1. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Cultural Settlement - Feudal Japan

    Arising from the Sengoku period of Feudal Japan, the clan of Akechi Mitsuhide has requested your help.
    As the Daimyo of his village, it is your task to lead the Feudal Japan to prosperity! Detailed information here!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Changelog 1.157

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.157 will take place on Wed, July 24, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

The Presidential Debates

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by SavageGun, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. SavageGun

    SavageGun Guest

    I know this is coming so I thought I'd be the first to start this one.

    After hours of tedious fact checking and replaying the debate I've come to the conclusion, as I have in all debates between politicians, they're both full of crap! hahaha

    Seriously, Romney won round 1. BUT!! Obama hit it on the head when he said Romney's plan was smoke and mirrors. The problem that plagues Romney is that it's all about taking all the good Obama did and getting rid of all the bad. And in two hours or less we'll have a functioning and prosperous country... That's just awesome. One question, how?

    While I believe Romney had some very valid points his plan is as vague as the color of smoke. While I'm always on the fence until I'm actually sitting in the voters booth, I need to know what he's going to do about the economy in steps, laid out in a plan that I can read. There isn't anything out there that shows what he's going to do other then vague ideas and proposals.

    Obama on the other hand has a big problem; the Economy. While I understand that he walked into a 'Crap Storm" and we as Americans have the John Wayne mentality, If it can't be fixed in 2 hours or less you're gone, we all feel we should be back to prosperous times and enjoying job and economic growth beyond what we're experiencing with Clinton. Times are tough and the government needs to have that attitude. Obama was way too cool and collected when he should have been more passionate and angry about our current situation. He looked defeated and tired.

    Now we all know how Romney really feels about the little guy, his comments were made public when he was at the his benefit dinner. He thinks the rich should get richer on the backs of the laborer and poor people are a drain on the system. Obama believes the rich should pay for the unfortunate and we should have a more socially responsible Government. Both in my opinion are to far Right and Left respectively.

    In My Honest Opinion, (IMHO), if the elections were held today Governor Romney would be President Romney. If Obama wants to continue to be President of this country he will need to unleash his own attacks and go for the throat.
  2. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    May 28, 2012
    Bah....I am so sick of people saying Romney doesn't care about the little guy. I am sick of people spreading crap based on innuendo, propaganda and flat out spin. That is crap and that is it. Romney did lay out more of his ideas last night, and I am finally happy about that.

    As I have stated before, I am voting on platform, and economy. Period, all the rest is half truths and lies. Who do I agree with a little more. Personally, I was happy to see Mitt get his groove on and get away from campaigning. I do think Romney won, I think he was concise, I think he was on point, and I think he didn't let Obama get away with his smile speak of feel good, all is well crap he normally does. If Obama was smart he would have been just as aggressive with Romney on the areas he grayed. He didn't. If he doesn't get on the ball by the next debate, Obama may very well be in trouble.

    Why? Because part of the problem with Obama is he comes across as spineless...and many of us want a president who gets things done and doesn't waffle. Now before Hell and Diggo come out and get my butt on that comment, I am sure both do, but perception is a huge part of the game.
  3. SavageGun

    SavageGun Guest

    Sorry, Dom, but we obviously watched two different debates. Romney didn't go into detail about anything. In fact the whole debate, on Romney's side was vague at best. Lets go through a few of his vague plans:

    1. how his Voucher system is going to work or is he just taking McCain's Voucher program idea? During the debate he side stepped going into any details

    2. What is his Economic plan? So far all we know is that he wants to reduce government spending, shrink the size of the government, not raise taxes, expand our military and go after Medicare with a sledgehammer. Remember, today's seniors are safe, what about tomorrows? How does this help the economy?

    3. How is he going to bring back jobs to the U.S? He never answered that one at all.

    4. What about reducing unemployment from 8.3%? He has absolutely no job creation plan, at least none that he has defined to the public. Although he said 23 million people are out of work, not true. In fact his figure wasn't even close. The actual figure is 12 million, but his math and reading expertise are not in question... Yet.

    And to answer your "Spreading crap based on innuendo, propaganda and flat out spin", ummm... It was a video tape. Not much there to "Spin". Perhaps you need to investigate your politician instead of being lead by the "Propaganda and spin". http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ey-fundraising-video-183730530--election.html

    I take everything into consideration when I cast my vote. Especially when it comes straight from the horses mouth. And you're right, perception is HUGE part of the game.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2012
  4. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    May 28, 2012
    ok, since you are new, I won't go for your jugular straight off the line, but, let it be known, I didn't compare him to Obama in my statement of finally saying what his plans are...I am referring to the fact that for the longest time, all he did on his campaign was attack Obama. Finally he is talking about HIS ideas and HIS plans in more detail.

