Photos
Did you guys watch the first of three presidential debates last night? Or did you just watch Charmed reruns? Debates are always very confusing to me. Like, today everyone is saying that Mitt Romney won the debate and that Barack Obama was a “disappointment.” OK! I don’t know. I was mostly busy chasing after those precious RT’s anyway. But, like, Mitt Romney is a liar (they are both probably liars, but one of them is more of a liar) and he seemed incredibly petulant and pushy and entitled. I won’t mention his eyes because let’s keep this conversation elevated and above the ad hominem attacks that we are all too good for, but also his eyes. My point is that I am not a swing voter, and so when I watched the debates last night, all I saw was Barack Obama being kind of boring and Mitt Romney being a jerk. Whoops! I’m so stupid. Obviously Mitt Romney won and Barack Obama was “disappointing.” What do I even know? Let’s elect the debate for president. Something something Big Bird.
But so did you guys watch? Who won? Who is president now? Are you going to watch the next debate? What kind of snacks did you have last night and what kind of snacks will you have at the next debate? Who were you wearing? You have two minutes to respond.
 |
 |
You Might Also Like
Leave a Reply
Sign inSign in with FacebookYou must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.
roughly ten minutes in romney said the phrase “economy tax” and i promptly had an aneurysm and died. i’m actually posting this from the morgue.
Man, I’m beginning to think that as an alternative music fan Republican, there are less of us than Log Cabin Republicans. But hey, we gots Stapp now!! Nice Romney won, but everything he said was lies, angle going on here though.
where the fly girls at?
I did not watch the debate, as I am not trying to decide who to vote for and listening to politicians talk is very frustrating to me. So I watched a bunch of episodes of Revenge instead, which I think was a good life choice!
I agree! I watched Revenge last night, too! I’m only 2 episodes away from the season 1 finale!
I just started watching it on Saturday and I’m already on episode 13. So good!
Revenge is the best!!
They gotta get a new moderator. Jim Lehrer’s baggy eyes give me the creeps.
I watched it. I thought Obama was too passive and Romney was a total boorish entitled ass. The moderator could have been more assertive, yes, but he probably thought he would be dealing with adults and not screamy pushy jerks (Romney) (Obama too, but to a MUCH LESSER EXTENT). I really hope my middle school librarian is the next moderator because she would school you, presidential candidate or no, for talking out of turn.
Also COOOOOOOOOAL FOR EVERYONE! COAL COAL COAL COAL COAL COAL!
I just did not understand how Mitt Romney was so bad at debating. The goal is not to talk the loudest, for Christ’s sake.
That coal thing threw me into a rage spiral. If you don’t know already, the Republicans in the House are pushing for coal… HARD. They passed a bill called Stop The War On Coal Act in September. The corporations that are people that love Romney/Ryan are really really into this. Best part? (Well if this bill passes, the EPA can’t regulate coal emissions for clean air/water so it wouldn’t be an issue.) Almost off of it will be mined and shipped to China by private companies, who burn it and the soot/ash/toxins come back to the U.S. in all sorts of fun ways. To be fair, the Senate and Obama have already said they’d kill the bill immediately… but if these people keep elected into office by corporation-people, we will literally lose any progress made in cleaning up the air and water. And coal burning is also a massive factor in mercury-ridden fish.
So yelling about clean energy exploration and coming out as liking coal? Seriously, go fuck yourself Mr. Romney.
AND THE PIPELINE. UGH. THE PIPELINE!!!
That goddamn comment about the pipeline. I forgot about that. Blacked it out because of my rage. AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
“Clean Coal” sounds like the dumbest oxymoron ever. It’s seriously like they’re fucking pranking all of us with that term it’s so ridiculous.
I don’t know, ‘Jumbo Shrimp’ is still pretty ridonk.
I thought Obama held his own against a guy who had nothing else to do but prepare for the debate. Obama’s a little busy BEING PRESIDENT.
LOOK, I see this A DECENT amount, but it’s a shitty EXCUSE. Dude is IN FULL CAMPAIGN mode. He should’ve been FUCKING READY to get going. HE’S BEEN hitting the TV SHOW circuits and ALL that nonsense. HE SHOULD’VE been prepping to GET nasty in the DEBATES during that.
Don’t curse at Kelly’s mom!
WAIT, for REAL?
For real!
HOLY shit.
It’s ok. I can take it!
A friend commented on Facebook that “Romney won the debate because he was better prepared, more affable, more comfortable and an all-around better debater.” Two of those things work if you’re running in a beauty pageant not a presidential campaign, and the other two things don’t count if everything you said was a lie.
“Romney won the debate because he was an all-around better debater.” -Your friend, the logician
Who needs debates? I saw a billboard that told me Obama is for gay marriage and abortion, and that’s all I need to cast my vote!
P.S. Is anybody actually FOR abortion? I mean, pro-choice, yeah, but I don’t think anybody out there is all “Fuck yeah, let’s all get abortions!”
Having seen Children of Men and what happens to a world sans babies, I sincerely hope nobody is pro-abortion. (Also claiming to be pro-abortion and that all pregnant women should definitely get an abortion thank you very much is my go to contribution to any obnoxious abortion debate I am in range of).
Hell yeah! We could make it into a reality show!
Also, apparently this is what will happen if you let people of the same gender, who love each other very much, marry. This, and maybe your toaster stops working.
I guess you won’t be following my fuckyeahabortions tumblr then…
This is anecdotal evidence so take it as you will.
My Dad is totally pro-abortion. I’m not even kidding. He’s a doctor so mainly, it is because he doesn’t want non-doctors doing it.
But, more than that, he figures there’s too many babies being born to people that shouldn’t; that adoption is not so great (on account of my 2 adopted cousins are fuckups). On top of that, there are more babies than people willing to adopt them.
I totally disagree with him but he has thought it through.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see
I’m pro-abortion.
I mean, I don’t think women/people with uteruses (uteri?) should be forced to do anything they don’t want to with their own bodies.
But if there’s someone who is maybe on the fence about having a child, not so sure that they want to do this, just overwhelmed by the whole 18-year-commitment or whatever, I think that person should probably just hit the “reset” button. Since the average American is responsible for the death of about 83 animals a year, the death of that human potentiality is kinda no big thing. Better to have every child be seriously well loved and well cared for, have fewer children, etc.
(Sorry this apparently makes me a terrible person, guys! I’ll try harder.)
Stewart and Colbert’s mock debate last night bore an uncanny resemblance to the dynamics of the presidential debate. Stewart agreeing with Colbert and letting him interrupt, the smirk on Colbert’s face the whole time–it was all there in the real debate. Interesting coincidence.
Sorry to get serious, but i’m pretty disappointed. I think even more frustrating than Romney contradicting his prior positions or just outright lying is the notion that even the things that he said that are true are easily refutable, but Obama completely ignored them.
The increase in people on food stamps comes to mind. Yes, there has been a large increase. But that the increase is almost entirely caused by unemployment and the economic downturn, or that eligibility has not changed for the program seemed not to matter at all to Obama.
It’s not the first time Obama has capitulated to off-base Republican attacks, in hopes that the public will see through the bullshit, yet that approach has hardly worked. One thing to take solace in is that Obama plays a good long game. Romney is now boxed in to several tricky positions. But in a country obsessed with zingers and bazingas, I’m not sure it matters. ugh.
Which candidate is pro-zinger, and which is pro-bazinga?
It’s hard to tell at this point. Romney does have a large pro-bazinga base. Either way, there seems to be a recovery in the shenanigans market, which helps Obama. Nevertheless, wisecracks are at an all time low so who knows!
Do Romney supporters watch Big Bang Theory? I’d have pegged them as Wipeout watchers.
THERE’S a difference?
Can I be equally serious and equally disappointed? Can we have a Seriously Disappointed party? I’m mostly Seriously Disappointed that Romney “won” when most of what he said was just lies (ugh, pre-existing conditions, ugh) or really terrible correlations. Like the whole giving money to green energy thing could’ve been spent on more teachers? What?
That really ticked me off. Was Romney saying that he thinks federal money which currently subsidizes energy companies should be used to hire teachers? Or that his idea of how to spend stimulus money is not to target startups but to give it to public schools? But when Obama said we should end subsidies for energy companies, Romney came out as for them, because mostlythey go to small exploration companies, not Exxon? I’m not even going to look up whether that’s true; either way I have no idea what Romney’s point was. He just produced a garbled mash of nonsequiters. But he “won” because he spouted unconnected “facts” with energy? If that’s how we decide who to elect, then for pete’s sake, just hand an almanac to a meth addict and let’s call it a day.
