Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

POLL: Who Won The 'First' Presidential Debate 2012 ?


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Asphere wrote:
It is easy to win a debate when you play fast and loose with the facts.

Best comment I have heard:

"Debating Romney is like nailing Jello to the wall."

Osirion

Scott Betts wrote:
Happily, a website exists to answer precisely this question. It's not complete, but there's enough there to handily dispel the idea that Obama hasn't done anything.

Cute site. The first thing that was brought up was that Obama "created" more jobs, blah, blah, blah...

I was laid off last year. I got a new job. It wasn't something that Obama created. Does he get credit for that?

But, you're right. I should be able to look for myself the data that is out there. Trying to figure out what all this unemployment and job data is really talking about. There are all kinds of "facts" being thrown out there, but what does it really mean?

One of the first questions that I've been asking myself is -- ok, so he's "created" jobs -- how many has he caused people to lose? Or are we just looking at one side of the coin?

A few articles that I found related to this...

Factcheck.org

Forbes (although not directly related to employment)

The United States Department of Labor -- and what's interesting here is that during the 8 years of Bush, the unemployment rate was generally between 4 and 5. Under Obama it was generally between 9 and 10. I've been under the impression all this time that unemployment was FAR worse under Bush -- but apparently I was wrong.

My comment about the utilities has to do with all this talk about how much Obama has put in to work on renewable, "green" energy. Since windmills will most likely not be powering my vehicle, I can only really assume that this is supposed to help me with energy used in my home and office. Since Obama has poured billions of dollars into this, and the net result is that my utilities have increased, my conclusion should be that ... it worked?

My comment about the health care -- the people I know are either having difficulty preparing for what's coming up or have decided that they cannot follow the bill when it does change for them and have prepared to fold up shop now. But you're right -- it's really more in anticipation rather than what is currently enforced.

Andoran

Moff you are hilarious.

The economy tanked when exactly?

He actually has created more jobs when you realized how many jobs were lost during the crash.

Since you like that site

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/

Bush inherited a surplus and left the largest economic collapse since the great depression.

Those are the facts.


meatrace wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I hope Chris Matthews continues to have meltdowns.
whatever. Reince Preibus is a lying sack of crap.

Wasn't talking about that instance, although a good one. His reaction to the debate was what I was referring to this time.

Osirion

ciretose wrote:
He actually has created more jobs when you realized how many jobs were lost during the crash.

Kind of. I'm still not sure how he created the jobs (to include mine).

But what's interesting to me is how much the statistics compare Obama's performance in job creation with Bush's.

Mathematically/Statistically speaking -- The unemployement hit 10% in Obama's term. It hasn't hit that high since 1983. Under Bush, unemployment was generally pretty low. If everyone has jobs, statistically speaking, it's pretty difficult to have a significant increase in job growth. If everyone's employed, how do you grow more jobs?

So then why are we comparing Obama to Bush in this case? It's actually a lot like comparing who physically grew more last year -- me or my 6-year-old son. I'm fairly certain that my son had a bigger percent increase in growth than I did. In fact, I'd be pretty worried if that wasn't the case (for a number of reasons). Similarly, when unemployment is the highest it's been in almost 30 years, I would really hope that it would improve more significantly than for his predecessors and would be VERY worried if he didn't have a significant growth in that area.

And, again, not sure what he did to provide me my job.

Andoran

Chris Mathews couldn't believe Obama didn't call B.S. on what Romney was saying.

The man said he wanted to cut Big Bird and that he could magically find 5 Trillion dollars without cutting anything else people might like, and Obama barely called him on it.

I was upset too.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well Moff

Bush inherritted a strong booming ecconomy and left it in collapse. Obama inherritted a collapsing ecconomy and brought it to stable growth (though worse than hoped for) while having the least effective congress ever (Republican controlled). Thats not an exageration either, since their effectiveness can be measured. Also note that the lates employment numbers for September show it under 8%.

