• 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.

Topics for first presidential debate announced

areafiftyone

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
36
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
(CNN) - Half of the first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will be focused on the economy, the debate's moderator announced Wednesday.

The first three of the October 3 debate's six segments will focus on the economy, moderator Jim Lehrer said in a statement provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The other three segments will focus on health care, the role of government, and governing, according to the release.

Each segment is to be a 15 minute portion of the 90 minute program.


Continue reading Here: CNN
 
There should be three debates. Each four hours...commercial free. No studio audience. No media involvement (except for the actual broadcasting). No stupid "Twitter Ticker" at the bottom of the screen for morons to post moronic things. All questions derived by the moderators and not available to the media until asked of the candidates.

Debate #1: Moderated by corporation and business owners.
Debate #2: Moderated by a ten-panel team of random citizens via lottery.
Debate #3: Moderated by a four-person committee. Two Occutards. Two Tea Partiers.
 
Great! I can't wait for a debate on the economy. I wonder if Obama still thinks its "just fine."
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060932145 said:
Great! I can't wait for a debate on the economy. I wonder if Obama still thinks its "just fine."
Uh..no...but...uh...um....vote for ME and...uh...we'll...uh...make it better. I PROMISE THIS TIME!!!
 
(CNN) - Half of the first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will be focused on the economy, the debate's moderator announced Wednesday.

The first three of the October 3 debate's six segments will focus on the economy, moderator Jim Lehrer said in a statement provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The other three segments will focus on health care, the role of government, and governing, according to the release.

Each segment is to be a 15 minute portion of the 90 minute program.


Continue reading Here: CNN


Oh goody, a debate where the two of them can argue about ObamaCare/RomneyCare.
 
There should be three debates. Each four hours...commercial free. No studio audience. No media involvement (except for the actual broadcasting). No stupid "Twitter Ticker" at the bottom of the screen for morons to post moronic things. All questions derived by the moderators and not available to the media until asked of the candidates.

Debate #1: Moderated by corporation and business owners.
Debate #2: Moderated by a ten-panel team of random citizens via lottery.
Debate #3: Moderated by a four-person committee. Two Occutards. Two Tea Partiers.

You don't want moronic things being posted but you want 10 random dudes and two TPers and Occupy members?
 
"The economy is super. If not for me, you would have been eating rats like they did in Paris during Word War II. I have a confidential memo locked in Eric Holder's safe that his employees have investigated and determined to be one hundred percent true. "

I don't like debates so much. I would like to see all 4 of them sit down at the table at the same time with Charlie Rose and have a conversation for 3 hours.
 
There should be three debates. Each four hours...commercial free. No studio audience. No media involvement (except for the actual broadcasting). No stupid "Twitter Ticker" at the bottom of the screen for morons to post moronic things. All questions derived by the moderators and not available to the media until asked of the candidates.

Debate #1: Moderated by corporation and business owners.
Debate #2: Moderated by a ten-panel team of random citizens via lottery.
Debate #3: Moderated by a four-person committee. Two Occutards. Two Tea Partiers.

So the right gets all of #1 to themselves and half of #3. Pass.
 
There should be three debates. Each four hours...commercial free. No studio audience. No media involvement (except for the actual broadcasting). No stupid "Twitter Ticker" at the bottom of the screen for morons to post moronic things. All questions derived by the moderators and not available to the media until asked of the candidates.

Debate #1: Moderated by corporation and business owners.
Debate #2: Moderated by a ten-panel team of random citizens via lottery.
Debate #3: Moderated by a four-person committee. Two Occutards. Two Tea Partiers.

I totally agree with everything, especially the audience. Moderators are okay except the Tea Partiers LOL! ! LOL! ;)
 
So the right gets all of #1 to themselves and half of #3. Pass.

What's unfair about that?

Meanwhile, an efficient, go-getter congress should have a house of representatives appointed by the Fortune 500, and a senate appointed by the pastors of 2 largest evangelical churches in each state. That way, everyone who matters will have a voice. Let's amend the constitution!!

/s
 
i'm yet to hear either of the candidates elaborate on how they plan on unwinding the derivatives market... which is essentially at the source of the financial calamity.
 
Have you forgotten that Mittens said the same thing?

Mitt Romney Says Big Business ‘Doing Fine’ After Criticizing Obama for Similar Remarks - ABC News

It was doing poorly before he thought it was doing fine....or maybe his etch a sketch was off that day.

Redistributing wealth to 46 million on food stamps, increasing the amount of money the federal government gives directly to Americans by 32 percent, an unemployment rate of 8.1%, and increasing by 10% the number of Americans who receive disability since he became POTUS.

The amount of people on food stamps has increased by 3 million since last year.

So tell me, why don't we hear Obama campaigning on his record?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060935545 said:
Redistributing wealth to 46 million on food stamps, increasing the amount of money the federal government gives directly to Americans by 32 percent, an unemployment rate of 8.1%, and increasing by 10% the number of Americans who receive disability since he became POTUS.

The amount of people on food stamps has increased by 3 million since last year.

So tell me, why don't we hear Obama campaigning on his record?

What does that have to do with the post? Nice dodge dude.
 
What does that have to do with the post? Nice dodge dude.

It's Obama's economy. That's what is has to do with the post. I'll repost it so you can respond now that you understand the connection.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060935545 said:
Redistributing wealth to 46 million on food stamps, increasing the amount of money the federal government gives directly to Americans by 32 percent, an unemployment rate of 8.1%, and increasing by 10% the number of Americans who receive disability since he became POTUS.

