Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
Dude, what? Very clear on gun control? He spent the majority of the answer talking up how kids need to have two parents. Romeny's response to everything else was "Well, I have a plan and it has five points" but never going into specifics about anything.
I would say Obama won, but mainly cause he just looked so much better than first debate. However, if anyone has any idea what he plans to do for the next four years I would be interested. I thought Rommey actually answered questions, and was less vague than the first time around. I also can't figure out why anyone cares about AK47's, when was the last time you saw someone with an AK47? I live in a state were you can carry concealed weapons, and nobody walks around with an AK cause a handgun fits in your pocket.
Romney actually answered questions? I'm Canadian, obviously can't vote US, but, seriously? Less vague that the first debate?
@EpicSteve said:
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
Clear? All Romney said was "In my experience" and get married so that your child won't buy guns.
Yes, he said he isn't going to ban Assault rifles and I'm going to assume that goes for Class III weapons as well, but I'm not going to put words in his mouth. He answered a yes or no question, something that's difficult to get a politician to do. I'm not really into playing the game of taking one weird quote and turning that against a speaker. Obama didn't take an aggressive stance on that topic. He said he wanted to ban those weapons for civilians, but didn't say how the hell he was going to deal with taking back the thousands of legally owned weapons in circulation and pretty much taking a shit on an entire industry.
Romney going on about families on the question of gun control made me laugh. It's not completely off base, but this is from the party who has constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage listed numerous times on their party platform (I checked). Can't have it both ways.
If anything, this debate has made me dislike Mitt even more. It's such a shame, he'd probably be okay if he weren't tied to that party of his.
@Ocean_H: Rommey said that he will not raise taxes but plans on cutting most of the loopholes. He said there would be some amount $25,000 in which you could still use which every rebate you are currently using and continue to. He said that he will NOT just let all illegal aliens become US citizens. He said he has no plan to do anything about gun control. He said he will remove Obamacare. He said he will drill for more oil and other energy.
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
Dude, what? Very clear on gun control? He spent the majority of the answer talking up how kids need to have two parents. Romeny's response to everything else was "Well, I have a plan and it has five points" but never going into specifics about anything.
Even when he shortly went into detailing his 5 point plan a while back I love how one of the points is "cutting the deficit". I didn't know it was that simple, I wish I could just say that I'll cut the deficit and it will happen without having to explain just how the fuck I will do that.
I would say Obama won, but mainly cause he just looked so much better than first debate. However, if anyone has any idea what he plans to do for the next four years I would be interested. I thought Rommey actually answered questions, and was less vague than the first time around. I also can't figure out why anyone cares about AK47's, when was the last time you saw someone with an AK47? I live in a state were you can carry concealed weapons, and nobody walks around with an AK cause a handgun fits in your pocket.
Romney actually answered questions? I'm Canadian, obviously can't vote US, but, seriously? Less vague that the first debate?
@EpicSteve said:
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
Clear? All Romney said was "In my experience" and get married so that your child won't buy guns.
Yes, he said he isn't going to ban Assault rifles and I'm going to assume that goes for Class III weapons as well, but I'm not going to put words in his mouth. He answered a yes or no question, something that's difficult to get a politician to do. I'm not really into playing the game of taking one weird quote and turning that against a speaker. Obama didn't take an aggressive stance on that topic. He said he wanted to ban those weapons for civilians, but didn't say how the hell he was going to deal with taking back the thousands of legally owned weapons in circulation and pretty much taking a shit on an entire industry.
Do you even read yourself? Romney said yes but didn't elaborate and that's cool with you. Obama said he wants to put a ban (say a 'yes') but 'sorta' elaborate, and that's not cool with you? And you're talking about answering a yes or no question...
I would say Obama won, but mainly cause he just looked so much better than first debate. However, if anyone has any idea what he plans to do for the next four years I would be interested. I thought Rommey actually answered questions, and was less vague than the first time around. I also can't figure out why anyone cares about AK47's, when was the last time you saw someone with an AK47? I live in a state were you can carry concealed weapons, and nobody walks around with an AK cause a handgun fits in your pocket.