To your green energy nonsense - Obama invested in startups mostly. Green energy companies are still years away from being competative, but if we don't invest in them now we wont have them when oil runs out. Also, heavy investments were put into hybrid technology and electric vehicles to combat oil demand. They are not going to make much of a dent in the price though, since demand is huge and those technologies are still young.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
ciretose wrote:
He actually has created more jobs when you realized how many jobs were lost during the crash.

Kind of. I'm still not sure how he created the jobs (to include mine).

But what's interesting to me is how much the statistics compare Obama's performance in job creation with Bush's.

Mathematically/Statistically speaking -- The unemployement hit 10% in Obama's term. It hasn't hit that high since 1983. Under Bush, unemployment was generally pretty low. If everyone has jobs, statistically speaking, it's pretty difficult to have a significant increase in job growth. If everyone's employed, how do you grow more jobs?

So then why are we comparing Obama to Bush in this case? It's actually a lot like comparing who physically grew more last year -- me or my 6-year-old son. I'm fairly certain that my son had a bigger percent increase in growth than I did. In fact, I'd be pretty worried if that wasn't the case (for a number of reasons). Similarly, when unemployment is the highest it's been in almost 30 years, I would really hope that it would improve more significantly than for his predecessors and would be VERY worried if he didn't have a significant growth in that area.

And, again, not sure what he did to provide me my job.

He helped pass a stimulus package that helped prevent the economy from collapsing completely when it was in free fall.

He took office in January. He got the stimulus passed I believe in April. Look at the trends going into January, then after the stimulus passed.

It is easier to maintain a good economy handed to you by the Clinton Administration than to pull the economy out of a nose dive created by the Bush Administration.

Democratic administrations create more jobs than Republican Administrations. Look it up, it's not even close.

Taldor

Unemployment rate is down to 7.8% now or something.


Moff Rimmer wrote:
ciretose wrote:
He actually has created more jobs when you realized how many jobs were lost during the crash.

Kind of. I'm still not sure how he created the jobs (to include mine).

But what's interesting to me is how much the statistics compare Obama's performance in job creation with Bush's.

Mathematically/Statistically speaking -- The unemployement hit 10% in Obama's term. It hasn't hit that high since 1983. Under Bush, unemployment was generally pretty low. If everyone has jobs, statistically speaking, it's pretty difficult to have a significant increase in job growth. If everyone's employed, how do you grow more jobs?

Are you really blaming the Great Recession on Obama and absolving Bush entirely?

I love how you completely ignore that the vast majority of the jobs lost while Obama was president were lost during the first few months of his term. You know when his policies had had the least time to work, if they'd even been implemented. And you ignore that while Bush's average unemployment wasn't bad, it was in the process of tanking when he left office. If you counted just the first 6 months of Obama's term against Bush, the statistics would look entirely different.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Moff Rimmer wrote:
ciretose wrote:
He actually has created more jobs when you realized how many jobs were lost during the crash.

Kind of. I'm still not sure how he created the jobs (to include mine).

But what's interesting to me is how much the statistics compare Obama's performance in job creation with Bush's.

Mathematically/Statistically speaking -- The unemployement hit 10% in Obama's term. It hasn't hit that high since 1983. Under Bush, unemployment was generally pretty low. If everyone has jobs, statistically speaking, it's pretty difficult to have a significant increase in job growth. If everyone's employed, how do you grow more jobs?

So then why are we comparing Obama to Bush in this case? It's actually a lot like comparing who physically grew more last year -- me or my 6-year-old son. I'm fairly certain that my son had a bigger percent increase in growth than I did. In fact, I'd be pretty worried if that wasn't the case (for a number of reasons). Similarly, when unemployment is the highest it's been in almost 30 years, I would really hope that it would improve more significantly than for his predecessors and would be VERY worried if he didn't have a significant growth in that area.

And, again, not sure what he did to provide me my job.

How did he cause you to lose your job? That gets counted in the statistic too.

