Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Presidential Debate #2 Tonight: Discuss Here

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the let's-get-ready-to-rumblllllllllee dept.

United States 706

The second U.S. Presidential debate kicks off in about a half-hour (9PM ET, 6PM PT, 0100 UTC) from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney will take questions from an audience of allegedly undecided voters. A live stream of the event will be available from a number of sources (C-SPAN, CNN, ABC, and PBS), and it will be broadcast nationally on the major networks. The flash-less and television-less can use rtmpdump to catch the debate from C-SPAN. It won't preempt the more important telecasts, like playoff baseball. Candidates from smaller parties again went uninvited (e.g. Gary Johnson from the Libertarians, Jill Stein from the Greens, Virgil Goode from the Constitution Party, and Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party). In fact, Jill Stein was arrested for attempting to enter without credentials (her side of the story). Assuming she's out of jail by Thursday, she and Gary Johnson will be participating in an online debate hosted by IVN.us. While tonight's debate is in progress, Politifact will be fact-checking the candidates in real-time (while CNN has demonstrated their journalistic capabilities with a debate drinking game). Feel free to weigh in with your commentary on the debate below — it would be helpful to provide timestamps or other context when referring to particular statements. As before, we're posting this here in a vain attempt to keep the political discussion out of other story threads tonight. If either of the candidates spontaneously concedes the election or catches fire, we'll do our best to update you.

cancel ×

706 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Logical Fallacy Bingo (5, Interesting)

Ryanator2209 (1577631) | about 2 years ago | (#41676385)

Posted this last debate but, still relevant. Logical Fallacy Bingo [lifesnow.com]

Re:Logical Fallacy Bingo (5, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41676429)

Which evil wizard do you want to ravage the kingdom?

"I want the evil wizard who CARES about the little people he devours!"

Re:Logical Fallacy Bingo (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41676505)

Don't blame me, I voted for Saruman.

To WHOM is this OWED? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41676739)

http://www.creditloan.com/infographics/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cl-regional-debt.png [creditloan.com]

And, do you think EITHER of these losers work against this?

No fu@*ing way.

Re:To WHOM is this OWED? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676849)

It's fun graphic, although terribly misleading to start in 1970 when the US was burning the candle at both ends paying for European defense and when hyper inflation made the world largest debt suddenly fit their arbitrary dollar amount metrics.

Start with 1700 and adjust for inflation and a bet it's a terribly disinteresting graph that has more to do with history than a political position.

Re:Logical Fallacy Bingo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676605)

Libertarians are disgusting.

Science is important. Dismiss it at your peril.

Re:Logical Fallacy Bingo (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41676653)

Yes. How RIGHT you are! Every single one of them, to a man and woman. Oh, wait...

They ARE the one's with special underwear, right?

Re:Logical Fallacy Bingo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676971)

I can't watch it. Spin and outright lies rebutting spin and outright lies. People are making their decisions based on this marketing??? Fuck.

I can eat at at which mediocre restaurant once every four years? .... Red Lobster or Olive Garden?

I know what I'll do! I'll base my one chance at a mediocre (probably shitty) meal on who has the best commercial.

I'd be better off watching Jersey Shore than the "debates".

Can't make heads or tails of it all. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676401)

After watching the first debate, I couldn't explain either candidates platform. Cut taxes...increase tax revenue...doesn't make sense to me. I feel really stupid after watching these but I'm mostly just marking it down as both of them having muddled platforms...because after all....how could I be stupid. Impossible. I think this happens mostly because they draw their own conclusions about what effect their policies will or will not have. They rarely explain their logic, and even when they do, it doesn't make sense to me. I usually draw a different conclusion.

I'm looking forward to seeing both candidates clarify their platforms tonight.

More importantly (5, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 2 years ago | (#41676635)

What power does the President have to actually enact any tax related policy they have on their platform? Surely for the most part they a legislative rather than executive issues?

The American system seems very weird. Well, on paper it seems reasonable but in practice it seems to operate in a way that ensures nothing 'difficult' gets done and that everybody has someone else to blame for the inaction.