I seriously wouldn’t be surprised to find out that they had him pop a couple of adderalls or something. He seemed exactly like that guy at the party that’s the only one on coke. Thinks he’s great, overly confident and constantly talking over everybody but saying absolutely nothing.
Yeah, it’s obvious that Romney gave a better performance, but he also apparently lied about a few important things. The Times’ fact-check faults him on four or five things that are just blatantly wrong, whereas Obama is at worst guilty of taking Romney’s tax plan too literally.
I don’t agree that Obama should have countered all these factoids – “Actually, only a few of the solar energy companies we aided went bankrupt, not HALF, sheez.” “I didn’t double the deficit, it only went up a little!” These are rhetorically weak positions to take. But the press absolutely should be giving Mitt demerits for them – he shouldn’t be praised for lying just because he did it confidently and aggressively.
I’ll continue with a serious reply (a bit) fondue cheddar.
Romney’s point about food stamps was precisely that the Obama economy sucks.
re: position changes: Romney only changed positions from what Obama’s campaign and other have been saying his positions were. Obama has laid out a strawman and obviously his campaign thought it was true. Obama seemed unprepared to debate the guy who showed up. That’s not because Romney changed, it’s because Obama’s people didn’t bother to really research his positions.
Whenever Romney says something sensible the other side automatically calls it a lie. Obama will continue to loose debates if he and his people don’t get on the ball and look at what the other side is actually trying to do and say.
With all that said, I actually think Obama did fine if all you count are zingers or bazingas.
“Romney’s point about food stamps was precisely that the Obama economy sucks.”
Well I don’t think so. Romney wants people to think that Obama has changed the eligibility for these programs to get more people on the government; at least this is what he’s been saying.
I just think it’s so funny to characterize Obama has this big government socialist that is slowing down the economy. He has not changed eligibility for Food Stamps or Medicaid. Government employment has fallen rapidly. There has been a small increase in regulatory staff, but the majority of it is in homeland security, which conservatives tend to love. One area he has increased regulation is the environment, and people will argue whether that is a good or bad thing. Also, healthcare. The debate about those two issues is worth having.But he’s so far away from what he’s painted as by conservatives.
As far as the position changes. I’m sure you can read any number of the articles today on fact checking things like his plans for pre-existing conditions or his statements about green energy. Not to mention that an across the board tax cut of the magnitude Romney wants is impossible to do without either increasing the deficit significantly or raising burden on middle class (no buzzwordo).
With all that said, even though Romney didn’t really specify much of his plans, he made a couple good points (Dodd-Frank is a poorly written bill!), but he was extraordinarily misleading and Obama just didn’t confront him on that
First, I swear I’m not trying to be contentious. I just want to track down some sources. What are you basing the point that there’s been no change in food stamp rules for? I’ll admit I’ve read some stuff (other than what Romney said) about how food stamps are being encouraged and changes have been made. I’m willing to be convinced that no changes have been made.
Second, none of what Romney said last night was a surprise to me. I’ve read all of his claims many, many times in lots of places in right leaning publications, etc. This trope that Romney lied is a bit tedious at this point. Politifact is not a credible source (yeh, yeh, Pulitzer, whatevs). They are not some neutral org. Anyway, we should look at as many different sources and arguments as possible and see which ones are most convincing.
“He lied!” is just an excuse to not actually engage in the debate on the merits of the arguments being made. Most of the “lies” are only lies if you look at it through one perspective.
Example: $716B taken from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. Politifact and the Obama supporters say it’s not a cut to Medicare. Just a reduction of payments to unscrupulous insurance companies and healthcare providers. OK, you can think of that as NOT a cut. However, Healthcare providers, are doctors. Insurance companies reimburse doctors for treatment to patients. The proposal is to reduce (cut) the amounts that medicare will pay to reimburse insurance and doctors for these treatments. As we see with MedicAid already, the reimbursement rates do not cover the cost to the healthcare provider (doctor) to treat MedicAid patients. The result is doctors stop taking MedicAid patients.That is a reduction in the amount of healthcare available to low income people. I know this happens for a fact because I see it in my own family. Romney and the GOP are saying that these “reductions” in payments to insurance companies and healthcare providers ends up cutting services to patients.
