Soxbadger

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 3, 2012 -> 09:41 PM) Obama is a terrible debater. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 3, 2012 -> 09:54 PM) I personally feel he is bad most of the time. Hes just not quick on his feet. Romney stunned him with the "thats not my plan" and then just kept repeating "oh well i wont lower taxes to increase deficit" and other really vague answers. Obama just didnt listen, he kept repeating his stupid talking points, instead of thinking on his feet and asking Romney to explicitly lay out the plan. Obama just couldnt put it all together. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 10:32 PM) You can't even admit that your boy got absolutely f***ing schooled last night. What remains to be seen is if it even matters... to sheeple like you, nothing else matters except sticking your fingers upside your ass, er I mean ears, to defend your pretty candidate to the death. What is that Governor Romney, I cant hear you behind that long nose of yours. Unlike Obama, I have no problem eviscerating any opponent who thinks its clever to lie about what I said. Cause thats your game, you just make s*** up and run away. I guess Id rather be called a sheep by someone who is ignorant of the term (I can tell you still havent actually read Nietzsche), then be a chicken. I dont need to resort to blatant lies, thats just weak sauce, even on the internet. Feel free to come to the debate thread, I dont want to mess up the Republican thread with this nonsense.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 08:35 PM) i've always felt that way. people talk about what a great orator obama is and i've never felt that. all the 10 minute pauses, tons of "uhs" and "ums" and mumbles. i dunno... there were points last night where all he NEEDED to say was a great snappy one liner, but he buried them in 5 minutes of monologue-ing so no one knew what he was getting at. He went to Harvard, Im pretty sure that when they debate you dont have one side going "Thats not my position" and "No one can comment on my position because its never been done before." He needs to watch Ted Kenendy, because thats how you beat a Romney. Simple nonsense like "Oh Governor Romney when did you become a Democrat" will cause him to just completely implode. My guess is Obama thought thats to low brow. Well see if he changes his stripes now.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 08:31 PM) I doubt the plan was to be received as a loser. I didn't actually see the debate, but from the parts I've seen, it seemed like something was up with BO. It was as if he had missed out on sleep or something...probably just part of being a President instead of just some random rich guy politicking around. He got stunned in a "gotchya" moment early on and couldnt recover. It happens, it sucks, but it happens.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 06:42 PM) so i've been hearing more mumbling and grumbling that Obama's PLAN was to shut up and let Romney talk so they could put out the new commercials having him contradict himself. Because that's EXACTLY what he did last night. He said the opposite of all the things he's been saying on the trail for months. And now Obama has the proof. Betcha Bam bounces back next time. This seems like revisionist history. I believe statistically Obama spoke more than Romney. That being said, last night I commented that Obama should have shut up and let Romney hang himself with his own rope. Perhaps I know a little more about debate strategy than Y2hh gave me credit for. Jenks, If this was the 3rd debate it may have been devastating. But it was the first debate and if Obama's handlers are smart the bury Romney in a shallow grave the next 2 debates. I dont buy Obama purposefully tanked, I just think hes not great at speaking.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) The only thing worse than reading about people talking politics on Soxtalk is reading about people talk about politics on Facebook. No one is forcing you to read this thread.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) Implied in all of his talks in the past is the same conservative economic mantra for the last 30 years - if you lower taxes you're going to increase economic activity and bring in more tax revenues. Getting rid of some credits ("loopholes") will keep some much needed tax revenue. Yes, he's going to have to state which credits he's talking about, but I don't expect him to list 40 things in his 5 minute response at a debate. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax I'm a huge fan of the individual tax initiatives, especially getting rid of taxes for investment gains of middle class people. Not crazy about the business side, but that's going to be a tougher sell to Congress so odds are low that'll happen anyway. I understand the theory, the problem is that Mitt isnt going to really the tax burden on Americans. Your current tax burden is arguably 2 parts, 1) the tax and 2) credits, deductions, etc. Mitt repeatedly stated that closing the loop holes, reducing deductions would ensure that the US revenue stayed the same. Thus all he is doing is changing how your tax burden looks. Youll get a lower tax bill to start, but youll get less credits/deductions, thus end up with the same tax burden. That doesnt encourage anything. The only way to really lower the tax burden is to either 1) lower taxes and keep all deductions/credits the same or 2) lower taxes so much that they arent offset by less deductions/credits. I just briefly glanced at his pdf plan http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/fi...Growth-Full.pdf Youll notice he explicitly states what taxes he wants to reduce or remove, but interestingly he does not state what credits/write-offs/deductions he wants to eliminate. Its concerning, because youd think in an 87 page document he can list 1 deduction/write-off/credit that he thinks is causing a problem.