zidian Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Gary Johnson 2012. Seriously, both of these candidates in this crappy 2 party system are crap, yet there are other actually good candidates out there but since they arn't on either the Republican or Democrat platforms, they just get shoved in the closet. On this debate, yes, I would agree that Romney won, but that's because he was basically bashing that Obama has done the past 4 years. "4 Trillion more dollars in debt" "Cut 719 billion from Medicare" "90 Billion dollars to green energy" etc etc etc. Obama took the higher road because there was a LOT he could've thrown in Romney's face (which I'm sure he will in the next few debates). We've already seem what Obama can do. I know you can dig yourself out of the crap hole that Bush left him in in 4 years, but I mean if you look at everything, besides Obamacare and kiilng bin Laden, he's done virtually nothing. Romney is just a corrupt business man. He has no right to be our president because he will just ship more job overseas, give even BIGGER tax breaks for the big corporations who already make hand over fist yet still don't hire anybody. He will make sure the oil companies have us by the scrotum every time we goto the gas pump rather than putting more research into green energy (yes, I know Obama's buddies happen to be involved in the bigger green energy companies, but at least they are trying to better USA rather than make money as Romney's baller buddies do). But seriously, check out http://www.garyjohnson2012.com. Granted, the information that is out there is all praises for him since he is not in the 2-party system, so there is no reason to bash him because they believe he has no chance at all. But he is very moderate when it comes to social issues, and a little to the right on financials issues. Only problem is even if people think he will be a better candidate, people STILL won't vote for him because they feel they will be "wasting their vote". How would voting for someone you truly want to be president be wasting your vote if he doesn't win? He already has my vote, and most of the people I talk to about him's vote. So by my conut, that would be about 25 votes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazaHorse Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 I'm not sure if we were watching the same debate. Romney barely ever answered questions directly, tripped up on his words ("poor kids,... Rather lower income kids") came off rather "know-it-all". This guy can't relate to anyone, only the upper class, doesn't really matter because most Americans didn't watch the debate and know who they're voting for, Obama. You and about... 5 other people in America think that way. Obama, Michelle Obama, their kids, and Chris Matthews. Only problem is even if people think he will be a better candidate, people STILL won't vote for him because they feel they will be "wasting their vote". How would voting for someone you truly want to be president be wasting your vote if he doesn't win? He already has my vote, and most of the people I talk to about him's vote. So by my conut, that would be about 25 votes Eh, that's not the only problem. When people hear "Libertarian" they immediately think of Ron Paul, and when they think of Ron Paul they think of unrealistic goals and almost a "joke" candidacy. Granted, I think Ron Paul's policies are somewhat feasible (the majority at least) though perhaps not in a short 4-year term. In any case, most of the American public has no shyed away from the "Libertarian fad" from 2008 and chosen to return to the extreme political bases of right and left wing politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 You and about... 5 other people in America think that way. Obama, Michelle Obama, their kids, and Chris Matthews. Eh, that's not the only problem. When people hear "Libertarian" they immediately think of Ron Paul, and when they think of Ron Paul they think of unrealistic goals and almost a "joke" candidacy. Granted, I think Ron Paul's policies are somewhat feasible (the majority at least) though perhaps not in a short 4-year term. In any case, most of the American public has no shyed away from the "Libertarian fad" from 2008 and chosen to return to the extreme political bases of right and left wing politics. Not true, many, many think the way I do. Also, it ALWAYS came back to bashing Obama for stupid shit he couldn't have prevented. In the end, I would rather have a president for the people, not an idiot who wants to run the government like a business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimzy Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Not true, many, many think the way I do. Also, it ALWAYS came back to bashing Obama for stupid shit he couldn't have prevented. In the end, I would rather have a president for the people, not an idiot who wants to run the government like a business. "for the people" is barely ever really for the "people".. just saying.. it's something they make you believe.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaX Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 i dont care either way anymore. Romney likes coal Obama has good points too.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60Seconds Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Romney definitely won... He's gotta win the election. I hate to start an argument but Obama honestly has fucked things up for our country and I've had enough of it. Not denying that Romney won the debate, but what exactly did Obama fuck up? Romney won the debate because he dodged all the questions just like he dodged Vietnam, and because he bullied the moderator, who also by the way sucked. Candy Crowley better put Romney in his place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastered Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Obama disregarded the moderator far more then Romney. "I believe I had5 seconds before you interrupted me, Jim." then talks for an additional 40... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60Seconds Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Obama disregarded the moderator far more then Romney. "I believe I had5 seconds before you interrupted me, Jim." then talks for an additional 40... The moderator's own fault, he wasn't able to keep control, which is one of the moderator's few duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Love Lamp Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Obama didn't screw up so much as he is inexperienced debate-wise. Romney lived through 20+ debates in the past year or so. The last time Obama debated was 3+ years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awwik Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure if we were watching the same debate. Romney barely ever answered questions directly, tripped up on his words ("poor kids,... Rather lower income kids") came off rather "know-it-all". This guy can't relate to anyone, only the upper class, doesn't really matter because most Americans didn't watch the debate and know who they're voting for, Obama. and this my friends is why our system is fucked. You cant have people not knowing what they are voting for and voting. People are voting for obama and blaming bush for things he couldnt control, if you look at statistics during the bush years our economy was growing until the dems controlled congress. The democrats stopped everything that bush wanted to do and then the liberal media blew everything out of the water and it spiraled down hill from there. Romney will do a much better job then obama has done and thats a fact. If you look at what obama has done you see nothing. You cant give someone credit for killin osama when bush's people did it. NOT OBAMA lol, he had nothing to do with it besides telling bush's men to follow through with what they had been working on. GG kids obama is going to win because idiots dont look at the facts and vote for someone not knowing what he has and hasnt done. Edited October 4, 2012 by Awwik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elephant Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Obama's saving all of his points against Romney for the last debate (he could have easily mentioned the 47% many times throughout the debate but chose not to). The VP debate is only going to make Paul Ryan look more intelligent since Biden isn't exactly great at debates (neither was Obama and Romney got shaky at a couple Republican debates). The debates now are used to get either Obama/Romney to say something stupid to be used in campaign ads in swing states and can potentially cost the election (where Romney can easily say something about poor people again). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 and this my friends is why our system is fucked. You cant have people not knowing what they are voting for and voting. People are voting for obama and blaming bush for things he couldnt control, if you look at statistics during the bush years our economy was growing until the dems controlled congress. The democrats stopped everything that bush wanted to do and then the liberal media blew everything out of the water and it spiraled down hill from there. Romney will do a much better job then obama has done and thats a fact. If you look at what obama has done you see nothing. You cant give someone credit for killin osama when bush's people did it. NOT OBAMA lol, he had nothing to do with it besides telling bush's men to follow through with what they had been working on. GG kids obama is going to win because idiots dont look at the facts and vote for someone not knowing what he has and hasnt done. Oh yeah.. for sure bro. Once again, we're going to run the system as if it were a business. Giving more tax exemptions to the wealthy, which will supposedly "lead to more jobs in America" and boost the economy. But, we all know there is NO way of keeping sure they employers give more jobs out. He's all about money, money, and how to protect his money and investments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awwik Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Oh yeah.. for sure bro. Once again, we're going to run the system as if it were a business. Giving more tax exemptions to the wealthy, which will supposedly "lead to more jobs in America" and boost the economy. But, we all know there is NO way of keeping sure they employers give more jobs out. He's all about money, money, and how to protect his money and investments. Funny since obama has given money to a ton of his supporters and investments........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazaHorse Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Oh yeah.. for sure bro. Once again, we're going to run the system as if it were a business. Giving more tax exemptions to the wealthy, which will supposedly "lead to more jobs in America" and boost the economy. But, we all know there is NO way of keeping sure they employers give more jobs out. He's all about money, money, and how to protect his money and investments. Giving more tax exemptions to the wealthy? You know what's worse than that? Spending billions bailing out companies who turnover little from it. In any case, Romney said multiple times yesterday that he won't be giving exemptions to the wealthy and will actually be rolling back on subsidies and breaks. Is that vastly different from his previous statements? Sure. Then again, politicians change their policy stances all the time, especially as it gets closer to election day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Love Lamp Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Giving more tax exemptions to the wealthy? You know what's worse than that? Spending billions bailing out companies who turnover little from it. In any case, Romney said multiple times yesterday that he won't be giving exemptions to the wealthy and will actually be rolling back on subsidies and breaks. Is that vastly different from his previous statements? Sure. Then again, politicians change their policy stances all the time, especially as it gets closer to election day. This is the part that worries me and I wish it was something he was pressed harder about. He talks about reducing taxes across the board 20 percent and says he can still reduce the deficit by 5 trillion. Many nonpartisan think tanks say it just isn't possible without ending popular middle class tax exemptions (charitable contributions, mortgage payments, etc.). If he could actually talk about the specifics of the plan he might be more electable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingless Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 In general, what I came away with was an intense dislike for how Romney speaks, even if he was more well rehearsed than the POTUS. It all felt very vague and repetitive, and this was disappointing, because I was looking for a more detailed layout of how he plans to accomplish these very vague claims he has made to maintain the interest of the fiscal conservatives. Also, l2moderate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.