• 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.

FACT CHECK: Presidential debate missteps

Here's another source:
Fact checking the debate
Can we have a non-partisan analysis by DP members. Please hold the insults to each other and the candidates. Lets just discuss any fact checks that are wrong or right. Please.

Pretty much what specklebang said; let's try and keep it civil.
 
It looks like there were only 2 clear whoppers told in last nights debate... 1 by Romney and 1 by Obama, and they both were about health care. Obama made a false claim about health care premiums and Romney on the Obamacare oversight panel.

Other than that, there was some truth in everything else they claimed last night... To me, that's what I'd call a pretty clean debate.
 
I have a quick question. Isn't NOT eliminating tax breaks for the rich (Dems' is for all except the "rich") an integral part of the Republican platform?
 
It was truly an impressive debat by American (low) standards. I hope it continues like this so we can all make good decisions.

It looks like there were only 2 clear whoppers told in last nights debate... 1 by Romney and 1 by Obama, and they both were about health care. Obama made a false claim about health care premiums and Romney on the Obamacare oversight panel.

Other than that, there was some truth in everything else they claimed last night... To me, that's what I'd call a pretty clean debate.
 
It was truly an impressive debat by American (low) standards. I hope it continues like this so we can all make good decisions.

I'm watching it right now (couldn't do so last night), but I was a little bit annoyed by how Romney interrupted Lehrer about 12-13 minutes into the debate (haven't seen yet if he keeps on interrupting him.) But, can someone answer my quick question?
 
I have a quick question. Isn't NOT eliminating tax breaks for the rich (Dems' is for all except the "rich") an integral part of the Republican platform?

Correct, Republicans want the Bush tax cuts to remain for everyone. Obama says he wants only the tax rates for those at $200,000 and up raised.
 
I'm watching it right now (couldn't do so last night), but I was a little bit annoyed by how Romney interrupted Lehrer about 12-13 minutes into the debate (haven't seen yet if he keeps on interrupting him.) But, can someone answer my quick question?

One person in Frank Luntz's focus group of undecided voters, said they appreciated that because he did so to clear up misrepresentations about his record, and another said it was a sign of a leader the way he took control of the narritive.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...388-won-debate-just-ask-undecided-voters.html
 
Correct, Republicans want the Bush tax cuts to remain for everyone. Obama says he wants only the tax rates for those at $200,000 and up raised.

I might have misunderstood something that Romney said (I've just read it on AP Mobile) is that he is going to cut tax breaks for the wealthiest. Isn't that a bit contradictory to the GOP platform?
 
I might have misunderstood something that Romney said (I've just read it on AP Mobile) is that he is going to cut tax breaks for the wealthiest. Isn't that a bit contradictory to the GOP platform?

He said he was going to cut out some of the deductions and loopholes.
 
I have a quick question. Isn't NOT eliminating tax breaks for the rich (Dems' is for all except the "rich") an integral part of the Republican platform?

Yes. However, going with what someone said earlier in terms of partial truths, this falls into that realm.

Maintain a tax break that is currently on the books could be argued as being different than creating an entirely new break.

Basically it's one of those situations where both of these statements are true....

Person X will cut taxes from the rates that are planned to exist

Person X will not do any new tax cuts from the current rate

One statement is banking on the fact that something WILL happen....one statement is ignoring the fact that something COULD happen. Both are technically true, but not the whole story. And that's generally how you get the notion that extending and/or renewing the Tax Cuts could be argued as not necessarily "cutting" taxes while at the same time can be argued that it absolutely IS "cutting" taxes.

The other issue was that Obama was not repeatedly just saying that he was going to do 5 trillion (or was it billion?) in tax cuts, but specifically that he was going to be adding that to the deficit.
 
Last edited:
He said he was going to cut out some of the deductions and loopholes.

Hmm, so the article's author(s) meant the deductions and loopholes. I still find it rather dumb that small businesses file as individuals, because that's pretty much the reason for Romney's plan; reducing the rates but closing loopholes which mostly only affect business owners (except mortgage and student loan deductions)
 
Back
Top Bottom