    And as to your erroneous promotion of the 47%...news flash. He clarified shortly after the comment, and having read the whole transcript you can see it isn't just cover-up but rather clarification of a miss speak. I happen to agree with him. He doesn't say he doesn't care about 47%, he says he isn't catering to them. All those "it is ok to be mediocre" folks who get their checks for doing the bare minimum aren't going to vote for him to take that easy check away. Simple logic, and while he misspoke, the spin on it took it totally out of context. I don't mind liberals, I do mind morons who spout propaganda mindlessly with the sole purpose of muddying the waters on an important crossroads of our country. My facebook is filled with BS like that, and some of them I harass for kicks and giggles, mostly it is stupidity like that that scares me because while most don't believe it is really an issue, promoting such bull allows for those lazy people (who shouldn't be allowed to vote by the way) to vote based off of spin, and stupid votes brings about stupid government.

    Finally to answer your questions:
    both plans screw seniors. Since I realize this bouncing around in the healthcare industry, let me as you this...there is already a shortage of nurses in America, Hospitals already have bed counts which legally or not cut out medicare/medicaid beds first, Hospitals already eat a ton of money as it is, and malpractice cases are through the roof. Under Obama's plan, how much care will you get if there are no doctors TAKING government supplimented insurance? And example here, There are NO medicaid dentists, so you really have to travel 2 hours to see one, and there are a handful there, so the wait is MONTHS. Why? Dentists refuse to take it anymore. Medicare is hard to find the "good" doctors to take it...so you tell me who suffers?
    Romney's plan, I happen to believe in the free market system. If the government would get its hands out of the cookie jar, I think, and economists (which mind you, I am taking AND ROYALLY sucking at Econ right now, so I ask a lot of questions about crap like this) agree a free market system will ALWAYS find its sweet spot. I have for a long time believed in the free market, for logical common sense reasons, this changes nothing. Now again, before spouting dribble about Romneys voucher system as if it is the worst monster created, I suggest you fact check....oh wait, let me do it for you....
    Obama vs Romney - Medicare
    It should be noted, I don't have so much problem with Medicare...but it needs to move to the state level where it can be better managed and ran.
    Not even going to comment. Your showing your bias loudly as I am...(as if both parties aren't targeting Medicare) By the way, I am not old hag, the medicare discussion effects me fairly soon, so I won't fall under the "won't change" bracket, but the way it is going now, I won't have anything ANYWAY...I will either eat, or go to the doctor. How long will I live if I starve?
    Oh yes, and to do your homework again (dripping with sarcasm here in case you missed it)
    Romney's game plan
    Really? Umm what part of did you miss, the taxes are assinine? Make it more valuable to employ domestic workers, and they will come. The irony I find here with all this talk about taxing 250K and over......most private business files their business income under their personal income tax....so if you raise a tax on a business who made 250K, do you think they will grow? Now, your cutting off your own nose...how crazy is that logic? But go ahead, keep singing the tax song.....

    Job plan? uhhh unless there are jobs here he can't create them. With Obama, he is wanting the government to make the jobs, but if nobody is hiring, how long can they keep paying for the jobs. Jobs can only be gotten if companies provide them, otherwise it is a lopsided equation. Eventually one glass will empty itself out of water.

    And there you have it......
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  5. SavageGun

    SavageGun Guest

    I think you need to go for the jugular, because all you did was raise more questions then answers! haha.. Great debate by the way.

    I agree, Medicare is a economic sucker. It's the socialism in our Republic that has to exist. The necessary evil if you will. But Romney's response oozed of "I need seniors votes so I won't exclude them." Even a deaf person could've got that. Again, he laid no plan out. My wife works in the Healthcare field and was a Surgical Nurse turned State Regulator. I understand what hospitals, rehab centers and retirement homes are doing. By the way most of them are privatized and are going bankrupt. So the private sector isn't doing such a hot job and it's not because of Private Pay vs Medicare. It's more like poor spending and mismanagement of funds.

    Dentists haven't ever taken medicare. Dentistry has never been outlined in Medicare to make them profitable. Now some Medicare private health plans cover routine dental services. If you have a Medicare private health plan, but not basic medicare. So this point is moot.

    I'm not being as biased as I am concerned. Romney reminds me of John McCain. The old, "I'm a maverick and walk on both sides of the isle." I'm not an Obama fan, but at least I know where he stand. With Romney it's a leap of faith. I don't ever leap with out doing the math.

    Sounds sweet, how? If businesses are going to make huge profits in China, how? Look at Apple and the billions they're making. Obama wants to tax the goods coming into the U.S from all forein and domestic companies. He wants to offer tax breaks to those who produce and hire Americans. While I see good and bad in this at least I see where Obummer is going. Take companies like Manitowoc Company, Ariens, Mogul Manufacturing and First American Molding Plastics Enterprises to name just a few, believe in this model. Much more needs to be done and I'd love to see which candidate has the best solution to move forward with. SO far only Obama has one out there.

