Romney wins presidential debate

[Wezil]

What flip flop?

The man's positions are SOLID.

Didn't you watch the clip?

[Zevico]

What flip flop?

The man's positions are SOLID.

Didn't you watch the clip?

Offhand, as I recall, his position on taxes are "cuts across the board for all income earners, coupled with abolition of (at least most) deductions." The premise being that the effective tax rate remains the same on average but compliance costs associated with paying taxes are thereby reduced. Which seems sensible enough and quite consistent.

[Wezil]

So you didn't watch the clip?

Mr. Romney would disagree with you (and with Mr. Romney of course).

[Wezil]

Previously, Romney was an inveterate evil conservative out to destroy America.

Now, he's a flip flopper who can't be trusted to destroy America.

Do I detect a hint of contradiction between these two lines of reasoning?

You ignore the obvious (and most likely).

He's engaging in the latter to win the election so he can implement the former.

[Zevico]

You ignore the obvious (and most likely).

He's engaging in the latter to win the election so he can implement the former.

I suspect a plot between Romney, Scrooge McDuck and Mr Moneybags.

In all seriousness though, isn't this the fellow whom Democrats laud for his healthcare policies in Mass.?

So you didn't watch the clip?

Mr. Romney would disagree with you (and with Mr. Romney of course).

I did. I pointed out that my offhand recollection of his position on taxes. Romney can legitimately assert not to be cutting taxes if he actually leaves the effective tax rate on taxpayers as a whole unchanged on average by abolishing however many deductions as may be necessary. The net intended result being to reduce compliance costs--tax agents or lawyers' fees, or complex tax avoidance structures--rather than reduced government collections from each taxpayer. Now whether that in fact proves to be the case, who knows, but there's no inconsistency in the claim itself.

Of course, the Daily Worker is entitled to display five second clips and place them in whatever context they like, but it doesn't actually change what his platform is.

[kentonio]

No-one knows what his platform is because it changes weekly and usually consists of some vague promises that they refuse to give any detailed explanation for.

[Elok]

It's much better if candidates make specific promises, get us excited about them, and then fail to keep them. Especially if they're ludicrous promises like "the Muslims will change from hating to loving us because of me, since they totally love the Christian children of apostates" or "I will accomplish sweeping reforms X, Y, and Z, guaranteed, by myse--wait, what? Congress? Checks and balances? Don't expect a lawyer to know that crap!"

To be fair, pretty much all presidential candidates make that second promise. And we keep treating it like it actually means a blessed thing, because most of us think of the president as some sort of elected emperor...

[Ben Kenobi]

"Everyone will have health insurance!"

[dannubis]

"love your neighbour! "

[SlowwHand]

"Spare change!"

[kentonio]

It's much better if candidates make specific promises, get us excited about them, and then fail to keep them. Especially if they're ludicrous promises like "the Muslims will change from hating to loving us because of me, since they totally love the Christian children of apostates" or "I will accomplish sweeping reforms X, Y, and Z, guaranteed, by myse--wait, what? Congress? Checks and balances? Don't expect a lawyer to know that crap!"

To be fair, pretty much all presidential candidates make that second promise. And we keep treating it like it actually means a blessed thing, because most of us think of the president as some sort of elected emperor...

So you honestly prefer a system where a candidate offers nothing but vague ideas and tells people that they can't have the actual details till after they are elected? That if they told people the details they wouldn't vote for them? This sound like a great way to choose a president to you?

[dannubis]

"Dura lex, sed Tex Mex!"

[Al B. Sure!]

So you honestly prefer a system where a candidate offers nothing but vague ideas and tells people that they can't have the actual details till after they are elected? That if they told people the details they wouldn't vote for them? This sound like a great way to choose a president to you?

It's better than promising $2 gasoline. It's more realistic.

[Hauldren Collider]

So you honestly prefer a system where a candidate offers nothing but vague ideas and tells people that they can't have the actual details till after they are elected? That if they told people the details they wouldn't vote for them? This sound like a great way to choose a president to you?

No, we favor a candidate that professes to believe in certain principles, in my case, small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility and none of the blame America first lefty bull****.

The president chooses the direction and Congress chooses the details.

[kentonio]

You started off with a decent premise and then ruined it with that ridiculous 'blame America' crap. You really need to stop dipping your toes into that stupid talk radio bull****, it makes you look foolish.