Therefore, this is not a lie. Now, one can debate whether or not these two takes on the idea are more or less valid. But just calling it a lie is a cop out because it is avoiding, rather than engaging in the argument.
So are you saying that the numbers Romney cited ($2B) for the size of the tax break (subsidies) that oil companies get are made up? Because that is a number Obama uses to say that oil companies do not deserve the breaks. (I actually agree with Obama on this point). Or is the $90B paid out to green energy companies (many of which failed) made up? If so, what are the real numbers? Romney just (correctly) pointed out that this wasted money could have been spent more effectively to meet Obama’s own goals if put into hiring teachers.
So anyway, obviously all of this stuff depends on your point of view. I do respect that you’ve made a cogent argument, fondue cheddar.
Thanks pcbowen. And I always appreciate your contributions to threads! Very well thought out and rational.
Here is a good article on the notion that Obama has not expanded eligibility for Medicaid from an albeit partisan dude Ezra Klein. Still presents the facts well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gingrich-says-obama-is-the-food-stamp-president-is-he/2012/01/18/gIQA1Ino8P_blog.html
As far as the “lies” I was referring to: Romney said half of the green companies the government invested in have gone out of business. Only three have. The others have created some jobs, and a lot of good research base. Whether the private sector could have done better is up to debate, still a lie!
The other one I mentioned are preexisting conditions. Romney said preexisting conditions are covered under his plan. This one is more difficult because he hasn’t specified, but from what his advisers have said, under his plan, people who are continuously insured (and lose coverage) can not be discriminated against. People who are now uninsured can be discriminated against.
As far as the cuts to Medicare, it’s important to distinguish between regular Medicare and Medicare Advantage. I think 80% of seniors have regular Medicare. The cuts came to Medicare Advantage, and yes they are cuts. I’m not debating that and I don’t think it’s a lie. But the administration made the determination that the cuts will not lower benefits, and not have a dramatic effect on care. This is certainly up for debate, and Romney brought it to the forefront. Certainly something needs to be done about Medicare, and I look forward to hearing more from both candidates.
Again, both sides have issues. I think the demonizing of Bain Capital and Tax returns is pretty useless on the left, and the demonizing of immigrants and other stigmatized groups is pretty useless on the right, but I appreciate having a thoughtful chat about it with reasonable people!
I almost watched this last night because someone posted online saying he had a giant TV and wanted to play presidential debate drinking games, but at the last minute the person I was going with backed out and I didn’t go just in case he was an axe murderer. So I stayed home and read out loud with my cat then had a bubble bath instead because I’m single and almost 30 and this is how I spend my evenings.* I had home made red curry and vegetable soup, no snacks. I was wearing a short-ish white dress with brown tights, gold shoes and a black trenchcoat. I think those are all the questions you asked that I’m qualified to answer.
*Listening to All By Myself, of course. The Celine version, this is Quebec goddammit.
I went out and had dinner with my wife and then we came home and drank vodkas and watched the end of the Yankees game. Life well lived.
Unless your lack of support will allow Obama to win, thus continuing his campaign to destroy your traditional marriage.
So yes, Obama was very low-key and did not challenge Mitt on all the questionable and/or verifiably false things he said. However, Romney was throwing a lot of curveballs, departing from things he’s been spouting for months. I think it was smart of Obama to mostly keep quiet in this first round instead of risking the chance of putting his foot in his mouth. Now the fact-checkers can now go to work and Obama can potentially tear Mitt apart in the next two debates, quoting exact things Romney has said in the first. He can do this calmly and confidently. Or at least I hope.
facts and previous positions aside, Romney did a great job making the case for smaller, less-intrusive government. i won’t be voting for him, but i also won’t be voting for Obama, because I just don’t trust a man who’s nose whistles.
i have also made an analogy of watching the debates to being exactly like the baseball game I was at the night before between the Astros and the Cubs.
both teams suck, i am pretty partial to one side, which was getting beat, but what does it really matter who comes out on top? it has no effect on the larger whole. and no matter the outcome, those of us sitting on the sidelines are left out in the cold, so yes, please I will have another beer and hope its better next season.
I’m curious if you plan to vote at all. There are other people running, yes? I don’t plan to vote for a couple of reasons.
1) I can’t say that I am the most well informed voter. I try to keep up with the news, but at this point all I hear is one side bashing the other, so I can’t keep it all straight.
