US presidential debates: Obama v Romney

[Batman]

I'm not sure I get why so many people seem to be against the Health insurance? I'm not an American citizen, so maybe I'm missing something? :confused:

 

Could someone perhaps elaborate on that?

Yeah :anxious:

[Coeurli]

I'm not sure I get why so many people seem to be against the Health insurance? I'm not an American citizen, so maybe I'm missing something? :confused:

 

Could someone perhaps elaborate on that?

From what I've read, or heard so far, my guess is it's mostly a culture thing. Americans don't like being forced to do something, and it seems they feel like they're being forced to pay for something, or take something.

[Batman]

From what I've read, or heard so far, my guess is it's mostly a culture thing. Americans don't like being forced to do something, and it seems they feel like they're being forced to pay for something, or take something.

Can't wait for the flame you'll probably get from all the Americans around here LOOL :laugh3::lol:

[Coeurli]

Can't wait for the flame you'll probably get from all the Americans around here LOOL :laugh3::lol:

Haha! :lol::lol:

 

 

COME AT ME BROS :army:

[Batman]

Haha! :lol::lol:

 

 

COME AT ME BROS :army:

:laugh3:

 

I'll probably get as much flame as you for my following post, but I don't care :awesome::army:

 

One of the reasons why I really detest Romney is that he's reminding me of Bush. From what I've read/seen so far, he seems like a grabby person, he sets the people at each other, has twisted world views and a lot of other bad qualities that I'm too lazy now to translate :shame: He's got sympathisers in the Wall street and oil industry, and I can't imagine that this will be a good combination :worried:

 

Most of the people in Germany fear what might happen when this man will be the new president. Obama may have accomplished not much until now, but that's because the republicans were being very difficult about his decisions.

[zzz]

From what I've read, or heard so far, my guess is it's mostly a culture thing. Americans don't like being forced to do something, and it seems they feel like they're being forced to pay for something, or take something.

 

Ok, that makes some sense I think. If they only knew all the things I have to pay for :P

 

Although why wouldn't someone want health insurance (private or otherwise)?

 

I hope you don't get flamed :uhoh:

[Batman]

Ok, that makes some sense I think. If they only knew all the things I have to pay for :P

HAHA yeah! :lol: Come to Germany people and pay 30% taxes woooooooooooo yaaaay :awesome:

Although why wouldn't someone want health insurance (private or otherwise)?

I was asking myself the same :anxious: PEEPL ARE WEIRD

I hope you don't get flamed :uhoh:

She will, together with me :cheesy:

[zzz]

 

She will, together with me :cheesy:

 

oh no, ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun while you still can!

[Guest howyousawtheworld]

I'm predicting that this race will be similar to the infamous Bush/Gore election night. Unlike McCain, Romney is following very closely behind Obama, and with Romney's strong(er) approach during the debate (as compared to Obama, who seemed rather tired and calm), I think it's going to send this election to be much more intense than 2008.

 

I always thought it was heading the way of the 2004 battle between Bush and Kerry where Bush won comfortably. Would it be fair to say the job figures that were released in the US yesterday where unemployment was at it's lowest since the start of 2009 was far greater than anything that happened in that first debate.

[Batman]

oh no, ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun while you still can!

Hell naw, I'll stay here and defend my opinion! :phu:

 

 

 

 

 

:lol::laugh3:

[Coeurli]

:laugh3:

 

I'll probably get as much flame as you for my following post, but I don't care :awesome::army:

 

One of the reasons why I really detest about Romney is that he's reminding me of Bush. From what I've read/seen so far, he seems like a grabby person, he sets the people at each other, has twisted world views and a lot of other bad qualities that I'm too lazy now to translate :shame: He's got sympathisers in the Wall street and oil industry, and I can't imagine that this will be a good combination :worried:

 

Most of the people in Germany fear what might happen when this man will be the new president. Obama may have accomplished not much until now, but that's because the republicans were being very difficult about his decisions.

That's the general French view too :nod:

 

Also, Obama's behavior towards other countries has been quite easier to deal with than Bush's. I mean Bush had a very unilateral way of trying to solve international issues, and with his wicked thoughts, well that was just scary. Which is why people around the world sighed of relief when Obama was elected. :nod:

Ok, that makes some sense I think. If they only knew all the things I have to pay for :P

 

Although why wouldn't someone want health insurance (private or otherwise)?