Romney actually answered questions? I'm Canadian, obviously can't vote US, but, seriously? Less vague that the first debate?
@EpicSteve said:
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
Clear? All Romney said was "In my experience" and get married so that your child won't buy guns.
Yes, he said he isn't going to ban Assault rifles and I'm going to assume that goes for Class III weapons as well, but I'm not going to put words in his mouth. He answered a yes or no question, something that's difficult to get a politician to do. I'm not really into playing the game of taking one weird quote and turning that against a speaker. Obama didn't take an aggressive stance on that topic. He said he wanted to ban those weapons for civilians, but didn't say how the hell he was going to deal with taking back the thousands of legally owned weapons in circulation and pretty much taking a shit on an entire industry.
Do you even read yourself? Romney said yes but didn't elaborate and that's cool with you. Obama said he wants to put a ban (say a 'esy') but 'sorta' elaborate, and that's not cool with you? And you're talking about answering a yes or no question...
Clearly you didn't read what I said. Romney said "No" to banning these weapons. It's in the text when I wrote "Yes, he (Romney) said he isn't going to ban Assault Rifles".
@EpicSteve: tell me all the other things romney supposedly answered
besides saying that china don't care
I think @BoFooQ answered that pretty well.
that first thing doesn't add up (literally, people have done the math it does not add up especially with point 2), neither did Obama on point three, and point six is fucking terrible like we should drill for MORE OIL
@EpicSteve: tell me all the other things romney supposedly answered
besides saying that china don't care
I think @BoFooQ answered that pretty well.
that first thing doesn't add up (literally, people have done the math it does not add up especially with point 2), neither did Obama on point three, and point six is fucking terrible like we should drill for MORE OIL
It answers the question regardless of if you agree or not. The point I raised was Romney is better at actually answering questions, not if we agree on the answers. Last I checked, we need oil. If there's a source, why not? And did you do said math or are you just assuming the facts from people?
I was kind of surprised that the issue of gay marriage still hasn't come up.
It looked like Obama had an opening with the woman issues, when he began talking about equality as a core belief of his. He didn't take it, though - is gay marriage still really so controversial that it could cost him the election?
Also, Romney's anecdote about specifically seeking women for his cabinet - yeah, that's called "affirmative action."
Why shouldn't both of them just say "I will cut the deficit."? Obama said he was going to cut it in half 4 years ago. Why can't Mitt say the same thing now? If it actually happens or not no one will know till next time around.
I was kind of surprised that the issue of gay marriage still hasn't come up.
It looked like Obama had an opening with the woman issues, when he began talking about equality as a core belief of his. He didn't take it, though - is gay marriage still really so controversial that it could cost him the election?
Also, Romney's anecdote about specifically seeking women for his cabinet - yeah, that's called "affirmative action."
Doubt it, the majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage. The only anti-gay marriage ads I've seen have just been the standard homophobic messages reminding specific homophobic target audiences that Obama is totally for letting homosexuals get married.
I was kind of surprised that the issue of gay marriage still hasn't come up.
It looked like Obama had an opening with the woman issues, when he began talking about equality as a core belief of his. He didn't take it, though - is gay marriage still really so controversial that it could cost him the election?
Also, Romney's anecdote about specifically seeking women for his cabinet - yeah, that's called "affirmative action."
@Ocean_H: Rommey said that he will not raise taxes but plans on cutting most of the loopholes. He said there would be some amount $25,000 in which you could still use which every rebate you are currently using and continue to. He said that he will NOT just let all illegal aliens become US citizens. He said he has no plan to do anything about gun control. He said he will remove Obamacare. He said he will drill for more oil and other energy.
So what did Obama say?
