Originally Posted by Aramea

You are reading the posts on a somewhat superficial level. Obama underestimated Romney's debate preparation and his strategy backfired performance-wise. Do you really think that the guy on the stage next to Mitt looked like any Obama we have seen to date? I could obviously be incorrect that he deliberately downplayed it, but something was off. He was back to his old self by yesterday afternoon. The presence of a teleprompter could explain part of that, but Obama is capable of talking normally without it.

He was:

A) Very very tired
B) Medicated
C) Hungover
D) Up to something

Fact checkers are already hard at work on Mitt's economic "plan". Meanwhile all they are saying about Obama is that he looked "arrogant". Which one could cause a long-term problem for a candidate?

Obama looked and acted like a person who clearly was not in the same league as Mitt Romney.

1) He thought he was being prepared to compete in a debate that would be rigged/moderated to his advantage.
2) He took all the liberal hype for granted and blew off practice.
3) John Kerry was to easy which instilled a false sense of superiority and confidence.
4) John Kerry was to hard which wore down his confidence and tired him out.
5) It can't be any of these, so he must be up to something

Originally Posted by The Rani

No wonder. Our prez looked like he was just going through the motions.
I think M&L is right. If we get four more years ... massive restructuring in 2016.

To call anything Republicans would do "restructuring" is to seriously miss what is happening. The Republicans offer absolutely nothing; just trickle-down slogans and that's all. Any real restructuring would be a change in our whole system, and that is quite possible in the 2020s, and not before.

A few one day polls have been released showing Romney leading in FL and VA and tied in OH. Nothing definitive yet, just early signs. Republican online voter registration supposedly spiked during the debate, as well as donations to the Romney campaign.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hey man, take it up with M&L.
Here's the quote again:
" ... everything washed away in a massive reversal ..."

That's not a "restructuring;" that won't happen until the 2020s. But a "massive reversal" is possible in 2016 (how much Ryan could actually reverse while in office remains doubtful). It wouldn't last long though, but would be followed by "massive restructuring" if it happened; that's for sure. The fact that Republicans have nothing to offer can't be hidden from the public forever. The restructuring is probably due in the 2020s no matter who is in power in future years. Today's duopoly is probably unready and unable to handle it.

Originally Posted by Aramea

You are reading the posts on a somewhat superficial level. Obama underestimated Romney's debate preparation and his strategy backfired performance-wise. Do you really think that the guy on the stage next to Mitt looked like any Obama we have seen to date?

Yep. Same guy you see any time he's not on script in front of an adoring crowd.

I could obviously be incorrect that he deliberately downplayed it, but something was off. He was back to his old self by yesterday afternoon. The presence of a teleprompter could explain part of that, but Obama is capable of talking normally without it.

He was:

A) Very very tired
B) Medicated
C) Hungover
D) Up to something

Fact checkers are already hard at work on Mitt's economic "plan". Meanwhile all they are saying about Obama is that he looked "arrogant". Which one could cause a long-term problem for a candidate?

It's not complicated. The economy is in terrible shape, just as bad as it was when he took office. In an interview shortly after he was inaugurated, he said "if I can't get the economy turned around in the next three years, it's going to be a one-term proposition". He can't defend his record. His two major "achievements", the stimulus and "Obamacare", are massively unpopular. As long as he's in a carefully stage-managed environment where he knows he won't be challenged, all the smoke and mirrors are in operation. When he has to actually deal with his record, he has nothing to say -- because even he knows he's completely failed.

If you want to go back farther, you could note that he stood back and let the Democrats in Congress write the stimulus and health care bills. He called his approach to the Middle East "leading from behind". You could conclude that he likes the prestige and perks of being president, he likes being a celebrity and he likes campaigning, but the job itself is either too hard or not enough fun for him to be bothered with it. We elected someone who was a complete unknown and completely unqualified to be president, and it turns out he's in over his head. Surprise.

He'll probably really enjoy being a former president, traveling around raking in mountains of cash for giving speeches. That's the job he's best suited for.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Obama looked and acted like a person who clearly was not in the same league as Mitt Romney.

