Forum Thread

Obama's 2nd Debate Performance - Delivered

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 10 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Obama did extremely well. He made the case for his policies and why he should be re-elected. He was confident and focused. He was able to stay on topic unlike his opponent who was often bouncing between question, straying WAY off topic, and turning the debate away from the voters. Obama stayed positive and forceful.

    I would say Obama took this debate down. Obama should see some movement in the polls to his favor. Other thoughts?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I agree. Obama was at his best and pushed back on Romney's lies...something he didn't do at the first debate.

    Romney's answers sound very scripted and repetitive. He made many of the same points over and over again, and some sounded almost identical to his rehearsed dialogue from the last debate. Furthermore, the bully Romney was there again to see.

    Obama won the debate on every issue.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don't know why but my eyelids get heavy when Romney talks about his wonderful nondescript tax plan.He won't admit to wanting to cut the mortgage deduction to help compensate his magical 20% across the board tax reduction without having a loss in revenue. I think this would be very detrimental to a housing market that is beginning to show strong signs of recovery. How can Romney state that he can eliminate deductions to compensate for his 20% reduction when he doesn't have a plan as to what deductions he plans to eliminate? For the math to be accurate, he must have all of the variables before he can make a calculation. As Bill Clinton would put it, that's just simple arithmetic. I suspect that he has a more concise plan, but he knows that average American voters won't like it.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Also, he said in the first debate that his plan relies somewhat on new revenues from new economic activity.

    That means the Republicans are Bastardized Keynesians.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Romeny just refuses to state any specific steps he would take. What he says is not enough. He, and Ryan, claim that they will work things out with Congress. Well, it is ot enough to say " I know how to do this." He may know how to lead companies--where he loves to be able to fire--but that's not the same as a country. HIs "I know how to do it" is asking the American people to simply take his word for it. A word, and many words, on which he has been back and forth. But one thing is clear: he believes that the wealthy create jobs. They may, but they also draw money out of the economy and don't use it. What keeps America going is the rest of the population, who work daily, and would work daily if the companies stopped sitting on their money.
    As for uncertainty regrarding regulatons: we have seen the calamity brought about by lack of regulations. Mr. Bush, former president, certainly favored lack of regulations, and it was this that led to worsening economic climate.
    Give the wealthy, and corporations--who are people, after all, according to the governor--a free rout to the flesh pots. Entirely disgusting.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        




    'm strayingBut I
    Zach F Wrote: Obama did extremely well. He made the case for his policies and why he should be re-elected. He was confident and focused. He was able to stay on topic unlike his opponent who was often bouncing between question, straying WAY off topic, and turning the debate away from the voters. Obama stayed positive and forceful.
    I would say Obama took this debate down. He should see some movement in the polls to his favor. Other thoughts?