But just some of the things he did do to grow the ecconomy:
Investment in technology and research
Increase investment in public construction funds
Increased support for welfare

The funny thing is the welfare support probably increased the ecconomy more than the others. It allows low income people to spend more, restores demand to products, causing companies to hire more to meet the demand.


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Cute site. The first thing that was brought up was that Obama "created" more jobs, blah, blah, blah...

Actually, it's randomized. Oh, and every accomplishment or policy put into place cited on that webpage has its source listed below. You definitely checked out the cited sources before putting quotation marks around "created," I'm sure.

Quote:
I was laid off last year. I got a new job. It wasn't something that Obama created. Does he get credit for that?

Look, you have your choice about how you can view the President:

1) You can view the President as being a powerful individual with the ability to control, to some limited degree, how many jobs are available at any given time.

2) You can view the President as being one piece of a multifaceted system who must rely on other branches of government working in harmony in order to truly exercise any real control over the economy.

Take your pick, but you don't get to have both. Republicans tend to go back and forth on this, viewing Obama as in the first instance above when job numbers are poor ("He's the President! Why isn't he doing more for our jobs?"), and the second instance when job numbers are good ("He's just the President. He can't take credit for jobs numbers because he doesn't have any real control over them."). Now, obviously, that way of looking at the Presidency is bankrupt of any intellectual honesty.

Furthermore, you can say, "Obama didn't create that job," and be done with it - the assumption being that your employer is actually responsible for creating that job. That's a little myopic, though. Your employer was probably able to create that job because business conditions for the company improved, and those conditions probably improved because the economy as a whole is doing better. Most people believe that the President has some degree of influence over the state of the economy, and therefore deserves some of the credit when the economy improves, and some of the blame when it struggles. How you choose to look at it is up to you, but bear in mind that some perspectives are more valid than others.

Quote:
But, you're right. I should be able to look for myself the data that is out there. Trying to figure out what all this unemployment and job data is really talking about. There are all kinds of "facts" being thrown out there, but what does it really mean?

Don't put quotation marks around "facts" just for the heck of it. Facts are facts, and they are tremendously useful. They do, however, need to be placed in context before they are properly understood.

Quote:

One of the first questions that I've been asking myself is -- ok, so he's "created" jobs -- how many has he caused people to lose? Or are we just looking at one side of the coin?

A few articles that I found related to this...

Factcheck.org

Forbes (although not directly related to employment)

The United States Department of Labor -- and what's interesting here is that during the 8 years of Bush, the unemployment rate was generally between 4 and 5. Under Obama it was generally between 9 and 10. I've been under the impression all this time that unemployment was FAR worse under Bush -- but apparently I was wrong.

I'd like you to take a look at this website. It may be the same as the Department of Labor page you tried to link me to, but your link is broken so I can't be sure. Take a look at the unemployment-over-time graph. Obama's term of office did not begin until 2009. Take a look at the period between 2008 and 2009, when Bush was still in office. That period is responsible for a jump in unemployment of 5% to 8% - a 3% increase. That is the most dramatic increase of the recession. 2009 to 2010 was nearly as bad, but only had a 2% increase in unemployment. Over the course of the following three years, unemployment steadily dropped back down to where it was at the end of Bush's presidency, and will likely continue to follow that trend over the next few years.

In other words, the skyrocketing unemployment rate was clearly taking place during Bush's presidency. This is because unemployment rates are not immediate indicators of the strength of a President's economic policy. Policy takes time to implement, and even more time for the economy to show the effect. It is accurate, then, to say that the high unemployment rates are, to some degree, the result of Bush's economic policies. It is inaccurate to say that they are the result of anything Obama did in office. In fact, it's clear that once Obama's own policies had a chance to filter through the economy, unemployment rates began to slowly drop.

Take from that what you will. I, personally, think it's highly irresponsible for anyone to try and blame Obama for high unemployment rates given that we know the crisis began in Bush's Presidency, and that we know conditions have been improving for the majority of Obama's term in office. If anything, Obama deserves quite a lot of credit for managing to stabilize what can be easily described as runaway unemployment, and has actually brought it back down somewhat.

Quote:
My comment about the utilities has to do with all this talk about how much Obama has put in to work on renewable, "green" energy. Since windmills will most likely not be powering my vehicle, I can only really assume that this is supposed to help me with energy used in my home and office. Since Obama has poured billions of dollars into this, and the net result is that my utilities have increased, my conclusion should be that ... it worked?

The federal money going into renewable energy is funding research. This is not money that is going to immediately pay off. It's designed to encourage businesses to develop more efficient, cost-effective renewable energy solutions because the reality is that our current energy infrastructure is untenable over the long-term, and is even pretty awful over the short-term. Your increasing energy bills are a reflection of this; if we continue to stick with conventional energy solutions, energy prices, on average, will only increase as the non-renewable resources that power those solutions become more scarce and more costly to reach. If your climbing energy bills are worrisome, you should be glad for the money going into renewable energy research. It won't get better immediately, because unfortunately we spent a good eight years doing far less than we should have in terms of encouraging renewable energy research, but it will get better.

Quote:
My comment about the health care -- the people I know are either having difficulty preparing for what's coming up or have decided that they cannot follow the bill when it does change for them and have prepared to fold up shop now. But you're right -- it's really more in anticipation rather than what is currently enforced.

Okay, let's break down what exactly this provision means for small businesses.

If you run a business with less than 50 employees, it means nothing. Absolutely nothing. You are not affected by it. Actually, that's not precisely true. If you have less than 50 employees, the provision actually makes it more affordable for you to offer health insurance to your employees if you want, and provides some tax credits on top of that. No requirement, just more affordable options.

If you run a business with 50 or more full-time employees, you are required to offer health insurance to your employees starting in 2014. Failure to do so results in a penalty of $2000 per employee per year. More than 96% of businesses with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance, so this is really only a significant change for 4% of businesses with 50 or more employees.

Now, if you know multiple people who run businesses that fall into this category and which are unable to shoulder the burden it imposes, then I can understand your hesitation. But I think that's probably pretty unlikely. The reality is that if you're big enough to employ 50 people full-time, you really should be offering health insurance coverage.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
If you counted just the first 6 months of Obama's term against Bush, the statistics would look entirely different.

You mean like Romney said you should do when he takes office?

Andoran

It is now lower than when he got it and on an upward trajectory, as opposed to the downward tracjectory he recieved.

The exact opposite of what happened from Clinton to Bush.

It's actually kind of funny. Look at the numbers and guess which party was in power.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Unemployment going up under which?

Facts have a well known liberal bias, Mr. Rimmer. Sorry.


Caineach wrote:

Well Moff

Bush inherritted a strong booming ecconomy and left it in collapse. Obama inherritted a collapsing ecconomy and brought it to stable growth (though worse than hoped for) while having the least effective congress ever (Republican controlled). Thats not an exageration either, since their effectiveness can be measured.

Seriously, it's not an exaggeration. When the Republicans took control of Congress, they ground everything to a halt. On purpose. House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell famously said, days before the midterm election that gave Republicans control back in 2010, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Everything they have done in the intervening two years (and as much as they could before that) has been to accomplish that goal.

Qadira

Democrat/Republican alliance to exclude third party candidates from debates.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Moff Rimmer wrote:
First of all, If what Romney said was lies, then why didn't Obama correct the statements? If nothing else, that tells me that there is at least an element of truth to many (most?) of the statements.

Because quite frankly it was apparant that Obama only showed up in body and barely showed up in mind.

As far as fact checking both candidates and other speakers. I highly recommmend an app called Settle It! from Poltifact.com available for both iOS and Android. I wasn't particularly surprised to see that our own governer Chris Christie got some "Pants On Fire" ratings for a few of his statements.

You an pick up the free app in both the Android Market and on the Itunes App Store.


I'm not sure who "won" the debate. And I'm not sure who will win the election a month from now.

I do get the impression though, that regardless of the victor, America will lose. =\


jesus the amount of bullying that is going on in this thread is astounding. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Reporting a bunch for being jerks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Dal Selpher wrote:

I'm not sure who "won" the debate. And I'm not sure who will win the election a month from now.

The two don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.


Solwynn bint Khalsim ibn Abdul wrote:
jesus the amount of bullying that is going on in this thread is astounding. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Reporting a bunch for being jerks.

Actually, for a political thread, everything has been kept fairly civil. I'm not seeing much in the way of "bullying" going on.


Solwynn bint Khalsim ibn Abdul wrote:
jesus the amount of bullying that is going on in this thread is astounding. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Reporting a bunch for being jerks.

That's helpful.


Dal Selpher wrote:
I'm not sure who "won" the debate. And I'm not sure who will win the election a month from now.

FiveThirtyEight is a very solid predictor of election outcomes. No one is "sure" of anything, but probability very heavily favors Obama.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Solwynn bint Khalsim ibn Abdul wrote:
jesus the amount of bullying that is going on in this thread is astounding. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Reporting a bunch for being jerks.

So, because people are using facts to counter a bad argument they are bullying?

Osirion

thejeff wrote:
Are you really blaming the Great Recession on Obama and absolving Bush entirely?

Absolutely. [/sarcasm] What are you talking about?

thejeff wrote:
I love how you completely ignore that the vast majority of the jobs lost while Obama was president were lost during the first few months of his term. You know when his policies had had the least time to work, if they'd even been implemented. And you ignore that while Bush's average unemployment wasn't bad, it was in the process of tanking when he left office. If you counted just the first 6 months of Obama's term against Bush, the statistics would look entirely different.

I love how people completely ignore what I write. That's awesome.

I'm trying to figure out why Obama supporters are using (specific) statistical data to compare Obama's progress with Bush's.

I can beat my 6-year-old in chess. I'm not sure what statistically that proves with regards to how good I am.

I'll bet that if we look hard enough, we can find someone even worse than Bush to compare data with. That way we can make Obama even appear BETTER!! That would be teh R0xx0r!

Basically most of what I'm hearing is -- "Well, he's better than Bush..." And that's ... good?


If you accept the premise that Romney = Bush, then it starts to make more sense.


Statistics don't exist in a vacuum. They only gain meaning by comparing them to something else. Since you can't compare Obama to Romney (Romney has never been president) you have to compare it to another president, in modern times, presiding over a country in economic decline. You can either compare it to Bush 2 or Reagan. Seeing as the economic situation you're so quick to blame on Obama began during Bush's reign, it seems only logical to me to compare it there.


There is that, too.


It wouldn't be absurd to compare job numbers between Obama during his presidency and Romney as governor, although it wouldn't be the best comparison either. Romney governed over a period of economic growth and relative prosperity, as opposed to a recession. And a well-off state can't be compared to the nation in aggregate.


Moff Rimmer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Are you really blaming the Great Recession on Obama and absolving Bush entirely?

Absolutely. [/sarcasm] What are you talking about?

thejeff wrote:
I love how you completely ignore that the vast majority of the jobs lost while Obama was president were lost during the first few months of his term. You know when his policies had had the least time to work, if they'd even been implemented. And you ignore that while Bush's average unemployment wasn't bad, it was in the process of tanking when he left office. If you counted just the first 6 months of Obama's term against Bush, the statistics would look entirely different.

I love how people completely ignore what I write. That's awesome.

I'm trying to figure out why Obama supporters are using (specific) statistical data to compare Obama's progress with Bush's.

I can beat my 6-year-old in chess. I'm not sure what statistically that proves with regards to how good I am.

I'll bet that if we look hard enough, we can find someone even worse than Bush to compare data with. That way we can make Obama even appear BETTER!! That would be teh R0xx0r!

Basically most of what I'm hearing is -- "Well, he's better than Bush..." And that's ... good?

