• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Thoughts on Last Night's Debate: Romney Comes Across as Presidential

MaggieD said:
That, my friend, is a reflection on Observer92. Tell me in what ways he acted that made him appear to be a snob. Here's the definition:



Now, what did he say last night to lead you to believe he dislikes people or activities regarded as lower-class?
Click to expand...

1. When he was talking about healthcare he seemed to say "if you don't like public healthcare just get private healthcare".
2. Second when he made the joke about the accountant, wait you have an accountant? This just seems like something only the rich would say.
3. It's just how he talks.

I don't hate all rich as not all rich people are snobs, people like Bill Gates, Robert Herjavec, and Brett Wilson don't come off as snobs.
 
0bserver92 said:
1. When he was talking about healthcare he seemed to say "if you don't like public healthcare just get private healthcare".
2. Second when he made the joke about the accountant, wait you have an accountant? This just seems like something only the rich would say.
3. It's just how he talks.
Click to expand...

1. He didn't say that.
2. I have an accountant. Most people I know have an accountant.
3. "It's just how he talks." Hard science there.

4. You just don't like the guy because he's loaded. That's your prejudice, not his.
 
MaggieD said:
1. He didn't say that.
2. I have an accountant. Most people I know have an accountant.
3. "It's just how he talks." Hard science there.

4. You just don't like the guy because he's loaded. That's your prejudice, not his.
Click to expand...

1. Really that's what it sounded like he said.
2. Really I don't know anyone who has their own accountant like they have the one guy that comes out like once or twice a year that does taxes but that's about it and even that's rare.
3. It actually is the way he speaks.
4. I odn't hate rich people how many times will it take to ram into your skull?
 
0bserver92 said:
I will elaborate, is that to me and most of the people I talk to here at least said this debate made Romney look like a stuck up snob. It's the way he answered that really pissed me off. Most of the other stuff may just be because were Canadian. The healthcare debate seems rather stupid to us, it's okay if Romney implements it in Massachusetts but on national level no? Romney's ideas just seem so far from reality and simply unacceptable to us. I think this made Obama's already extremely high approval rating in Canada even higher.
Click to expand...

Wow, we should put you fellows and your take on it in the press here, you'd have Romney elected in a landslide. Seriously though, your entire opinion is because you're Canadian, and a liberal one to boot.

It's good to hear that last, nice to know the fellow we're about to fire has a job possibility lined up. Could he be your PM?

And Maggie, you have to understand, to the liberal Canadians all true Americans are snobs/rude. When he says that, it's actually an advertisement that Romney fits in with Americans.
 
Last edited:
Jack Fabulous said:
I'll address the healthcare portion of your post as others have already weighed in on the rest of it.

Romney is actually correct in my opinion about it being OK at the state level but not at the national level. The states are far more capable of providing quality healthcare within their state than the federal government is. Bureaucrats in Washington can't possibly account for all of the different conditions and circumstances that each state has to deal with. Economic conditions vary, demographics vary, and infrastructure varies. Taking a "one size fits all" approach cripples efficiency, stifles creativity, sacrifices quality, and ignores all considerations that are state specific. Beyond that it is also an infringement on states rights.

The entire population of Canada is what... 30 million? The US has ten times that many people and is MUCH more diverse. Comparing the situation in Canada to the situation here really is apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
You also have a larger economy. We What do you mean by diverse? The disparity between provinces is solved by equalization payments where money from the better off provinces is given to the worse off ones to make sure they have equal quality of service.
 
0bserver92 said:
You also have a larger economy. We What do you mean by diverse? The disparity between provinces is solved by equalization payments where money from the better off provinces is given to the worse off ones to make sure they have equal quality of service.
Click to expand...
The financial aspect isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the federal government dictating standards and practices, unilaterally, to individual states who are far better equipped to make those decisions. Why do you think that so many states have already filed suit against the federal government over this legislation? If you think that it's just some sort of partisan grandstanding you are badly mistaken.
 
0bserver92 said:
Like I said before I guess Americans have different expectations of debates.
Click to expand...