Obama said the savings you'd get from tax cuts can be put in education. DREAM ACT, those students who pledge the allegiance should contribute to the American economy. Work with law enforcement to enforce gun control. Not gonna remove Obamacare. Clean energy (focus on engineering, clean coal) the Americans are already drilling more than before.
@EpicSteve: tell me all the other things romney supposedly answered
besides saying that china don't care
I think @BoFooQ answered that pretty well.
that first thing doesn't add up (literally, people have done the math it does not add up especially with point 2), neither did Obama on point three, and point six is fucking terrible like we should drill for MORE OIL
It answers the question regardless. Last I checked, we need oil. If there's a source, why not? And did you do said math or are you just assuming the facts from people?
Aren't you just assuming facts from people too? Biden straight up said some sources (and listed said sources when Ryan just said he had 6 sources and did not name them).
Why shouldn't both of them just say "I will cut the deficit."? Obama said he was going to cut it in half 4 years ago. Why can't Mitt say the same thing now? If it actually happens or not no one will know till next time around.
Yeah, you pretty much HAVE to take the word of both of them. Obama did get called out on a lot of shit he said he'd do but didn't like reform immigration. There's no way we'll know for sure that either of these guys will do anything once they get in office. Obama might take a Cue from China and not care because he can't run forever. Romney might be as bad as the liberals make him out to be. We'll never know unless they actually get in office.
Having children before marriage somehow leads to providing AK-47's to drug lords. Or something.
Yeah, the fuck was that about? The misquote was real brutal, too. Funny, but painful.
See, I have a hard time watching these debates because a lot of it is just them reciting their stump speeches 2 minutes at a time - instead of an actual debate - but then I miss weird shit like this. Hopefully someone will post the good bits on youtube....
My internet connected cut off twice. Once was during the women's healthcare talk and the other was during the assault weapons ban. I missed that part so I'll have to check it out to hear for that because that sounds insane.
Obama saying he does not believe government create jobs as part of his closing statement was very much a "what the fuck" moment.
I work for the government, so that's a false statement.
I know that, and I will be too in a year. But Obama said that, which is why it's very much a 'what the fuck" moment, considering his own policies have proven that to be false.
@EpicSteve: tell me all the other things romney supposedly answered
besides saying that china don't care
I think @BoFooQ answered that pretty well.
that first thing doesn't add up (literally, people have done the math it does not add up especially with point 2), neither did Obama on point three, and point six is fucking terrible like we should drill for MORE OIL
It answers the question regardless. Last I checked, we need oil. If there's a source, why not? And did you do said math or are you just assuming the facts from people?
Aren't you just assuming facts from people too? Biden straight up said some sources (and listed said sources when Ryan just said he had 6 sources and did not name them).
Gay marriage isn't going to come up cause neither one of them is going to do anything about it, sadly. If Obama gets reelected there is probably a chance he tries to pass something while leaving office. however, he not going to say much about it cause people know Rommey is against it so they assume he is for it and why loss votes by correcting someone.
The "government doesn't create jobs" thing was odd. I thought that was a large part of Mitt's plan create millions of jobs?
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
I missed the other part on military spending, but on gun control, he tied it to marriage before birth. That;s not clarity, that's bullshit. On immigration, he proposed policies already present in the Dream Act, which republicans have voted down. Gonna go out on a limb and say Romney also came out against it. That might be clarity, but that's clarity of hypocrisy.
Obama saying he does not believe government create jobs as part of his closing statement was very much a "what the fuck" moment.
I work for the government, so that's a false statement.
I know that, and I will be too in a year. But Obama said that, which is why it's very much a 'what the fuck" moment, considering his own policies have proven that to be false.
I think he meant that it doesn't invent new jobs. Like, Mecha engineer.
I was kind of surprised that the issue of gay marriage still hasn't come up.
It looked like Obama had an opening with the woman issues, when he began talking about equality as a core belief of his. He didn't take it, though - is gay marriage still really so controversial that it could cost him the election?
