[Khellendros]

Tapper, on 04 October 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Just about every Euro paper/news site I've seen proclaims Romney a clear winner and Obama's performance as a lacklustre and reluctant one. Some refer to Obama watching a lot of football on the flight to the debate instead of prepping, which is going to damage to Obama's image this side of the pond (not that it matters much, if we were allowed to vote it would still be a landslide).
Even if Romney gets fact checked to death, it will come way too late to reverse the initial opinion/view.

Yep, as another interested watcher from the other side of the pond this is what I wanted to chime in with. I watched the debates and I have to say in all honesty Obama kept reminding me of Gordon Brown, back when he was PM and we had debates a couple of years back. Hesitant, shifty, lecturing...smart, clearly, but unable to make it personable. His shots at Romney came off as weak (the constant repetition of $5 trillion tax cuts sought by Romney was irritating, because instead of responding to Romney after R denied this and explaining succinctly why, in fact, Romney IS looking to do this, he just ignored R as if he hadn't even said anything and only repeated it again). I was a bit shocked to tell the truth. Romney, by contrast, came across as much warmer. Obama looked like he wanted to be out with his wife for their anniversary dinner (which he probably did!).

This is just the IMAGE I'm stating (which, let's face it, is what the majority of people will latch on to from the TV debates) not the actual content of their words. Content-wise, Romney seemed much clearer on what he wanted to do (though the endless repetition of "Number 1, I will..., Number 2, I will..." quickly became annoying), but as for HOW he was going to do it, I heard almost nothing. Obama, in many ways, was the opposite. Full of detail, but by the time he made his point you'd almost forgotten what he was talking about in the first place. But you can debate content all you want, ultimately the vast majority of those who watched it will only think about what's been put to them in the debate itself, without reaching for the fact-checker. And, of course, the vast majority of that vast majority had probably made up their minds beforehand anyway.

This is coming from someone who very much would prefer Obama to win. I wasn't impressed with the debate as a whole, on both sides, but I suppose I expected much more from Obama (over here, up till now, he's been painted as a master debater in the media, someone who's just a natural with no need to practice) so I ended up being far more disappointed in his performance.

[Khellendros]

Had to love even Obama referring to it as Obamacare though

[Terez]

Sick@Simpliciter, on 04 October 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Trickle-down economics do not work and if it wasn't for the Clinton administration the collapse of the doped American financial system - based on the empty Reaganian promise that all Americans should own a house and spend more than they have - would have happened much sooner.

To be fair, Clinton played his own part in the market crash. He was part of a wave of New Democrats, meaning a bit friendlier to Wall Street than Democrats had traditionally been, which some political analysts see as an attempt to compete with Republicans for campaign war chest money. There's probably at least some truth to that, though I think New Democrats are probably truly persuaded by some neoliberal arguments; Obama himself is known to play the free markets card, and did in the debate last night. Clinton oversaw the dismantling of Glass-Steagall—not that he had much choice really—and he also played a big part in the expansion of the mortgage market and the rise of sub-prime, though sub-prime was somewhat curtailed in the late 90s (and then opened back up with a frenzy after the turn of the century).

[Terez]

This post has been edited by Terez: 05 October 2012 - 02:18 AM

[Lady Bliss]

Meh, I wasn't overly impressed with the debate either. It wasn't likely to change my viewpoints significantly though. I don't have a lot of faith that anyone is going to make much of a positive change anymore. Obama was going to rerun since he is the incumbent, and the republican party really didn't find anyone new and exciting to run against him.
I haven't really seen any improvement over this last 4 years. I'm still taxed within an inch of my life, have lousy overpriced healthcare and the stock market is depressing.

[Sick@Simpliciter]

Terez, on 05 October 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

Sick@Simpliciter, on 04 October 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Trickle-down economics do not work and if it wasn't for the Clinton administration the collapse of the doped American financial system - based on the empty Reaganian promise that all Americans should own a house and spend more than they have - would have happened much sooner.

To be fair, Clinton played his own part in the market crash. He was part of a wave of New Democrats, meaning a bit friendlier to Wall Street than Democrats had traditionally been, which some political analysts see as an attempt to compete with Republicans for campaign war chest money. There's probably at least some truth to that, though I think New Democrats are probably truly persuaded by some neoliberal arguments; Obama himself is known to play the free markets card, and did in the debate last night. Clinton oversaw the dismantling of Glass-Steagall—not that he had much choice really—and he also played a big part in the expansion of the mortgage market and the rise of sub-prime, though sub-prime was somewhat curtailed in the late 90s (and then opened back up with a frenzy after the turn of the century).