2) From what I do know, I agree with Obama on some things, but strongly disagree on others. I don’t particularly like Romney, and find Paul Ryan terrifying.
This woman at my work was saying to me, “But you have to vote!” I disagree, and I really don’t believe that one man will solve America’s problems.
So I watched these at 2AM England time and I think I dreamt it. Mitt Romney was a talking burrito the whole time, right?
He did once say things would be easier for him if he were Latino, but I don’t think that’s what he had in mind.
Then again, maybe it was.
Thoughts and feelings:
Mittens never stops smirking, and he wore the whole “schoolyard bully” routine pretty thin.
They both sounded exactly the same as they have for a while now, meaning this wasn’t exactly a game changing debate–just an affirmation of who you do or don’t like.
Mittens likes Big Bird, Jim Lehrer, coal, and clean energy. However, he does not want either Big Bird or Jim Lehrer to keep their jobs.
I ate popcorn and drank two buck Chuck from Trader Joseph’s.
I was wearing pajamas basically the entire time.
“I was wearing pajamas basically the entire time.”
You saying you stripped them off at the end?
Mittens gets her all hot and steamy.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S_Y2jiWH4gI/AAAAAAAAC-M/neW6o3qyS0I/s1600/rage5(alternatealternate).png
I give up trying to post pictures instead of links. All of my comment history is this.
oh. that was easy.
Yes, immediately. It was Jim Lehrer’s cold, dead eyes that did me in.
Uh oh, GradStudentsAreTheWorst emerges from Facebook Connect hibernation to weigh in…
You know who lost the debate last night? CNN. While airing the debate (in a small corner of the TV screen), the entire lower half of the screen was occupied with real-time tweets. Frakking tweets. From seemingly random people. CNN has this huge emphasis on ‘You report the news, you matter!’, and it’s the worst thing. I don’t want to know what Doug from Minneapolis thinks. I want to know what independent, impartial, informed reporters and analysts think about a given issue, and get past the propaganda to the truth. You know, JOURNALISM. This emphasis on social media and equal time for both sides of the argument is killing journalism in this country. Not every single citizen’s opinion merits broadcast ON A NATIONAL SCALE, and not every viewpoint merits equal ‘fair and balanced’ coverage. Occupy CNN Headquarters.
UGH. YES. UGH. I was watching the stream on YouTube and changed to the Al Jazeera stream because I could not stand that nonsense on the lower half of the screen. As a fellow GraduateStudentWhoIsTheWorst I approve this message.
Do not get me started on CNN. I have an extremely large room in my brain where I put all my CNN hate, and it looks like I am going to need a bigger room, with possibly a full bathroom and separate bedroom and kitchen. I find it incredibly difficult to respect a serious news network that puts such large emphasis on TWITTER, the website celebrities use to post things about their dog getting a makeover (#Dourtney4Lyfe).
I’ll help her out with that
Since we’re getting all Politicsgum here, I’ll give my opinion.
Caveat: I am a Green Party candidate for office in NY State this year.
It’s hard to call this a debate, since it is run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the Commission was set up in 1988 by the Democratic and Republican parties to exclude other candidates. It is also funded almost entirely by large corporate contributions, from nice groups like Anheiser -Busch. Democrats and Republicans negotiate in secret on everything from podium size to lighting, to the moderator (they once rejected 80 potential moderators). Without alternative candidates there, which would be all candidates who have a possibility of winning 270 electoral votes, you get a stilted and boring debate over minutiae. Including Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, would have immediately broadened the debate in important ways, indeed would have made it a real debate. We’d have had debates about economic policy that don’t center around who gives the biggest tax cuts, but whether we should have direct job creation programs like the WPA to get back to full employment, whether we should raise the minimum wage, end the drug war, cut the military budget and fund social programs, how to deal with rising student debt, the housing crisis, renewable energy, etc.
Instead what we got was 90 minutes of hot air and very little debate on anything serious. Thankfully, Democracy Now, a wonderful radio and tv program, live-streamed the debates and had both Jill Stein (the GP candidate) and Rocky Anderson (the Justice Party candidate) respond to Lehrer’s questions as if they were there. This allowed for a robust, and almost real debate, as opposed to the song and dance routine on stage in Denver. If you want to watch it, click here: http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/10/4/expanding_the_debate_watch_democracy_nows_full_three_hour_special
Will I watch the other debates? Yes, because I teach politics and I have to, but I find them almost impossible to take seriously. We need a law that mandates all candidates on the ballot in an election be entered into debates, and in the presidential election all candidates on the ballot in states with an electoral vote total of 270.
