Romney wins presidential debate

[Guynemer]

I think Asher's got this covered.

[DinoDoc]

Isn't it obvious they were never serious about solving the problem and where just trying to be obstructionist?

They lacked the power to obstruct ****. If they had, he might have used the time to get economic legistlation passed rather than going all Ahab on the Health Care law.

[Dinner]

For a very, very short period of time the Dems had a super majority but for the rest of the four years the Republicans can and did obstruct EVERYTHING including their own bills. 97% of the bills got filibustered and even Presidential appointments have been sitting unconfirmed for up to three years now simply because Republicans want to obstruct EVERYTHING. The reason nothing is getting done is because Republicans are making sure nothing gets done, not even bills they campaigned on and publicly said they support.

[regexcellent]

I like Jaguar's interpretation of the Socratic method.

[notyoueither]

For a very, very short period of time the Dems had a super majority but for the rest of the four years the Republicans can and did obstruct EVERYTHING including their own bills. 97% of the bills got filibustered and even Presidential appointments have been sitting unconfirmed for up to three years now simply because Republicans want to obstruct EVERYTHING. The reason nothing is getting done is because Republicans are making sure nothing gets done, not even bills they campaigned on and publicly said they support.

Is that bit about confirmations still true? If so, that is pretty ****ed up.

[Dinner]

Very much true. The Republicans also like to play a little game where they have three guys show up for less than 2 minutes smack the gavel once to open and immediately a second time to close just so they can claim Congress was in cession that day so the President can't make recess appointments. They're literally attempting to obstruct everything just to obstruct or, as Boehner says, "we don't want to hand Obama any victories". They're the reason nothing is getting done and the sooner they're gone the better off the country will be.

They need to get ***** slapped in the election just so they learn that the people won't put up with this bull****. We send them there to carry out the people's business and they get paid something like $200,000 per year for life with gold plated health care yet they're too ****ing lazy to even do their damn jobs. They need to be punished at the polls so that they learn the people won't put up with that kind of nonsense.

But, sadly, there are a lot of clueless people like Rex who don't even know what is going on or who is holding things up.

[DinoDoc]

They didn't have the numbers to threaten filibuster until Scott Brown's election where he actively campaigned as being the 40th vote against Obamacare. The source of your issue wrt the changes to Obamacare was the need to make it more appealing to conservative Dems. The GOP was a non-factor.

[Dinner]

As has been repeatedly point out the Dems could only over come a filibuster and actually call a vote on a bill for a total of 90 days. The rest of the last four years has been filibuster city on EVERYTHING. Literally 97% of everything the Congress has had before it.

[DinoDoc]

As has been repeatedly point out the Dems could only over come a filibuster and actually call a vote on a bill for a total of 90 days. The rest of the last four years has been filibuster city on EVERYTHING. Literally 97% of everything the Congress has had before it.

You're ignoring your own argument here. For instance, who are these mythical Republicans you claim the was so desperate to please that he changed his own bill to please? I'm genuinely curious as the general consensus was that it was a desire to get the approval of the Conservative block of Democrats that existed at the time before they decided to die on the hill Obama was charging for that led to the changes you decry. Stop hoping other people save your argument when they still haven't done so.

[Dinner]

BTW that CNN poll which Albert Speer kept citing has some major problems.

That CNN poll was a doozy. The only region with a significant sample was the South, the only race with a significant sample was white, the only age group with a significant sample was 50+, and liberals were not significantly sampled. While Romney did appear to "win" the debate due to Obama being a spineless twit who refuses to call out Romney's absurd lies, even FOX News generally does better than that CNN poll.

So the sampling for the CNN poll was mainly southern, mainly white, and mainly over the age of 50. Gee, no wonder it favored Romney so much. Something tells me old white people from the south weren't really "undecided" as they fit Romney's voter profile perfectly.

[giblets]

As has been repeatedly point out the Dems could only over come a filibuster and actually call a vote on a bill for a total of 90 days. The rest of the last four years has been filibuster city on EVERYTHING. Literally 97% of everything the Congress has had before it.

Except that by the time Al Franken was a senate member, Ted Kennedy was unable to participate because of his brain cancer. So the Dems literally never had 60 votes in the senate.

[Kidlicious]

BTW that CNN poll which Albert Speer kept citing has some major problems.



So the sampling for the CNN poll was mainly southern, mainly white, and mainly over the age of 50. Gee, no wonder it favored Romney so much. Something tells me old white people from the south weren't really "undecided" as they fit Romney's voter profile perfectly.

Face it. Obama appeared to not even want to be president for another term. Maybe next time.

[DaShi]

I think we should all be able to agree that Jim Lehrer was the loser of this debate.

Definitely this. And especially if Romney wins.

As for the candidates, I think that Romney did a good job. He stuck to his plan, attack Obama's policies, and did so articulately. He looked confident and seemed to genuinely enjoy himself. His personality is still painfully wooden, but he absolutely shone in comparison to Obama that night. Where he was weak was on substance. He rarely mentioned what his policies would actually do in favor of platitudes like "Medicare is safe" and "I will create jobs." So those looking for what he would actually do as president left disappointed. Finally, he played loose with the facts and the checkers have eaten him alive for it. But so what? Obama should have done just that on the stage and didn't. He only has himself to blame.

Obama was very disappointing. Apparently, he had hit the ambien before the debates, because he looked and spoke tired and sluggish. A few times he looked as if he was about to make some great counter argument, but always stopped short. In general, he reminded of Nixon in both the Kennedy and Futurama debates (without the evil agenda). What did he do well? He made some good points, but he just made them poorly. Often long-winded and grasping. Sure, he will have more cogent arguments in the stump speeches and commercials, but he really blew his chance during this debate.

So Romney won on style and Obama on substance. But since Obama's substance was delivered so poorly, I'd give this debate to Romney. Good for Romney, he needed it. Bad for Obama, never count on your opponent to screw up. Let's see if Obama can pull himself together for the next one.

[DaShi]

Yes, even going so far as to completely adopt the Republican plan and, of course, no sooner did Obama say he liked the Republican plan then the Republicans flipped a 180 and declared they hated their own plan. Isn't it obvious they were never serious about solving the problem and where just trying to be obstructionist?

If I was Obama and I lost the election, every time Romney proposed an action or policy, I'd say it's a great idea.

[Kidlicious]

Romney did well repeating that we need to try something different because what Obama has tried hasn't worked, and Obama didn't have a good response. They are going to have to come up with some strategy or I think Romney will win.