***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[essential1]

Dually noted. Either Rasmussen is horrible at polling the Senate and the House, or they broke bad. Very disappointing. They did such a great job in 2008.
Either way, the rest of the polls come out next week and I'm sure we can both agree that we'd predict a slight bump for Romney because of the Debate. Not as high of a bump as I thought due to the good economic news.

For some reason Rasmussen always had a right lean, which is fine. Every poll has some skew. But in the past few years it has become insane.

Yesterday Nate Silver said (paraphrasing) "I would equate what Romney did in the debate was kicking a field goal late in the game.. He's still behind, and needs to score to win, but he's at least in striking distance because of the debate."

As for VA & Florida.. I don't doubt Obama loses one or both of them (even if the debate didn't go the way it did).. The idea that he'd win every single swing state seems unlikely regardless of his lead.

We may see Romney get a very significant bump, and tie it up. He was down an average of 5. But debate bumps are even less short lived than Convention bumps. And the job numbers don't help him..

His defense against the jobs report has basically been "Oh yeah..... Well we haven't recovered fast enough." Which is just bad messaging when you get good news for employment.

And also gets rid of one of his better arguments from the debate that we haven't been under 8% unemployment in 30+ months..

 

[Betonblck]

i didn't go through the last couple pages. Has the "jobbers" been posted here. Before we had the birthers, now we have the jobbers. Jack Welch was saying that the Obama administration fixed the job numbers.

 

[kix4kix]

Are people not remembering 8 years ago when Kerry killed Bush in the first debate, only to have bush decapitate him in the final two. Also rove hImself said that the overall score in all debates far outweighs the first, and people usually forget the first anyway after the second.

 

[essential1]

I just looked into more Rasmussen polls.. For the VA Senate they have Kaine (D) up by 7%.. Highly unlikely that there would be a huge bounce for Romney to leading by 1%, and the Senate race not see some decreases.

Brown up 8% in Ohio Senate.

Also their Daily Tracking of Swing States still has Obama up by 5%...

Seems like what Rasmussen found was a short term bounce in their polls of two states.

And all of the Rasmussen & WeAskAmerica polls are 1 day sample.. That's a huge problem because it was done the day after the debate, and rather than have a week's worth or even 3-4 days of polls to average out.. Their sample is already skewed right, and 1 day polls are purely reactionary rather than scientific.

 

[crcballer55]

Here. Let me make it easy for everyone so we can stop this nonsense.

And while the lies may have been more noticeable for Romney, don't forget that Obama practiced law and any good lawyer will use half truths so there is plausible deniability if someone confronts them on the matter.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

• Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
• Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
• Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
• Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
• Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
• Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
• Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
• Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
• Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.

See, now that's a half truth, not only on Romney's plan, but the overall history of the tax code and revenues generated. While Romney proposes to reduce the tax rate by 20%, he's also proposed limiting deductions too.

The same should be said for historical tax rates too. While rates are lower, there are fewer deductions people can make as well.

If we're so concerned with the wealthy "paying their fair share" and paying the same effective rate as middle income earners, how come there is an AMT for them? How come Romney pays a percentage that is more than 97% of Americans?

 

[Magic33]

Are people not remembering 8 years ago when Kerry killed Bush in the first debate, only to have bush decapitate him in the final two. Also rove hImself said that the overall score in all debates far outweighs the first, and people usually forget the first anyway after the second.

Bush never won any of those debates. He just looked like he had an IQ above 70 in the other two so he "WON".

 

[Magic33]

Bruh. 

I have a higher standard for debate than merely who looks aggressive. 

What don't you understand? 

If the arguments are wack then there is no saving that. 

Romney won the debate. Most democrat political pundits will admit Romney won the debate.

Substance is nice, but if you're not looking confident and are on the defense for most of the night, you lost.

Obama should have cornered Romney in to providing more substance.