I'm not so persuaded that the abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act had a primary role in the financial disaster we witnessed in 2007 but maybe that's not the thread in which elaborate on such matters. For the rest, I don't have any reason not to trust your political judgement on Clintons&Friends more than mine. After all, I was a foreigner teenager back then and all I know I know by hearsay and studies. My point was that if you put another Republican administration between Bush and Bush, this hell would have gotten loose much earlier, probably the markets wouldn't have survived the shock of 9/11 with so much debt overhang in the economy. Of course, we'll never know and try to figure that out is probably neither interesting nor useful =)

[McLovin]

Sick@Simpliciter, on 05 October 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I'm not so persuaded that the abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act had a primary role in the financial disaster we witnessed in 2007

True, abolition of Glass-Steagall didn't cause the disaster. It just enabled the disaster to become possible. Good old-fashioned myopia and greed took it from there.

[Terez]

Glass-Steagall is also part of what made the bailout necessary, as it facilitated the rise of Too Big To Fail banks. If not for that, at least the irresponsible banks could have been made to suffer the consequences or their irresponsibility.

[RodeoRanch]

Man, American politics are so fun to watch. Like a train full of angry monkeys crashing off a cliff.

[worry]

Lady Bliss, on 05 October 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Meh, I wasn't overly impressed with the debate either. It wasn't likely to change my viewpoints significantly though. I don't have a lot of faith that anyone is going to make much of a positive change anymore. Obama was going to rerun since he is the incumbent, and the republican party really didn't find anyone new and exciting to run against him.
I haven't really seen any improvement over this last 4 years. I'm still taxed within an inch of my life, have lousy overpriced healthcare and the stock market is depressing.

Well, the ACA hasn't been fully implemented. Is this something that you guys have seen people get totally wrong? Like they think it's in full effect and their lives are worse for it? (Not talking about Lady Bliss here, just in general). I'm getting the impression that a lot of people complaining about the ACA have no idea what timetable it's on.

If you're taxed within an inch of your life, you're doing something wrong, since unless you're rich as hell (and therefore have plenty to spare after taxes), then it's most likely that your taxes have gone down since Bush left office.

As far as things being better over the last 4 years, I don't see how you can say that. You're not living through the hellscape of another Great Depression, for one very basic thing. You have a stronger military that doesn't deny the inclusion of LGBT folks, including those who happen to speak Arabic. He's added two of the best additions to SCOTUS in several decades, both relatively young and will serve the country for the better for decades to come. If it had been McCain in that place, abortion (for one thing) would be gone already. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood would be gutted already too. The Lily Ledbetter Act wouldn't have passed. The consumer protection measures re: credit card companies were sweeping and effective. There's actual stem-cell research going on. The CHIP program was reauthorized. The student loan program was vastly improved. Ended torture, ended stop-loss, ended the war in Iraq. This is all off the top of my head...the number of good and downright great things this president has done is breathtaking, in spite of the level of opposition he faced.

And if that's not enough, just think how much you're gonna have to spend on gas masks and respirators (don't forget sales TAX), and how much sooner you're gonna have to do it, every time you vote for a Republican.

[Otataral Toblakai]

Is it just me or does it look like the American public has lost sight of many crucial issues such as the so-called War on Women, the symbolic Occupy Wall Street activism and its reason and, lastly, the harrasment of female marines that was brought to light several months ago but that then sank to the bottom. Aren't these issues critical to the elections?

[HiddenOne]

Is there any way you guys can post opinions in one color and facts in another, preferably linked to sources that have been verified by witnesses and notarized. Then I could get down to thinking about evidence instead of filtering personal/political bias out.

Love this thread, hate trying to muddle through politics, I am by nature not inclined to be involved too much but have to complain when I feel the shaft coming 'round

I fear for the USA's future

[worry]

So you're one of those undecided voters or what??

[Terez]

Otataral Toblakai, on 05 October 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Is it just me or does it look like the American public has lost sight of many crucial issues such as the so-called War on Women, the symbolic Occupy Wall Street activism and its reason and, lastly, the harrasment of female marines that was brought to light several months ago but that then sank to the bottom. Aren't these issues critical to the elections?

In a way, yes, but they're politically charged issues that have for the most part already played their part. The Dems have been running a lot of ads geared toward the War on Women / Occupy crowds, but the female marines are relatively low on the ladder of relevant campaign issues. It's somewhere between the War on Women and lyme disease.

Also...



Things like this are geared toward people who sympathize with Occupy.

[worry]

On the fact that unemployment dropped under 8.0%, the fact that many professional Republicans spazzed out about it in utter panic and immediately went into conspiracy mode, and the fact that the drop below 8.0 is more of a psychological threshold than a huge sign of any sudden shift (though it does continue the gradual-if-slow downward shift in unemployment), which shows the hysterical reaction by those Republicans to be entirely what it actually is: theater. My biased filter: It just goes to show what we've known all along...Republicans were rooting for the economy to stay bad because they want Obama out of office.