Also, Romney's anecdote about specifically seeking women for his cabinet - yeah, that's called "affirmative action."
I think the final debate is supposed to pertain more towards issues like that.
Either way, saving the issue of gay marriage for the end would be smartest thing for Obama to do. They can disguise it as traditional marriage all they want; exposing the GOP's desire to ban gay marriage in the last debate would be huge for the constituency of the democrats. Obama has already publicly come out in favor of gay marriage just a couple months ago, so I doubt he would have any reservations on bringing it out here.
still, that link does showcase that romney's tax plan won't work unless he does compromise it somewhere
That just goes into both candidates kinda suck. Obama made a promise in 2008 to un-fuck the economy. Well 2012 America is worse than 2008 America in more ways than one. Regardless of whatever plan he has, he had a chance and didn't make enough progress to make me hopeful. But Romney doesn't really outline a specific plan, either. I think these guys are forgetting about the domino effect. Yes, it's nice to "crack down on China", but I'm pretty sure the reason I can own some of the luxury items I own is because of extremely cheap labor. It's awesome to say "invest in education", but how? Obama's plan to train the Afghans is a goddamn mess, but there also really isn't a solution to that problem, either.
@EpicSteve: I'm voting for jill stein anyway (who got arrested trying to get into the debate hall FUNNILY ENOUGH [I hate america]) but it's definitely not as bad as it was when he took office. Not too much better but it's decent progress considering how fucked it was.
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
I missed the other part on military spending, but on gun control, he tied it to marriage before birth. That;s not clarity, that's bullshit. On immigration, he proposed policies already present in the Dream Act, which republicans have voted down. Gonna go out on a limb and say Romney also came out against it. That might be clarity, but that's clarity of hypocrisy.
Romney wants to increase military spending my 2 trillion. I don't know what that mean. It be nice for soldiers to walk out of a year's work with more than $30K and it would be nice for me to have air conditioning next time I'm in the one of the hottest locations in the world, have night vision that works and to drive vehicles that are functional. The way he articulated the gun control thing was kinda stupid, I wouldn't hang on that. But if someone grows up in an ideal environment, than less chances they have of becoming a maniac? Sure, I buy that. But I will hang on to the part where Romney said "No" to banning assault rifles.
@Ocean_H: Rommey said that he will not raise taxes but plans on cutting most of the loopholes. He said there would be some amount $25,000 in which you could still use which every rebate you are currently using and continue to. He said that he will NOT just let all illegal aliens become US citizens. He said he has no plan to do anything about gun control. He said he will remove Obamacare. He said he will drill for more oil and other energy.
So what did Obama say?
What loop holes and how much would they save, in comparison to the 5 trillion dollars in extra lost revenue his economic plan would cause?
Considering neither side said that, that seems to be a moot point. The more interesting point on the topic of immigration is why is he espousing the contents of the Dream Act while his party voted it down? Will he be passing it if he's elected?
Here's the frightening thing that both him and Obama ignores: even if we drill for oil and drill everywhere, the price of oil is not going to drop. If you look at the global trend, not just the US trend, oil drilling has increased while actual oil production has decreased the last few years. The world as a whole has past the point of peak oil, and any new drilling site that hits oil is not going to be producing energy at the same efficient rate as the golden days of Texas. "Drill baby drill" might sound, but it's not a long term solution to anything. But of course, neither parties will talk about that at length.
Gay marriage isn't going to come up cause neither one of them is going to do anything about it, sadly. If Obama gets reelected there is probably a chance he tries to pass something while leaving office. however, he not going to say much about it cause people know Rommey is against it so they assume he is for it and why loss votes by correcting someone.
The "government doesn't create jobs" thing was odd. I thought that was a large part of Mitt's plan create millions of jobs?
Gay marriage has to be put on the back burner because there are more pressing matters to attend to. Social issues should always take the back seat to keeping people employed, foreign issues and immigration issues. Until the country is running like a well oiled machine, social issues should be held off. That's my opinion anyways.
I don't think they mean what they think they mean on the government creating jobs. The government can create jobs sure. But we can't run only on government jobs nor can we fix the economy by creating more government jobs.
The thing I hated most about Obama is when he said that he wants to create higher paying higher tech jobs and that hard labor jobs are not what we need. You know what? We need worker ants. We need people to flip burgers and mow the lawn. We need people to go and clean septic tanks and wire houses. We need street sweepers. We should be praising people who work these hard jobs and encouraging more of them to come back from the countries we gave them away to. Not everyone can get paid million bux. We need to start manufacturing products in the USA again and we need people to smile and be proud when they say they helped put the leather sole in the shoes people wear.
still, that link does showcase that romney's tax plan won't work unless he does compromise it somewhere
That just goes into both candidates kinda suck. Obama made a promise in 2008 to un-fuck the economy. Well 2012 America is worse than 2008 America in more ways than one. Regardless of whatever plan he has, he had a chance and didn't make enough progress to make me hopeful. But Romney doesn't really outline a specific plan, either. I think these guys are forgetting about the domino effect. Yes, it's nice to "crack down on China", but I'm pretty sure the reason I can own some of the luxury items I own is because of extremely cheap labor. It's awesome to say "invest in education", but how? Obama's plan to train the Afghans is a goddamn mess, but there also really isn't a solution to that problem, either.
Obama saying he does not believe government create jobs as part of his closing statement was very much a "what the fuck" moment.
I work for the government, so that's a false statement.
I know that, and I will be too in a year. But Obama said that, which is why it's very much a 'what the fuck" moment, considering his own policies have proven that to be false.
I think he meant that it doesn't invent new jobs. Like, Mecha engineer.
I don't know, it pretty much invented the internet.
still, that link does showcase that romney's tax plan won't work unless he does compromise it somewhere
That just goes into both candidates kinda suck. Obama made a promise in 2008 to un-fuck the economy. Well 2012 America is worse than 2008 America in more ways than one. Regardless of whatever plan he has, he had a chance and didn't make enough progress to make me hopeful. But Romney doesn't really outline a specific plan, either. I think these guys are forgetting about the domino effect. Yes, it's nice to "crack down on China", but I'm pretty sure the reason I can own some of the luxury items I own is because of extremely cheap labor. It's awesome to say "invest in education", but how? Obama's plan to train the Afghans is a goddamn mess, but there also really isn't a solution to that problem, either.
I like how you ignore all his good points when Steve clearly isnt even attacking what is clearly your president of choice. You combat one statement with some random graph from a liberal news site that show really pathetic growth. Both sides can show skewed numbers to prove claims.
I like how they seem like they're agreeing on the subject, and yet Obama can still sound like he knows what the fuck he's talking about way more than Romney does.
@Ocean_H said:
@golguin said:
Romney trying to misquote Obama and getting shut down in front of everyone there to applause is an elbow from the sky.
Oh man. That look he gives Romney is just straight 'you done fucked up, punk.'
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
I missed the other part on military spending, but on gun control, he tied it to marriage before birth. That;s not clarity, that's bullshit. On immigration, he proposed policies already present in the Dream Act, which republicans have voted down. Gonna go out on a limb and say Romney also came out against it. That might be clarity, but that's clarity of hypocrisy.
Romney wants to increase military spending my 2 trillion. I don't know what that mean. It be nice for soldiers to walk out of a year's work with more than $30K and it would be nice for me to have air conditioning next time I'm in the one of the hottest locations in the world, have night vision that works and to drive vehicles that are functional. The way he articulated the gun control thing was kinda stupid, I wouldn't hang on that. But if someone grows up in an ideal environment, than less chances they have of becoming a maniac? Sure, I buy that. But I will hang on to the part where Romney said "No" to banning assault rifles.
