Presidential debate 1

[Adam Of Angels]

@0_Canada
"Why, Mister President, is your spending on cannonballs THOUSANDS OF TIMES LESS than under Thomas Jefferson?" #RomneyMilitaryComplaints


@_gllz_
@HermelaLA @cenkuygur The Ethiopians have twice as many war elephants as us!! #romneymilitarycomplaints

 

[Thyber]

I saw a part of it, and all I heard was Romney repeating Obama?

 

[Thyber]

Thing I found funny was that on almost every statement that Romney agreed on with Obama, Mitt said "I'd do the same, but faster, earlier, higher, heavier and better"

 

[flint757]

Yes because the president has the magical ability to make bills go through each layer of congress faster and he totally has the power to make 'everyone' agree.

For a man who has worked in government he doesn't know a lot about how it functions.

 

[flint757]

You'd think he'd have to take a Government 101 class at some point.

President is only the last step in the process...

 

[Ryan-ZenGtr-]

Al Jazeera to broadcast the 3rd party candidates debate globally, after Gill Stein's arrest while protesting lack of media coverage.

Green party candidate Jill Stein's arrest highlights presidential debate stitch-up | Amy Goodman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk



Just saw this today as there is no mention of the existence of US politics outside the two prominent parties in the UK media.

Off to watch round: III O vs R...

 

[MrPepperoniNipples]

You'd think he'd have to take a Government 101 class at some point.

President is only the last step in the process...

This is the reason that gary johnson and ron paul supports irritate the shit out of me when they say johnson or paul would fix everything and get everything just fantastic.

as if the president really runs the damn country.
and if congress would give two shits about what they have to say.

and if I hear one more upper-middle class teenage "lax bro" say their "policy is liberty" i'm gonna go off on someone.

 

[synrgy]

I got into a ridiculous back-and-forth with an old acquaintance on FB, today. I posted the same op-ed Mitt Romney wrote in 2008 that I posted a page ago in this thread, along with my own comment that the predictions he made in the article proved incorrect. It was like talking to a politician, all day long.

Opening paragraph of the article reads as follows:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

So, this guy spent all day trying to convince me that Romney wasn't wrong because - separately from the above prediction - he goes on to say the industry needs to change. Related, this guy somehow misses that Romney also says that if the bailout happens, the industry won't change; further clarification of the idea behind the prediction quoted above.

So, I just kept hammering on the one thing: "Was Romney correct when he said that the industry would collapse if we bailed it out?" and he just absolutely refused to answer it. He'd ramble on and on about how the unrelated ideas in the article somehow made Romney correct, while completely refusing to answer the simple question.

Anyway, I was close to cut-pasting the whole damn interaction here, but then I realized I'm supposed to be an adult, so I decided to summarize it, instead?

I just don't get it. Romney chose to go with blatant hyperbole, and now that it's biting him in the ass, he and all his supporters seem to think they can rewrite history only a few years after the fact. I mean, sure, DUH: We couldn't just keep cranking out Suburbans and Hummers forever. That Captain-Obvious observation doesn't nullify the Fear Campaign prediction the entire article is predicated upon, does it? Am I being irrational?

 

[YngwieJ]

Don't forget to watch the third party debate tonight. They're speaking to candidates now and will be holding the debate at 9ET.

Third Party Presidential Debate - YouTube!