Meanwhile....... [sbs.com.au]

Re:More importantly (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41676687)

Presidents are the de facto leader of their party. If Romney pushes a tax plan and the Republicans control the House (which they almost certainly will), then Romney's plan will pass. It could possibly get stalled in the Senate, but I don't expect the Democrats to have the balls to actually fight back.

They are MORE than leaders of their PARTY (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41676835)

T'was EVER THUS:
Secret Society [hst1066.com]

Re:More importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676719)

When America does stuff people complain, when we do nothing you complain! Make up your mind!

Both candidates have the same platform (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41676943)

Both candidates have the same platform: make sure corporations continue to run the show, make sure the people being exploited continue to believe the system is working for them, and make sure the people being exploited are too distracted with minute details about issues that do not really affect them (gay marriage) to question policies that really do affect them (the war on drugs).

Don't listen to what the candidates major party say, it is just a side show. Look at what they actually did in the past, and look at what they don't say. Has Mitt Romney criticized Obama for failing to demand that the TSA actually follow the law (seriously, how much more effective of a criticism can one make than pointing out their opponent's failure to uphold the law while serving in the highest political office in the country)? The debates are a waste of your time, designed to reinforce the view the the Democrats are "liberals" and the Republicans are "conservative" (both parties, in fact, are fascist, hawkish, and pro-corporate).

If Obama doesn't come out swinging, he's toast. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676403)

This is do or die. And the fact of the matter is, Socialism just can't stand up face-to-face against pure free market capitalism. It sounds good in speeches, but when you are called out on facts, you stumble. And when Mitt Romney shines the harsh light of good-ole American capitalism on Obama's failed policies ... well, let's just say this could be even more lopsided than last time. After tonight - Game Over.

Re:If Obama doesn't come out swinging, he's toast. (4, Informative)

DJ Particle (1442247) | about 2 years ago | (#41676491)

The problem though, is Mitt Romney's "good-ole American capitalism" is part of why so many people are out of work right now. Bain Capital's entire business is buying up businesses, dismantling them, and selling them for parts to pay off debts incurred in said purchases. How is this good for the USA?

He may understand more about the economy, but I bet he's unwilling to fix it, because simply put, keeping it the way it is makes more money for big business.

Re:If Obama doesn't come out swinging, he's toast. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676593)

A well run business employs as few people as possible

Re:If Obama doesn't come out swinging, he's toast. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676947)

If he is so good at making money why would you vote for someone that only seems to be able to spend money. Obama has only put us deeper into debt funding social programs just like the ones that put California under. I would rather put someone into office that knows how to make money than one that can only spend. Maybe he can make the Federal Government more efficient by getting rid of some of the many slackers...

Re:If Obama doesn't come out swinging, he's toast. (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41677041)

A well run business employs as few people as possible

But a well run country employs as many of its citizens as possible.

Re:If Obama doesn't come out swinging, he's toast. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41676999)

It's a complex problem, but for the government's role, the best thing it could do is reduce the deficit substantially and lower taxes. Anything that would bolster the dollar would help as well. Liberals like to talk about the middle class tax cuts they plan, yet I don't see details as to how beyond getting some bones thrown our way for the money they bilk from us. What I need is more of my money at my disposal, thanks. This is true of anyone in the 15-40k/year set. Right now, when all is said and done (fed, state, local, sales tax etc), about 1/3 of our income goes to the state. Meanwhile, how much of that really benefits that set? Most of it benefits the elite (bank bailouts, loans/preferential law to large corporates, funding for self-guilt ridden social programs for people based on their color and gender etc) and not the middle class as a whole. A single guy who is not married, has no kids, but who only makes 20k a year gets no breaks, so he doesn't buy that new car, that new house, or travel. meanwhile, the fools who pump out 3 kids before they realize they have no money for it, get subsidized by him. The programs pushed by the left only give certain castes a break while causing them to become more dependent (which creates more 'justification' for more funding next time ad nauseum). Tax breaks need to give almost EVERYONE a break for them to be worth anything! The organizations who took the money should pay it off. Here's a thought..

tally the amount of tax funding spent by wealth of organization.. this includes government departments, corporations, social/political movements etc who have taken substantial subsidies over the last 50 years. These subsidies aren't just limited to money, but also include law-backed false markets for specific entities that hurt the rest of us. These organizations should be the ones paying off the majority of the debt because they are the ones who've benefited the most from it. After all, they're what we've all been borrowing against the future for! You know, the incomes of people who haven't been born yet?

