Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Darrell Cody

What did you think of the second Presidential debate?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm not good at judging these things, as I thought it was pretty much a tie last time, but it seems things are not going Romney's way. He especially failed to take the Libya situation to Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney still has my vote.

He said trickle-down government doesnt work here, or anywhere.

And, that government does not create jobs.

Obama praised free enterprise system as the greatest engine of prosperity - then why Mr. President do you not let that engine run freely? Get off its controls!!! It can run itself! It has its own built-in self-regulatory devices and does not need nor should have you (or anyone else in government) at any of its controls. Hands off! LET US ALONE!

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the first 15 minutes. Just two hapless, helpless, hopeless welfare statist dolts and clowns who know nothing about politics and economics. And the petty, nasty, monkey voters are far worse! Mitt began by pandering to essentially everybody, then he promoted his dreadful "free college" policy in Massachusetts, then he broke the rules by speaking out of turn. Barack called him a liar on multiple issues, but without giving any real specifics for this, then lied himself claiming Mitt favored "bankrupting Detroit."

The correct answer for lowering unemployment is DEREGULATION. But neither knows this, and both are basically political and economic numbskulls from hell. :(blank.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the petty, nasty, monkey voters are far worse!
Voters are responsible and most (present company excluded) get the government they deserve. CNN had given a group of "undecided" voters dials to record their real-time approval. When the candidates promised a goodie, you could see the approval graph rising. The candidates merely know their audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney is continuing in the tradition of populist Second New Right Republicans. His only concern during this campaign has been to say the things he thinks are most popular. No doubt, during his Presidency, his actions will be chosen by the same criteria.

But, just like with Reagan, it seems to be working with the voters. And my guess is that, just like with Goldwater, a more honest and principled candidate would've failed to get elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, just like with Reagan, it seems to be working with the voters. And my guess is that, just like with Goldwater, a more honest and principled candidate would've failed to get elected.

Yeah. Remember that woman who asked what the government will do so women are paid the same as men. Imagine if Romney had explained he does not plan to do a damn thing!

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Remember that woman who asked what the government will do so women are paid the same as men. Imagine if Romney had explained he does not plan to do a damn thing!

Wouldn't companies cut costs while retaining productivity if they higher more women and fire the men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't companies cut costs while retaining productivity if they higher more women and fire the men?
Sure: at least in most professions in today's America. [in contexts with strong social prejudice against women working, hiring or promoting a woman -- or a negro -- may impact morale among other workers. If customers react, it can hurt sales.]

Today, in the U.S., some of the difference in pay between men and women is explained by different choices of occupation, women's desire for flexibility in hours, and women taking a few years off from working. Even some folk on the left allow that these factors explain a little more than half the difference in pay. So, there may be some bias left. There may even be some "self-imposed bias"... if, for instance, women negotiate for slightly less wages.

At any rate, it is not the President's job to remove any remaining bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that 'binders full of women' comment getting so much negative press?

First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women. [Source]

So Romney is a completely male chauvinist.. not because he didn't hire enough women, but because the women he did hire weren't appointed to departments that he 'cared about.' Wtf?

Edited by mdegges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that 'binders full of women' comment getting so much negative press?
Most of the folk passing it on must be people who simply want to say something negative about Romney. The rest are folk who are unable to think in terms of ideas. Instead, they act like school-kids: "He said potato-ee!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that 'binders full of women' comment getting so much negative press?

Joe Biden recently told a crowd of African-Americans that Romney and company want to put them back in chains. Now they have it from the horse's mouth that Romney once ordered women put in binders. I mean, obviously it's because they are the weaker sex, he wants to keep them downtrodden, and he thinks he can get away with it. You sure won't see him trying to put Wookies in binders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 10:00 and Obama is located smacked down.

Romney actually had charisma and some logic. Reminds of the days when we had a President who wasn't a criminal liar.

Are you suggesting Romney isn't a liar? He's quite dishonest, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the moderator was horrid. She was unfair to Romney -- tended to consistently give Obama the last word. And then on the Libya point that Romney was trying to make (which he messed up on -- getting caught up in a technicality), she interjected unfairly in my opinion.

The debate was a tie -- maybe a few extra points to Obama (in terms of how I think voters will react to it..).

But I have to agree:

Romney will say anything to get elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...