 

I hope you don't get flamed :uhoh:

I...don't know....in most of what I've read, they mostly seem to care about being forced to have health insurance and pay more taxes. I'm sure there is something else.

 

In France this debate is just weird, as EVERYONE has heath insurance since 1945! :lol:

We also have many taxes, like omg.

[NumbersGirl]

I'm not sure I get why so many people seem to be against the Health insurance? I'm not an American citizen, so maybe I'm missing something? :confused:

 

Could someone perhaps elaborate on that?

Haha! :lol::lol:

 

 

COME AT ME BROS :army:

oh no, ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun while you still can!

:lips: Don't worry, you won't get any flame from me!

 

There are so many factors that go into this debate. And it's not that American's don't already have health insurance, I would say that the majority do have some sort of private health insurance, whether purchased on their own or through their employer. Essentially as mentioned above, I'd say the issue many people have is being forced into something else. There is already a piece-wise system in place which employed Americans pay for, including Medicare and Medicaid. And if you go to the emergency room, they can't deny you care because you don't have insurance or can't otherwise pay (up front). And then of course you have the current health insurance companies who are likely completely against health care reform. And doctors won't get as much money as they otherwise would, and would have a bigger workload with more patients who otherwise wouldn't have bothered to get checkups and get themselves fixed (as often). Becoming a doctor would then look less attractive for the younger folks who were thinking of going into the profession, and summing those things together could lead to a shortage in providers. Okay I'm rambling and probably over-simplifying things here, but there are so many things going on with this issue.

 

 

I did a quick Google search and found this rather interesting little article/blog/thing. Basically this has been a long-standing "fear", for lack of a better word.

Why are so Many Americans against Universal Health Care?

 

Written by Madeleine Kando

Tuesday, 19 June 2012 21:34

I have tried to understand why so many Americans are against health care reform. To me, a country without universal health care is not a civilized country, it is a barbaric country. Is America a barbaric country? Maybe one has to go way back in history to understand why America is so reluctant to provide this most basic of human right to its citizens.

 

Germany was one of the first western European countries to provide compulsory sickness insurance back in 1883. Austria, Hungary, Norway, Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands followed suit. In the early 20th century Sweden, Denmark, France and Switzerland also adopted universal health care. The primary reason for these early programs was protection against wage loss due to sickness rather than payment for medical expenses.

 

Ironically, in Britain and Germany the sickness insurance programs were developed by conservative governments to counter the expansion of the socialist and labor parties. They used sickness insurance as a way of 'turning benevolence to power'.

 

At that time, the working class in the US was against universal health care because they thought that a government-based insurance system would weaken unions by providing social benefits. They wanted to maintain union strength. During World War I and afterwards, compulsory health insurance was successfully associated with Communism by its opponents and it lost momentum.

 

During the Great Depression, although it was an ideal time to pass compulsory health insurance, priority went to unemployment insurance. FDR was afraid that the Social Security legislation would not pass if it included health insurance.

 

Truman was the first president who fully supported a single payer health insurance plan, but Congress was against it and so was the AMA. In fact, the American Medical Association has always been against health care reform and in those days it was very successful at linking it to socialism and Communism.

 

In 1958, Rhode Island Congressman Aime Forand proposed to cover hospital costs for the aged on social security. For the first time in health care reform history, there was large grass roots support for reform. As usual, the AMA tried to stop it by offering its own version of 'elderly care', but the government expanded its proposal by covering physician services as well. This became Medicare and Medicaid. It clearly shows that if a large group of citizens wants something done, it will put enough pressure on politicians to make it happen. **

 

After the horrors and human rights abuses of the Second World War the International Bill of Human Rights was signed by the United Nations. It represented the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are entitled. It includes the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 12 of the Covenant, the 'Right to Health', states that Governments must protect this right by providing a comprehensive system of healthcare, which is available to everyone without discrimination.

 

Of the 167 countries that signed the Covenant only seven didn't ratify it. The United States is one of them. The Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations did not see this Covenant as rights but merely as social goals. Even though the Clinton Administration did see these rights as basic human rights, it did not fight Congress over the Covenant. The Obama Administration doesn't have anything to say about it.