1) He thought he was being prepared to compete in a debate that would be rigged/moderated to his advantage.
2) He took all the liberal hype for granted and blew off practice.
3) John Kerry was to easy which instilled a false sense of superiority and confidence.
4) John Kerry was to hard which wore down his confidence and tired him out.
5) It can't be any of these, so he must be up to something

I have made the point that I intended to make. Numbers 1-4 said basically the same thing - he wasn't adequately prepared. I already said all of that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yep. Same guy you see any time he's not on script in front of an adoring crowd.



It's not complicated. The economy is in terrible shape, just as bad as it was when he took office. In an interview shortly after he was inaugurated, he said "if I can't get the economy turned around in the next three years, it's going to be a one-term proposition". He can't defend his record. His two major "achievements", the stimulus and "Obamacare", are massively unpopular. As long as he's in a carefully stage-managed environment where he knows he won't be challenged, all the smoke and mirrors are in operation. When he has to actually deal with his record, he has nothing to say -- because even he knows he's completely failed.

If you want to go back farther, you could note that he stood back and let the Democrats in Congress write the stimulus and health care bills. He called his approach to the Middle East "leading from behind". You could conclude that he likes the prestige and perks of being president, he likes being a celebrity and he likes campaigning, but the job itself is either too hard or not enough fun for him to be bothered with it. We elected someone who was a complete unknown and completely unqualified to be president, and it turns out he's in over his head. Surprise.

Ok, we can agree to disagree, then. Obama is capable of speaking off script, as we know from 2008. In the meantime, I bet he takes the time to prepare for the next one and gets some sleep.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Are you in love with Obama?

Now, THERE'S an Ad Hominem if I ever heard one!

Originally Posted by The Rani

If you really believe that, they why not go into hibernation for 8 years instead of blasting Republicans on the internet?
Let them win til 2020, then the liberal restructuring will arrive. Nirvana man!

There are times that I think like this. I think that the economy will continue to stall regardless of who wins. If Dems were poised to take the House back it wouldn't bother me at all to see Mitt win only to find out that it isn't that easy to control people that don't actually work for you.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Ok, we can agree to disagree, then. Obama is capable of speaking off script, as we know from 2008. In the meantime, I bet he takes the time to prepare for the next one and gets some sleep.

I don't recall him being particularly good in the debates in 2008. He had the easy job of running against George W. Bush, in the immediate aftermath of a massive economic crash. He's still trying to run against George W. Bush.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

To call anything Republicans would do "restructuring" is to seriously miss what is happening. The Republicans offer absolutely nothing; just trickle-down slogans and that's all. Any real restructuring would be a change in our whole system, and that is quite possible in the 2020s, and not before.

Oh yes -- they offer something: a return to the ethical values, politics (maybe without the racism, but all in all the same), and (except for technology and elite medicine) the living standards of the Gilded Age. Cartels and trusts, the current direction of American business, would become the norm, and what would remain of small business would either be rip-off enterprises (legalized loan-sharking), low-life activities (saloons, whore-houses, strip clubs, gambling dens -- often combined), and niche services for the elites. In the name of economic growth that would all go to enrich elites and of course military prowess necessary for preserving and expanding the 'new' American Way of Life, working conditions characteristic of early industrial capitalism would be the norm (just read Karl Marx to get an idea), and the workweek might 'progressively' expand to 70 hours a week. Child labor would again be the norm in part because schooling encourages people to question the cruder sorts of authority. Political activity would be restricted to the elite through property qualifications or -- worse -- be dictated by your employer.

You might get an occasional day off work for an opportunity for a 'vacation' as a hike in the Sierra Nevada or a stroll along a Florida beach. The technology will allow a good virtual simulation, at least through a giant video screen... if you happen to live in Indianapolis... and you might even be able to send a postcard saying "Greetings from Miami Beach" or "Wish you were here at Yosemite National Park". Of course no technology could ever bring the beach or the mountains to Indianapolis.