So what was I ignoring? I was responding to your post saying:
Quote:
Mathematically/Statistically speaking -- The unemployement hit 10% in Obama's term. It hasn't hit that high since 1983. Under Bush, unemployment was generally pretty low. If everyone has jobs, statistically speaking, it's pretty difficult to have a significant increase in job growth. If everyone's employed, how do you grow more jobs?

It's not so much comparing the two of them, it's saying you can't look at Obama's net job numbers without allowing for the fact that we were in freefall when he took over. That the worst of the job losses during Obama's term are the direct result of what was going on before he took over.

And then you talked about unemployment generally being low under Bush, so it seemed reasonable to look a little closer at that. It seemed that you were comparing the two.

Osirion

meatrace wrote:
Seeing as the economic situation you're so quick to blame on Obama began during Bush's reign, it seems only logical to me to compare it there.

No.

What I've been trying to do this entire time is try and figure out why people continue to think that Obama and Tywin poop gold. And the answer I continue to see is that it's because Obama's poop is a slightly different color than Bush's.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
It wouldn't be absurd to compare job numbers between Obama during his presidency and Romney as governor, although it wouldn't be the best comparison either. Romney governed over a period of economic growth and relative prosperity, as opposed to a recession. And a well-off state can't be compared to the nation in aggregate.

Those comparisons have been made. They favor Obama, but are not very good because Romney had a strong ecconomy that became only slightly stronger. Romney has been criticized for having one of the lowest job growths while governor, but when you are one of the best in unemployment at the start, growth is hard. When you start at the top, you have no where to go but down.

Taldor

Moff Rimmer wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Seeing as the economic situation you're so quick to blame on Obama began during Bush's reign, it seems only logical to me to compare it there.

No.

What I've been trying to do this entire time is try and figure out why people continue to think that Obama and Tywin poop gold. And the answer I continue to see is that it's because Obama's poop is a slightly different color than Bush's.

Presumably people think he inherited a pretty bad situation and didn't f#%% up the recovery that badly.

Now if you were a proper parliamentary democracy it would be a lot easier to pin economic failure or success on your prime minister. :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

ANnone else see the video of Romney cheating durring the debates? The agreed to rules include no notes, but as soon as he gets to the podium he takes some out.

Taldor

Caineach wrote:
ANnone else see the video of Romney cheating durring the debates? The agreed to rules include no notes, but as soon as he gets to the podium he takes some out.

Pretty sure it's a handkerchief. He wiped his face with one from the podium during the debate. *shrug*


Moff Rimmer wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Seeing as the economic situation you're so quick to blame on Obama began during Bush's reign, it seems only logical to me to compare it there.

No.

What I've been trying to do this entire time is try and figure out why people continue to think that Obama and Tywin poop gold. And the answer I continue to see is that it's because Obama's poop is a slightly different color than Bush's.

Ah. I see why you're confused. I don't think Obama poops gold. I've been quite critical of him. He's disappointed, but not surprised. He's done a pretty good job with an incredibly bad situation and with full bore opposition from the Republicans, even on things that have always been routine.

He's not perfect. He's just far far better than the alternative.


Moff Rimmer wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why Obama supporters are using (specific) statistical data to compare Obama's progress with Bush's.

We're not comparing anything with Bush. We're saying that, as a result of Bush and not Obama the country was in poor shape when Obama took office. He has, in the intervening three-and-a-half years, managed to reverse the decline and is now at a point where any further jobs growth puts him at a net gain for his Presidency.

We're not saying, "Obama is better than Bush." Obama is better than Bush, but that's not saying much so we don't harp on it. What we're saying is that Obama has been a good President from an economic standpoint and the evidence shows it.

You need to understand the distinction. If you still are not clear on what we're saying, say that you're not clear. DO NOT, however, tell us that our entire argument boils down to "Obama is better than Bush." That doesn't show a lack of understanding on your part. It shows a deliberate misrepresentation of what we have told you, and that is intellectually dishonest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
ANnone else see the video of Romney cheating durring the debates? The agreed to rules include no notes, but as soon as he gets to the podium he takes some out.

