Who won the debate? | |||
| President Barack Obama | 220 | 34.65% | |
| Governor Mitt Romney | 265 | 41.73% | |
| Nobody | 141 | 22.20% | |
| Total: | 626 | ||
I found this pic, i thought it was pretty funny
drkohler said:
Actually that was the dumbest argument in the whole debate. Assuming that $90b argument is even true (doubtful as pretty much every number was false in the debate), what are you going to do with your 2m teachers the year after you hired them (you just spent the whole money for one year...)? It was interesting to watch the "debate" as a European. Not because the debate was interesting (from its contents and layout it was total crap), but because of how the two guys behaved. Hillarious how they both frantically shook hands at the beginning, neither one willing to stop shaking the other guy's hand (because the underlings told them it would "look bad if you let go first"). Then we had Romney saying absolutely nothing of value during the debate (expected as he hasn't said anything of interest in the past 18 months except when caught off-guard), and Obama completely unable to understand (and recover afterwards) that he got owned by Romney's reply to his assumingly wedding day opening zinger (it was completely clear that Ronmey had expected that opener and was prepared). From that moment on it was downhill for Obama for the rest of the evening - not quite unexpected as his re-election staff basically seems to consists entirely of yess-sayers and Obama-worshippers. I'd assume this debate goes into the books as another "unshaved Nixon debate" example. Lastly, I'm still amazed that the race still is open. With the economic situation (and the short attention span of the average american) , it should be easy for _anyone_ to beat Obama. |
I find it so fascinating that people of other nations would watch our presidential debates. I think this is a fundamental difference between the US and other countries. There is a reason 2/3 of Americans 18-24 cannot find Iraq on a map. It all starts with education, and we are taught (IMO) that other countries have no impact on us. It is very sad.
Glad we agree that Obama is detrimental to the US. (The average American scares the hell out of me.)
Kasz216 said:
Because most people think they are in the Middle Class, most people between say... 25,000 and 200,000 will say they're middle class. (guestimatied numbers) |
that's just stupid, $25,000 a year is poor in my view, above $50,000 or $60,000 is the middle class in my view. They need to help the poor first in my view, especially the homeless and unemployed
Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)
'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin
Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030
the2real4mafol said:
that's just stupid, $25,000 a year is poor in my view, above $50,000 or $60,000 is the middle class in my view. They need to help the poor first in my view, especially the homeless and unemployed |
Kasz is (essentially) right ...
I remember it being discussed in a few courses in University, and most people who earn more than (roughly) $25,000 per year and less than (roughly) $1,000,000 per year consider themselves middle class.
Now, I would argue that $25,000 per year is middle class for a large portion of the people earning that amount. If you're young (under 25) and single and earning $25,000 it is probably fair to say you're middle class, but if you're over 30 and you're married with children and your income is $25,000 it is probably fair to say that you're poor.
| dsgrue3 said: Glad we agree that Obama is detrimental to the US. (The average American scares the hell out of me.) |
Never did I imply that. Obama had wrong right ideas when he started, je waas right in many ways. Unfortunately he also had a massive economical burden tacked on his back and the wrong skin coulour for Americans. Tie that with a republican party that essentially refused to do any work in Congress for years (easy to understand as they can only win the next term if the economy stays bad). The inability of Obama to react to criticism added to the situation we have now in the States. Disfunctional politicians everywhere and tons of right wing nuts - it's just interesting to watch as an outsider.
drkohler - playing the race card... hilarious... he wasn't appointed he was elected by 70 million citizens. If he was the wrong skin color that would have never happened. Also, Obama had a democratic super majority in congress his first year and still didn't accomplish anything. Can't blame that on the republicans
HappySqurriel said:
Kasz is (essentially) right ... I remember it being discussed in a few courses in University, and most people who earn more than (roughly) $25,000 per year and less than (roughly) $1,000,000 per year consider themselves middle class. Now, I would argue that $25,000 per year is middle class for a large portion of the people earning that amount. If you're young (under 25) and single and earning $25,000 it is probably fair to say you're middle class, but if you're over 30 and you're married with children and your income is $25,000 it is probably fair to say that you're poor. |
Ok I agree for the most part, but a million dollars a year, that's rich, not middle class, even half a million i would consider rich
Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)
'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin
Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030
drkohler said:
Never did I imply that. Obama had wrong right ideas when he started, je waas right in many ways. Unfortunately he also had a massive economical burden tacked on his back and the wrong skin coulour for Americans. Tie that with a republican party that essentially refused to do any work in Congress for years (easy to understand as they can only win the next term if the economy stays bad). The inability of Obama to react to criticism added to the situation we have now in the States. Disfunctional politicians everywhere and tons of right wing nuts - it's just interesting to watch as an outsider. |
Plenty of "nuts" on both sides of the aisle.
"Lastly, I'm still amazed that the race still is open. With the economic situation (and the short attention span of the average american) , it should be easy for _anyone_ to beat Obama."
I apologize if you did not intend to imply that Obama was detrimental, but the above quotation is what resulted in my conclusion.
Don't let the media fool you, neither side has been budging on issues in Congress. The president has still not passed a single budget while in office.
Obama has few good ideas, but ideas don't help us. Actions do. Legislation does. Compromise does.
dsgrue3 said:
Plenty of "nuts" on both sides of the aisle. "Lastly, I'm still amazed that the race still is open. With the economic situation (and the short attention span of the average american) , it should be easy for _anyone_ to beat Obama." I apologize if you did not intend to imply that Obama was detrimental, but the above quotation is what resulted in my conclusion. Don't let the media fool you, neither side has been budging on issues in Congress. The president has still not passed a single budget while in office. Obama has few good ideas, but ideas don't help us. Actions do. Legislation does. Compromise does. |
Arguably "anyone should be able to beat Obama" the same way "anyone should of been able to beat Bush in 2004". The problem is that just assuming that anyone can, and merely running a candidate who isn't the current president is likely to not close the deal. The issue with the Republicans is that it continues to be rewarmed promises that echo Reagan. To run for office on a policy that the policies of the office is the problem, and you want it to do less, is like campaigning for a CEO position with a company, saying corporations are the problem, and we need less of them. If the problem is doing things through government, then why they heck are you IN government? You can say you want it done smarter, but not done less, and continue to campaign on such. The problem is the moment you get into specifics, you end up ticking people off who like aspects of the government. If you want to see this problem unfold, look at how Mitt Romney is campaigning. You end up targeting small stuff like PBS, that actually does provide some value (probably better in the age of cable to let it go and do its own thing), but it won't systemically address anything.
But, the problems are very large now, and no one really has solutions. You have the GOP keeping on channeling the spirit of Reagan, and the Democrats longing to have FDR and Keynes manifest.
Why didn't they talk about foreign policy, the military and other topics? Are they saved for future debates?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