That will be the way until the USA is dissolved or some revolution overthrows that rotten order.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

Romney threw his own tax plan under the bus. Clearly he will say anything to win.

No he didn't. At least not in the debate I saw. Romney never said he was abandoning his plan to cut taxes across the board by 20%. He said it was revenue neutral, but I note both Reagan and Bush II said their tax cuts would not increase the debt, when they did. I don't see why anyone would expect Romney to say anything different. Given deficit growth, the idea that taxes could be cut for higher incomes while preventing middle class taxes from increasing is self-consistent.

Somewhat more problematic is Romney's claim that he would not reduce taxes on the wealthy, when in the same debate he reveals that tax cuts on unincorporated small businesses is mechanism for job creation. I recall him clarifying that his tax cut on individuals lower taxes on business that are taxed at the individual rate as opposed to the corporate rate. This tax cut would be a tax reduction for these businesses only if they are not offset by the loss of deductions and other loopholes. Thus, for Romneys job creation plan to function after-deduction taxes on the wealthy must come down. So if you believe that Mitt wants to spur job creation (as I do because this is good politics) and that he does not want to raise taxes on the middle class (as I do because raising taxes is bad politics) then the tax plan will not be revenue-neutral, anymore than Reagan's or Bush's were. Unless offset by spending reductions on popular programs, which is bad politics, it will increase the deficit. I note that Romney did not talk about any meaningful spending cuts and tried to imply that his plans will provide the middle class goodies that Obama does.

What Romney DID do at this debate was embrace Cheney's Law: (Republican) Deficits don't matter (politically to the GOP base).

Based on the enthusiastic reception to his performance amongst Republican partisans here and elesewhere, I would say Cheney's Law is still valid, which eases my mind somewhat in the event that Romney gets elected.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I don't recall him being particularly good in the debates in 2008. He had the easy job of running against George W. Bush, in the immediate aftermath of a massive economic crash. He's still trying to run against George W. Bush.

I just said that he was capable of speaking off script. In the rush to paint Mitt Romney a rhetorical superhero, people have already pointed out that Obama did quite well in the 2008 debates.

Originally Posted by The Rani

He'll have to get an attitude adjustment, too.
Like this one:

Who says that? When they're trying to get re-hired??

It sounds very Xer to me.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I just said that he was capable of speaking off script. In the rush to paint Mitt Romney a rhetorical superhero, people have already pointed out that Obama did quite well in the 2008 debates.

Like I said, he had an easy task in 2008. It was a slam dunk, and almost any Democrat would have won. McCain was a weak candidate running to succeed an unpopular incumbent. Now that Obama has been president for four years, he has to defend his record. He can't.

Romney didn't succeed by being a rhetorical superhero. He just showed a clear grasp of the issues, and forced Obama to defend his record. He did it a lot better than I, or most other people, expected he would. The conclusion I drew from it is that Romney is a pretty smart guy, more so than I had given him credit for in the past.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh man. Not to me. At all.
Sounds very STUPID to me. Hearing him say that line blew me away. I thought he was smarter than that.

It was a simple statement of fact. "I bet my opponent agrees with me." Well, yea, I bet he does.

I think that as more Xers come out to play we will see it more. Think about it as if Chris Christie said it. Everyone would chuckle at it.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I have made the point that I intended to make. Numbers 1-4 said basically the same thing - he wasn't adequately prepared. I already said all of that.

I'd categorize your numbers 1-4 as lame excuses.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'd categorize your numbers 1-4 as lame excuses.

You would and that is your perogative.

McCain seems to think that Romney needs to stay frosty:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/deb...0/05/id/458825

Originally Posted by The Rani

You've just reinforced (in my mind) that Obama is no Xer.
He can't do snark. In fact, he tried it a bunch of times on Romney ... "is he keeping his plan a secret because it's too good?"
Boomer trying Xer speak = fail

Obama and I are both so-called "Jonesers", which could be why I look at it differently. The "is he keeping his plan a secret because it's too good?" line was delivered better than the other one. I don't see much Boom in Obama.