    Zack, Since you asked..... I think Obama came out on top in this debate. But he didn't have to do much to look better than he did in the first one. Given Romney's track record Obama should have wiped up the floor with him. This didn't happen. The many instances of Romney's flip flops would have made a rosary to hang around the neck of this political
    gangster. I think the problem is that to the average uninformed voter ( 90 % of the population ) Romney LOOKS like he knows what he's talking about. Of course, there are many things the President can't bring up because he is also on the hook for some of the insanity in this country. For example, the government is now spending 2,2 million dollare PER MINUTE on the military, 24 hours a day, year round. The US has close to 200 military installations around the globe. Romney has said ....this is not enough. Obama did say that the Pentagon has not asked for the increase Romney proposes, but he can't go much deeper into a discussion than that without appearing to the hawks as a wimp......Someone said in these forums that Romney's five point plan is not a plan, but a goal. He offers no specifics as to how any of this "plan" would be implemented. NONE. Obama should have hammered this home stronger than he did. For example, what good does it do to give the rich and corporations huge tax breaks in the hopes that they will create jobs......when the production of goods will not occur where there is no demand. It is more profitable for the vampires to invest their loot in Asia and Africa where they can sweat the blood out out of workers in those places ? All this points to the fact that , historically, time is up for the system (?) of capitalism. How many economic crashes do we have to live through before people start to think that there must be a better way? But I'm straying off topic......I will vote for Obama because I think that there will be less suffering for the nation if he is President than if Romney is elected.....As far as him being what the country needs....well, that is a different issue.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The President did a great job in the 2d debate. However, we are not out of the woods. Plenty of people really want very clear specifics, a plan for the next four years with specifics, what we are going to do, how it will be done, “who” will do it and what the results will be. Romney does not have this but the President can’t continue to merely continue the mantra about what Romney does not have. What does President Obama have to offer different than the last four years??? He needs to clearly/simply communicate to us what he is going to do, his vision and how it will be achieved – with specifics. He can't just rely on President Clinton to talk for him. I am a democrat and strong supporter of the President and even I don’t know/understand what his vision for the next four years is. We have a fiscal cliff, have to really make a lot of tough decisions, and have to get people into jobs. The President needs to telol the country HOW (specifics please) he is going to do this (how is he going to work with Congress? how is he going to create jobs? how is he going to get to a balanced budget ? SPECIFICS, SPECIFICS and SPECIFICS please!!! Otherwise, plenty of people are going to vote for Romney. Most americans are tired of all this negative stuff. The president needs to get more positive quick. He needs to just tell us what he is going to do - - plain English - - plenty of easily understood details - - and the expected results. Not interested in simply hearing that “Romney is just going to do what Bush did” . Enough, please! What, specifically is our President going to do – how?, results, expectations?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dear Dishiki, We will not get a lot of specifics from Obama because the specifics he has in mind will not be popular. He is not planning to eviscerate , for example, Social Security like Romney would try to do, but he will make the provisions weaker. All the so called " entitlement" programs will be on the table He has said this in the past....tho not so much once this campaign got rolling.This is because the military budget is sucking up 60% of ALL the revenues the government collects. When he was elected 4 years ago the people who voted for
    Obama were expecting big things ....maybe ala Roosevelt. My wife was one of them. I told her I thought she should curb her expectations. The most we could expect from Obama was a little tinkering with the system. We hardlly got that much. That's why so many people are disappointed with his performance. What needs to be changed is not the person in the Oval POffice, but the system. We are saddled with an economic system that is no longer viable in this new century. The ups and downs, the crashes, the boom and bust which the nation has been experiencing for the past 120 years has reached a climax. The next bust will probably be the last, and the "recovery" that is being ballyhooed right now is very iffy. This is a gloomy prognosis, but given the evidence we see all around us...nationally and globally....it is hard to avoid the conclusion. Apologists for the system say that we have always bounced back from recessions in the past and we will this time. But in the past we had the means to bounce back. Those means are no longer there. Our politicians sat idly by while those means were being shipped to China, Indochina and Bangladesh......Having said this we must hope that Obama wins this election in order to forestall the massive suffering that will surely ensue if Romney is elected. .... These are, of course, just the thoughts of another insignificant earthling hurtling rapidly through space on this insignificant planet........Keep plugging. Ed R
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Leftofcenter Wrote: Dear Dishiki, We will not get a lot of specifics from Obama because the specifics he has in mind will not be popular. He is not planning to eviscerate , for example, Social Security like Romney would try to do, but he will make the provisions weaker. All the so called " entitlement" programs will be on the table He has said this in the past....tho not so much once this campaign got rolling.This is because the military budget is sucking up 60% of ALL the revenues the government collects. When he was elected 4 years ago the people who voted for
    Obama were expecting big things ....maybe ala Roosevelt. My wife was one of them. I told her I thought she should curb her expectations. The most we could expect from Obama was a little tinkering with the system. We hardlly got that much. That's why so many people are disappointed with his performance. What needs to be changed is not the person in the Oval POffice, but the system. We are saddled with an economic system that is no longer viable in this new century. The ups and downs, the crashes, the boom and bust which the nation has been experiencing for the past 120 years has reached a climax. The next bust will probably be the last, and the "recovery" that is being ballyhooed right now is very iffy. This is a gloomy prognosis, but given the evidence we see all around us...nationally and globally....it is hard to avoid the conclusion. Apologists for the system say that we have always bounced back from recessions in the past and we will this time. But in the past we had the means to bounce back. Those means are no longer there. Our politicians sat idly by while those means were being shipped to China, Indochina and Bangladesh......Having said this we must hope that Obama wins this election in order to forestall the massive suffering that will surely ensue if Romney is elected. .... These are, of course, just the thoughts of another insignificant earthling hurtling rapidly through space on this insignificant planet........Keep plugging. Ed R
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I'm not so sure that President Obama did as well as he could have.... although I agree that he did come out way ahead of Gov. Romney.
    There is a big social push to stop bullying, and President Obama did a good job of standing up to Romney - who was an obvious bully - but at the President's expense. I'm hearing a lot of comments regarding the debate being about establishing a "pecking order" instead of making contact with voters. I think the President could have simply said, "Please stop trying to bully me, Gov. Romney. I will answer questions put to me without attacking anyone, and I demand the same respect from you. If you continue to bully me, I will not participate in this debate with you." Of course, the word that I keep hearing used is "controlling", which is just a nicer way to say "bully". Romney also attacked China when asked about outsourcing, and was so negative that I would be very worried about his foreign policies.
    I did not get an answer from Gov. Romney regarding women's rights or wage equality, so I feel like I have to go with what I see...which is that Gov. Romney seems to be a "controlling" dominant male who would like all women to get married, stay in the home,cater to their husbands, raise their children, and defer to their husband's decisions for their lives.
    I am a woman, wife, mother, grandmother, and my own decision-maker. I own a business, and I run that business. My husband is a teacher in the public school system, and he appreciates that his wife is totally independent. We raised 3 daughters who are all successful mothers and contributing members of society in various occupations, and one son who has just become a Medical Doctor. Women can work and have a good family,
    Gov. Romney's behavior at this debate did decide my vote for President Obama this election.