YES!!! GO YOU! #votingthirdparty
Right on!!! I love Jill Stein, but I’m too worried about the realities of a Romney presidency to vote for her. Of course my area is so very very blue that voting Green isn’t going to make a difference… But the last time I did this, for these very same reasons, Bush won.
Also: I totally agree with you. Our two party system is corrupt and the pits.
Also: Good luck!!!!
I’ll always vote Green Party because I don’t like feeling like I’m being held hostage by the Democrats. Because I’m rather progressive in my political leanings, they think I have to vote for them, so they don’t have to be all that left-wing. But, I don’t have to vote for them! Bush won not because I didn’t vote Democrat, but because the Democrats didn’t earn my, and a lot of other people’s, vote.
“Bush won not because I didn’t vote Democrat, but because the Democrats didn’t earn my, and a lot of other people’s, vote.”
EH, yeah. BUT EITHER way we still GOT TWO terms of BUSH.
I’m sure Al Gore would have achieved as President A LOT of the principles the Green Party supports. Certainly A LOT more than Bush. Obama too, as opposed to Romney.
I totally agree with this. I’d also like to point out that I campaigned for Gore, but voted for Nader so my friends and family that lived in swing states would vote for Gore (and he took both places) but know their dissent with the Democratic platform of 2000 was heard.
Bush won because the voting system in Florida was totally corrupt. And with all the fraud going on now in the name of anti-fraud measures… ugh. But, either way, Bush did horrible long-lasting things to exploit our natural resources that Obama has worked for four years to undo as much as possible and Romney thinks that is a bad thing? Then he promised more strip mining? No. No fucking way.
Also, half of the measures that would have worked to actual enact changed were blocked IMMEDIATELY by my good buddy Paul Ryan so … how did my mom put it? Romney’s like an abusive dad that locks you in the basement and then beats the hell out of you for not doing the dishes in time. (We had a long conversation last night about how we honestly think Mitt Romney is an actual, functioning psychopath.)
feministnoise,
You won’t lose the right to birth control. You may have to pay for it out of pocket though.
It’s really cute and adorable that you think insurance-covered birth control is the only reproductive right a woman stands to lose.
This umbrella may keep rain off my head, but it doesn’t stop my feet from getting wet in puddles, so I’m just not going to use it at all. Now I’m completely soaked. Take that, umbrella! I’m not held hostage to you!
It must be nice to feel like you have the luxury to make such statements and not have them affect you in very real and very awful ways.
I don’t think that’s an apt analogy. If people are stupid enough to vote for G.W. Bush or Mitt Romney, why is that my problem. Fuck lesser of two evils. I do have a choice. In good conscience, I can only vote for the person who most represents my views.
Of course you don’t think it’s an apt analogy. You don’t stand to lose by not having the umbrella, so you can hold out for the galoshes. The only people who can say “fuck lesser of two evils” aren’t really impacted by either evil. So mazel on that to you, but some of us can’t take that chance.
I do find it kind of hilarious that you qualify yourself as progressive, when your attitude here boils down to “what do I give a shit if some people lose their rights and livelihoods and bodily autonomy under one candidate and not the other?” But not very surprising, given some of the other comments I’ve seen you make.
I guess, feministnoise, I’m wondering what rights you stand to lose that you haven’t already lost?
- like, all the women and children blown up by Obama’s drones don’t have a choice one way or another anymore
- no prosecution of Wall St. criminals
- continued government abridgement of civil liberties under Obama
- no attempt to deal with unemployment issues
- no attempt to curtail corporate power in politics
- no attempt to deal with climate change
So, yea, I guess we’d “lose” something if Obama lost… I’m really just not sure what. Most claims of that seem to be hot air.
Your analogy implies that the Democrat umbrella is keeping me dry at all. I don’t think it is. I’m voting for the roof that I think will keep us all dry. Just because you guys keep buying cocktail umbrellas doesn’t mean I should do the same. Someone has to lead the charge.
