US Presidential Election Debate #1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pepipop said:
Over where? No Muslim immigration in my country, and what does it have to do with the thread title?
Click to expand...
There are muslims in Ireland, I expect they could be called immigrants, and enjoy the full benefits of the state, north and south Here I expect they’ll live here in stealth mode until they build their population.

Yes off topic, so I saw the whole debate on CNN re-run tonight, still think Mr Romney was sharper and coherent.
Some say Romney was rude for interrupting, well I heard the moderator ask a question whilst Mr Obama was speaking, so Mr Romney tried to reply with both trying to talk at once, so blame the moderator for inviting it.

Also and I’ll bet you all can’t wait to hear the opinion of a neutral, 🙂 but Mr Obama was all sprite on stage today attacking Romney on the debate.
It seems Obama is good at speaking when no one is defending, but not in debate, if he uses teleprompters I don’t know, but he’s not as fluent in debate as I thought he was…

He may redeem himself next round, though…but I’m sure Mr Romney will be doing his homework & expecting it…
 
Tampa_Dave said:
I think he is probably a good father and husband, so I will not attack Obama on his personal family values. My complaints are limited to his political views. I wish the Obamas a happy anniversary with many more to come.
Click to expand...
If he was, as Biography dot com and that AP photo (released by Obama for America), married on Oct 18th and then began to assert that he was married on Oct 3rd (the date of the debate), it’s not a personal matter. It is political.

On the other hand, if Biography dot com and Obama for America were wrong on the date, then it’s a non-issue.
 
bellasbane said:
Is is just a liberal bias or is the GOP really suffering a slow demographic death? One good debate isn’t going to alter that trend - it’s going to require offering something that is more innovative than a return to failed economic policies of the past.

I may lean left, but not that far left. I believe this country needs at least two healthy political parties in order to stay balanced, and the future of the GOP looks a lot less certain than the future of the Democrats.
Click to expand...
:confused::confused::confused:Really?
 
epan said:
Nobody is talking about the structural change which has occurred, and continues to accelerate in the world economy. The world workplace has profoundly changed. I would like a presidential candidate to recognize this publicly, and tell me how he intends to lead us into this new world paradigm. I would like him to say that he is going to being a substantial initiative of the best minds in business and academia, medicine and the social sectors, to come up with ideas on how to stop the decline I our prosperity, which is inevitable, unless something new happens.

I would like to know what happens in 10-15 years when every factory worker on the planet is replaced by a robot. What does it mean when machines start to replace people in large numbers. What is the plan to transition to an essentially jobless society within 30 years?

Who’s does one distribute income in such a society? Does it all go to the robot and computer owners?

These are not far fetched questions.

What do we do to achieve due process and legislative sobriety, and still keep up with the astonishing rate of change? The last president’s curtailment of our civil rights was not the answer to coping with a changing world, and this one just went right along with the program. Why are we not talking about how to make our political system responsive, instead of gridlocked?

What do we do about the disenfranchisement of our entire population? By that I mean, what do we do about the ownership of our government by corporate interests?

None of these questions ever come up. All we hear about is tax rates and medical care. Important issues, but they pale in comparison to some of the larger issues.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
I am so with you. I would like to hear more about how gov’t will start getting out of the way and trimming down to become more flexible with change… with the idea of the intelligence explosion “singularity” around the corner… (Raymond Kurzweil; David J. Chalmers; etc.)

Too bad the American public believes that there are only two “choices” in our political system… not much difference between either camp…
Both think that gov’t can do a better job at living our lives and making our decisions than we can
 
katcecelia said:
👍👍👍
I am so with you. I would like to hear more about how gov’t will start getting out of the way and trimming down to become more flexible with change… with the idea of the intelligence explosion “singularity” around the corner… (Raymond Kurzweil; David J. Chalmers; etc.)