Probably just a handkerchief. Even if it were notes, whatever. We don't defeat Republicans with charges of broken ethics. They don't care. We defeat them by governing better.


Scott Betts wrote:
We don't defeat Republicans with charges of broken ethics. They don't care. We defeat them by governing better.

But...they don't care about that either.


meatrace wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
We don't defeat Republicans with charges of broken ethics. They don't care. We defeat them by governing better.
But...they don't care about that either.

Well, they do, in the sense that voters care and they care about what voters think. Leveling charges of ethical violations at Republicans doesn't accomplish much of anything. The GOP's history of such violations is long and well-reported (laughably, this story just broke today), but any voters who might leave the party over them have already done so. The remaining GOP base (and GOP-leaning independents) just don't care that much about this sort of thing. If it were a truly huge issue - for instance, well-documented, nationwide, party-sponsored election fraud that altered the outcome of the Presidential race - it might get some play and result in some defection.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its like someone got in a horrible crash with a drunk driver, and they still walk with a limp. Then they blame their doctor instead of the drunk driver.


I've put a lot of thought into it and here's my question: Why is first, rather than won, in quotes in the thread title?

Everyone's talking about how dynamic Romney's performance was, and about how Obama erred on the cautious side of presidential. I have yet to any single person report that the debate changed their mind.

The only way it would have a real effect on the election would be if Doodlebug came forward and said "After watching that debate, I'm casting my vote for m'lord Dice, and you should do the same!"

I think the media wonks are blathering on about debate performance because the debate was a media event.

Hey, remember how Kerry won all three debates in the 2004 election? Worked out very well for him.

Andoran

Kryzbyn wrote:
If you accept the premise that Romney = Bush, then it starts to make more sense.

They have the same economic philosophy and share many, many, advisers...so...you know, there is that.

Andoran

Moff Rimmer wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Seeing as the economic situation you're so quick to blame on Obama began during Bush's reign, it seems only logical to me to compare it there.

No.

What I've been trying to do this entire time is try and figure out why people continue to think that Obama and Tywin poop gold. And the answer I continue to see is that it's because Obama's poop is a slightly different color than Bush's.

Actually I cited the statistics that show the unemployment rate has gone consistently down under Obama while it went significantly up under Bush.

To use your poop analogy, one is floater, one is a sinker.

Taldor

Moff Rimmer wrote:
What I've been trying to do this entire time is try and figure out why people continue to think that Obama and Tywin poop gold. And the answer I continue to see is that it's because Obama's poop is a slightly different color than Bush's.

I'm all for criticizing the president but I don't get why the economy is his fault. I mean if he did poop gold he'd have some explaining to do but as far as I know he's only an educated man (taking advice from some people who may have been responsible for the mess in the first place) . . . with normal bowel moments.


Guy Humual wrote:
Moff Rimmer wrote:
What I've been trying to do this entire time is try and figure out why people continue to think that Obama and Tywin poop gold. And the answer I continue to see is that it's because Obama's poop is a slightly different color than Bush's.
I'm all for criticizing the president but I don't get why the economy is his fault. I mean if he did poop gold he'd have some explaining to do but as far as I know he's only an educated man (taking advice from some people who may have been responsible for the mess in the first place) . . . with normal bowel moments.

I'm a pretty die-hard Obama supporter, and the best praise I can come up with regarding his bowel movements is that they must be admirably regular.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

To be fair, if Obama pooped gold, that might help with the economic situation. It must be cheaper to extract than mining the stuff.

Shadow Lodge

Paul Watson wrote:
To be fair, if Obama pooped gold, that might help with the economic situation. It must be cheaper to extract than mining the stuff.

Not it.

Qadira

Special interests will win either way. america is hosed until we break the cycle of the two party gangbang


Andrew R wrote:
Special interests will win either way. america is hosed until we break the cycle of the two party gangbang

Or we figure out a way to poop gold.

151 to 200 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / POLL: Who Won The 'First' Presidential Debate 2012 ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.