 

Not only is the whole health care reform issue too complicated for most people to understand, not only is it infested with special interest groups and tainted in the eyes of the public with notions of 'over-dependence on the government', there is also an ideological difference in the US towards basic human rights which most countries that have adopted universal health care, didn't have to deal with.

 

Maybe things have to get much worse in this country before a call to arms will occur. Hopefully one day, Americans will finally realize that the barbarians are not at the gate but inside of it. I am convinced that sooner or later, they will be defeated.

 

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/28-28/12007-why-are-so-many-americans-against-universal-health-care

 

[zzz]

Thank you for that insight :smiley:

As Coeurli said, it's a difficult debate to understand when it has been in place in your own country for so long.

[Batman]

Thank you for the article! That was an interesting read

Thank you for that insight :smiley:

As Coeurli said, it's a difficult debate to understand when it has been in place in your own country for so long.

Yeah. I guess we're just so used to it we couldn't imagine a country NOT having it :uhoh:

[The Final Track]

It's probably because the economy has gone to shit in the past four years and Americans are the ones who are suffering because of some really bad economic choices that Obama has made.

 

Romney's not the best alternative, but we need someone who understands economics and has experience with turning around dire economic situations. I'd rather give him a chance than keep someone in office who has added more to the debt than all presidents before him combined.

If anything is amusing it's the fact that a president whose sole campaign was "Change" is exactly like the president who came before him; more wars, more defense spending, renewal of the patriot act and signing of the NDAA and ACTA (after saying he would never sign it) which violate first amendment rights, corporate bailouts, etc.

 

But a lot of that was carry over from the Bush-era, plus things have been looking better lately if I'm not mistaken.

But after what Romney did in Massachusetts I have no faith in him.

 

Also, I don't understand why Ron Paul is such a good idea.

[coldplaymom]

In regards to the health insurance you are referring to:

 

“So let me get this straight. This is a long sentence.

We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don’t, which reportedly covers 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman doesn’t understand it, passed by Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a Treasury Chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese and financed by a country that is broke.

So what the blank could possibly go wrong?” - Dr. Barbara Bellar

 

Those are inaccurate right wing nuts talking points. For one thing, Obama has stopped smoking, only those who can afford to pay for their health insurance but refuse to do so will pay a penalty or tax.

 

The dishonesty in political discourse in this country just drives me crazy from both sides.

[coldplaymom]

Debate returns 2012 focus to fundamentals

 

By JOHN F. HARRIS and JONATHAN MARTIN | 10/17/12 4:47 AM EDT

 

 

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Barack Obama did well enough in the second debate that he can rest assured about one thing: If he loses his bid for a second term it won’t be because he is bad at debates.

 

If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, likewise, it won’t be because in the final weeks of the campaign he revealed exciting new dimensions of his personality and record that were somehow obscured during the previous two years.

 

In that sense, the Hofstra University debate and Obama’s spirited performance there succeeded in stripping away atmospherics and peripheral arguments to expose the bare guts of the 2012 choice, in both its personal and ideological dimensions.

That choice is now inescapably focused—in a way it was not at the Denver debate and the flood of commentary afterward on Obama’s listless first outing —on fundamental questions.

Is Obama’s record, especially on the economy, defensible? The president defended it as effectively as he is ever going to in the face of some skeptical questions from voters assembled for the debate’s town-hall format. Romney’s hope is that no rhetorical argument from the incumbent is sufficient to mask the weak facts behind it. In a nod to that assumption, Obama showed again Tuesday that he’s far more voluble about Romney’s vulnerabilities than he is making the case for his own record.

Is the Republican nominee an acceptable alternative? If the candidate in Denver seemed to show a whole new side of himself, the one who showed up in Hempstead was entirely familiar to anyone who watched any of the 20 Republican primary debates: crisp, well-prepared, sometimes a little peevish, sometimes a little awkward. It was a stark if redundant reminder: At age 65, Romney is who he is as a politician, and his performances typically fall within a narrow range. Romney advisers feel that their candidate must do no more than clear a basic plausibility standard to exploit Obama’s weaknesses.

 

Along the way to his party’s nomination, however, Romney embraced a lot of orthodox Republican positions—most notably on immigration and women’s issues—and Obama was relentless in highlighting the most unpopular pieces of Romney’s primary baggage. Both men seemed as if they had been steeped for days on end in their campaign’s opposition research files.