 

[essential1]

Saying you wouldn't add to the deficit through tax cuts or military spending doesn't now make what Obama says false....

It's what's the truth?

And there is not $5 trillion ($7 trillion with military spending) in deductions.... Especially when you say you won't touch any middle class deductions.


In the words of Bill Clinton.... "It's arithmetic"

He also says there will be no decrease in revenue... Which means that Americans technically will not have a tax cut.... They'll all be paying the same afterward

There is no math in the world to make all these premises line up.

 

[sawyer]

See, now that's a half truth, not only on Romney's plan, but the overall history of the tax code and revenues generated. While Romney proposes to reduce the tax rate by 20%, he's also proposed limiting deductions too.

The same should be said for historical tax rates too. While rates are lower, there are fewer deductions people can make as well.

If we're so concerned with the wealthy "paying their fair share" and paying the same effective rate as middle income earners, how come there is an AMT for them? How come Romney pays a percentage that is more than 97% of Americans?

@ 'he's also proposed limiting deductions too':

oh yeah, like what? please be specific. you would literally be the first and only person on the face of the earth privy to that knowledge. you know why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXSIST. romney and his surrogates have, at best, only talked about maybe tightening up charitable donation deductions. THAT'S IT. when anyone presses him or his circle for details, they're told that it's congress' job to come up with the details. there's no plan or anything in writing. except for that whole $5 trillion loss in revenue through alleged 'tax reform'. you can't claim credit for something romney has only talked about maybe doing and deferred the details of his alleged plan to the most inept branch of elected government. sorry.

(and it's hilarious that he'd choose deduction loopholes bc he totally manipulated his itemized deductions to appear to have paid more in taxes in 2011 than he really owed.)

the problem with your arguments are that THEY ARE NOT YOUR OWN. you have used the words of others and then carved yourself an indefensible hole btwn misinformation and talking points. you're defending positions you have little to no knowledge about. it's quite embarassing to even respond to you. i mean, wtf is a 'historical tax rate' anyway?

@ 'while rates are lower, there are fewer deductions people can make as well'

so it's becoming quite apparent that you kind of just make up stuff and run with it.

MORE EARNED INCOME TAX FILERS FILED FOR MORE DEDUCTIONS LAST YEAR THAN AT ANY POINT IN ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF TAX COLLECTION.

EVER.

OF ALL TIME.

'If we're so concerned with the wealthy "paying their fair share" and paying the same effective rate as middle income earners, how come there is an AMT for them? How come Romney pays a percentage that is more than 97% of Americans?'

and you've just shown everyone you know absolutely nothing about the alternative minimum tax code. i'm not even going to respond to this. i can't anwer 'how come romney pays a percentage that is more than 97% of americans' because he doesn't. have you forgotten that he released his tax filings from 2011? it's public knowledge.

romney used the amt to qualify for 0% tax liability on his earned income. he could have gotten rid of his amt liability by disclosing all of the amount of money he donated to 'charity'. MITT ROMNEY PURPOSEFULLY ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE HIT WITH AMT LIABILITY BC HE OFFSET HIS ORDINARY INCOME THROUGH ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS. amt liability + capital gains, dividends, interest tax rates < earned income tax rates.

if i ask you how come apples are blue, how would you respond?

this is asanine. you won't even come up with original arguments for me to debate with. i'm left with obliterating the words of others who are not here to defend what they said or meant. i'm left with a misinformed niketalk poster who thinks mitt romney pays a percentage more in taxes than 97% of americans bc... well, i don't really know. you're either misinformed, or intentionally ignorant.

 

[futuremd]

Bruh. 

I have a higher standard for debate than merely who looks aggressive. 

What don't you understand? 

If the arguments are wack then there is no saving that. 

Romney won the debate. Most democrat political pundits will admit Romney won the debate.

Substance is nice, but if you're not looking confident and are on the defense for most of the night, you lost.

Obama should have cornered Romney in to providing more substance.