    I can use quotes too :)
    That's not altogether true. By the creation of demand, supply will follow. Unfortunately all the supply is over seas. This goes back to the previous point I just made. And in economics lopsided supply and demand is awesome when demand is higher then the supply. That's what we need to move out of this recession and a lot of it. And unfortunately, you won't like this, we need to raise taxes. Roll back the Bush Tax cuts and curve spending. The paradox here is that, which you will learn in economics, you have to spend your way out of a recession. If you start cutting spending in a recession you will face a deeper recession. That's not debatable, that's the facts. SO rolling back the tax cuts will have to wait until we've cleared the recession. If you need some added reading look Roosevelt in the Great Depression and Reaganomics. The spending those two did was obscene.

    And by the way, Economics is my forte. :p
  6. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    May 28, 2012
    *goes to PM cuz I know who is going to try and explain the supply and demand graph to someone who has an absolute mind block at reading one :p

    To that higher up who peeks in, I did not spam, nor go off topic, I will EDIT this to pick it back up later :D

    Ok, edit: fed my monkey...

    I disagree fundamentally with you, and that is how it is. I would like to comment on your points about the great depression. The government did NOT bring us out of it. Private industry and war did. Now I will give you Iraq being an iffy war, but that is it. The other one was valid. Secondly, during both Reagan and the depression, there WAS domestic industry here. Now, well, not so much.

    Here is the thing, I am not going to argue whose politics are right or wrong....what is the point, you can spout all you want, statistics and I can then turn around and spout statistics that match my thoughts. I heard a saying the other day which makes sense here...."the first person to testify on the stand always sounds like they have it right.......until they get cross examined."

    I answered who won the debate, not on substance because lets be honest, what a joke. But, on my perspective of the candidates. Obama was rather ummm lack luster, and didn't jump on some obvious issues he could have. He also didn't call Romney out on his points that were less than factual. He missed many opportunities...whereas Romney came out like a bull, confident, on point, and for HIM, rather put together. Seems I am not the only one who saw this however....other than MSNBC, I don't know of any other major network that said Obama won.....

    And on your point about supply and demand....if there are no doctors or hospitals, how can demand make a lick of difference in supply? I think you miss that variable all together.

    As to the taxing....I disagree with the tax increase for a simple reason. The larger corporations to lose the tax cuts....not even an itch in a bad area. They won't miss it. They will simply keep their business overseas and import. They will never even feel a ripple in the hikes. The mom and pop however will. You raise their taxes, and you will put them out of business. So by raising the tax cuts...who are you really hurting?
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  7. .Written by Hero Tactician

    I dont like Romneys chacacter.he looks like a real wierdo like a madman.their is something about him I distrust.
    he kinda looks like one of those politions who get caught cheating on their wife lol.although I feel Obama has a solid chacater that I trust.so it doesnt matter to me what they say at they debate I go off of gut instinct and my gut tells me Obama is a stand up guy and that their is something shady about Romney.I have never been wrong about my gut judgement either im a real awseome judge of Charicter.
  8. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    May 28, 2012
    So missing the VP debates, it was a given that Biden soundly spanked Ryan.

    But, seeing the second Presidential debate, I think Obama won this round. BUT, I don't think the win was as resounding as Romney's clobbering during the first one. I would have expected that Obama being the "favorite" would have come out with better polls post debate than he did.

    I also noticed, after the first debate, every media organization had gobs of posts/reports on who one. This one, I found there to be a lack of them. Is it because it was harder to call the winner this time?
  9. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Mar 2, 2012
    Indeed, it was concluded that in the first debate Obama made the mistake of thinking Romney was going to pose an honest and respectful debate. I watched the first debate and thought Romney effectively lied on just about everything (visit factcheck.org for the very long list), but Obama called him on just a few things (like 23 million unemployed instead of the actual 11 million).

    In the Biden/Ryan debate, Biden did indeed pwn Ryan, making Ryan look very much like a kid vying for school presidency, offering up baseless attacks and haughty promises with no factual foundations. Biden called him on a lot of things and showed Ryan to have incorrect facts (such as the 23 million unemployed line, once again falsely touted in debate, for which Biden corrected him, and for which Ryan repeated in his closing speech).

