Well done Mitt, you took it to him last night...

theclemsonkid

theclemsonkid

Member
I would say I was about 70% leaning towards Obama prior to last nights first debate. I have to give credit where credit is due, and that's to Mitt and his camp. He made the prez look weak and defensive for sure. I'm still on Obamas side, but by a lot less than I was 24 hours ago...
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Without demeaning Obama or Romney and just looking at the facts-that even liberals can agree with, Obama has a huge problem in that his 3 main domestic policies have (let's not say failed to be more than fair) not done what he and his advisers thought they would. 1) The $800 billion stimulus stimulated no one but the big banks. 2) Healthcare costs have skyrocketed since Obamacare was passed, not gone down. 3) All the massive growth in entitlements has done is increase the number of people living on them rather than help people out of them. Those are points that Obama has no answer for, except, "We need to spend even more, though our country is broke". Again, to be fair, Bush and the drunken sailor Republicans got the deficit ball rolling, but somehow Obama thinks that tripling it will somehow make it better. How can anyone defend that?
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Economically we are in a much worse position, and that is at the forefront of this election. Its not about wars, or getting rid of terrorists, its about survival at home. Weather its all Obama's fault or not, his presidency did not resolve this, and, in fact, its much worse.
Also, Obama's claim that the USA will have much more money saved because of the money we will be saving on ending wars aboard is bogus. Those wars were paid for by loans and going into debt, so we are saving nothing; we are only not borrowing more to pay for them. There is no savings to rebuild America. Now, granted, the wars were not Obama's to begin with.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Romney can have my vote. Wait. he's already got it before I walk into the voting booth in November. Oh well....
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Without demeaning Obama or Romney and just looking at the facts-that even liberals can agree with, Obama has a huge problem in that his 3 main domestic policies have (let's not say failed to be more than fair) not done what he and his advisers thought they would. 1) The $800 billion stimulus stimulated no one but the big banks. 2) Healthcare costs have skyrocketed since Obamacare was passed, not gone down. 3) All the massive growth in entitlements has done is increase the number of people living on them rather than help people out of them. Those are points that Obama has no answer for, except, "We need to spend even more, though our country is broke". Again, to be fair, Bush and the drunken sailor Republicans got the deficit ball rolling, but somehow Obama thinks that tripling it will somehow make it better. How can anyone defend that?
During the debate, not once do I recall Obama saying we need to spend more than we are now.
did I miss that?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I said going in that Romney didn't have to win to win. It's a lot like 1980 out there right now. People are scared about the economy and don't like the way things are going right now. love him or hate him they aren't happy with the way 0bama has handled things. Romney just needs to look presidential to swing a lot of those votes. What happened last night Romney doing better than a lot of people thought he would although pretty much in line with how he handled the Primary debates. The big difference was 0bama didn't show up until the end. He looked kind of like a nervous school kid during the first 3/4's of the Debate.
this isn't over by a long shot. I expect 0bama and his campaign to react like a wounded animal, the attacks will intensify and I expect the President will be much better prepared for the next debate.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night#post_3495158
During the debate, not once do I recall Obama saying we need to spend more than we are now.
did I miss that?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39173815/
As I said that is what he had to defend and why he had no ammunition, because that is all he could say he wanted to do, which even liberals know is unsustainable. Of course he didn't say that last night. That WAS his problem. He can't defend it without the filter of his media allies.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Interesting point Dick Morris has been making several times lately; the polls are identical to the 04 election. Bush was supposedly down by almost the exact same number according to the polls just like Romney this year. Morris thinks that, just like 04, democrats are being far oversampled. Most pollsters, including Rasmussen who blew the 04 election-calling it for Kerry even in the exit polls, are giving a 7-11% advantage to democrats in their poll weighting. Meaning if 50% of respondents go Obama and 50% go Romney, they are calling it a 7-11% lead for Obama. They are actually giving Obama a bigger democrat sampling than he got in 08. So, I think that Co, NM, Fl and Ohio will be a big surprise to those thinking they're leaning Obama. The sampling and weighting are skewed far too much to get a good polling. Morris, using the same 3-5% democrat advantage that Obama won with in 08, shows Romney leading 3-6% in all the purple states, except Michigan, where it is a dead tie.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night#post_3495186
Interesting point Dick Morris has been making several times lately; the polls are identical to the 04 election. Bush was supposedly down by almost the exact same number according to the polls just like Romney this year. Morris thinks that, just like 04, democrats are being far oversampled. Most pollsters, including Rasmussen who blew the 04 election-calling it for Kerry even in the exit polls, are giving a 7-11% advantage to democrats in their poll weighting. Meaning if 50% of respondents go Obama and 50% go Romney, they are calling it a 7-11% lead for Obama. They are actually giving Obama a bigger democrat sampling than he got in 08. So, I think that Co, NM, Fl and Ohio will be a big surprise to those thinking they're leaning Obama. The sampling and weighting are skewed far too much to get a good polling. Morris, using the same 3-5% democrat advantage that Obama won with in 08, shows Romney leading 3-6% in all the purple states, except Michigan, where it is a dead tie.
If you looked at the Luntz focus group of supposedly uncommitted Colorado voters last night this race is completely up for grabs. Other than a couple pretty obvious 0bama partisans even those who say they are still uncommitted moved towards Romney and the majority of the group said they decided to vote for Romney. Even assuming Romney partisans in the crowd a lot of these independent voters saw all they needed to last night. It just kind of backs up my theory that people are over 0bama but not sure about Romney.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Yeah, he did. He mentioned hiring 100,000 new teachers and generally increasing education spending. He also said something about taking the money we are now spending on the wars and using it for other programs.
Darth, what do you think his constant "investing in America" line refers to?
he also said the wars ending would reduce the deficit...he contradicted himself with the allocation of the war costs.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night#post_3495208
I thought it referred to shifting borrowing for wars to borrowing for homeland spending. ....
And that would make a tiny dent in it, but not even come close to the new spending he wants on infrastructure, education and social programs(think about 50% more people on food stamps and work waivers for those who want a lifetime on welfare), not to mention the additional $1.5 trillion Obamacare is going to cost over the next 10 years.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Check this garbage out. John Stossel checked an area for jobs, found 40 available with 24 entry level. He sent a girl to job centers were she was told to sign up for unemployment, Food Stamps and had another send her on one interview which is just a regular open house to screen potential applicants for down the road. 40 open jobs 12 of which were at a restaurant where the owner says he'll hire 12 people if they apply and this woman wasn't sent to one by any of these job centers.
http://www.newsmax.com/Stossel/Job-Centers-Dependency-unemployment/2012/10/03/id/458526
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I thought it referred to shifting borrowing for wars to borrowing for homeland spending. ....
How can you spend it in the homeland and at the same time use it to reduce your deficit?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night#post_3495198
Sorta like cutting 716 billion from Medicare and saying it both extended the life of Medicare and Funded 0bama Care. There are still multitudes of economists saying Hu?
Are you still on the "cutting $716 billion from Medicare" conspiracy kick? That money is being reduced by the caregivers. No Medicare benefits are being reduced or taken away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top