gg romney. Round 2 to Obama
gg romney. Round 2 to Obama
Romney won the 1st debate obama won the 2nd
how do you feel about AK47s?
Obama: Romney says that we don't need more teachers
really?wtf?
Watched the first 20 minutes or so, then started watching the main event of the last New Japan Pro Wrestling ppv. Never watched any Japan pro wrestling before, but fuckin' A, some classic-ass wrestling going on in that thing. Watched the first few hours last night.
Next time you get sick of politics and bullshit, toss on some NJPW. Better than most UFC events, even.
More realism in Japanese pro wrestling than American politics, for SURE.
(The NJPW King of Pro-Wrestling. Go find it. It's pretty awesome.)
Also, interesting little podcast from a few weeks ago about dodging questions.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment...ful-dodge.html
The essence is that if you can confidently acknowledge something about the question at first, then go into whatever your schtick is, you're pretty much bulletproof in these debates, because nobody ever knows what the fuck question was asked one the answer is given. There is a very simple solution that could make dodging the question pretty blatant: put the question on the screen while the candidates try to dodge/answer. Only then do people grasp when the candidates are being evasive.
Be interesting to see someone do this in the coming years, if only at the city or state level. Can't imagine it in a pres. debate anytime soon.
Fuck no, though that would be only slightly less entertaining. These are like solid 15 minute matches, main event closer to an hour, dudes a lot more along the lines of Ricky Steamboat, Macho Man, Bret Hart classic wrestling, with a few high flying guys thrown in, and Sakuraba, of course. Everything the WWE isn't and hasn't been for many years now.
best one liner of the night...
Romney: Mr President have you looked at your pension lately?
Obama: My pension isnt as big as yours, it doesnt take me that long...
LOL
Just for a second I will argue politics, Rollo style.
Now intelligent people, whether they agree or disagree that this is fair-game criticism of Mitt (i don't), realize that this style of political discourse is unfair, inaccurate, and will never lead to legitamate policy discussion, laws or change of any kind. Rollo actually thinks his pictures like this but on the other side.....serve a purpose other than making him look stupid.
If you want to make a difference Rollo, learn the issues. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, Druff usually doesn't, but you literally understand nothing of what you post about. I mean it would like me going to a service industry website where people discuss the issues of getting paid hourly wages.
5 stupid ideas from the debate by both guys:
1. North American Energy Independence: This Romney campaign talking point has been driving me crazy forever. It used to be that politicians touted American energy independence, which was pretty crazy, but then the Keystone XL pipeline to import oil from Canada became a big conservative issue so they pivoted to "North American" energy independence. But the idea that we should import energy exclusively from Mexico and Canada is even more pointless than the goal of energy autarky. The price of oil American households pay is set on a global market, and if you import energy from anywhere—including Mexico and Canada—the impact on "terms of trade" still exists.
2. Manufacturing Jobs for Everyone! It was odd that Barack Obama brought up promotion of manufacturing jobs, specifically in the context of telling a college student what kind of job he's hoping he'll be able to get after he graduates. It's a sign of the president's unreasonable level of interest in this particular sector of the economy. If we promote broad economic recovery, manufacturing employment will almost certainly go up, which is all to the good. But the long-run stagnation of manufacturing as a share of U.S. employment is driven by deep social and technological trends that Obama's not going to reverse. Sadly, instead of saying that Romney simply suggested that his energy policies (see above) are the real key to sparking the impossible manufacturing rennaissance.
3. E-Verify: Mitt Romney is normally very upset about the potential job-killing impact of regulations, except when it comes to the idea of creating new and stricter regulatory supervision of who businesses are hiring! It's easy to see why investing extra resources in hounding potential unauthorized migrants out of jobs would be bad for the migrants and their employers, but high levels of immigration also turns out to boost the wages of native-born American workers, so there's just no reason to do this. (unless you are an unskilled laborer who can lose your job to a spanish speaker, here is one good analysis) http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...ary_labor.html
4. Incentivize Business Hiring With Personal Income Tax Cuts: Here's Romney on why he wants to reduce individual income tax rates: "when you keep rates down, it makes it easier for those businesses to keep more money and hire more people." This would make sense if Romney were talking about cutting sales taxes, but he's talking about the income taxes that owners of small businesses pay on their profits. Any money you spend on hiring workers is not profits and thus, by definition, not subject to the tax in question. Politicians keep saying things like this, but it's totally wrong.
5. Sales Taxes on Chinese Goods: There's something to this business of Chinese currency policy having a negative effect on U.S. employment, but rather than pushing the sensible solution to this—expansionary monetary policy in the United States—Romney touted the idea of higher sales taxes (that's what tariffs are) on products made in China. Now if the Chinese see this threat, immediately back down. and implement the currency policy we want, and then Romney never has to do it then that'd be nice. But if you go through with the tariffs, first you reduce Americans' real income by subjecting them to higher taxes, and second you'll hurt U.S. exports to China when the inevitable retaliation comes. When faced with a global recession, we want major economies to play "currency wars" (i.e., expansionary monetary policy as everyone tries to devalue) not "trade war" (i.e., contractionary fiscal policy as everyone raises sales taxes).
The problem is we have just two parties, both telling people what they want to hear. Reality doesn't win elections anymore. Zingers won't run a country. Jesus Christ fuck these guys.
Slate Front Page
The problem you cats have is this presidential form of democracy you practise is flawed. The US is plagued with legislative gridlock, even when a president is elected with a clear mandate, he's still basically got to answer to a minority in the legislature, which gives idiotic ideological nutters way too much power to block solid policy. Also, because the president, once elected, will serve out his term unless he is shot or impeached, you end up with the debacle you currently have with Romney standing up straight faced and so clearly bullshitting that he's almost laughing at it himself, knowing that if he gets in he's no one to answer too. On top of that, you've got a partisan judical system adding to the fire with judgements being heavily weighted with ideology.
Because minority view points have so much power the whole system is geared towards decision making based on ideology rather than outcome.
There's arguments in this election that the rest of the western world settled 40 years ago. It's lunacy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)