Presidential Debate #2

[Juror#8]

I do agree with the general point...but the actual fact is in his 2 years he passed a ton of extremely significant legislation. Whether you like it or hate it...within the first month of his Presidency he had done more than most do in 4 years and he had checked off about 70% of his campaign promises.

 

Agreed - he stretched his goodwill a good deal. The WH was very disingenuous about Rs not working with them at all. Rs did during the first year. After that, and the goodwill faded, and they had some leverage, they obstructed as best as they could.

 

My former point was only that 5 months is not much time in the world of legislative politics. It's a surprisingly small amount of time.

[DC Tom]

Agreed - he stretched his goodwill a good deal. The WH was very disingenuous about Rs not working with them at all. Rs did during the first year. After that, and the goodwill faded, and they had some leverage, they obstructed as best as they could.

 

My former point was only that 5 months is not much time in the world of legislative politics government. It's a surprisingly small amount of time.

 

Fixed. I can't even get a database change approved in five months.

[Juror#8]

Please.... Some of those (so called) legislators have been there for decades. They have bills that they support (or that have been held up in the past) ready to go.

 

As they did when Jumpin Jim switched sides.

 

 

and as for your committee hold up..........not when there's a super majority. They could ram anything through they wished.

 

But being professional politicians, and thus mealy mouthed cowards, theyy weigh everything until its too late.

 

.

 

Agreed. There is no urgency in legislative politics.

 

With respect to supermajority...I was referring more to the delegation of responsibility and introduction of external influence that slows up the process. It's just slow. It could be fast, but it never is.

[VABills]

Fixed. I can't even get a database change approved in five months.

 

You don't even know the difference between an entity and a table. I wouldn't approve your **** either.

[Juror#8]

I heard that on the radio last week..."Obama has signed into law more legislation in less time than any president since LBJ..." Well...okay. But what if the legislation is ****?

 

The point being not that what Obama signed into law is **** (I think it is, you think it isn't. We can go 'round and 'round on that to absolutely no purpose forever.) The point is...volume of pages of legislation is not an accurate measure of accomplishment.

 

 

 

As I recall, he used to work on the Hill.

 

Even though it's laughable to think that we'd have anyone on this message board who'd be knowledgeable about their field of have inside knowledge of anything, I'm still deferring to him in this case.

 

I did. BS stuff. Nothing glamarous. I was one of 100 other attorneys (or dumb as a wall children of well known entertainers - which was the case with a certain southern House member of Congress) who fetched coffee, or sorted constituent mail, or got 'so and so on the phone,' or occassionally read a synopsis.

 

Since I talked to the congressman maybe four times in the approximately 2 years that I was there (and once was at a holiday party), the real treat was discussing substantive stuff with the LD.

 

Everyone said it would be a foot in the door to a chief of staff role in 15 years. It wasn't. It was a foot in the door to not valuably utilizing my time by fetching coffee and making sure that we had Celestial tea stocked.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Juror#8

[dayman]

Agreed - he stretched his goodwill a good deal. The WH was very disingenuous about Rs not working with them at all. Rs did during the first year. After that, and the goodwill faded, and they had some leverage, they obstructed as best as they could.

 

My former point was only that 5 months is not much time in the world of legislative politics. It's a surprisingly small amount of time.

 

It comes of as partisan to say this. But this just isn't true. Plain and simple.

[B-Man]

It comes of as partisan to say this. But this just isn't true. Plain and simple.

 

Just some of the GOP senators who worked with the Dem majority from 2008 - 2010

 

Olympia Snowe, Maine

Susan Collins, Maine

Arlen Specter, PA

Mel Martinez, FL

Lisa Murkowski, AL

Richard Lugar, Ind

Robert Bennett, UT

.

[dayman]

Just some of the GOP senators who worked with the Dem majority from 2008 - 2010

 

Olympia Snowe, Maine

Susan Collins, Maine

Arlen Specter, PA

Mel Martinez, FL

Lisa Murkowski, AL

Richard Lugar, Ind

Robert Bennett, UT

.

 

Of course some people got in on the action. All you need to do is study the stimulus to understand though, that as a bloc there was no cooperation in mind from the very beginning. And Arlen Specter...he's the one responsible for the damn Cocaine Monkey's the GOP then called ridiculous.

[B-Man]

Thanks for your help Bill..............................Here's your November ad.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeBCWLGoJb0&feature=player_embedded

 

"Romney was correct".........................."I thought he was going to cry"

 

.

