2012 Presidential Debate Thread - Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Ryan - October 3rd-22nd: Live 9 PM EST Toni - Polidicks

A neat thing that Obama did do was say that, he's looking to raise his own class's taxes. To show he isn't attacking some one else, but his own group of wealthy citizens.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;38147397]How is Obama demonizing wealthy people? Where are you getting these "us vs them" vibes? Who even is us and them in this equation? Why do you think a fairly wealthy president is trying to make wealth seem terrible to have?[/QUOTE] President Obama keeps on about the rich paying their fair share when nearly half of the country doesn't pay income tax. I know that includes seniors on social security and the military, and they have done their part, and that it is hard to pay income tax when you haven't a job with which to produce income, however expecting the top earners to cover everyone's part isn't the most stable idea, and neither is burdening the middle class. Obama projects an image of Boss Tweed like figures on Wall Street while gaining financial support for his campaign from them, which would be ok if it wasn't hypocritical. As far as the us vs them, with us being the not über rich, his or his administration's support for Occupy Wall Street, which from some of the signs had an "eat the rich" mentality, furthered the right leaning people's crying out of class warfare, and I can not fully disagree. I will concede that the banks and corporations screwed the pooch in 2008. They should realize that and be ashamed. In a totally free market system, they should have failed. Bush was an idiot when he said they would have to break the rules of the free market system to fix it, but how is Obama better when his economic policies continue on the same path? It may be extreme to say it resembles a command economy, but I don't know what else to call government intrusion into the market place. Do I think that Obama is the Kenyan antichrist socialist commie nazi? No, but do I think his policies will stretch out the economic slump? Yes, but I can be proven wrong.

So. The right is calling Obama using the technology card an unfair attack. Yeah, sure. I think it's safe to say that it's easier to have a couple of aircraft carriers and just launch a plane from 50 miles away, than to have a lot of battleships and get within 2 km to launch a 50 pound shell at the enemy. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] And we have cruise missiles too. A modern destroyer with cruise missiles is way more efficient than a WW2 battleship.

[QUOTE=Nikota;38148171]So. The right is calling Obama using the technology card an unfair attack. Yeah, sure. I think it's safe to say that it's easier to have a couple of aircraft carriers and just launch a plane from 50 miles away, than to have a lot of battleships and get within 2 km to launch a 50 pound shell at the enemy. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] And we have cruise missiles too. A modern destroyer with cruise missiles is way more efficient than a WW2 battleship.[/QUOTE] But 50 WW2 battleships are better than a modern destroyer all about numbers, nikota. get your shit together

[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;38144684]the economy was damaged way beyond what 4 years are able able to fix hell, 8 years won't completely bring it back either[/QUOTE] Yeah a lot of Americans and everyone needs to understand that. Understandable its hard and people are struggling but it can't be fixed over night, and just look at Europe there not getting any better.

So CNN is fucking hilarious now. Right now they are saying that a lot of voters can't tell the difference between president obama and romney. Maybe it's because Romney is trying to not look like a fucking psychopath. In the future, historians are going to look back and accuse Romney of mental illness. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] CNN has a general with the first name of Spider being interviewed right now. General Spider Marks. What a fucking awesome first name.

[QUOTE=Nikota;38148283]So CNN is fucking hilarious now. Right now they are saying that a lot of voters can't tell the difference between president obama and romney. Maybe it's because Romney is trying to not look like a fucking psychopath. In the future, historians are going to look back and accuse Romney of mental illness. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] CNN has a general with the first name of Spider being interviewed right now. General Spider Marks. What a fucking awesome first name.[/QUOTE] CNN is my go-to source for lazy, sensationalist bipartisan hackery. Nothing says journalism like getting the quotes from the Democrats and Republicans and reading them verbatim without challenging them or intellectually questioning them at all.

They're like Fox news depending on the hour. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] General Spider. Seriously awesome name. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] Oh nevermind. CNN was just using his nickname as his actual name. How the fuck can you make a mistake like that.

I'm sorry guys. I just can't watch this anymore. It's so embarassing. This is turning into an open version of NK. "We arr the best at everything! Just watch us crush global statistics in ignoring the obvious!"

You're unamerican if you think we should help the poor. That's socialism! [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] Also, the libya attack was Obama's fault. This is terrible fucking logic. That's like saying 9/11 was Bush's fault. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] So when describing Romney. CNN said that "It is hard to nail jello to a wall"

[QUOTE=Nikota;38148387]You're unamerican if you think we should help the poor. That's socialism! [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] Also, the libya attack was Obama's fault. This is terrible fucking logic. That's like saying 9/11 was Bush's fault.[/QUOTE] bush's administration had [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0"]prior knowledge[/URL] of potential major attacks in advance, though obviously nobody would know exactly what was being planned so it's kind of out in left field whether he'd have been able to do anything anyways, so there's that on the flipside it was the state department who denied the embassy extra security when it was requested, though the security force apparently left the area in august so it might not have been there to help regardless whole thing's a mess

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;38147794]President Obama keeps on about the rich paying their fair share when nearly half of the country doesn't pay income tax. I know that includes seniors on social security and the military, and they have done their part, and that it is hard to pay income tax when you haven't a job with which to produce income, however expecting the top earners to cover everyone's part isn't the most stable idea, and neither is burdening the middle class. Obama projects an image of Boss Tweed like figures on Wall Street while gaining financial support for his campaign from them, which would be ok if it wasn't hypocritical. As far as the us vs them, with us being the not über rich, his or his administration's support for Occupy Wall Street, which from some of the signs had an "eat the rich" mentality, furthered the right leaning people's crying out of class warfare, and I can not fully disagree. I will concede that the banks and corporations screwed the pooch in 2008. They should realize that and be ashamed. In a totally free market system, they should have failed. Bush was an idiot when he said they would have to break the rules of the free market system to fix it, but how is Obama better when his economic policies continue on the same path? It may be extreme to say it resembles a command economy, but I don't know what else to call government intrusion into the market place. Do I think that Obama is the Kenyan antichrist socialist commie nazi? No, but do I think his policies will stretch out the economic slump? Yes, but I can be proven wrong.[/QUOTE] Half the population does not pay Federal Income taxes because they have to pay various State Taxes. The worst thing you can do in US politics is make something seem simple when it really is not. The Rich should at least pay a 40% tax rate. Which is nothing in the rest of the world.

The rich used to pay 90 percent tax :v:

[QUOTE=Nikota;38148973]The rich used to pay 90 percent tax :v:[/QUOTE] 94%, during WWII specifically. though I don't think they could have fathomed putting so much of that into the war as we put our money now

[QUOTE=Nikota;38148973]The rich used to pay 90 percent tax :v:[/QUOTE] I am aiming for 40 because it is attainable in this political environment. I would love to go back to 90 eventually.

We could try it again.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;38148652]bush's administration had [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0"]prior knowledge[/URL] of potential major attacks in advance, though obviously nobody would know exactly what was being planned so it's kind of out in left field whether he'd have been able to do anything anyways, so there's that on the flipside it was the state department who denied the embassy extra security when it was requested, though the security force apparently left the area in august so it might not have been there to help regardless whole thing's a mess[/QUOTE] If it was me I would have put the military on the streets, not sure if thats acceptable in the US though.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38152631]If it was me I would have put the military on the streets, not sure if thats acceptable in the US though.[/QUOTE] IIRC embassies have to keep their security inside the compound at all times, as it's technically american soil and it would probably be a bad idea to have armed personnel out patrolling around outside of a place ideally meant for peaceful connections to the country

[video=youtube;7AreTsuFUOs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AreTsuFUOs[/video]

You know when one of your presidential candidates is fucked up when the only country in the world that wants him in more than the other guy is Pakistan. [img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592043_worldservicepoll_464_romney_embargoed_23102012.gif[/img] [img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63592000/gif/_63592042_worldservicepoll_464_obama_embargoed23102012.gif[/img]

Pakistan approves Romney.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38154159]Pakistan approves Romney.[/QUOTE]That says something. I'm not quite sure what it says, but it says something.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38154501]That says something. I'm not quite sure what it says, but it says something.[/QUOTE] It obviously says that his volatile amounts of stupid in such a small place could have explosive ramifications.

Anyone watching the third party debates? Larry King forgot to do opening statements and just figured it out 24 minutes in apparently. :v: [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] Holy shit, Virgil Goode sounds just as stereotypically southern as his positions are. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] [url=http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/]Stream's here, by the way.[/url]

Honestly third parties are useless in the two-party system you guys live in. You're throwing away you're vote if you vote for them.

Yeah, but the third party debate seems much more like a debate instead of a dancing-around-the-question contest.

Thats because they have nothing to loose since they know they'll never be president.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;38157557]It's only a "two-party system" because the majority of people vote Dem or Repub If you'd like a third party to become relevant telling people to not vote for one is counterproductive[/QUOTE] Honestly I cannot imagine that a third party will ever catch on in the US, people are just too entrenched.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;38157557]It's only a "two-party system" because the majority of people vote Dem or Repub If you'd like a third party to become relevant telling people to not vote for one is counterproductive[/QUOTE] No, it's a two-party system because that's all our voting system will support. Say there were 3 parties. Republicans, Democrats, and lets say another Liberal Party. The votes of the left will be split down the middle between the Democrats and the Liberals come, while the Right will all go toward the Republican Party. This means that even with a majority of liberals, the conservatives will win the election. This will force the Democrats and Liberals to merge into one party to outnumber the Republican votes, because they cannot win divided.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;38157598]Maybe when a more reasonable, vox populi third party comes along... Right now the Green Party is the only major one not completely crazy[/QUOTE] The Libertarians aren't completely crazy, either. They go a bit overboard with cutting back the role of government IMO (privatizing education, for example, bad idea), but I personally agree with their premise and some of their policies, and I can't dog them. I don't know enough about the Justice Party to be honest, so I can't comment on them. They seem like they have some good ideas, but I can't speak for all of them. Then, of course, you have Virgil Goode and the Constitutionalists...