IN your case your take appears to be a best effort-though lame-to bolster Obunny's chances of winning the election. Since the Ends justify the means to you you will lie about what happened hoping a few people might actually believe such rot.
 
0bserver92 said:
1. Really that's what it sounded like he said.
2. Really I don't know anyone who has their own accountant like they have the one guy that comes out like once or twice a year that does taxes but that's about it and even that's rare.
3. It actually is the way he speaks.
4. I odn't hate rich people how many times will it take to ram into your skull?
Click to expand...

Observer, he didn't say what you think he said. Perhaps people in Canada don't consider that they "have an accountant" because your tax codes aren't the mazey mess that the United States' tax codes are. I call the guy who does my taxes "my accountant" because he is my accountant. He's the jake I take my taxes to every year. He doesn't speak with an affectation of any kind. I don't know who you say it's the way he speaks. I also never said you hated rich people. I said you don't like them. And I think that once you find out someone is whatever your interpretation of "rich" is? They have to prove to you they're just ordinary people. Believe me, most of them are.

Oh, there are some jerks. No doubt! But most wealthy people are just like anybody else. I remember when I was really young. I went to a fancy-shamsy party with older people there, and bunch of the women suddenly got on the subject of their cleaning ladies. They went on and on and on. I thought I was going to puke. Who the HELL has cleaning ladies?? Well, now I do. And every once in a while when in group and ladies get on that subject, I can't help but remember how absolutely snobbish I thought those women were. They weren't. It was simply their reality.

Truth is, Romney has an accountant, probably an entire firm, who is responsible for filing his income taxes. And I can assure you that most, if not all members of Congress, have accounts as well. There's nothing snobbish about that. It doesn't even fit the definition. Rich people have "people." Ha!
 
MaggieD said:
Observer, he didn't say what you think he said. Perhaps people in Canada don't consider that they "have an accountant" because your tax codes aren't the mazey mess that the United States' tax codes are. I call the guy who does my taxes "my accountant" because he is my accountant. He's the jake I take my taxes to every year. He doesn't speak with an affectation of any kind. I don't know who you say it's the way he speaks. I also never said you hated rich people. I said you don't like them. And I think that once you find out someone is whatever your interpretation of "rich" is? They have to prove to you they're just ordinary people. Believe me, most of them are.

Oh, there are some jerks. No doubt! But most wealthy people are just like anybody else. I remember when I was really young. I went to a fancy-shamsy party with older people there, and bunch of the women suddenly got on the subject of their cleaning ladies. They went on and on and on. I thought I was going to puke. Who the HELL has cleaning ladies?? Well, now I do. And every once in a while when in group and ladies get on that subject, I can't help but remember how absolutely snobbish I thought those women were. They weren't. It was simply their reality.

Truth is, Romney has an accountant, probably an entire firm, who is responsible for filing his income taxes. And I can assure you that most, if not all members of Congress, have accounts as well. There's nothing snobbish about that. It doesn't even fit the definition. Rich people have "people." Ha!
Click to expand...

I have never heard people refer to them as "my accountant" just the accountant. I guess it's down to differences MPs do the same thing every else does unless they are an accountant, they have the guy that just does taxes every few years but now most people just do it online. I hate rich people who brag about their large house, or how much they make compared to my family. I've a good share of them but I'm also met the ones that don't.
 
I did want to throw something at the screen when Obama was criticizing Romney's Medicare plan on grounds that if you thought about it were the exact same arguments Obama made FOR obamacare and Romney let him get by with it. If the private market is so trustworthy with people under 65 why is it so untrustworthy with people over 65? Cancer is cancer; diabetes is diabetes......
 
MMC said:
How do you think that will work out with the debate being on Foreign Policy? Do you actually think the remark will work in discussing China and the outsourcing of Jobs? Do you think many will notice once the conversation turns to the ME?
Click to expand...

There are multiple ways to insert it into the debate. Foreign policy does affect our economy. What percentage of our military are part of that 47%?

Also, when I mentioned the last week I meant in political ads.
 
jerry7 said:
I think Obama didn't use it because it's too easy to rebut and he didn't want to be made a fool of again.
Click to expand...