Obviously, the mitt romneys would love reaganomics.. it's in their interest, and this solves nothing either. it saddles the majority of the debt with the people who are least able to make a dent, and they are the ones running the organizations mentioned above. Corporate welfare is as bad for the economy as socialist mass-welfare citizenry.

A farce (0, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41676419)

This is a farce. 2 sides of the same exact coin are arguing about who is made of a purer metal. Give a fucking break, if you have half a brain cell for each 10 people, you still should be able to see through this charade.

Gary Johnson 2012.

Discuss politics here or CowboyNeal gets it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676439)

As before, we're posting this here in a vain attempt to keep the political discussion out of other story threads tonight.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Re:Discuss politics here or CowboyNeal gets it! (1, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#41676657)

I wonder how the debates are received in Alpha Centauri

Re:Discuss politics here or CowboyNeal gets it! (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 2 years ago | (#41676723)

I wonder how the debates are received in Alpha Centauri

Four years too late, I would think.

Re:Discuss politics here or CowboyNeal gets it! (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 years ago | (#41676897)

Not if they have quantum computers

Re:Discuss politics here or CowboyNeal gets it! (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 2 years ago | (#41676953)

"Four years too late, I would think."

Therefore still timely.

I smell rope-a-dope (1)

Alien Being (18488) | about 2 years ago | (#41676463)

Look for Obama to come out swinging towards the end of this 3 round battle. Romney ain't no Joe Frazier. IMNSHO, he's a fucking black hole.

Who cares? The Yankees are playing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676465)

ALCS, baby. Screw the criminals on TV looking pretty and arguing over who is the bigger fuck-up ... I have important things to watch.

Re:Who cares? The Yankees are playing. (2, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41676547)

You call what the Yankees are doing lately "playing"? That's generous.

Tweet Counts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676467)

I hate when commentators discuss the live Tweet counts as a way to gauge "who is winning".

Re:Tweet Counts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676515)

You hate it because, your candidate is not "winning" in this metric. This is part of the problem, everyone is so partisan in this country, that they blind to anything that favors their favorite party.

Re:Tweet Counts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676855)

YOUR response is partisan, not the original comment.

It is perfectly possible to hate when commentators discuss live Tweet counts REGARDLESS of who happens to be 'winning' the counts. Your ignorant assumption that the comment was made because of partisanship is the problem.

turd debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676485)

take that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU

Spoiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676523)

Romney lies.

Re:Spoiler (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676583)

Duh, both candidates lie. That is given, what they lie about is what matters.

I'm shocked! (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 2 years ago | (#41676531)

number of sources (C-SPAN, CNN, ABC, and PBS)

You forgot Fox News which has by far the largest number of viewers. I'm shocked at the omission.

will mitt romney flip flip on health care yet agai (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41676597)

will mitt romney flip flip on health care yet again

You just can't trust him on that.

Re:will mitt romney flip flip on health care yet a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676621)

Obama has nothing positive to offer

so let's sick kids be locked out is OK with you? (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41676707)

so let's sick kids be locked out is OK with you?

As that is the Romney plan when he kills the pre-existing condition law.

Re:will mitt romney flip flip on health care yet a (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 2 years ago | (#41676761)

Its either trust Mitt or submit to the Mau-Mau's death panels.

My question would be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676599)

What are your feelings on the merits or shortcomings of the theory of evolution, and what proof have you seen that supports your viewpoint?