“Clearly his advisers told him, drink your Red Bull, get ready to attack, don’t do what you did last time,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Romney surrogate, said of Obama.

The intense natural competitiveness of both men was on display. Obama was clearly helped by this, snapping-to after a first debate that must have embarrassed him. Romney was probably hurt at least a little by his competitive instincts. He jostled with moderator Candy Crowley to ensure he got the last word on several exchanges, and at several junctures seemed to act as if the evening would be scored like a real debate—with the prize going to whoever recites the most complete set of arguments—rather than as a stage to highlight which person comes off as more credible as a leader and appealing as a person.

 

Because of this, Obama seemed to come out ahead in the second debate, though not by the emphatic margin that Romney did in the first.

Going forward, this outcome probably helps reset the race and steer the national conversation away from theater criticism and toward more substantive closing arguments. That itself is a considerable relief for Obama, since another weak show would have turned growing unease among Democrats about a tightening race into genuine panic.

After Hofstra, it seems clear the election will not be turn on minutia, such as whether it was cockiness or the thin Rocky Mountain air that made Obama groggy in Denver, or whether Vice President Biden was appealingly forceful or unappealingly annoying with his interruptions of Paul Ryan at the debate in Kentucky.

With both nominees having turned in one strong performance, the temptation is to look to next Monday’s debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., as the tie-breaker. Historically, however, later debates matter less than the early ones. The question is whether the first two debates have altered the basic trajectory of the race.

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82514.html#ixzz29Y6BqJHa

[coldplaymom]

I'm very independent and have no party allegiance, but I hate wars with passion, especially the unprovoked ones. Romney has the same neo-cons behind the Iraq War counseling him on foreign policy and for me, that's a deal breaker. I never want to see my sons sent to fight for causes we don't believe in.

The all volunteer military will become unsustainable in a long run if we keep insisting on putting boots on the ground in every conflict. We keep sending the same few to battle over and over again and don't even take good care of them when they're done fighting. Ultimately, the only thing that will make sense is returning to the draft. I really don't want my children's lives wasted. That trumps any social or economic reason for voting for a candidate.

[coldplaymom]

President Obama’s answers in second debate pull double-duty for him, against Mitt Romney

 

10/17/2012 12:36 AM

 

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. - For most every question asked on Tuesday night, President Obama had two answers: the one about him, and the one about Mitt Romney.

 

From the outset of their spirited 90-minute debate, Obama replied to each query both by spelling out his own policies and attacking Romney’s record or ideas.

 

After losing his first debate with Romney, Obama had no choice but to pull double-duty. He sought to undercut building support for his opponent among undecided voters, while allaying concerns about his own commitment within his own political base.

 

At the end, his staff and supporters felt relieved both on style and substance points, while Romney was quick off the stage and out of the debate hall.

 

Romney’s aides, though, felt in the long run that fact-checkers would declare their candidate the winner in the night's war of words.

 

The first question of the townhall-style debate at Hofstra University came from a 20-year-old college student, who asked Romney how he could assure him he would be able to support himself after graduation.

 

It was a tee-ball for a self-proclaimed turnaround artist running on the strength of his business record, and promising to accelerate the pace of the nation’s recovery from the Great Recession.

 

“Your question is one that’s being asked by college kids all over this country,” said Romney. “So, what we have to do is two things. We have to make sure that we make it easier for kids to afford college. And also make sure that when they get out of college, there’s a job.”

 

The Republican concluded: “It’s not going to be like the last four years. The middle-class has been crushed over the last four years, and jobs have been too scarce.”

 

When it was the president’s turn to speak, he assumed the mantle of the nation’s inspirational leader, proclaiming, “First of all, your future is bright.”

 

But barely 110-words later, during which he said he wanted to promote manufacturing jobs, Obama pivoted to his second answer: “Now, when Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt, I said we’re going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry, and it’s come surging back.”

 

After Romney was given a chance to rebut, Obama replied, bluntly: “What Governor Romney said just isn’t true.”

 

The Democrat added: “And Governor Romney’s says he’s got a five-point plan? Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector, that’s been his philosophy as governor, that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.”

 

Those exchanges set the tone for the rest of the evening, which featured remarkable theatrics from two candidates used to talking about each other from a distance or before thousands of cheering supporters.

 

On Tuesday night, they walked around a stage before a group of 82 local questioners and hundreds more watching from the arena sidelines.