Romney wants to increase military spending?! Having a budget that is over double the sum of Russia's, China's, and the U.K's defense budget isn't enough? No offense to you as someone who serves in the military but the U.S. defense budget going up should be the last thing on everyone's mind. Even the higher ups in the military have made it clear that they don't need more money.
It was kinda sad watching both of them fight for more time after the moderator says the next person should talk, then speaking but saying absolutely nothing of substance until the second time she asks. It's almost as if Obama was coached to never yield his remaining time even if he was finished, and the time had already run out, due to how "polite" he played it in the first debate.
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
I missed the other part on military spending, but on gun control, he tied it to marriage before birth. That;s not clarity, that's bullshit. On immigration, he proposed policies already present in the Dream Act, which republicans have voted down. Gonna go out on a limb and say Romney also came out against it. That might be clarity, but that's clarity of hypocrisy.
Romney wants to increase military spending my 2 trillion. I don't know what that mean. It be nice for soldiers to walk out of a year's work with more than $30K and it would be nice for me to have air conditioning next time I'm in the one of the hottest locations in the world, have night vision that works and to drive vehicles that are functional. The way he articulated the gun control thing was kinda stupid, I wouldn't hang on that. But if someone grows up in an ideal environment, than less chances they have of becoming a maniac? Sure, I buy that. But I will hang on to the part where Romney said "No" to banning assault rifles.
Romney wants to increase military spending?! Having a budget that is over double the sum of Russia's, China's, and the U.K's defense budget isn't enough? No offense to you as someone who serves in the military but the U.S. defense budget going up should be the last thing on everyone's mind. Even the higher ups in the military have made it clear that they don't need more money.
The reason so many British troops die is the lack of budget for gear and their trucks. The vehicles they roll around with in Afghanistan are open-top lightly armored vehicles that are meant for long-range recon. The Taliban specifically target Brits on the road because they are almost guaranteed kills and critical injuries like amputations. But when they attacked our American vehicles with IEDs and rockets, the worse injuries were concussions and broken bones. The Brits also rarely have access to high-tech targeting systems, or electronics that can identify immediately where bullets are coming from. The UK severally lacks tactical edge, and it's dangerous.
still, that link does showcase that romney's tax plan won't work unless he does compromise it somewhere
That just goes into both candidates kinda suck. Obama made a promise in 2008 to un-fuck the economy. Well 2012 America is worse than 2008 America in more ways than one. Regardless of whatever plan he has, he had a chance and didn't make enough progress to make me hopeful. But Romney doesn't really outline a specific plan, either. I think these guys are forgetting about the domino effect. Yes, it's nice to "crack down on China", but I'm pretty sure the reason I can own some of the luxury items I own is because of extremely cheap labor. It's awesome to say "invest in education", but how? Obama's plan to train the Afghans is a goddamn mess, but there also really isn't a solution to that problem, either.
I like how you ignore all his good points when Steve clearly isnt even attacking what is clearly your president of choice. You combat one statement with some random graph from a liberal news site that show really pathetic growth. Both sides can show skewed numbers to prove claims.
So CNN is liberal now? As a Canadian, therefore a foreigner, I see all networks a bit siding on a side, but the one that clearly sides big time, and ridiculously shames itself, is FOX.
Pathetic growth? Still growth though... from the biggest economic issue since the Great Depression.
still, that link does showcase that romney's tax plan won't work unless he does compromise it somewhere
That just goes into both candidates kinda suck. Obama made a promise in 2008 to un-fuck the economy. Well 2012 America is worse than 2008 America in more ways than one. Regardless of whatever plan he has, he had a chance and didn't make enough progress to make me hopeful. But Romney doesn't really outline a specific plan, either. I think these guys are forgetting about the domino effect. Yes, it's nice to "crack down on China", but I'm pretty sure the reason I can own some of the luxury items I own is because of extremely cheap labor. It's awesome to say "invest in education", but how? Obama's plan to train the Afghans is a goddamn mess, but there also really isn't a solution to that problem, either.