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) And really, I don't want Romney to tell me his exact plan because in 4 months it'll be a different world. I want to know his general philosophy on the role of government, taxation, regulations, etc. etc. And yes, I DO think Romney is a crap candidate, but he's the lesser of two evils at this point and I think he's 100 times more moderate than he has come off. He'll be Reagan-esque without the personality. 1) What was his general philosophy? Because Im pretty sure that everyones philosophy is that there should be lower taxes, the US should make more money, not have to cut spending and reduce the debt. But give me some explanation. For example: I am going to end this credit, which will result in 1tril or Im going to end this loop hole. You have to have at least some idea of what you want to do. I dont need every single thing, but give me something to work with. 2) I agree that he will be like Reagan, but I dont think you meant the comparison to be about exploding our national debt.

I know, I just have mucked up cases like that really bad so I wanted to repeat it.

I dont recall any part of the debate last night involving gay marriage. I have just been talking about what happened last night. If there is a discussion on gay marriage, Romney has every right to call Obama on it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) I see Obama's change back and forth on gay marriage in the same light as Romney's change on health care. They were both opportunistic jumps at poll ratings. One guy gets praised for his moves, and the other gets demolished. To me both are BS. It is a fair comparison because both are front burner topics in this election. Its not even that, its that Mitt last night basically just announced he had a new economic plan and made it up on the fly. That is just scary. Obama is far more calculated in his front running, he probably mulls it over for months before doing anything. I have no problem with Mitt saying that after years of watching Mass that he may have been wrong. That is reasonable and can be defended. I just didnt like the "surprise" aspect of his debate tactic.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Romney in the things he said...I'm defending him only on how he came off in that debate, and regardless of how or why, he came off looking great, even if it was only because Obama was high on depressants the entire time. I agree he looked great. But I dont care about how someone looks, I care about the substance. Romney is a good salesman, he makes you want to believe in his plan. Guys like that can be dangerous.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) What kind of question is this? Obama is the President of the United States of America. Of course I care what he has to say. The other choice is to bury my head in the sand with all of the rest of the people who "don't care about politics" because "it doesn't matter", but freak out about things like American Idol and NFL replacement officials, as if they do matter. Romney doesn't have an economic plan. What else is there to say? He is running the same campaign the Democrats ran four years ago... I'm the one who is not the President, which is reason enough to vote for me. Romney is a con-artist running for President. I have zero respect for him, and won't be voting for him. I meant why do you care so much about comparing Obama to Romney. They are both terrible.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) TL;DR: They're both bulls***ters. I refuse to defend either one. Im not defending either one. You literally said Romney was "great" last night, where I said Obama was terrible and Romney was "not good". To me that looked like you defending Romney. Where have I defended Obama? I just have attacked Romney. I dont defend Obama, I defend my positions. Until Obama has me on the payroll, he doesnt get my services.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) So is this thread about what happened last night, or just about debating about debates. I am debating this question, and it is quite deflating This thread is a sad reflection on the US society. The masses believe that there has to be a winner and a loser, when last night showed quite clearly that we are all going to be losers.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) Exactly this. They're both opportunists in this regard...but what's the point in even discussing it with him? He has Obama colored blinders on, and it shows in every post he makes. hahahaha Perhaps you should read my posts. Im only a Democrat due to social positions and I dont even like Obama. Once again, quit avoiding the question, we all know Obama was terrible, you said Romney was great, what was so great about his plan last night.