Too bad the American public believes that there are only two “choices” in our political system… not much difference between either camp…
Click to expand...
The life issues say “hi” (and is joined by a chorus of real marriage and anti-HHS mandate voices)
 
Oh on social issues yes there is at least a semblance of a difference… thus why I always vote pro-life… but they both want a say in personal matters either way

By the way I am a conservative libertarian, just for some reference
 
katcecelia said:
Oh on social issues yes there is at least a semblance of a difference… thus why I always vote pro-life… but they both want a say in personal matters either way

By the way I am a conservative libertarian, just for some reference
Click to expand...
How are you going to vote? You do not have to answer, obviously.
 
I believe the more we try to legislate morality (or anything) the less personal responsibility people feel, which in turn actually leads to a lessening of actual morality
 
I vote pro-life… ergo as Obama is about as anti-life as one can get and not yet committed suicide; I will be voting for Romney…
 
markomalley said:
From the AP (file photo):

Caption: In this Oct. 18, 1992, photo released by Obama for America campaign shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his bride Michelle Robinson on their wedding day in Chicago. She is 5-foot-11, and she is world-famous. Sometimes she inspires awe in her admirers. She has been accused of being the angry type. So when Michelle Obama meets people, she likes to bring things down to earth with a hug.

But, but, but…I thought that he had to debate on his 20th anniversary, October 3rd!

From Biography.comFollowing law school, Michelle worked as an associate in the Chicago branch of the law firm Sidley Austin in the area of marketing and intellectual property. There, in 1989, she met her future husband, Barack Obama, a summer intern whom she was assigned as an adviser. “I went to Harvard and he went to Harvard, and the firm thought, ‘Oh, we’ll hook these two people up,’” Michelle said. “So, you know, there was a little intrigue, but I must say after about a month, Barack … asked me out, and I thought, ‘No way. This is completely tacky.’” Initially, she refused to date Barack, believing that their work relationship would make the romance improper. Eventually, she relented, and the couple soon fell in love. Their first kiss took place outside of a Chicago shopping center—where a plaque featuring a photo of the couple kissing was installed more than two decades later, in August 2012.

After two years of dating, Barack proposed. “We were at a restaurant having dinner to celebrate the fact that he had finished the bar,” Michelle remembers. “Then the waiter came over with the dessert and a tray. And there was the ring. And I was completely shocked.” The couple married at Trinity United Church of Christ on October 18, 1992.
Yet according to CNN…he had to debate on his anniversary.

Suspicious, huh.

I can’t imagine…Why would anybody lie about his anniversary?
Click to expand...
Going to Biography.com now and it has been changed. 🤷

I really don’t care when they married. I do have a problem if they claimed their anniversary was yesterday to somehow get a what, the sympathy factor.
 
maryjk said:
Going to Biography.com now and it has been changed. 🤷

I really don’t care when they married. I do have a problem if they claimed their anniversary was yesterday to somehow get a what, the sympathy factor.
Click to expand...
I noticed that he wasn’t even holding her hand… disappointing anniversary either way:(
 
stevegravy said:
There might have been a tax credit but that ain’t the whole story. The long and the short of it is regulation mostly from the EPA ( Employment Prevention Agency.) Title 5 killed off a lot of business. Now the engineering jobs follow manufacturing, guess what follows engineering……research. Yup, idiots regulating the country to death bureaucratic mandarins preserving their fiefdoms at the expense of everyone else.
Oh, remember that intellectual midget Reich talking about the bottom dweller factories moving to Mexico during the NAFTA debates. We would be left with the high tech, high paying jobs. Well guess what……high tech follows manufacturing.
Click to expand...
Nope. I worked in hi-tech which had little EPA regulations to force them over to China, but they went anyway and the biggest reason was both the tax break they got, plus the cheap labor.

An engineer in China was paid $5,000 per year. Same level engineer here was getting paid $100,000 not counting benefits.

Jim
 
markomalley said:
From the Hill:AARP has a message for President Obama: Stop using us to score political points.

Obama cited the nonpartisan senior lobby twice in Wednesday’s debate when arguing against Mitt Romney’s Medicare proposals.

The remarks prompted a polite statement from AARP Senior Vice President John Hishta asking candidates to refrain from mentioning the group.

“AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign,” Hishta said.

“AARP is a nonpartisan organization, and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party.”
AARP non-partisan? Give me a break.

(Well, they may be non-partisan, but they are DEFINITELY not non-ideological)

I guess Obama got beaten so badly last night that even the far left wing AARP doesn’t want to be associated with him any more.

Mind you, before the debate, AARP had no problem whatsoever being associated with the Obamas:

AARP Magazine:

https://imgur.com/YQeFp

Also from the AARP Magazine:

i.imgur.com/GaOgb.jpg

https://imgur.com/rDXzM
AARP latest to receive Obamacare break**

The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.

Insurance providers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases.

The AARP is the nation’s biggest seller of Medigap policies, or supplemental healthcare plans that add onto what Medicare won’t cover for seniors. The senior citizens interest group advocated for Obamacare to include an attack on Medigap policies’ biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage.
Yup, but now AARP wishes to not be associated with any candidate.

That dog won’t hunt.
Click to expand...
AARP never told the candidates to stop using their name, but merely pointed out that they did not give consent to using their name.

They did this to be sure that they wouldn’t get in trouble with the IRS for appearing to endorse a candidate.

But they never told the candidates to stop using their name. The Hill spun the story like some others to make it look like AARP told them to stop but they never mention it.

Jim
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
It is unseemly, IMHO, for people who aren’t Americans to comment on our politics. Our policies? Fair game. But not our politics/politicians. And yes, I include Obama in that statement. I don’t put my nose into Irish politics (whatever they are).

That accusation comes very close to slander, at the very least. You need to retract your statement and apologize.
Click to expand...
I would say pepipop is out of order with that statement, the thing is your debate went world-wide and this is an open forum which has to be used with a degree of respect.

The Catholic Church by it’s very name is Universal, so we should defend it world-wide, but with charity.
I’m sure the elections in the north of Ireland or south don’t go worldwide, but you may get snippets, don’t know.
My interest in the elections is abortion, and it’s elimination, also your economy affects us indirectly.
I see the economy in the debate as top of the pile, with the unborn God knows where…I will speak up for the un-born no matter where they are in this world…it’s my biggest concern, and it troubles me…big time.
 
I found her expression to be revealing disgust… not sure at what in particular… but I admit to being very biased against the Pres
 
markomalley said:
From the AP (file photo):

https://imgur.com/ctPdA

Caption: In this Oct. 18, 1992, photo released by Obama for America campaign shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his bride Michelle Robinson on their wedding day in Chicago. She is 5-foot-11, and she is world-famous. Sometimes she inspires awe in her admirers. She has been accused of being the angry type. So when Michelle Obama meets people, she likes to bring things down to earth with a hug.

But, but, but…I thought that he had to debate on his 20th anniversary, October 3rd!

From Biography.comFollowing law school, Michelle worked as an associate in the Chicago branch of the law firm Sidley Austin in the area of marketing and intellectual property. There, in 1989, she met her future husband, Barack Obama, a summer intern whom she was assigned as an adviser. “I went to Harvard and he went to Harvard, and the firm thought, ‘Oh, we’ll hook these two people up,’” Michelle said. “So, you know, there was a little intrigue, but I must say after about a month, Barack … asked me out, and I thought, ‘No way. This is completely tacky.’” Initially, she refused to date Barack, believing that their work relationship would make the romance improper. Eventually, she relented, and the couple soon fell in love. Their first kiss took place outside of a Chicago shopping center—where a plaque featuring a photo of the couple kissing was installed more than two decades later, in August 2012.

After two years of dating, Barack proposed. “We were at a restaurant having dinner to celebrate the fact that he had finished the bar,” Michelle remembers. “Then the waiter came over with the dessert and a tray. And there was the ring. And I was completely shocked.” The couple married at Trinity United Church of Christ on October 18, 1992.
Yet according to CNN…he had to debate on his anniversary.

Suspicious, huh.

I can’t imagine…Why would anybody lie about his anniversary?
Click to expand...
Barack and Michelle:
Wedding Date: October 3, 1992.
Click to expand...
marriage.about.com/od/celebritymarriages/p/barackobama.htm
Click to expand...
Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top