[Rob's House]

Of course some people got in on the action. All you need to do is study the stimulus to understand though, that as a bloc there was no cooperation in mind from the very beginning. And Arlen Specter...he's the one responsible for the damn Cocaine Monkey's the GOP then called ridiculous.

I would like to read more about this just for the sake of hearing all sides of the argument. Where would you recommend looking?

Edited October 18, 2012 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

I would like to read more about this just for the sake of hearing all sides of the argument. Where would you recommend looking?

 

I thought that was understood - as I recall it, the stimulus was as a whole completely Democratic, with the Republicans opposing it en masse.

 

Thanks for your help Bill..............................Here's your November ad.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeBCWLGoJb0&feature=player_embedded

 

"Romney was correct".........................."I thought he was going to cry"

 

.

 

When Bill says it, though, it sounds sincere and hopeful.

 

If Biden, God love the dumb bastard, had said it, it would sound like an unambiguous plug for Romney.

[/dev/null]

When Bill says it, though, it sounds sincere and hopeful.

 

If Biden, God love the dumb bastard, had said it, it would sound like an unambiguous plug for Romney.

 

I haven't quite figured out what Bill's up to when he goes off the reservation.

 

Is he trying to be a team player but can't contain his disrespect for Obama?

Or is he being the team player that he's expected to be, but knowingly throws the occasional elbow with a quick wink

[dayman]

I would like to read more about this just for the sake of hearing all sides of the argument. Where would you recommend looking?

 

I would get the book "The New New Deal." It is a left leaning author...but it holds no punches back it reveal the sausage making in all it's glory...without a doubt the best thing available to understand what happened. If you want to learn about the stimulus...this is THE thing to read first, and then you continue on of course from there to round out your understanding

 

I thought that was understood - as I recall it, the stimulus was as a whole completely Democratic, with the Republicans opposing it en masse.

 

 

Opposing OBAMA's Stimulus in mass. They had many a stimulus proposal of their own...all of which got a majority of GOP support despite the versions being wholly different from themselves...and btw...700B was one that got support..so the idea it's about the money is ridiculous.The only common scheme to the GOP stimulus proposals was that they weren't Obama's. That's it. Money. Areas on influence. All over the place. It was politics plain and simple.

Edited October 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

I did. BS stuff. Nothing glamarous. I was one of 100 other attorneys (or dumb as a wall children of well known entertainers - which was the case with a certain southern House member of Congress) who fetched coffee, or sorted constituent mail, or got 'so and so on the phone,' or occassionally read a synopsis.

 

Since I talked to the congressman maybe four times in the approximately 2 years that I was there (and once was at a holiday party), the real treat was discussing substantive stuff with the LD.

 

Everyone said it would be a foot in the door to a chief of staff role in 15 years. It wasn't. It was a foot in the door to not valuably utilizing my time by fetching coffee and making sure that we had Celestial tea stocked.

 

You still got to see inside the sausage factory, which puts you one up on most of us.

 

Or would, if anyone on the internet ever had any sort of actual knowledge.

[Badasss]

I'm way late to this party. My quick thoughts as if anyone cares:

 

I thought Obama won clearly. Romney really blew his Libya answer and got factchecked on stage which was brutal for him. I see whining about the moderator on here (not a surprise).

 

Have you been hibernating the last few days? This "fact checking" by Crowley that you referred to was completely false.

 

Mitt Romney has a track record of going at with the moderators. heard the same crap in the first debate. The difference was that Crowley wasn't having it.

 

It's surprises me that you guys aren't calling out Romney for being disrespectful the way you did to Paul Ryan. (well, it doesn't REALLY surprise me) He disrespected Obama on numerous occasions by going out of his way to ask his own questions to the President and keep harping on him for an answer.

 

All in all, I thought Romney sounded like a doosh up there and probably didn't appeal to the public. I could be wrong, but we'll see.

[3rdnlng]

Everything you say up to the underline part I agree with.

 

The underline part is where you and the other conservatives in this thread are making an erroneous leap. Romney made a mistake and what should have been a slam dunk he fumbled by choosing to try to trap the President. Candy did not side with Obama, she sided with the facts of the issue. And, immediately afterwards, she made the point Romney SHOULD have made.

 

The blame is on Romney for messing up what should have been an easy slam.