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) Romney's an opportunist, which is why people aren't making excuses for his "changes of heart". I don't know why people aren't holding Obama to the same standards. They are just holding Obama to the same standards as Romney, no standards. The only person Ive seen holding either of them to standards, is sadly me, who rated Obama as terrible and Romney as not good. I just want to hear from the people who said Romney did "great" last night. Because I literally saw the sales pitch for Grandpa Simpsons miracle elixir. My plan will create jobs, lower taxes, increase revenue, not tax the rich more, increase jobs, spend more money, its never been done before and I look damn fine in a suit. /raucous cheers Thats how you win a debate.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) So did he talk to not-gay people when he changed his mind the first time? Why do you care so much about Obama? Why not try and explain to me what Romney was talking about. If I had to guess Obama was a bigot and didnt like gay people until it suited him. How does that explain Romney's economic plan?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:15 PM) I get it...when Obama flip-flops, it's because he had a legitimate change of opinion...he saw the error of his ways...but when Romney does it, it's because it's a better political play at that time. LOL. LOL Really? That is the best you got. Explain to me why Romney changed his position and then I can judge on my own whether it was reasonable or not. Until then you are just blindly believing Romney because he is your boy. I hold both Obama and Romney to the same standard. You clearly are just willing to have blind faith in Romney, that is fine, but dont act like I do the same with Obama. I dont like Obama, I think he is terrible at many things. The economy isnt the reason I will be voting for either candidate so to try and show bias on that debate is pretty ridiculous as I am way more against govt interference than either candidate. So if you want to talk seriously about Romney, lets do it. But if you just want to keep arguing about Obama, its wasting both of our time, because I dont think Obama is anything special. Which is why my statements have been, Obama was terrible, but Romney's plan makes no sense. So far not one person has actually tried to defend Romneys, Ill lower taxes, get rid of credits, make the same money and improve the govt scheme.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) coughgaymarriagecough Whether you believe him or not, at least Obama has stated that the reason he has changed his mind is because of his interactions with gay people. Im not sure Romney ever explained why he changed his mind, but Im pretty sure thats because even he doesnt know his plan. Lets be honest, he said that revenue would stay the same, but he would lower taxes and reduce write-offs/deductions. This plan is going to create jobs. How? Its like saying that McDonalds is going to change their menu and that every item will cost $100, but now theyll give each customer a "Thanks for shopping at McDonalds discount" so the amount the customer pays the same as before. Woooooo math magic. That type of smooth talking logic may look good on tv, but should Romney be getting "points" for just making s*** up?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) It very well may have been a "wow, compared to Obama, Romney looked amazing" type of reaction, simply because of how off his game/bad Obama was...but regardless of the how or why he looked great, he looked great. If there are 2 girls on stage and both are hideous, Im not calling either a 10, regardless if one is 100x better looking than the other.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) By that rational, Ol' "staying the course" GW Bush *was* trustworthy?! I don't care how you or anyone else spins flip-flopping...I think any politician that's never flip flopped, regardless of what reason you have for it, is a blinders wearing douche that's ok with driving into a wall despite seeing it coming...just so they can say, "Hey...at least I'm not a flip-flopper!" I never said anything like that. I think one of the best things any President ever has done was when GH raised taxes because he thought it was in the best interest of the country. That makes sense. Changing your position to win political points in a "gotchya" moment is completely different. Id have to see the transcript, but I dont believe Romney ever said why he changed his position or what new factors caused him to have a change of heart. I trust GH, I dont trust Romney. There is a difference between legitimately changing your position based on new facts, and changing your position to try and win at all costs. Its a pretty important distinction.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 07:12 AM) The way we have structured the agreement, the contract is for 3 years, and at the end of the contract he will have $4000 credit towards the purchase that he loses if he doesn't buy, so I'm not going to be upset if he doesn't. The housing market can't be worse in 3 years than it is now, and I'd have $4k profit. I stand by my get an attorney to draft it statement.