 

At points, the candidates spoke over each other and trailed one another across the floor, as they sought to have their opponent acknowledge their answer.

 

One in particular drew gasps, when Romney cut off the president of the United States by saying, “You’ll get your chance in a moment; I’m still speaking.”

 

Several of the questions had an almost comical pro-Obama tilt.

 

One focused on equal pay for women (a bill Romney once demurred about supporting). A second was about how Romney might differ from former President George W. Bush (a comparison he sought to avoid throughout the GOP primary campaign). A third centered on immigration (where Romney has encouraged “self-deportation”). And a fourth was on job outsourcing (an accusation leveled against companies Romney invested in while heading Bain Capital).

 

Nonetheless, Romney did not yield any quarter to Obama.

 

“The president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong,” he said as he defended his contraception views in an answer typical of several he gave during the night.

 

Romney also seized the challenger’s prerogative, aiming to hold the incumbent accountable not for the promises he’s now making on the trail, but those he issued during his first campaign.

 

“The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked,” the former Massachusetts governor said after a questioner who voted for Obama in 2008 said he was having doubts this time around.

 

“He’s great as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at,” added Romney. “And that record shows he just hasn’t been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median income is down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work. That’s what this election is about. It’s about who can get the middle-class in this country a bright and prosperous future, and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.”

 

Romney also prospered as Obama avoided direct answers to two consecutive questions.

 

One man, who said he drafted a question with the help of his co-workers, asked simply and succinctly, Who was it that denied enhanced security for the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and why?

 

The president began, “Well, let me first of all talk about our diplomats...”

 

After paying homage to the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in a Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the facility, Obama turned away from the answer to another attack on Romney.

 

“While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release, trying to make political points, and that’s not how a commander in chief operates,” said Obama.

 

When it was his turn to answer, Romney said: “It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading, or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later, when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could we have not known?”

 

The next questioner also asked Obama about his vow, at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, to keep AK-47 assault rifles out of the hands of criminals.

 

“What has your administration done, or planned to do, to limit the availability of assault weapons?” the woman asked.

 

The president replied, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.”

 

After expressing anguish at having to comfort the families of mass shooting victims, Obama went on to say that he believed in enforcing the nation’s existing gun laws and possibly reintroducing an assault weapons ban.

 

But it took him 253 words to begin the sentence responding to the woman’s 16-word question.

 

Obama recovered in what turned out to be a closing statement.

 

He was given the last chance to answer after a man asked him and Romney to address the biggest misconception about themselves.

 

Romney, having escaped any mention all night of his assertion that 47 percent of Americans believe they are “victims” who deserve government handouts, brought up the remark as he asserted he is not the heartless person he is sometimes depicted.

 

“I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future,” he said.

 

Obama disputed the caricature that he believes in big government and doubts the free enterprise system. Then he pivoted to an attack on Romney.

 

“I believe Governor Romney is a good man, loves his family, cares about his faith,” the president added. “But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about: Folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives. Veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country. Students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams. Soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now. People who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income.”

 

Obama concluded: “I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years. Because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds.”

 

His last answer, like his first, had two parts: the one about him and the one about his opponent.

 

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/16/president-obama-answers-second-debate-pull-double-duty-for-him-against-mitt-romney/XLhJ8I5gDLEHp3XU782SNJ/story.html?comments=all#readerComm

[Guest howyousawtheworld]

Obama needed that! Looking at the polls before yesterday's debate it really looked a bit uncomfortable for him. Is it enough to stop the slide?

[coldplaymom]

We shall know soon enough, better be in his place than in Romney's. fivethirtyeight Nate Sliver is the guy to follow. He's got a very good track record when it comes to elections predictions.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/rhode-island-the-most-elastic-state/

[NumbersGirl]

Third debate is tonight.

This will be getting competition from Monday Night Football and from Game 7 of the NLCS (which determines who will go to the World Series).

Therefore, methinks ratings for the debate will be relatively low this time around.

[Black Rose]

Might as well watch it.

[Black Rose]

Bored now...

 

Nice ties, Russia remains a danger to America, might not be as active as bin laden's lot at the moment but their time will come with China

[NumbersGirl]

Russia remains a danger to America

um what

glad I'm watching football instead (even though Detroit's losing right now)