shaun.lawson Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 This question on Libya is very dangerous for Obama. Very dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The one thing that always ****s me off is the "gas" price argument. Do these people seriously think the President has any control over the pump price? Or should have, more to the point?? Actually, the one country that can influence that is the US, since the oil price is in US $. For starters, Ben could turn off the helicopter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Good point - and of course gas is cheap in comparison with many other countries - just not cheap versus historical US prices. Anyway - get it pumped. US production of oil is sky-rocketing. But EOG, Exxon, Chevron etc. couldn't give a shit who they sell it to- crude goes to the highest bidder. End of story. Does these people want a PdVSA equivalent set up here? At the same time as "small government"? Republicanoids are just a mess of contradictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Actually, the one country that can influence that is the US, since the oil price is in US $. Nah, not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 But Romney's not really nailed his response, and has totally overstepped his bounds on the Middle East. ... And Obama's really nailed his. Oooh Mittens, what have you just done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalamazoo Jambo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 But Romney's not really nailed his response, and has totally overstepped his bounds on the Middle East. ... And Obama's really nailed his. Oooh Mittens, what have you just done? Well, that didn't go too well for Romney, did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well, that didn't go too well for Romney, did it? Cue allegations from the Romney campaign tomorrow of disgraceful pro-Obama bias on the part of a moderator who is actually doing her job properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Obama can't completely call him out on that though. Because, um, just like New Labour, he cut taxes and (unsuccessfully) tried to balance the budget too. Quite right. I'm not an economist but my understanding is quite a high percentage of taxation goes to service the enormous debts of the USA. I'm also led to believe that as Clinton left office the US were on the way to paying it all off by 2010 so if Gore had been elected, perhaps they'd have paid it off by now. My point is, with the debt paid off, the American people would all get a permanent tax cut with the removal of a large part of the budget. (I could be talking complete pish with that) The point is the Republicans could deliver the tax cuts they love so much and afford them if they had the ability to look beyond the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Romney pouring on the religious chat in his closing speech. I didn't see all of it but Obama looked a clear winner to me from what I did see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Nah, not really. QE doesn't create higher commodity prices? Ok then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Quite right. I'm not an economist but my understanding is quite a high percentage of taxation goes to service the enormous debts of the USA. I'm also led to believe that as Clinton left office the US were on the way to paying it all off by 2010 so if Gore had been elected, perhaps they'd have paid it off by now. My point is, with the debt paid off, the American people would all get a permanent tax cut with the removal of a large part of the budget. (I could be talking complete pish with that) The point is the Republicans could deliver the tax cuts they love so much and afford them if they had the ability to look beyond the short term. I dunno if it's quite that simple tbh. My view of the Clinton Presidency is that the shit had already been shovelled through - by Bush 41, who wrote his own suicide note in his 1988 campaign with "Read my lips! No new taxes!", but is in fact one of the most underrated Presidents ever, and the last in any way liberal Republican one. Clinton (the most overrated modern day President by a country mile) thus inherited a golden economic legacy; yet by 2000, the US was literally just about to head back into recession when Bush Jr took charge, meaning he got all the blame for what followed. I'd also argue that the Democrats, not the Republicans, were far and away the most responsible for the credit crunch: because it was Clinton's policies which forced lenders to lend to people who literally had nothing; even to allow them to buy houses, despite having nothing to secure them against! So within that context, that the Dems have a recent reputation for being much better with the public finances and economy is probably very unfair. But all that said - Obama is, by a very long way, the more honourable, smarter man, with much better, comprehensive, properly thought through policies. Crucially, he believes in the common good in a way probably no modern day, sun belt Republican ever will. Meanwhile, I think Romney has run by some distance the most negative, cynical, out and out lying campaign in history. To him, actual facts seem like an optional extra - and his policies would be a disaster. Tonight's gone a decent way towards exposing that, thank heavens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QE doesn't create higher commodity prices? Ok then... Did i say that? It was your assertion that the US is the only country that can influence crude prices that i dont agree with. As a country, in the crude market they are a price taker, not a price maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well, Mr President actually turned up for this one. A clear win for Obama this time, I feel - as far as the candidates go. I thought Candy Crowley was a fantastic moderator, even better than Raddatz. Jim Lehrer take note. Obama finally went on the offensive; and it worked. Romney was rattled at times. The section on Romney's tax plan was particularly effective - "his maths doesn't add up." Can't believe that it took until the tail end of the debate for Barry-O to mention the 47% video though. The biggest moment by far, though, was Romney's blunder on Libya. That moment will be on the news bulletins tomorrow. That was Romney's Fernando Torres moment - missing an open goal. He even had an Al Gore moment, too, when he confronted the President over his pension. "[mine] is not as big as yours." These are the moments that will stick in people's minds. It was incredibly disappointing, though, that none of them committed to a federal ban