Someone already covered point one in the same way I was going to, with graphs, so I'll move on.
I was rather amazed Obama actually admitted low skilled manufacturing jobs is not coming back to the U.S, a painful fact that people need to get used to. Unless we are willing to treat our workers like shit, we are not going to be competitive, artificially depreciated currency or no.
Well, not betting the farm on voucher schools would be a start. Wanna know the dirty secret to why voucher schools get better grades? Because kids who struggle there are not given the support to reach the point where they can stay in one. They just get kicked out and put back in the general public school system. So, unless we are ok with institutionalizing the failure of a segment of the student population, vouchers aren't gonna cut it. By the way, being socially accepting of the fact that some kids are just going to fail and accept that fact is not an inherent failure of a system. It's the same kind of system China has for example with their method for higher education entrance testing. But is America socially willing to accept that?
Romney was kinda an ass, but then again was the only one actually answering questions. We was very clear on certain issues like immigration, military budget, and gun control. Obama just keeps coming across like a guy with a lot of good intentions but doesn't know how to implement those ideas into reality. He said "Ok, here's this issue, here's exactly how we're developing or solving that." Just kinda kept saying stuff along the lines of "Well, Romney's an asshole and I'm gonna cut taxes!".
I missed the other part on military spending, but on gun control, he tied it to marriage before birth. That;s not clarity, that's bullshit. On immigration, he proposed policies already present in the Dream Act, which republicans have voted down. Gonna go out on a limb and say Romney also came out against it. That might be clarity, but that's clarity of hypocrisy.
Romney wants to increase military spending my 2 trillion. I don't know what that mean. It be nice for soldiers to walk out of a year's work with more than $30K and it would be nice for me to have air conditioning next time I'm in the one of the hottest locations in the world, have night vision that works and to drive vehicles that are functional. The way he articulated the gun control thing was kinda stupid, I wouldn't hang on that. But if someone grows up in an ideal environment, than less chances they have of becoming a maniac? Sure, I buy that. But I will hang on to the part where Romney said "No" to banning assault rifles.
Romney wants to increase military spending?! Having a budget that is over double the sum of Russia's, China's, and the U.K's defense budget isn't enough? No offense to you as someone who serves in the military but the U.S. defense budget going up should be the last thing on everyone's mind. Even the higher ups in the military have made it clear that they don't need more money.
The reason so many British troops die is the lack of budget for gear and their trucks. The vehicles they roll around with in Afghanistan are open-top lightly armored vehicles that are meant for long-range recon. The Taliban specifically target Brits on the road because they are almost guaranteed kills and critical injuries like amputations. But when they attacked our American vehicles with IEDs and rockets, the worse injuries were concussions and broken bones. The Brits also rarely have access to high-tech targeting systems, or electronics that can identify immediately where bullets are coming from. The UK severally lacks tactical edge, and it's dangerous.
Massively increasing the size of our navy would help with that, how?
@Turambar: The military's focus now in regards to training revolve around Pacific operations now. I'm sure running a Navy is much more costly than giving some grunts some trucks and guns. But I do not know where this 2 trillion dollars is going specifically. I'm not an economist, I'm just giving an example at the costs of a low-budget first-world Army.
@Turambar: The military's focus now in regards to training revolve around Pacific operations now. I'm sure running a Navy is much more costly than giving some grunts some trucks and guns. But I do not know where this 2 trillion dollars is going specifically. I'm not an economist, I'm just giving an example at the costs of a low-budget first-world Army.
@Turambar: The military's focus now in regards to training revolve around Pacific operations now. I'm sure running a Navy is much more costly than giving some grunts some trucks and guns. But I do not know where this 2 trillion dollars is going specifically. I'm not an economist, I'm just giving an example at the costs of a low-budget first-world Army.
My thought: if the military did not ask for those 2 trillion dollars, something Republicans have not challenged, maybe we shouldn't give it to them.
Log in to comment