Necessary citations included in article: http://www.washingto...iracy-theories/

[Obdigore]

HiddenOne, on 05 October 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Is there any way you guys can post opinions in one color and facts in another, preferably linked to sources that have been verified by witnesses and notarized. Then I could get down to thinking about evidence instead of filtering personal/political bias out.

Love this thread, hate trying to muddle through politics, I am by nature not inclined to be involved too much but have to complain when I feel the shaft coming 'round

I fear for the USA's future

If you can't be bothered to do your own research, why should we be doing it for you?

[Terez]

Feel free to ask questions, but let's not be ridiculous.

[Sick@Simpliciter]

Terez, on 05 October 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Glass-Steagall is also part of what made the bailout necessary, as it facilitated the rise of Too Big To Fail banks. If not for that, at least the irresponsible banks could have been made to suffer the consequences or their irresponsibility.

True enough but I still thin that the previous system was inadequate to support the American financial system and for sure American banks were at a disadvantage with the rest of the world. So of course you can say in retrospect that without the abolition of G-S there would have been virtually no Too big too fail banks in the system. That doesn't change the fact that a change was needed for the American banking sector and that that change produced some medium-term benefits for WallStreteers but also for Main Steet... Then incompetence, stupidity and greed under the form of peers' pressure take off and the rest is history. I still think that banks should be allowed to merge investment/trading activities with deposit taking and lending. It is by far the cheapest and most diversified way to operate the business and should be able to create more jobs in the long-run.

As for the occupational numbers and the Republican reaction: I didn't see the numbers coming, but the reaction? Classic Southern European Conservative Conspirational Theories Reactions following the publication of negative data for their establishments. For a time I thought we Europeans were learning from Americans how to run politics... the last 4 years convinced me of quite the contrary....

[Terez]

Sick@Simpliciter, on 06 October 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Terez, on 05 October 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Glass-Steagall is also part of what made the bailout necessary, as it facilitated the rise of Too Big To Fail banks. If not for that, at least the irresponsible banks could have been made to suffer the consequences or their irresponsibility.

True enough but I still thin that the previous system was inadequate to support the American financial system and for sure American banks were at a disadvantage with the rest of the world. So of course you can say in retrospect that without the abolition of G-S there would have been virtually no Too big too fail banks in the system. That doesn't change the fact that a change was needed for the American banking sector and that that change produced some medium-term benefits for WallStreteers but also for Main Steet... Then incompetence, stupidity and greed under the form of peers' pressure take off and the rest is history. I still think that banks should be allowed to merge investment/trading activities with deposit taking and lending. It is by far the cheapest and most diversified way to operate the business and should be able to create more jobs in the long-run.

Moved this conversation to the global economy thread.

For CF, regarding annoying political messaging...the more I watch the other shows on MSNBC, the more I'm convinced it's an MSNBC thing. The most annoying thing since the debate has been Big Bird. I followed @FiredBigBird on Twitter too, for a couple of days. That didn't mean I wanted all of my news shows to harp on Big Bird all day long.

This post has been edited by Terez: 06 October 2012 - 02:26 PM

[Otataral Toblakai]

Terez, on 06 October 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Otataral Toblakai, on 05 October 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Is it just me or does it look like the American public has lost sight of many crucial issues such as the so-called War on Women, the symbolic Occupy Wall Street activism and its reason and, lastly, the harrasment of female marines that was brought to light several months ago but that then sank to the bottom. Aren't these issues critical to the elections?

In a way, yes, but they're politically charged issues that have for the most part already played their part. The Dems have been running a lot of ads geared toward the War on Women / Occupy crowds, but the female marines are relatively low on the ladder of relevant campaign issues. It's somewhere between the War on Women and lyme disease.

Also...



Things like this are geared toward people who sympathize with Occupy.

Ah. Even though I am not an American, I am geared more towards whichever way Obama is. It's good to see them focusing on the War on Women and Occupy but the female marines issue is worse than both. It is THE dark underbelly of the US military AND a critical issue. But then, politics and politicians hardly bring such issues up. Even the American public has largely ignored it. Brings up the whole patriarchal thing, still surprisingly alive in the US. Not to mention the glass ceiling (or is it roof?) that women encounter as employees. As the self-proclaimed shining knight in armour, the US has to do something.

As for Occupy, as a capitalist, I understand why capitalism is neccessary. My personal belief/aim is a communist-capitalist mashup system. But Occupy's woes are also valid, particularly in the US. Their way of doing it is simply wrong. This is an issue to be changed from the inside and through a more COOP and employee owned corporate model.