The amount of people on food stamps has increased by 3 million since last year.

So tell me, why don't we hear Obama campaigning on his record?
 
My understanding is that ever since Perot the donkeys and elephants took over the debate commission which means they control the format and who is in the debates. If they control the format and who is in the debates the best you can hope for is a good one liner because the topics will be incredibly narrow. You won't hear any conversation about removing sanctions on Iran, explaining why earned income is taxed higher than capital income, Why the TPP a good idea, Why nobody went jail for the financial meltdown when over 1000 went to jail for savings and loan scandal, why is it good for the FED to buy billions of assets from the banks, what will be the impact if the us dollar is replaced as the petro dollar, explain why executions of American citizens without trial is the right thing to do, explain why indefinite detention of American citizens without trial is a good thing, explain why warrant-less wiretaps is a good idea, what other civil liberties should we throw away in the name of “safety”, explain why partnering with "terrorist" as we are in Syria and did in Libya is a good idea, why should we fund foreign armies etc... Watch debates if you want but here what it's going to be...

Romney: "He's a commie who wants to take your money." "I love America more"
Obama: "He's a silver spoon elitist that doesn't care about anyone but corporations." "I love America More"

Meanwhile they both will give everything to corporations, keep starting wars, continue spending billions on the drug war and do nothing about Bernanke digitizing billions for the banks. Hooray! I can't wait!
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060935545 said:
Redistributing wealth to 46 million on food stamps, increasing the amount of money the federal government gives directly to Americans by 32 percent, an unemployment rate of 8.1%, and increasing by 10% the number of Americans who receive disability since he became POTUS.

The amount of people on food stamps has increased by 3 million since last year.

So tell me, why don't we hear Obama campaigning on his record?

The right wingers here keep harping on this increase in disability recipients. Let's get this clear, is it your contention these people aren't disabled and, if so, what makes your opinion more valid than the medical professionals who examined them and declared them so? I'm betting the flood of returning servicemen from the Iraq debacle has more to do with it than any other factor.
 
My understanding is that ever since Perot the donkeys and elephants took over the debate commission which means they control the format and who is in the debates. If they control the format and who is in the debates the best you can hope for is a good one liner because the topics will be incredibly narrow. You won't hear any conversation about removing sanctions on Iran, explaining why earned income is taxed higher than capital income, Why the TPP a good idea, Why nobody went jail for the financial meltdown when over 1000 went to jail for savings and loan scandal, why is it good for the FED to buy billions of assets from the banks, what will be the impact if the us dollar is replaced as the petro dollar, explain why executions of American citizens without trial is the right thing to do, explain why indefinite detention of American citizens without trial is a good thing, explain why warrant-less wiretaps is a good idea, what other civil liberties should we throw away in the name of “safety”, explain why partnering with "terrorist" as we are in Syria and did in Libya is a good idea, why should we fund foreign armies etc... Watch debates if you want but here what it's going to be...

Romney: "He's a commie who wants to take your money." "I love America more"
Obama: "He's a silver spoon elitist that doesn't care about anyone but corporations." "I love America More"

Meanwhile they both will give everything to corporations, keep starting wars, continue spending billions on the drug war and do nothing about Bernanke digitizing billions for the banks. Hooray! I can't wait!

at least someone gets it
 
The right wingers here keep harping on this increase in disability recipients. Let's get this clear, is it your contention these people aren't disabled and, if so, what makes your opinion more valid than the medical professionals who examined them and declared them so? I'm betting the flood of returning servicemen from the Iraq debacle has more to do with it than any other factor.


Then please post a link showing what you believe is fact. Iraq? I think you mean Afghanistan.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060936001 said:
Then please post a link showing what you believe is fact. Iraq? I think you mean Afghanistan.

Well, since even the official figures(which many think are greatly understated) list twice as many injured service personnel in Iraq as Afghanistan, the odds are 2-1 that any resulting disability claims resulted from the Iraqi Adventure. The only proof I need is that each person who makes a disability claim has to go through a process that usually takes about two years. They not only have to show medical records from their own physicians but have to be examined by doctors chosen by SS who are rarely overly sympathetic. Unless you can prove that this process has suddenly altered to allow people without any proof of disability to qualify then your assumption that Obama is responsible is pure wishful thinking. I guess when it becomes increasingly clear that Willard's ship is sinking the rats aboard will clutch at any straw they can.
 
Well, since even the official figures(which many think are greatly understated) list twice as many injured service personnel in Iraq as Afghanistan, the odds are 2-1 that any resulting disability claims resulted from the Iraqi Adventure. The only proof I need is that each person who makes a disability claim has to go through a process that usually takes about two years. They not only have to show medical records from their own physicians but have to be examined by doctors chosen by SS who are rarely overly sympathetic. Unless you can prove that this process has suddenly altered to allow people without any proof of disability to qualify then your assumption that Obama is responsible is pure wishful thinking. I guess when it becomes increasingly clear that Willard's ship is sinking the rats aboard will clutch at any straw they can.

Still waiting for that evidence so you can support your claim.
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060936252 said:
Still waiting for that evidence so you can support your claim.

Sorry, you're the one making the unsupported claim that these people aren't truly disabled. The burden is on you to show evidence of that fact otherwise your meaningless opinion is trumped by the doctors who examine each individual case. I think most rational people without a Kool Aid addiction would realize a long war would probably swell the ranks of claimants. By your logic I could make any outlandish claim such as Romney is an alien and it would stand until dis proven. Didn't you guys learn with the "birther" nonsense that such strategies only work on the already indoctrinated?
 
Back
Top Bottom