You don’t know anything about me, so don’t make assumptions about what I have and what I stand to lose. As a son of a pair of dedicated Socialists, I am comfortable calling myself progressive. I don’t want Mitt Romney to win and I’m not voting for him. I certainly do understand what a Romney presidency could mean to the poor, to women, to the environment, etc. I’ve been on food stamps, I have sisters who use Planned Parenthood, I breathe dirty air every day. But, I stand by my point that the Democratic party should earn my vote. They haven’t done that, yet. And, I don’t know what comments you’re referring to since I usually just make wisecracks, but just because I didn’t condemn a meaningless Daniel Tosh joke doesn’t make me an asshole. That’s silly.
And you think, Bubbles, that all of those people wouldn’t lose MORE under Romney, is that what you’re saying? Also, as I am female and of child-bearing age, yes, I’m pretty nervous about losing reproductive rights under Romney that I would not under Obama, and maybe that’s not lofty enough for you, but it’s not “hot air.”
I’d rather we didn’t have a two-party system just the same as you, but I’m not in any position to ignore the reality that we DO, and neither are a lot of people, and it’s cheap of you to act like that’s not true.
Do you guys remember when Romney said that thing about how people should know how their schools are ranked so if you don’t like your school’s grade, you can just TAKE YOUR KID TO ANOTHER SCHOOL??? Cause that’s definitely the perspective of someone who fully understands the PUBLIC education system in this country.
It was also excellent when he said that private insurance is better than government healthcare because if you don’t like your insurer you can just hire a different one to insure you. That shows so much wisdom about what life is like without unlimited money and preexisting conditions.
Also fuck that cutting-funding-for-public-broadcast shit.
I actually work for a PBS affiliate, so yeah, talk about destroying jobs, Mitt Romney!
That’s what blows me away, he’s talking about creating jobs and cutting government jobs so net gain is, what, like, 2 jobs?
Exactly. I remember when the Republicans were chomping at the bit to cut NPR funding to “save money”, when in reality it’s a fraction of a fraction of the budget. I’m glad the only listenable station on terrestrial radio was being sacrificed for a few political points.
Yes and I’m more pissed about the “we don’t need it” side of the argument…even if it were a bigger chunk of the budget, we need it!
I always love when Republicans want to look fiscally responsible by saying our public broadcasting needs to be cut. We can’t talk about the black hole that is military spending, but the fraction of percent we spend on PBS will save us. Nothing wrong with that logic at all!
That is actually a very good metaphor for what’s happened to our country, in general. Used to be, every city had a few good stations that were independent and sort of reflective of the vibe of the region they were in, and then the always reliable NPR affiliate. Then giant multinational corporations (mostly Clear Channel) completely took over everything, and effectively killed radio. If they took out NPR, that would be the final death blow.
Our country has been taken over by multinational corporations, the Republicans think that’s good, and want to go as far as they can privatizing everything because finance. If they have their way and get rid of the NPR equivalents as far as our society goes, we’re fucked.
Frank Bruni sums up the debate for me: “And these two candidates aren’t combustible. They’re not heated in the least. They have trouble enough with warm and fuzzy. Their encounter on a debate stage was never going to be a clash of the titans. A mash of the cyborgs was more like it.”
Reading about this makes me wish Canada had a more awesome debate format, like every so often candidates would fight to the death standing on ice floes and armed with harpoons. Nope, exactly like this, except with more people (usually around 4).
On SAT essays, you’re allowed to totally invent facts to make your case, since they’re just grading on mechanics. I feel like that’s how Romney approached the debate.
And I bet Obama was coached to kinda just softly play defense when he really needed to BRING THE ORATORY. Obama’s debate prep faux-Romney was John Kerry so he was destined to be boring.
lol remember the last time we went with the guy who seemed more affable on television over the guy who was by almost any measure the more qualified candidate and we ended up with a nightmare hellworld for eight years lol
I also did not watch the debate, for many of the reasons above but also because my roommate had her conservative friend over so they could debate AFTER the debate and the thought of that gave me hives. Instead I went on a date and had makeouts while watching Hackers.
I didnt watch this cause last time I watched a debate it was Sarah Palin and I felt bad for her, she was struggling to sound like she was on the ball and it made me squirm in my seat. Then I had a panic attack: what if they drafted me to run for office and I had to stand up there with no preparation and try to sound like I know anything at all about the political matters. Squirmed some more and turned it off. Could not deal.
I watched Restaurant: Impossible & Restaurant Stakeout. #winning