I refuse to believe that

A. You can win a debate because some dudes on TV said so

B. That if you could pick a winner, the guy who lies more was able to win. 

 

[Magic33]

I refuse to believe that

A. You can win a debate because some dudes on TV said so

B. That if you could pick a winner, the guy who lies more was able to win. 

1. Face it, they couldn't even defend that debate on MSNBC. The only thing is the incumbent normally loses the first debate.

2. If a guy is lying, it's your job during the debate to catch him on his lies. Not wait until after the debate to wait for others to point out how he lied. During a debate it's presentation as much as substance.

 

[futuremd]

I refuse to believe that

A. You can win a debate because some dudes on TV said so

B. That if you could pick a winner, the guy who lies more was able to win. 

1. Face it, they couldn't even defend that debate on MSNBC. The only thing is the incumbent normally loses the first debate.

2. If a guy is lying, it's your job during the debate to catch him on his lies. Not wait until after the debate to wait for others to point out how he lied. During a debate it's presentation as much as substance.

Face what?

Thats the problem.

They're creating this FALSE DICHOTOMY and you're buying into it. 

There is NO WINNER. You don't get ribbons. You don't get prizes. 

There was one guy telling way more lies than the other guy, but some how he "wins" because of his demeanor.

 

[Betonblck]

@ 'he's also proposed limiting deductions too':

oh yeah, like what? please be specific. you would literally be the first and only person on the face of the earth privy to that knowledge. you know why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXSIST. romney and his surrogates have, at best, only talked about maybe tightening up charitable donation deductions. THAT'S IT. when anyone presses him or his circle for details, they're told that it's congress' job to come up with the details. there's no plan or anything in writing. except for that whole $5 trillion loss in revenue through alleged 'tax reform'. you can't claim credit for something romney has only talked about maybe doing and deferred the details of his alleged plan to the most inept branch of elected government. sorry.

(and it's hilarious that he'd choose deduction loopholes bc he totally manipulated his itemized deductions to appear to have paid more in taxes in 2011 than he really owed.)

the problem with your arguments are that THEY ARE NOT YOUR OWN. you have used the words of others and then carved yourself an indefensible hole btwn misinformation and talking points. you're defending positions you have little to no knowledge about. it's quite embarassing to even respond to you. i mean, wtf is a 'historical tax rate' anyway?

@ 'while rates are lower, there are fewer deductions people can make as well'

so it's becoming quite apparent that you kind of just make up stuff and run with it.

MORE EARNED INCOME TAX FILERS FILED FOR MORE DEDUCTIONS LAST YEAR THAN AT ANY POINT IN ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF TAX COLLECTION.

EVER.

OF ALL TIME.

'If we're so concerned with the wealthy "paying their fair share" and paying the same effective rate as middle income earners, how come there is an AMT for them? How come Romney pays a percentage that is more than 97% of Americans?'

and you've just shown everyone you know absolutely nothing about the alternative minimum tax code. i'm not even going to respond to this. i can't anwer 'how come romney pays a percentage that is more than 97% of americans' because he doesn't. have you forgotten that he released his tax filings from 2011? it's public knowledge.

romney used the amt to qualify for 0% tax liability on his earned income. he could have gotten rid of his amt liability by disclosing all of the amount of money he donated to 'charity'. MITT ROMNEY PURPOSEFULLY ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE HIT WITH AMT LIABILITY BC HE OFFSET HIS ORDINARY INCOME THROUGH ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS. amt liability + capital gains, dividends, interest tax rates

 

[futuremd]

I'm interested to know if Romney took advantage of that UBS amnesty from a few years back... 

 

[futuremd]

On another note...Adult stars can be so dumb... 

She really can't understand the irony if Romney wins, does she? 