C-Span is down.. (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about 2 years ago | (#41676619)

At least it is right now at 9:00 pm..

Best online stream? (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41676641)

The debate isn't being showed across the pond.

The world barely recovered from letting Microsoft off the hook and hasn't recovered from the War on Terror yet so some of us would like to watch.

Re:Best online stream? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676675)

Let me summarize the answers to all of the questions for you:

Romney - I have a plan to change [insert problem here].
Obama - I had a plan to change [insert problem here], we need some more time.

You've got the same amount of details on your side of the pond as we have here.

Will you ever lose your job and need health care ? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676647)

That is the question that the great majority of Americans need to be asking themselves
in the privacy of their own minds.

Most people get health insurance as part of a package of benefits from their employer.

If you lose the job, you lose the health insurance coverage.

Romney will let you die in the gutter. Obama is a genuinely decent man and he wants to make
sure that no one will suffer a lack of health care because of their personal circumstances.
If you think that you could never be "one of those people", you don't have much life experience,
because for most of us, the shit can hit the fan any time.

Re:Will you ever lose your job and need health car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676685)

Save some money for a rainy day asshole. I have no sympathy for the people that run out every month, cash their paycheck and spend every last cent until it's gone and then complain about having no money.

Re:Will you ever lose your job and need health car (2)

SumterLiving (994634) | about 2 years ago | (#41676825)

$12,000 a year for health insurance if unemployed. So my rainy day fund for 1 year just to live is somewhere in the neighborhood $18,000-$20,000 on an average salary of $35,000. So you're right. Out of the $35,000 I made before getting laid off I should have a surplus of $17,000 a year. $5,000 for room and board and $12,000 for health insurance. Heck, why work more than 1 year on and one year off? But in the richest nation and self professed best and coolest nation in the world, the US still has people living on the street? Impressive attitude asshole.

Re:Will you ever lose your job and need health car (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676957)

$1k per month for health insurance? Jeezus, what kind of policy is that? I'm in my 40's and BCBS quoted me about $250 per month (actually slightly less) for a moderate ($2,500 deductible) policy with prescription coverage. I could cover that with unemployment insurance, and not even have to touch the $30k plus in my savings. Do you have an artificial heart or something?

there is jail / prison care or the ER (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41676819)

there is jail / prison care where under the us constitution they must give you health care.

And the ER must take care of you.

Re:there is jail / prison care or the ER (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676985)

and you must pay them pack. which is far more expensive than primary care.

Re:there is jail / prison care or the ER (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#41676987)

The ER has to stabilize you. If you're dieing quickly- a stab wound, a heart attack, a bullet wound- they'll patch you up. They don't have to try to give you chemo, give you follow-up care for infections to the wounds (unless thhe infections become life threatening), or give you a bypass to prevent the next heart attack. That's not health care.

Romney's voice is extremely annoying (1)

somethingtoremember (1530149) | about 2 years ago | (#41676669)

It sounds like he actually cares about people. It's very grating.

Prediction (1, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41676693)

And here is a prediction:

there will be no question about inflation, there will be no question about the trade deficit.

A poll was conducted by Fox "News", still, their numbers show the following [foxnews.com] :

People worried about rising prices: 41%
People worried about unemployment: 24%
People worried about taxes: 19%
People worried about housing market: 7%

If this poll is anywhere near correct, then twice as many people are worried about rising prices (resulting at the minimum from inflation) than there are people worried about unemployment or taxes. 6 times more people worry about rising prices than about housing market.

Yet the Fed's policies are all aimed at 'curbing deflation' and creating inflation by buying more and more mortgages (40 billion a month now or more forever, "until the economy gets better").

And really, if the rising prices is such a good thing in housing (according to the Fed), why is it then something that worries so many people?

Of-course people are worried about rising prices in energy, food and other things that they have to buy all the time. All the stupid 'economic data' that the news like to show right now display 'rise in consumer confidence' based on people spending more.

Nobody in the news is paying attention that people are spending more to buy the same or even less, because things cost more. Is inflation a problem? Not if the Fed has to say anything about it, yet 41% of people think rising prices are a problem.

I would love to see someone challenge Romney on... (4, Interesting)

klingers48 (968406) | about 2 years ago | (#41676705)

I've love to see someone challenge Romney on the concept of tax cuts for the rich leading to Job creation.

A great example was this banned TED talk [youtube.com] released by venture capitalist Nick Hanauer where he put in really simple, easy-to-understand terms the concept that giving money back to middle class families means they will buy more stuff leading to more job creation than giving tax breaks to a millionaire. This comes from the first non-family investor in Amazon by the way.

Considering this is Romney's whole ideology, I'd love to see an audience member nail him and get an on-record comment on the subject.

Re:I would love to see someone challenge Romney on (4, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41676811)

Romney has been perfectly clear about how his tax plan works. You can read all of the details here: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/ [romneytaxplan.com]

Re:I would love to see someone challenge Romney on (1)

klingers48 (968406) | about 2 years ago | (#41677055)

Absolutely brilliant.

Re:I would love to see someone challenge Romney on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676907)

By that logic your completely wrong, who spends more someone in the middle class or in the top 5 percent. That top 5 percent pays 60 percent of all income taxes.

Re:I would love to see someone challenge Romney on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676915)

The best part about this shit is that Republicans apparently really believe that Bob Jobcreator will refuse to make $500,000 if he can't make $1,000,000. No, he'd rather do nothing at all and get $0 and let someone else who isn't allergic to paying taxes have the $500,000. Yessirree, welfare is so awesome Bob would rather live on foodstamps and sleep in the slums than work half a million dollars because he can't keep all of it.

Re:I would love to see someone challenge Romney on (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | about 2 years ago | (#41676981)

The concept that giving the middle-class more money to buy things seems to not be well known in either party, as both of their plans to start the economy make bad assumptions.

Democrats: Keynesian stimulus designed to jump start the economy assuming it will be enough for the public to start buying things and hiring workers.

Republicans: Tax cuts so business can hire more people.

The Democrats' stimulus won't work because the middle class has less income than before meaning they can't/shouldn't be buying things to stimulate the economy. The Republicans' tax cuts won't work because businesses won't hire people unless sales go up. Sales won't go up because the middle class has less income than before.

Nick Hanauer's economic illiteracy (1, Interesting)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41677019)

Nick Hanauer interview (part 1 [youtube.com] , part 2 [youtube.com] ) with Peter Schiff was THE reason why I bought a premium subscription to Schiff radio show [schiffradio.com] .

Let me be absolutely clear on this: Nick Hanauer is the kind of an idiot that can make money while being absolutely ignorant on economics.

Consumers do NOT build businesses, businessmen build businesses. Consumption is the trivial consequence of production, and just like the case with every other business and product, the product has to be invented and built first and there is absolutely no clear way to know that the product or a business will be a success.

Growing an existing successful and profitable business into a more profitable one is much simpler than starting a new business with a new idea and an unproven track record. The only thing that can be said about demand is that if a business is already successful and profitable, then there is at least money to attempt and expand capacity.

Nick Hanauer is an absolute moron when it comes to economics, he thinks that the consumer appears first. As if the people appeared BEFORE the Sun and the Earth was here.

Who will lie more? (1)

danbuter (2019760) | about 2 years ago | (#41676715)

I wonder what the Vegas odds are on whether Obama or Romney will tell more lies.

Consumer prices (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41676737)

CPI numbers rose in September by 6/10 of 1% (by government numbers), same as a month before.

Annualize and compound it, that's just under 8%, and that's excluding all the things that people actually really need to buy almost every day (food, energy).

That's inflation, will there be a question on this?

Re:Consumer prices (1)

danbuter (2019760) | about 2 years ago | (#41676779)

Lord knows my grocery bill has gone way up. Or more often, it has stayed the same, but I buy less food with the same money.

Romney on birds (1)

Malfourmed (633699) | about 2 years ago | (#41676747)

Mitt Romney: going after birds, big and small.