    In this last debate, Obama did indeed come out swinging, and landed some rather brutal blows. The mediator, on the other hand, was incompetent and poorly managed fairshare on time, as well as doing a pisspoor job of keeping the debaters on point. Nonetheless, both gave a fierce run this time, with both occasionally stuttering to collect their words and thoughts. But a few deciding factors came when Romney claimed Obama never claimed the Libya incident was a terrorist act until two weeks later, which the moderator fumbled about in correcting this, but did eventually reaffirm what Obama had claimed, that he had stated to the press, on that same day 9/11/2012, it was a terrorist act and the persons responsible will be punished (Romney's counter-claim directly contradicted the facts on record). Another was when Romney attempted to explain away his 47% statement, which did not go all that well and it looked instead as if he was seeking a new catchphrase of 100% to bury his earlier 47% faux pas.

    In the end, at his closing statements, Romney succeeded in once again repeating the 23 million unemployment lie (at this point, after it has been repeatedly corrected by Obama, Biden, two different moderaters, The BLS, and political pundits on both sides of the aisle, it can safely now be labeled an intentional lie for repetition).

    As to why less fanfare: Fact vs Fiction. Romney wins, fiction... Obama wins, fact. What sells better?
  10. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    I thought the moderator was okay, it was both candidates who were being pushy. (That said, when Obama talked out of time it was often at the moderator, whereas Romney seemed to just dismiss her and talk over the moderator towards the audience.) She really just needed controls to cut their microphones, which I'd put down to a bad technical setup.

    Even on mere presentation and impression I think Obama came out with a slight edge in the second debate. Romney did a fair job getting Obama onto the back foot at times, with Obama resorting to "not true, not true" when discussing oil production, however he undid all his "good" work when the moderator had to correct him. Obama also seemed more versed in this debate, presenting simple plans that would appeal to most, but more importantly debunking Romney's visions. "It just works" may be a sales pitch that works for iFanboys, but particularly on the economy Romney couldn't match Obama's explanation of why the plan won't work, also resorting to essentially "not true, not true" but in different words.

    Romney's "Biden smile" also didn't work for me. I think the close ups of Biden chuckling at Ryan worked because Ryan was fumbling throughout the debate; it wouldn't have worked were his responses not so genuinely laughable at points to begin with. The whole "my friend" thing also added to the dismissive approach that really pushed Ryan a rung below the perceived presidential level. Romney smiling (not chuckling) intensely from a long shot just looked, well, creepy...

    When it comes to facts, I was very disappointed Romney is still repeating the same old tired "23 million unemployed". At that point I must admit, as an Obama supporter (in the context of this election), he really just lost me. It was clear he wasn't here to debate the facts but make an impression. Nevertheless, I'll be interested to see a fact check, since there was one moment I thought Obama told a porky. As usual, however, I think we'll have a scroll hitting the floor and rolling a few miles to contain the list of less-than-truthful Romney statements hehe.
  11. lurchman35

    lurchman35 Guest

    Romney's lost...plain and simple. he's royally fed himself over with all these misleading ad's as well as slandering. He's repetitive, and just basically blowing smoke out his ass. I liked the idea of having a different president at first, but, he lost my support.

    But, let's all agree...any future president is going to receive a "to do" list miles long.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2012
  12. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    May 28, 2012
    There you go Diggo.

    But I will forever deny saying it ;)
  13. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    I can't see it happening, Romney indeed seems to be overly invested in his waffle, but were he to "win" on both a factual and face-value level in the next debate it may be enough to clinch 270 votes. Weird things happen when neither candidate is in the good books...
  14. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Mar 2, 2012
    Meh, Obama is in the good books, it's just a sell to give the impression he's not. The polls will be demonstrated as "way off" when election time comes, with Obama sweeping almost as brutally as he did against McCain in 2008. Still, it makes for great television.
  15. eazymango

    eazymango Member

    Oct 19, 2012

    This is all I can do is ... :eek:
  16. eazymango

    eazymango Member

    Oct 19, 2012
    That's smart, the most miss leading, hateful, divisive, dishonest administration in history with the backing of the main stream media has you and most of this country tied around its little finger, that's disturbing.

    Not saying you did, ( but have seen it in this thread ) anyone quoting news from Yahoo needs to be stripped of his / her voting rights along with about 47 % of you'z 'big bird loving peoples... :laugh:
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2012
  17. SLange

    SLange Guest

    Obama was on a hiding to nothing when he became president as he called to the people for cooperation in the difficult task ahead after a world wide economic meltdown caused by the banks and his people responding "no, you do it oh great one, you are our leader and can do no wrong" (well, except for the republicans, of course, who would do everything they could to try and make him look ineffective and rubbish). It's all a media popularity contest. Meanwhile the banks still run things and the bankers gamble away with the countries dosh. Bankers really should go to rehab for their gambling addiction. :rolleyes:
  18. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Please do provide examples for how the administration is:

    1) The most misleading administration in history
    2) The most hateful administration in history
    3) The most divisive administration in history
    4) The most dishonest administration in history

    Once you do that, then I'll take you seriously.