on automatic weapons. Also disappointing, on a personal note, that only around ten minutes on FP. That probably is because it was a town hall debate; the state of the economy is a much bigger issue for voters than FP. Over the next few days, I am expecting a poll boost for the President. The instant reactions of the Intrade and Betfair markets was a narrowing on Obama's odds, and the lengthening of Romney's. So, let the spinning begin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well, Mr President actually turned up for this one. A clear win for Obama this time, I feel - as far as the candidates go. I thought Candy Crowley was a fantastic moderator, even better than Raddatz. Jim Lehrer take note. Obama finally went on the offensive; and it worked. Romney was rattled at times. The section on Romney's tax plan was particularly effective - "his maths doesn't add up." Can't believe that it took until the tail end of the debate for Barry-O to mention the 47% video though. The biggest moment by far, though, was Romney's blunder on Libya. That moment will be on the news bulletins tomorrow. That was Romney's Fernando Torres moment - missing an open goal. He even had an Al Gore moment, too, when he confronted the President over his pension. "[mine] is not as big as yours." These are the moments that will stick in people's minds. It was incredibly disappointing, though, that none of them committed to a federal ban on automatic weapons. Also disappointing, on a personal note, that only around ten minutes on FP. That probably is because it was a town hall debate; the state of the economy is a much bigger issue for voters than FP. Over the next few days, I am expecting a poll boost for the President. The instant reactions of the Intrade and Betfair markets was a narrowing on Obama's odds, and the lengthening of Romney's. So, let the spinning begin! FP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 CBS poll on who won the debate: Obama 37%; Romney 30%; Tie 33%. FP? Foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Oh, I nearly forgot Mitt's "binders full of women." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 FP? Foreign policy. Sigurosson, bless him, seems to have missed that the modern day Democratic Party really don't do genuinely left wing/liberal issues either any more. It's all about the "middle class", you see - doesn't anyone else exist? Though I could not believe it when Romney described himself as believing in "100% of the American people" in his closing comments. Way to literally invite the inevitable 47% riposte to rein down upon you, Mittens! Though of course, the reason that the 47% thing resonates so much - and could well be the comment that loses Romney the election - is because in his case, it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 CBS poll on who won the debate: Obama 37%; Romney 30%; Tie 33%. Foreign policy. I think the debates have different themes, and that might have been a focus in the last one? Maybe not. I'm away to walk the dog down my street, where my house is pretty much the only one without a pro- Republican sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Did i say that? It was your assertion that the US is the only country that can influence crude prices that i dont agree with. As a country, in the crude market they are a price taker, not a price maker. I never said it was the only country. I said it was more influential than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Sigurosson, bless him, seems to have missed that the modern day Democratic Party really don't do genuinely left wing/liberal issues either any more. It's all about the "middle class", you see - doesn't anyone else exist? Though I could not believe it when Romney described himself as believing in "100% of the American people" in his closing comments. Way to literally invite the inevitable 47% riposte to rein down upon you, Mittens! Though of course, the reason that resonates so much - and could well be the comment that loses Romney the election - is because it's true. Yahtzee, Shaun. The question about misconceptions of the candidates sums this up. The free market has kittens and rainbows coming out of its arse, according to both candidates. Corporation tax cut, Barack and Mitt agree. I really feel for the true progressives out there in America. Actually, here in Britain, it is certainly arguable that the Labour Party is heading in this direction, or has even arrived at this destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I never said it was the only country. I said it was more influential than most. Ok, I misinterpreted the "Actually, the one country that can influence that" bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Yahtzee, Shaun. The question about misconceptions of the candidates sums this up. The free market has kittens and rainbows coming out of its arse, according to both candidates. Corporation tax cut, Barack and Mitt agree. I really feel for the true progressives out there in America. Actually, here in Britain, it is certainly arguable that the Labour Party is heading in this direction, or has even arrived at this destination. In my opinion, on many issues there's little between any of the electable parties on either side of the pond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Ok, I misinterpreted the "Actually, the one country that can influence that" bit. No probs. I should have been clearer too as I was referring to market distortions rather than oil supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Walker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 excuse my cynicism / realism (?)... Do people on this thread actually believe that there is any significant difference between the 2 parties / candidates ? Or that Goldman Sucks and the other banksters don't really finance / influence campaigns / policies / actions on both sides ? How did we get the GFC and who bailed out who(m) ? DYOR Politicians are (generally) puppets and those behind the scenes / banksters also have significant influence over the media again DYOR IMHO these debates are just entertainment / distractions for the sheeple. Yours in 'question Mainstream Media reporting / polls / etc before simply accepting them' TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalamazoo Jambo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 excuse my cynicism / realism (?)