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 05:39 AM) You obviously don't realize how debates work (only I know you do, so you should know this type of strategy doesn't work). You cannot stand there and "ask simple questions" all night... ...as for you saying Romney isn't good, either. Please, be biased more. He was outstanding last night, and anyone that says otherwise need not talk more, because its obvious they're eyes are closed and they're ears are shut. I'm not saying Romney will put on a show like that in the remaining debates, but last night he was very good, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Maybe he played over his head...the remaining debates will show if that's the case, but it still doesn't discount this performance. Debates rarely go into specifics because of time constraints, so asking about specifics doesn't work well in this format, it's mostly generalities, and I believe you know this despite your recent string of posts on the contrary. Even if you do ask about specifics, you'll get generalized talking points in response, from either candidate. You can't go into a debate with the strategy that you're going to ask simple but specific questions to your opponent all night, conceding your speaking time by doing so, in the hopes they bury themselves. This is a terrible passive/aggressive play on a stage where you have to own the time you spend speaking. Experience in watching previous debates of this format would show you that repeatedly conceding your speaking time in the hopes your opponent answers exactly what you asked simply equates to you looking too afraid to speak on your own policies. In a debate, a good offense is a good offense (not a typo), and it's always been that way. Obama needs to drive home his own vision, remind the people that it stopped the economic free fall and, as with anything, remind people that it takes time to heal. It doesn't matter if these points can be argued, either. Furthermore, he should avoid the "Bush blame game" at all costs at this point, too, it makes him appear unsure of his own policies/decision making in the past 4 years. Most people hardly even remember 4 years ago, let alone what they watched on TV 2 nights ago. Yes, these points can be argued by Romney -- but like I said above, he's not going to concede his own talking time to ask Obama questions about how or why -- Romney needs (as Obama needs) to use their time to drive their visions home to the viewer...to connect with them. You don't connect with people by being passive and allowing the other guy in the room to come across as the Alpha. I disagree, I have plenty of experience in this area. Romney was not very good, Obama was terrible. I wouldnt hire either of them to represent me in a court room. I only give a good rating to someone who I would let speak for me. Neither of these candidates are close. Just because Romney was the best person on the stage, does not mean he is a good at debate. Not to mention, this type of debate is absolutely silly. If you want a real debate, each party should have to tell the other side their plan in advance, so that they can actually talk about it. The "I gotcha thats not my plan" may impress the masses, but that is bush league and I hope you realize it as well. Im not sure how you can say I am biased when Ive said that Obama is not a good speaker multiple times.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) While true, I personally don't see a problem with flip-flopping...as a matter of fact, I think it's a good trait for a candidate to have, and every politician SHOULD have this trait. It shows that they can/will change their minds if they feel they're wrong, instead of staying the course ala GW Bush and many others. A lot of people have a problem with flip flopping, and I think that's a mistake, it's one of those negatives that isn't really a negative if you look at it objectivly. There is nothing wrong with changing your position/mind on something, especially in politics as different times call for different strategies/measures, and just because it doesn't suit your initial vision doesn't mean you shouldn't change it just so you aren't known as a flip-flopper. Im fine with a politician changing their mind. But that involves admitting that you once had a different plan and now at the last minute decided you are going with a new plan that only you knew about. You may win a debate like that, but in my opinion, it shows you are untrustworthy. How can I trust a word Romney said, when tomorrow when pressed he may come up with a different plan, that is entirely different, but he knows itll work because no one else has tried it before. If I was Obama's camp id be gleeful, way to early for this type of stunt. This was a 3rd debate move, when Obama had no chance of retaliating.

Dont hold your breath. He was pitching it as a fix for the US economic problems, not just as a simplification of the tax code. Which means its gotta be pretty damn creative. I personally think it was a tactical error to pull this gambit so early in the debate cycle, but we will see if Obama shows some fangs next debate. Id just basically memorize the transcript of tonight and keep quoting Romney on how his plan has "never been done before" (why, because its simply nonsense) and how you cant trust him because he has no conviction and literally has a new plan every other day. Half way through the debate id just abruptly ask Romney to confirm that he hasnt changed his plan again.