Fake accent? (0)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41676773)

Is it just me, or does the president seem to have a fake accent. Some sort of a fake drawl?

OBAMA WON! (-1, Flamebait)

CajunArson (465943) | about 2 years ago | (#41676789)

This is truly the greatest comeback ever by the nation's number one comeback kid! His message and delivery were perfectly spot on as he pointed the way forward for America.

Romney on the other hand spewed hate-filled racists lies in a robotic non-human manner and sucks. Did I mention that he hates women too?

This is Andrea Mitchell, reporting for NBC news.

(Oh wait... the debate isn't actually over yet? Well, this is how we *want* it to turn out so screw the "facts" of what the candidates supposedly "said", that's just racist claptrap for those ignorant Christians).

Re:OBAMA WON! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676931)

Oh wait... the debate isn't actually over yet? Well, this is how we *want* it to turn out

That's what the news outlets said about WTC7 minutes before it fell.

This is painful to watch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676803)

You're lying.
No, You're lying.
No, You're lying.

Presidential debates are useless in modernity.

Romney is a lying bastard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676809)

Anyone who can't see this is mentally defective.

Another dismal performance (0)

Acetylane_Rain (1894120) | about 2 years ago | (#41676829)

Much as he comes off as the nicer guy, I can't see how Obama can win on Nov. 6. The best that can be said about Obama is that he didn't plunge the US in another needless war. He'll probably go down as a transition president, muich like Jimmy Carter in between the Watergate scandal (Gerald Ford doesn't count) and the rise of Ronald Reaganomics. For better or worse, however, Romney is no Reagan.

Re:Another dismal performance (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41677033)

The best that can be said about Obama is that he didn't plunge the US in another needless

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/africa/us-expands-drug-fight-in-africa.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/americas/honduran-drug-raid-deaths-wont-alter-us-policy.html [nytimes.com]

http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/20760-war-on-drugs.html [mwcnews.net]

I mean, I guess this war was started before Obama, but it is not as though our military and paramilitary forces are not being utilized for pointless and destructive ends by the Obama administration.

Sigh... (1)

epp_b (944299) | about 2 years ago | (#41676831)

You're a liar! No, you're a liar! No, *you* are! Yakity yak, blah, blah, blah, argue, argue, talk over eachother ...

No actual substance, just sound bites and hot air.

"If either of the candidates ... catches fire..." (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 2 years ago | (#41676839)

We can only hope.

Tax credits for the middle class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676871)

It is so nice to hear the middle class does not need to pay tax on our non existent saving!

Romney says top 5% pays 60% of the load (-1, Flamebait)

Alien Being (18488) | about 2 years ago | (#41676875)

He's a fucking liar. He just said it and Obama is about to put the prick in his place.

Re:Romney says top 5% pays 60% of the load (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676979)

what's scary is with your filthy mouth you vote too.

Re:Romney says top 5% pays 60% of the load (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41677029)

That one happens to be true, and has been true for many years. Easy to fact check, see here:http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Re:Romney says top 5% pays 60% of the load (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41677049)

I'm pro-Romney, and that was kind of bogus. If you drop the rates on the middle class, that means they pay less, or at least overall they're supposed to pay some amount less today. If high net worth individuals also receive tax cuts, how do you keep them at 60% of the total? You either reduce the total (to keep the relative percentages the same) or you have to increase taxes on higher worth individuals.

Captcha - Decide

Romney's Tax Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676889)

Can somebody help me with this question I have had regarding the Romney Tax Plan?

From what I understand, Romney's tax plan is to drop everyone's marginal tax rate and then eliminate deductions, credits etc.
In his debate speech just now, he noted that the top 5% of people are still going to be paying 60% of the taxes.
If his plan is revenue neutral (meaning they still take in as much as they currently do) doesn't that mean, the lower 95% are still paying the same 40% of taxes that they are paying now? If so... how does that tax plan change anything? Whether you say it's through deductions or just a lower rate everyone is still paying the same amount of taxes no?