... Do people on this thread actually believe that there is any significant difference between the 2 parties / candidates ? Yes, thanks for asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Walker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Yes, thanks for asking ..and thanks for replying. So what do you think is significant ? Best TW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalamazoo Jambo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 ..and thanks for replying. So what do you think is significant ? Best TW The Republican party has had a dramatic shift to the right over the last seven years or so, largely due to the influence of the Tea Party within its ranks - emphasis on low (or no) taxes, small government and Christian conservative social values, but taken to extreme positions. This has widened the gap between the parties, as any Republican presidential candidate has to retain support of the Tea Party base. Off the top of my head, issues where there are fundamental differences between the parties include healthcare, taxation, the role of regulation in business, and 'social' issues such as abortion and gay rights (a Republican president would never have fought for the repeal of don't ask don't tell due to the need to pander to social conservaties). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Was just glad to see Obama rediscover he had a pair of testicles. Romney's a surprisingly competent debater (and truth-stretcher), but thankfully Obama saw him off comfortably last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freebird Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Gordons Gloves Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I watched this last night, well, i say watched it when in actual fact i shouted and swore at the TV a few times and also posted crap in twitter. Couple of points - Crowley was not that great a moderator, she tried to keep them under control but didn't continue to shut them up, additionally - she should never have allowed herself to be seen to agree with Obama by pointing out to Romney that he was wrong about the Libya statement. Overall though, not as bad as the first moderator. The continual talk of middle class is because thats where most americans believe themselves to be or want to be if they are 'working class'. It's the American dream, to own a house in a low crime area, surrounded by people just like you while being able to pay for things such as college or medical bills without having to sacrifice elsewhere. Obama won that debate last night, but to be honest neither of them are doing well at 'exciting' the voters. Clinton could have sat in his stool last night, smoking a fat cuban cigar, drinking a beer with a leggy lovely on his knee and he would still have wiped the floor with Romney. Also, wtf has Romney got against China? That's him and Ryan constantly refering to when China steps out of line they'll sort them out. He even went on about fake Apple stores in China. As my wife posted on FB, god help Glasgow if Mitt finds out about the Barras market. Romney was also talking shite about gas prices, it was $1.86 a gallon 4 years ago, it was closer to $2.50. Obama will still win this election, it will be tight but unless something bad happens, he's getting another 4 years. I just hope that the next 4 years are slightly more productive than the first 4 years. When he came to office i was pleased, a change from the norm that had been going on, yet despite bringing in Obamacare (which i don't really understand tbh) and killing Bin Laden he hasn't delivered. Yes, there have been blocks by a republican congress and senate and my mortgage rate is the lowest i have ever had it but i can't see a huge amount of difference in the past 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Couple of points - Crowley was not that great a moderator, she tried to keep them under control but didn't continue to shut them up, additionally - she should never have allowed herself to be seen to agree with Obama by pointing out to Romney that he was wrong about the Libya statement. Overall though, not as bad as the first moderator. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWK0GMGIjJI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I've watched most of the debate and it was a clear Obama win. He clearly needed some kind of rocket up his erse and it seems to have done the trick. He managed to combat Romney pretty well and called him out on the things that he needed to do - which left Mittens clearly raging (his dummy being spat on a number of occasions was fairly comical) and fairly unable to raise his game. Romney's need to waste part of one of his two minutes answering a previous question, because he wasnt able to retort, even though that wasnt in the debate rules, showed him to be struggling and clearly P O'd. His continual going over the same point (which Obama did too to a certain extent), left him looking short of ideas and short of any explanations of how his five point plan (et al) was going to be implemented. Both he and Ryan, when challenged, always look like 'how dare you', which isnt impressive in the slightest. TBF though, the best KO he got was from the woman who posed the question about Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The one thing that always ****s me off is the "gas" price argument. Do these people seriously think the President has any control over the pump price? Or should have, more to the point?? Americans for Prosperity, the pro-Romney Super Pac founded by the Koch Brothers and other energy moguls, is offering motorists in St Louis the chance to fill up their cars for $1.84 a gallon tomorrow - the average price in January 2009 when Obama took office. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/kevin-mcdermott/gas-briefly-coming-to-st-louis-friday-courtesy-of-koch/article_7b66fad6-18aa-11e2-80fe-0019bb30f31a.html wonder if the next installment of the Koch brothers nostalgia series will offer former investment bankers the chance to partake in a sponsored walk through lower Manhattan carrying their desk contents in a cardboard box. Each participant will be provided with a two gallons of a highly caffeinated energy drinks to help recreate the heart palpitations and lingering sense of dread. Those were the days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 wonder if the next installment of the Koch brothers nostalgia series will offer former investment bankers the chance to partake in a sponsored walk through lower Manhattan carrying their desk contents in a cardboard box. Each participant will be provided with a two gallons of a highly caffeinated energy drinks to help recreate the heart palpitations and lingering sense of dread. Those were the days... Any news on the polls since the latest debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Americans for Prosperity, the pro-Romney Super Pac founded by the Koch Brothers and other energy moguls, is offering motorists in St Louis the chance to fill up their cars for $1.84 a gallon tomorrow - the average price in January 2009 when Obama took office. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/kevin-mcdermott/gas-briefly-coming-to-st-louis-friday-courtesy-of-koch/article_7b66fad6-18aa-11e2-80fe-0019bb30f31a.html wonder if the next installment of the Koch brothers nostalgia series will offer former investment bankers the chance to partake in a sponsored walk through lower Manhattan carrying their desk contents in a cardboard box. Each participant will be provided with a two gallons of a highly caffeinated energy drinks to help recreate the heart palpitations and lingering sense of dread. Those were the days... I've met a guy who ran oil and gas operations for Koch in a specific country. Entertainig chape but nothing suggested to me that he, or his company, was in the business to try and supply the US with cheap petrol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Any news on the polls since the latest debate? Not as yet. Initial reactions suggested that a small majority thought Obama came out ahead in the second debate, but it will take another day or so before any effect - assuming there is one - begins to show on opinion poll fieldwork. Romney's improvement in tracking polls only began two days after the debate, and peaked about five more days after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gards Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Obama just came out with what could be the 'buzzword' everyone will tag Romney with.....Romnesia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Obama just came out with what could be the 'buzzword' everyone will tag Romney with.....Romnesia! He's hitting his stride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Obama just came out with what could be the 'buzzword' everyone will tag Romney with.....Romnesia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 He's hitting his stride. He needs too, because this time he's up against a good couple of campaigners as opposed to the loose cannons of the GOP 2008 ticket - and the race is tightening ominously for Obama. In RCP's tracking national poll, Obama edged marginally in front today, for the first time since a little over two weeks ago. That'll be good news for him. But on the other hand in State polls, there is now a fair amount of evidence that Romney is overcoming his biggest problem, namely that his vote was improving best in what were already red states. RCP's electoral college projection is now the closest it has been in the campaign, showing Obama likely to win 277-261. If things keep going the way they are, this election might be decided by Wisconsin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Just like the Labour government gave up in the UK because they couldn't impose the austerity measures required and be true to their belief and principle. I find it difficult for the yanks to deal with a similar principle. Do the population of any country still believe that politicians have their best interests at heart. We vote for folk to do what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 He needs too, because this time he's up against a good couple of campaigners as opposed to the loose cannons of the GOP 2008 ticket - and the race is tightening ominously for Obama. In RCP's tracking national poll, Obama edged marginally in front today, for the first time since a little over two weeks ago. That'll be good news for him. But on the other hand in State polls, there is now a fair amount of evidence that Romney is overcoming his biggest problem, namely that his vote was improving best in what were already red states. RCP's electoral college projection is now the closest it has been in the campaign, showing Obama likely to win 277-261. If things keep going the way they are, this election might be decided by Wisconsin. Yep, I was alarmed on noting that earlier today too. But we're still only 3 days on from the last debate, meaning I expect things to look better for Obama over the next few days as it's completely factored into all the polls; and if you look at how Obama performed in Virginia, it'd just make no sense at all if he didn't win. Up to him to nail it down in the final debate - but "Romnesia"? It's funny because it's true, and you can be sure it'll stick. Meanwhile, caption competition: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yep, I was alarmed on noting that earlier today too. But we're still only 3 days on from the last debate, meaning I expect things to look better for Obama over the next few days as it's completely factored into all the polls; and if you look at how Obama performed in Virginia, it'd just make no sense at all if he didn't win. It's not happening, so far at any rate. Obama leads by 0.2 in RCP tracking. There is a "debate boost", but it is a lot smaller than the lift Romney got the first time. By the way, here's a telling newspaper editorial. Most papers endorse one candidate or the other in Presidential elections. On Friday, the Salt Lake Tribune published its candidate endorsement for the Presidential election. "Nowhere has Mitt Romney?s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah. The Republican nominee?s political and religious pedigrees, his adeptly bipartisan governorship of a Democratic state, and his head for business and the bottom line all inspire admiration and hope in our largely Mormon, Republican, business-friendly state." And yet..... http://www.sltrib.co...sident.html.csp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 It would be nice if this shameful statistic, which constitutes a national scandal, got even a passing mention in the debate. But of course, it won't. Figures courtesy of Unicef. Number 2 out of 35 economically advanced countries. Nice going. UK not exactly doing too well either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Shaun, what year are these stats taken from? Iceland being still 'top' of that chart would be some achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Shaun, what year are these stats taken from? Iceland being still 'top' of that chart would be some achievement. The full report is here: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf Most of the figures - especially those regarding European countries - are from 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Thought as much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Only in America could Romney have a chance of being president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.