deductions just like successful people do. Whining about what the other person pays accomplishes nothing. You simply want others success punished.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums
I take it you never took a debate class or were on the debate team in high school or college.
Since we are in a global economy, whatever the corporate tax rate is going to be, it has to be competitive. If it isn't like that, they will move their business overseas. It is just that simple.
They do need to restructure taxes so everyone is paying something. That includes the rich and the poor. Before that though, have to get the spending under control.
They do need to restructure taxes so everyone is paying something. That includes the rich and the poor. Before that though, have to get the spending under control.