Thanks again to Don Armstrong (cli) (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41676895)

Thanks again for the rtmpdump command syntax -- I'm only watching/listening because of it; because I like the method. Now, if you could show me how to do this with Jerry Springer, I'm game for some more honest, dynamic and civilized debate, with prettier scenery and more credible opponents.

PS: Dear Anonymous*, if you can manage to hack 30 seconds for Ron Paul (or anyone else with a measure of consistency/integrity), many Americans starving for common-sense would be very grateful.
Sincerely,
Terrified

Romney bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676917)

Romney mentioned no taxes to be paid for mutual funds and capital gains tax. Well guess what? Most middle class folks who have money invested in mutual funds and other investments have small actually irrelevant gains to pay taxes on

Re:Romney bs (4, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41677007)

Romney mentioned no taxes to be paid for mutual funds and capital gains tax. Well guess what? Most middle class folks who have money invested in mutual funds and other investments have small actually irrelevant gains to pay taxes on

I'm already outraged at the current 15% rate. Why should people who get richer by sitting on a big pile of money all year pay a lower tax rate than some of us who work our butts off all year?

Why do they call him governor? (0)

Alien Being (18488) | about 2 years ago | (#41676921)

He didn't even finish the term he was elected to. He bailed out to go run for president in 2008. He's nothing but an opportunist. He's a prick.

Re:Why do they call him governor? (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41676989)

He's nothing but an opportunist. He's a prick

You don't say who "He" is, but since he's a politician I'm pretty sure you're right on both counts.

Re:Why do they call him governor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41677031)

He completed his term and decided not to run for reelection. His term started in 2003.

The audience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676939)

What is wrong with diversity in the audience? Who are these people? Are they representative of which town?

Re:The audience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676977)

I am not anonymousLiz brown

be straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676941)

How is it Obama can't give a straight answer but calls Romney out for not having a plan when he isn't the president?

tax cuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676955)

how many middle class folks will lose the ability to do a long form by getting rid of the deductions they presently can take? Those reductions will not affect the 2% at the top, they still continue to take those deductions, everyone else goes to the standard deduction due to not cutting it. Not good.

Oh, boy! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41676961)

More politics!!!

I sure am eager for November 7 to come around. Meanwhile, can I just forward all the robocalls I'm getting to this discussion?

Women be aware (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41676983)

If Romney wins. Women get back in the kitchen and start breeding. That's all he thinks women can do.

How I feel while watching this debate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41677013)

It's like they're very passionate about a bunch of things that I simply don't give a shit about.

Fascinating.

Media Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41677017)

The moderator, Candy Somebody, is so obviously in Obama's pocket. Can not believe how she is guiding him through the questions!! Sickening.

Dont' Care.. (1)

monzie (729782) | about 2 years ago | (#41677035)

Not American / Debates are just that / All politicians talk more and deliver less - PICK ONE

Debates Still Not Useful..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41677043)

This year I decided to make a better attempt to understand "politics" and watch the debates.

What I see is one candidate who seems to be holding back - & I'm not sure if he is trying to keep from losing his composure. But I want more straight-forward answers, without deviating off the subject.

And then there's the other candidate who continuously breaks protocol & won't abide the guidelines of the debates. What's up with this continued INTERRUPTION??? This "I must have the last say so" antic bothers me. I see a person who won't listen to the masses, but instead will make decisions without any regard as to whether there is another way.... a better way.

I'm at the point where there should be a third candidate - who'd I consider without ever hearing him say a word. The more these candidates open their mouths, the more discouraged I become.

Moderator (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41677051)

So far, outside of agreeing and disagreeing with things both candidates are saying, is - Ms. Moderator, This is not all about you. As much as you want it to be, it isn't. Back off, MODERATE and let us hear the opinions of the candidates instead of your voice saying what they should be saying. This debate will be most noted for how poor the moderating was done by the showboat moderator, not in how much information was provided from each candidate. So far, the moderator has made this a nearly useless debate.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>