 

I guess we agree then that "acts of terror" stated in a general sense and specifically calling the Benghazi attack terrorism are not the same? It was Obama that was making the case that the use of the term "acts of terror" on 9-12 constituted him being on board right away with the fact that it was terrorism (or at least very possibly could be). What I took from the debate was that after Obama indicated that he alluded to it being an act of terrorism on 9-12, Romney was attempting to get Obama to definitively say that was the case. That is when Romney mentioned getting it on record. That was when they had their little dust up and Candy tried to back up Obama by saying that it was in the transcript. With that in mind, I don't think Romney screwed up. Candy rescued Obama for everyone to see. Regardless, this will come up in the next debate and Obama has no place to go with it. He's caught trying to cover something up, lying or both.

[CosmicBills]

I guess we agree then that "acts of terror" stated in a general sense and specifically calling the Benghazi attack terrorism are not the same?

As Tom already pointed out, this was the mistake Mitt made. He was so eager to slam the President he walked right into a rhetorical uppercut. He screwed up -- doesn't justify the bungled reaction by the White House to the original incident but it certainly doesn't point to Candy colluding with Obama.

 

Mitt screwed up. Simple as that. He screwed up over semantics (which in the grand scheme of things is nearly irrelevant but when it happens in front of 65 million Americans it has a negative effect) and Obama called him to the mat on it. All the rest that has come out of the conservative universe is just straight up denial. The silly part is, they're in denial about something so insignificant it's making them, and Romney's campaign, look even worse.

 

It was Obama that was making the case that the use of the term "acts of terror" on 9-12 constituted him being on board right away with the fact that it was terrorism (or at least very possibly could be). What I took from the debate was that after Obama indicated that he alluded to it being an act of terrorism on 9-12, Romney was attempting to get Obama to definitively say that was the case. That is when Romney mentioned getting it on record.

He had a golden opportunity but flubbed it.

 

That was when they had their little dust up and Candy tried to back up Obama by saying that it was in the transcript.

(It was in the transcript, she didn't make that up).

 

Key words are underlined -- and they're false assumptions you're making. She didn't try to back Obama up -- she was forced to act because Romney was hung up on a semantic point and not getting off it. So, she DID back Obama up (didn't try, she did) but in this case it was because Obama technically was correct and Romney, technically, was not.

 

(Edit: forgot to underline them... oops!)

 

With that in mind, I don't think Romney screwed up. Candy rescued Obama for everyone to see.

She only rescued Obama in the minds of people who don't understand the issue.

 

Regardless, this will come up in the next debate and Obama has no place to go with it. He's caught trying to cover something up, lying or both.

Absolutely correct. And I expect Romney to handle the issue much better in round 3.

Edited October 19, 2012 by tgreg99

[3rdnlng]

 

As Tom already pointed out, this was the mistake Mitt made. He was so eager to slam the President he walked right into a rhetorical uppercut. He screwed up -- doesn't justify the bungled reaction by the White House to the original incident but it certainly doesn't point to Candy colluding with Obama.

 

Mitt screwed up. Simple as that. He screwed up over semantics (which in the grand scheme of things is nearly irrelevant but when it happens in front of 65 million Americans it has a negative effect) and Obama called him to the mat on it. All the rest that has come out of the conservative universe is just straight up denial. The silly part is, they're in denial about something so insignificant it's making them, and Romney's campaign, look even worse.

 

 

He had a golden opportunity but flubbed it.

 

 

(It was in the transcript, she didn't make that up).

 

Key words are underlined -- and they're false assumptions you're making. She didn't try to back Obama up -- she was forced to act because Romney was hung up on a semantic point and not getting off it. So, she DID back Obama up (didn't try, she did) but in this case it was because Obama technically was correct and Romney, technically, was not.

 

(Edit: forgot to underline them... oops!)

 

 

She only rescued Obama in the minds of people who don't understand the issue.

 

 

Absolutely correct. And I expect Romney to handle the issue much better in round 3.

 

Answer me this with a straight answer. Did Obama try to say at the end of the debate that he indicated it was terrorism on 9-12?

[John Adams]

 

 

Relax, JA. You're the last person that post was for. Romney could be sworn in today, repeal Obamacare tomorow, and you'd still tell everyone how certain you are about the Obama landslide.

 

Really? Things look much better for Romney now. Tightening Ohio is awesome news. Florida remains a must.

[1billsfan]

Answer me this with a straight answer. Did Obama try to say at the end of the debate that he indicated it was terrorism on 9-12?

 

New Shimmer's a floor wax AND a dessert topping...