How is it too easy to rebut?
 
Also, I think Obama missed a big opportunity when discussing the role of federal govt. and rebutting Romney's idea to let the states handle health care.

Who here thinks that Nevada or Arizona could have built the Hoover Dam? Even both states together with Colorado?

The states are broke as it is. Are the uninsured in broke states just S.O.L.?
 
0bserver92 said:
I have never heard people refer to them as "my accountant" just the accountant.
Click to expand...

So it's down to "my" vs. "the"? Come on. What about "our accountant," which is what my best friend and sib say?

Me, I just say, "H&R Block," but lots of folks have accountants.
 
Thorgasm said:
How is it too easy to rebut?
Click to expand...

He was referring to the hardcore 47% base of Obama's support. It's not his job to worry about them while running his campaign because they can't be reached. If Obama murdered his wife tronight on live TV, they'd still vote for him. Romney has to win the election before he becomes President of ALL Americans. Right now he is worrying about reaching the 53% not the 47.
Second, if Obama wants to talk about old videos of the candidates he's going to have to talk about his race baiting pandering speech before an audience of black ministers where he lied about the application of the Stafford Act in his attempt to rile up racial animosity.
Ten days before he gave that speech a vote was taken to appropriate funds and waive the Stafford Act. He was one of 14 who voted against it. He tried to deny 7 billion dollars in funds for katrina that waived the Stafford act requirements. Despite his vote the money was still appropriated. HR2206, The US Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.
 
Thorgasm said:
There are multiple ways to insert it into the debate. Foreign policy does affect our economy. What percentage of our military are part of that 47%?

Also, when I mentioned the last week I meant in political ads.
Click to expand...

So, how do you think that will go over since Obama is reducing the military.....just what percentage of that 47% is Obama affecting? Those that joined to serve and get out of those conditions they are in?

Wouldnt be to smart to try and bring it up with Foreign Policy and insert it into the Conversation as Romney will turn that around easily with Obama's Foreign Policy.

Now with Political Advertizing, Obama is using it in the battleground states so the media reports. But I don't think it means much.
Especially when Independant Sources and the CBO are saying next year will fall back into severe recession if nothing is done to change the trajectory of the Budget.
 
jerry7 said:
He was referring to the hardcore 47% base of Obama's support. It's not his job to worry about them while running his campaign because they can't be reached. If Obama murdered his wife tronight on live TV, they'd still vote for him. Romney has to win the election before he becomes President of ALL Americans. Right now he is worrying about reaching the 53% not the 47.
Second, if Obama wants to talk about old videos of the candidates he's going to have to talk about his race baiting pandering speech before an audience of black ministers where he lied about the application of the Stafford Act in his attempt to rile up racial animosity.
Ten days before he gave that speech a vote was taken to appropriate funds and waive the Stafford Act. He was one of 14 who voted against it. He tried to deny 7 billion dollars in funds for katrina that waived the Stafford act requirements. Despite his vote the money was still appropriated. HR2206, The US Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if Obama's hardcore base made up 30% of the electorate.
 
Thorgasm said:
I would be surprised if Obama's hardcore base made up 30% of the electorate.
Click to expand...

Have you seen a national poll taken this entire election cycle that's showed him below that number? And don't forget that 2 minutes of that tape were missing and the national media knew it when they ran with it. I would love to see Obama raise this issue. It will give Romney an opportunity to bring up Katrina and Obama's dispicable race baiting.
 
MMC said:
So, how do you think that will go over since Obama is reducing the military.....just what percentage of that 47% is Obama affecting? Those that joined to serve and get out of those conditions they are in?

Wouldnt be to smart to try and bring it up with Foreign Policy and insert it into the Conversation as Romney will turn that around easily with Obama's Foreign Policy.

Now with Political Advertizing, Obama is using it in the battleground states so the media reports. But I don't think it means much.
Especially when Independant Sources and the CBO are saying next year will fall back into severe recession if nothing is done to change the trajectory of the Budget.
Click to expand...

