US Presidential Election Debate #1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: the 47%… I think his saying it was wrong just makes the whole situation worse. think he should’ve just let it go as poorly said… now he’s alienating those who agreed with his comments, and the MSM will still harass him:(
Agree. There will be some not-very-careful thinkers, or people who want it to be so, will equate it to a “lie” and that will make matters worse. And the MSM who knows it will work, even though they know better, will hammer it that way.

In fact, you’ll probably read exactly that in this very thread along about tomorrow.

Actually, the timing is interesting. Releasing information in the middle of the night is interesting, and these things usually happen towards the end of the week. Not dishonest. It’s just how this stuff is done. This is not a snap decision.

You know how when banks close, it’s always mysteriously on a Friday or Saturday evening. Yeah, that.
 
LOL… first I heard it was on Hannity, so actually primetime, although on a Thursday…
 
LOL… first I heard it was on Hannity, so actually primetime, although on a Thursday…
Ah okay, but still towards the end of the week, and in the evening, well before the next debate.

Thanks for giving me feedback on my questions, katcecelia. I appreciate it.

Also, thanks to you meltzerboy, if you’re still around tonight.
 
Yeah, Thursday when everyone is still going over Al Gore’s explanation for Obama’s poor show:D
 
Here is the interview where the admission occurred (from Real Clear Politics):

(Skip ahead to the 11:55 point to get to where the context begins)

First, let me say, in advance, you’re welcome. I cannot STAND Sean Hannity and listening to his grating voice for 13 minutes gave me a headache.

Anyway, this is what was reported in AP, Reuters, etc:

Initially, Romney defended his view, telling reporters at a news conference shortly after the video was posted that his remarks were “not elegantly stated” and that they were spoken “off the cuff.” He didn’t disavow them, however, and later adopted as a response when the remarks were raised that his campaign supports “the 100 percent in America.”

In an interview Thursday night with Fox News, Romney was asked what he would have said had the “47 percent” comments come up during his debate in Denver on Wednesday night with President Barack Obama.

"Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right," Romney said. "In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong."
**
**
He added: "And I absolutely believe, however, that my life has shown that I care about 100 percent and that’s been demonstrated throughout my life. And this whole campaign is about the 100 percent."

Critics of Romney’s “47 percent” remarks noted that many of those who don’t pay federal incomes taxes pay other forms of taxes. More than 16 million elderly Americans avoid federal income taxes solely because of tax breaks that apply only to seniors, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center reports. Millions of others don’t pay federal income taxes because they don’t earn enough after deductions and exemptions.
The rest of Romney’s answer to the question (not reported in any of these accounts) was:
When I become President, it will be about helping the 100%. As I pointed out last night in the debate, the rich in this country are actually doing better under President Obama. The gap between the rich and the poor has gotten larger. The rich will probably do fine if he’s re-elected. It’s the middle class that’s in real trouble if President Obama is re-elected and the poor.

I want the poor to get into the middle class. So many have fallen into poverty by virtue of his policies. So this for me is all about the 100%. And the President can talk about the things he he’d like to talk about. I’m going to talk about how I’m going to get America working again and help all the people of this country.
In other words, the way the press is reporting on this interview makes it sound like Romney issued a major mea culpa. Listening to the interview, itself, I didn’t get that.
 
This, from CNN (a couple of days before the debate):Poll: Who will win Wednesday’s debate?

Two days before the first debate between President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, a new poll indicates that most Americans see the GOP challenger as the underdog in the first showdown.

According to a ABC News/Washington Post national poll released Monday, 55% of likely voters say they think the president will win the debate, with 31% saying that Romney will be victorious. The findings on this question from the new survey are in-line with a CNN/ORC International poll conducted right after the Democratic convention earlier this month, where by 59%-34%, likely voters said Obama rather than the former Massachusetts governor would be more likely to do a better job in the October showdowns.

I guess 55% of likely voters were wrong…
 
Looking at the polls, ranging from Rasmussen, to Gallup, CNN, etc… they all show Romney up 1-2 points, and trailing by 3-4 points, with the President unchanged.

I thought Romney was better than I have ever seen him. My problem was that he contradicted much of what he was saying right up until the day prior. So, was he telling us what he believes and will actually do, or was he being untruthful just to win the debate?

The President certainly seemed tired and distracted. His performance was poor.
 
Looking at the polls, ranging from Rasmussen, to Gallup, CNN, etc… they all show Romney up 1-2 points, and trailing by 3-4 points, with the President unchanged.

I thought Romney was better than I have ever seen him. My problem was that he contradicted much of what he was saying right up until the day prior. So, was he telling us what he believes and will actually do, or was he being untruthful just to win the debate?

The President certainly seemed tired and distracted. His performance was poor.
Scott Rasmussen said yesterday the new polls are going to come out starting from sunday so you are not going too see any difference in polls right now. He predicted Romney would have a national and state poll increase
 
Looking at the polls, ranging from Rasmussen, to Gallup, CNN, etc… they all show Romney up 1-2 points, and trailing by 3-4 points, with the President unchanged.

I thought Romney was better than I have ever seen him. My problem was that he contradicted much of what he was saying right up until the day prior. So, was he telling us what he believes and will actually do, or was he being untruthful just to win the debate?

The President certainly seemed tired and distracted. His performance was poor.
How did he contradict himself? That’s the spin Obama himself gave on it.
 
I thought Romney was better than I have ever seen him. My problem was that he contradicted much of what he was saying right up until the day prior. So, was he telling us what he believes and will actually do, or was he being untruthful just to win the debate?
Right, apparently Paul Ryan drafted a 34 sentence outline in regards to the “lower the tax, broaden the base” comment of the 47%. In essense he seems to have changed his stance which needs clarification from Romney. 2-min is difficult to explain something simple. So yes thats a question as are a few others. And no doubt this attributed to Obamas confusion, damage control is valid here.

President Obama doesn’t need an excuse IMO. The two will need to clarify in public. I don’t see how you can run 2-min segments and not have a time issue, especially when contested issues’s arrise. I couldn’t tell you how to shut of the alarm in my home in 2-minutes let alone explain how you’ll not cut the tax on the middle class.

Interesting enough though the time break down came to Obama speaking for and extra 4-minutes. The tragedy for Obama was Romney closed the debate and well.
 
Thank you for the link. However, I was not tarnishing his good character. I was referring to medically prescribed drugs through a doctor, which is neither illegal or immoral to use and it does not defame Romney’s character to use such drugs. It is his moral right if he so wishes and is a major part of the current medical research with the pharmaceutical industries (esp. with the baby boomers getting older) i.e. nootropics, etc…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic
However you used a stereotype and you have not provided a substantive remark on why you thought so only saying you did not think he was as coherent in the past.

If it is all about thought process, for the 2nd time, don’t you find President Obama’s 4 votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) a breakdown in the thought process as well? What kind of human being would vote to allow live babies to die?

nationalreview.com/corner/290764/clarifying-obamas-vote-born-alive-peter-kirsanow
The logical import of Obama’s vote against BAIPA is that he disagrees, i.e., once a baby has been targeted for abortion it thereafter has no inherent right to the food, comfort, and medical care provided to other babies born alive. Indeed, during Illinois state senate deliberations on BAIPA, Obama stated that one of his objections was that the bill was “designed to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” Apparently, once the decision to abort has been made, a child is doomed even if born alive.
I mean if you are so concerned about Romney’s thought process to essentially denigrate him, one has to ask what kind of person would think Obama’s way?? Did all that cocaine and marijuana abuse kill brain cells?? You were the one that brought this up to begin with.
 
I have a question…
If Obamacare ir really about getting Americans more equal, more affordable healthcare… then why penalize an Institution, namely the Catholic hospitals, that provide free health care to anyone?
Obamacare was never about getting more affordable healthcare. It was about more government control of this sector. They knew a “one payer” system would never fly on the first pass so they are boiling frogs, trying to inch into control piece by piece.

Your question would make sense if there were actual logic to Obamacare. You can see the same plan in operation with the closure of Catholic adoption agencies because they refused to put same sex couples on the same level as married couples. You can see the same plan in operation with respect to Catholic operation of sexual slavery charities. Because the Church does not allow these women to be pushed to abortion clinics or given contraception/Plan B, sterilization the government pulled its funding. This even though by all accounts the Church’s work in this area was most effective and less expensive.

The government like most organisms wants power and influence above all. We can try to put a happy face and say they THINK they know best. Or we can look at other times in history where government took over.

Didn’t work then, won’t work now
Lisa
 
And its been a historic arguement in Presidential history. Bigger Government or Smaller Government more state by state control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top