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/24/could-romney-really-ban-porn/

 

[futuremd]

Romney Won Using a Debate Technique Called the Gish Gallop

by AmBushed  Oct 04, 2012 9:23am PDT

As fact checkers  busily highlight the myriad number of lies and distortions offered by Mitt-Etch-A-Sketch-Romney during last night's debate, and the spinners spin  their polls with impunity, I find it interesting that the debate tactic itself has not yet been discussed nor properly analyzed. In fact, the lies and distortions offered by Romney in last night's debate are the very ESSENCE of his tactic -- and is therefore quite pertinent to the discussion. Romney used a debate tactic known as  the Gish Gallop.

The Urban Dictionary  defines the Gish Gallop thusly:

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much ******** in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.
1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure ******** and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.

2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally ********. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they're ********, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much ******** into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.

It is quite apparent to those of us who have closely followed this election, that this latest sketch drawn out by Romney completely contradicts major policy ideas  stumped on the campaign trail by him over the last few months. Since Obama could no longer debate the substance (or lack thereof) of Romney''s policy ideas, it threw Obama off his game. We have seen Romney do this before in the primaries. Obama needs to be prepared for it in future debates. Call it Etch-A-Sketch, call it the Gish Gallop, call it lies...it's all about the same. But it is a known debate tactic. And, like Romney, it is dishonest.
ON EDIT: Top of the rec list! Wow! Thanks! Just FYI, in the intro, I provided a hyperlink to the wiki explanation of the Gish Gallop, just in case you are looking for more information on it.

On a happier note, please allow me to share this joke floating around the internet today:

Snow White, Superman and Pinocchio are walking along.
They see a sign: "Contest for World's Most Beautiful Woman." Snow White goes in, later comes out smiling, wearing a crown.

They walk along and see another sign: "Contest for World's Strongest Man." Superman goes in, later comes out smiling, wearing the belt.

They walk along and see a sign: "Contest for World's Greatest Liar." Pinocchio goes in, later comes out with his head down crying.

"Who the hell is Mitt Romney?" Pinocchio sobs.

 

[essential1]

Yes. He lied.. But Putty what you don't get, Obama lost because he rarely called him out... And when he did he backed down if Romney responded..

Unless you say THAT'S NOT TRUE! Here's why... You are not giving American's a reason to believe you... They don't know the facts. They go by what they hear in the debate..

Obama lost.. Because he just sat there.... As Romney lied... He didn't once say what the cut of Medicare Advantage did as opposed to people thinking he just stole $716 billion. He never brought up the 47%. Never pushed on the absurdity of Romney not only saying he wouldn't massively cut taxes for the rich (In truth 48% of the $5 trillion in tax cuts goes to the top 5%. He only slightly pushed Romney on not paying for it..

Never pushed Romney on saying we deal with the uninsured successfully through ER Care, and that it not only isn't effective , it hits those with insurance's pocket. Didn't question Romney on his state right's ******** saying RomneyCare = Awesome in Massachusetts.... ObamaCare = Yes it's the same, but is killing the country because it's at a National Level..

Never pounced on Romney saying he believes we need more and better teachers.. When he explicitly said WE DON'T NEED MORE TEACHERS.

It happened the entire night..

HE LOST.

Not because he didn't have more substance.. He lost because he didn't distinguish between substance and pure theatrics of lying.. Making it seem as Romney not only had facts, but presented it in a great manner.

 

[Coupé It]

I just looked into more Rasmussen polls.. For the VA Senate they have Kaine (D) up by 7%.. Highly unlikely that there would be a huge bounce for Romney to leading by 1%, and the Senate race not see some decreases.
Brown up 8% in Ohio Senate.
Also their Daily Tracking of Swing States still has Obama up by 5%...
Seems like what Rasmussen found was a short term bounce in their polls of two states.
And all of the Rasmussen & WeAskAmerica polls are 1 day sample.. That's a huge problem because it was done the day after the debate, and rather than have a week's worth or even 3-4 days of polls to average out.. Their sample is already skewed right, and 1 day polls are purely reactionary rather than scientific.

I'm not quite convinced that Senatorial race's are influenced by a Presidential debate. They can, but not as drastic as the Presidential race can sway in polling. Not that this matters - just throwing it out there, Obama leads my state by +12, but a Republican Senatorial nominee has been in the lead. It's crazy how that works but Republican's in the NorthEast are so much more moderate, they are so much more sane, I'd vote for them as well.

Then again, that's exactly who Romney was in Mass before he started to switch his agenda to run for President years ago.

 

[essential1]

I'm not quite convinced that Senatorial race's are influenced by a Presidential debate. They can, but not as drastic as the Presidential race can sway in polling. Not that this matters - just throwing it out there, Obama leads my state by +12, but a Republican Senatorial nominee has been in the lead. It's crazy how that works but Republican's in the NorthEast are so much more moderate, they are so much more sane, I'd vote for them as well.
Then again, that's exactly who Romney was in Mass before he started to switch his agenda to run for President years ago.

You're right.. It's not 100% linked.. BUT, you would expect a large swing that is being reported may have a slight effect on the Senate race. Not in the same manner, but maybe a point. maybe two..

 

[Master Zik]

Damn I've been getting gish galloped on this site for a hot minute.

 

[Coupé It]

Jon Stewart vs Bill O'Reilly debate btw, heads up.

 

[thejrob]

^ I can't get it to load on my comp and I paid

 

[Coupé It]

^ I can't get it to load on my comp and I paid

Yea man, I've been trying to order it since 8:00. Was there a deadline? It's not even bringing me to the site.

 

[futuremd]

Yes. He lied.. But Putty what you don't get, Obama lost because he rarely called him out... And when he did he backed down if Romney responded..

Unless you say THAT'S NOT TRUE! Here's why... You are not giving American's a reason to believe you... They don't know the facts. They go by what they hear in the debate..

Obama lost.. Because he just sat there.... As Romney lied... He didn't once say what the cut of Medicare Advantage did as opposed to people thinking he just stole $716 billion. He never brought up the 47%. Never pushed on the absurdity of Romney not only saying he wouldn't massively cut taxes for the rich (In truth 48% of the $5 trillion in tax cuts goes to the top 5%. He only slightly pushed Romney on not paying for it..

Never pushed Romney on saying we deal with the uninsured successfully through ER Care, and that it not only isn't effective , it hits those with insurance's pocket. Didn't question Romney on his state right's ******** saying RomneyCare = Awesome in Massachusetts.... ObamaCare = Yes it's the same, but is killing the country because it's at a National Level..

Never pounced on Romney saying he believes we need more and better teachers.. When he explicitly said WE DON'T NEED MORE TEACHERS.

It happened the entire night..

HE LOST.

Not because he didn't have more substance.. He lost because he didn't distinguish between substance and pure theatrics of lying.. Making it seem as Romney not only had facts, but presented it in a great manner.

Is that all that matters to you?

If not, you really must not understand why I don't accept this premise...or rather excuse.

 

[essential1]

Is that all that matters to you?

If not, you really must not understand why I don't accept this premise...or rather excuse.

No but I'm not an idiot, and understand how politics works..

I've read about a dozen pages of this, and I'm shocked at how dense you are that you don't get why he lost...

I agree that Style shouldn't be valued over Substance.. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IT IS.. And the quicker you realize it, the faster you stop looking like a child.

When Pro-Romney, and even Pro-Obama voters (like myself) both are indicating how insanely childish you are by not accepting what happened, shows when you've gone down the wrong path and are trying to make what you wish to be, what it is.

Wednesday afternoon Obama had his foot on Romney's throat.. It was Over.. His terrible debate now has given Republicans life, and it's a new race.

Rather than argue with it with you for 10 more pages, I'm going to not say another word about it because it's laughable how you refuse to admit Romney won the debate.