Romney said he was going to eliminate a lot of government jobs last night. Obama should have seized upon that. Cutting military spending does not mean cutting military personnel.
 
0bserver92 said:
Like I said before I guess Americans have different expectations of debates.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you expected rainbows to fly out of Obama's ass, while unicorns circle overhead. But that's not how it works.
 
0bserver92 said:
1. Really that's what it sounded like he said.
2. Really I don't know anyone who has their own accountant like they have the one guy that comes out like once or twice a year that does taxes but that's about it and even that's rare.
3. It actually is the way he speaks.
4. I odn't hate rich people how many times will it take to ram into your skull?
Click to expand...

No doubt it is how it sounded to you. You describe yourself as "very liberal". With only a touch of humor, folks who describe themselves as such would describe an Obama fart as "music". That should be an absurd comment ... but it is not !

Virtually every small business owner, tens of millions of us, have an accountant. Hard to have even 1-2 employees, and not have an accountant ! What you call "rare", would seem to only be such in the liberal world. Who needs an accountant to cash a government check ! Is anyone shocked Romney has accountants ?

Sorry, but anyone who describes themselves as "very liberal" has a core philosophy to envy and despise "rich people". It is part of the philosophy you embrace.

All of the above should be ridiculous. That it is not is indicative of the cancer on the Republic which is post-modern liberalism.
 
Thorgasm said:
Also, I think Obama missed a big opportunity when discussing the role of federal govt. and rebutting Romney's idea to let the states handle health care.

Who here thinks that Nevada or Arizona could have built the Hoover Dam? Even both states together with Colorado?

The states are broke as it is. Are the uninsured in broke states just S.O.L.?
Click to expand...

The five states in the worst financial condition--Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey--are all among the bluest of blue states. The five most fiscally fit states are more of a mix. Three--Utah, Nebraska and Texas--boast Republican majorities and two--New Hampshire and Virginia--skew Democratic.
The financial ranking of the states is part of a recent Forbes report on the Global Debt Bomb. The political affiliation data was compiled in a 2009 poll of 350,000 adults by Gallup Daily.

Forbes' metrics for each state included unfunded pension liabilities, changes in tax revenue, credit ratings, debt as a percentage of Gross State Product, debt per capita, growth expectations for employment and the state economy, net migrations and a "moocher ratio" that compares government employees, pension burdens and Medicaid enrollees to private-sector employment.

Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones? It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership.

Of the 10 states in the worst financial condition, eight are among a total of 23 defined by Gallup as "solidly Democratic," meaning the Democrats enjoy an advantage of 10 percentage points or greater in party affiliation. These states include the ones listed above as making up the bottom five, plus Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Of the three other basement-dwellers, Kentucky is defined as "leaning Democratic" (a five- to 10-percentage-point Democratic advantage) and the remaining two--Louisiana and Mississippi--are termed politically "Competitive" (less than a five-percentage-point advantage for either party). Louisiana tilts slightly Democratic and Mississippi slightly Republican.....snip~

Political Litmus Test: Bluest States Spilling The Most Red Ink - Forbes.com

No, I don't think Obama missed.....as if he would have attempted to come at it that way. Then Romney could have tore his azz up just with this alone! Without even bringing up that fact of Government intruding into an individual's Rights! ;)
 
jerry7 said:
Have you seen a national poll taken this entire election cycle that's showed him below that number? And don't forget that 2 minutes of that tape were missing and the national media knew it when they ran with it. I would love to see Obama raise this issue. It will give Romney an opportunity to bring up Katrina and Obama's dispicable race baiting.
Click to expand...

Those polls don't mean that his "hardcore" base is that high.

People will tune out over your "race baiting" example. That tactic has been tried to death.
 
Thorgasm said:
Also, I think Obama missed a big opportunity when discussing the role of federal govt. and rebutting Romney's idea to let the states handle health care.

Who here thinks that Nevada or Arizona could have built the Hoover Dam? Even both states together with Colorado?

The states are broke as it is. Are the uninsured in broke states just S.O.L.?
Click to expand...

So you support fish murder, the Hoover Dam is killing snail darters by the truckload everyday, haven't you heard? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom