By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Who won the debate? Romney or Obama?

 

Who won the debate?

President Barack Obama 220 34.65%
 
Governor Mitt Romney 265 41.73%
 
Nobody 141 22.20%
 
Total:626
Max King of the Wild on 04 October 2012

Xander one of Mitts promise was to do exactly what Obama didnt and that was to work with the other side



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 04 October 2012
Flanneryaug said:
Kasz216 said:
Flanneryaug said:
killerzX said:
Tigerlure said:

The debate was clearly in Romney's favor. Romney controlled the tone and tempo of the debate. Obama seemed like he didn't even want to be there. I was really surprised by how off Obama was, he barely called Mitt Romney out on many of his misleading and flat out false statements that Romney made. And Romney made plenty of them.

@bold

which were...?

Not going to make a list of them, but the most noticable one was denying that he wanted a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. He wants a 20% across the board tax cut, which would cost 4.8 trillion over 10 years. He also said that taxes wont go up on anyone, and that his tax plan would be revenue neutral, but that is impossible. You cant cut taxes on someone, and not raise them on someone else, and keep it balanced.

He didn't say revenue nuetral he said it wouldn't increase the deficit.  That's two different things.

So if it is not going to increase the deficit, that means that somehow cutting taxes will increase, or not change the amount of revenue. That is impossible. The only way it could be considered possible is if cutting taxes somehow resulted in a dramatic increase of jobs, which the Bush era showed doesnt work.

Or you could cut government spending.   10 -12 = a 2 point deficit.    8-10 = also a -2 point deficit.

Combine that with removing regulations that makes job creation easier... and.....



Max King of the Wild on 04 October 2012

Mitt said he wanted to make the government more efficient. merge some departments and cut others. Being a business man it would make sense Mitt sees it like that.



Flanneryaug on 04 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
Flanneryaug said:
Kasz216 said:
Flanneryaug said:
killerzX said:
Tigerlure said:

The debate was clearly in Romney's favor. Romney controlled the tone and tempo of the debate. Obama seemed like he didn't even want to be there. I was really surprised by how off Obama was, he barely called Mitt Romney out on many of his misleading and flat out false statements that Romney made. And Romney made plenty of them.

@bold

which were...?

Not going to make a list of them, but the most noticable one was denying that he wanted a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. He wants a 20% across the board tax cut, which would cost 4.8 trillion over 10 years. He also said that taxes wont go up on anyone, and that his tax plan would be revenue neutral, but that is impossible. You cant cut taxes on someone, and not raise them on someone else, and keep it balanced.

He didn't say revenue nuetral he said it wouldn't increase the deficit.  That's two different things.

So if it is not going to increase the deficit, that means that somehow cutting taxes will increase, or not change the amount of revenue. That is impossible. The only way it could be considered possible is if cutting taxes somehow resulted in a dramatic increase of jobs, which the Bush era showed doesnt work.

Or you could cut government spending. 

If we keep cutting government spending every time a politician wants to cut taxes to help them get elected, eventually we will have no government.



Nintendo Network ID: Flanneryaug

Friend Code: 4699 - 6552 - 3671

Add me! :)

Coca-Cola on 04 October 2012

They should just cancel the debates now. especially the v.p. debate coming up.
Obama is up on the polls - just cancel the debates.



Around the Network
killerzX on 04 October 2012
Flanneryaug said:
Kasz216 said:
Flanneryaug said:
Kasz216 said:
Flanneryaug said:
killerzX said:
Tigerlure said:

 



Or you could cut government spending. 

If we keep cutting government spending every time a politician wants to cut taxes to help them get elected, eventually we will have no government.

we can only hope.



Kasz216 on 04 October 2012
Flanneryaug said:
Kasz216 said:
Flanneryaug said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

So if it is not going to increase the deficit, that means that somehow cutting taxes will increase, or not change the amount of revenue. That is impossible. The only way it could be considered possible is if cutting taxes somehow resulted in a dramatic increase of jobs, which the Bush era showed doesnt work.

Or you could cut government spending. 

If we keep cutting government spending every time a politician wants to cut taxes to help them get elected, eventually we will have no government.

Which I guess would be a point if it wasn't for the fact that government spending has rapidly increased, constnatly, and not really ever been cut. 

I mean... no offense but get a little bit informed on the matter... some cutting would be FAR from "no government."

 



Blacksaber on 04 October 2012

Neither won, love was what won last night.



Former something....

richardhutnik on 04 October 2012
BenVTrigger said:
Now Khan I do 100% agree with you about the experience thing. Its insane to me how high even entry level job requirements currently are. Not to mention the fact that a college degree is basically a requirement now and our college system is a complete scam.

The current employment system is based around debt enslavement.  Something is going to end up snapping here.



kaneada on 04 October 2012
gergroy said:
kaneada said:
gergroy said:
kaneada said:

The breakdown as I see it:

Romney was nervous the entire time constantly trying to over defend his points...not that he any real good ones...just recycling the Republican Bravado that has been more than debunked by fact checkers.

Obama hammering on that 5 trillion dollar tax cut borders on rediculous...While I agree that Romney needs to define the loop holes and the deductions he claims will cover the cost of this, it just made Obama sound like a broken record...Overall I do think that Obama's tax plan will be more effective in the long run at this point...I personally I want to see Romney's plan on paper and see how he can possibly make up the difference 5 trillion + 2 trillion in military spending using loop holes and deductions alone...

Overall both performed horribly...Romney being too defensive and Obama was clearly overconfident.

interesting, it seemed to me that Obama was on the defense most of the time.  Comparing Romney's performance to his primary debates, I think Romney may have had the best debate of his life.  

In the end though, I think they performed about the same, but I have to give kudo's to Romney for huge improvements.  


How could he possibly be on the defensive when Obama looked like a heroin addict nodding off the entire time?

My reasons behind stating Romney was being defensive is simply his bulying of the moderator the entire time.

they both talked over the moderator about the same amount of times.  In the end, Obama ended up with almost 5 minutes more of speaking time than romney did.  I say Obama was on the defensive more because of the actual words they were speaking.  Obama was defending his policies a lot more than romney was defending his own.  Romney also threw out more attacks at Obama than vice versa.  

Romney wasn't defensive, he was agressive, that is what you were noticing.  There is a very large difference.  

I disagree wtih your definition of aggressive...using distractions, such as pointing the presidents record out ad nauseum in an effort to mask that you have no actual solutions of your own (anything he did offer was abstract at best), is more of a tactical retreat and is therefore defensive behavior.



-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.