I agree that he isn't a supersnarker.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Like I said, he had an easy task in 2008. It was a slam dunk, and almost any Democrat would have won. McCain was a weak candidate running to succeed an unpopular incumbent. Now that Obama has been president for four years, he has to defend his record. He can't.

Romney didn't succeed by being a rhetorical superhero. He just showed a clear grasp of the issues, and forced Obama to defend his record. He did it a lot better than I, or most other people, expected he would. The conclusion I drew from it is that Romney is a pretty smart guy, more so than I had given him credit for in the past.

Romney suddenly did a very good job of expressing the promises of special interests (Just give the coal and oil industry control of energy policy and all will be well!) who want lower taxes for themselves to be compensated for by higher taxes on everyone else. He probably stands for a national Right-to-Work law that would eviscerate any workplace freedom that anyone has on the job except for the right to quit... and drive wages into the gutter. Employers might be able to induce workers to work more hours for less -- after all, only the 'little people' will pay the taxes.

Romney is a smart guy? Big deal! So is Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski. So were Khomeini, Goebbels, and Stalin. If anything, a brilliant sociopath like Kaczynski, Khomeini, Goebbels, or Stalin is far more dangerous to humanity than a stupid street thug whom the cops catch after a couple of hold-ups and that the legal and penal system can consign to field work on a prison farm until the young thug becomes a broken-down old man at age 45 or so. Mitt Romney is 'only' an extreme narcissist, but I wouldn't want someone like that as a political leader, a superior military officer, religious authority, or boss. Extreme narcissists are out only for themselves and don't care what economic or personal hardships they can impose so long as their self-image is achieved. If you think Dubya was bad, he was at least loyal to what he believed in and showed more humility than the usual world leader.

This is a horrible thing to say, but if Mitt Romney wins and the Republican Party consolidates power over all three branches of government I may want a Valium-and-vodka cocktail some time this winter, probably after some hedonistic binge. Sixty-hour workweeks of hard toil for someone near sixty is not good for long-term survival, let alone any happiness under an economic order that works only for people who form an aristocratic elite in all but name. If I had to choose between 50 grand and dual citizenship -- I'd go with dual citizenship.

Any deal with Mitt Romney or with economic elites who use him to enforce their new American order of suffering for the masses and ostentatious indulgence for the few is a raw deal. Just look at how he did things at Bain Capital. That is the new American future before unemployed or soon-to-be-unemployed workers sign peonage contracts just to survive. If that deal is all that awaits me, then maybe a Valium-and-vodka cocktail is not such a bad thing after all.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Who says that? When they're trying to get re-hired??

Quite honestly I have a bad feeling that a lot of what's about to happen will be negative no matter who's in office, and I kinda feel that several people know that--at least those who are running--and thus the Presidency is being tossed around like a hot potato.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Sorry man. I'm very picky about the cartoon characters with which I choose to interact. Better luck next handle, eh?

oh, that's okay. i expected little else.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We could have recovered quicker if we had decided to use fiscal stimulus (it's not as if there is a lack of constructive things that need doing).

Well I could have mentioned the politically impossible task of getting a larger stimulus than was available. Given the nature of his opposition and the de facto permanent filibuster in the Senate Obama did as well as could be. We could easily be in europe's shape right now.

Originally Posted by M and L

By the same token, there is an ongoing workforce reduction rippling through the economy that has nothing to do with governement. It has to do with computing and the internet. That's the nut no one seems interested in cracking, nor capable of it either.

Permanent labor contraction is starting to be an issue. It's also becoming a demand issue. The economy is a cycle, after all. If we break it due to lack of demand, it will be difficult but possible to restart. If we break it due to structural changes in the economy itself, I'm sure we even know how.

True. FDR never had to deal with resource depleation, global warming nor a long term lowering of the demand of labor. This 4T is more complex even if the US does not install a supply side government next year. If we do I expect our current SNAFU to be totally FUBAR by 2016.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Obama and I are both so-called "Jonesers", which could be why I look at it differently. The "is he keeping his plan a secret because it's too good?" line was delivered better than the other one. I don't see much Boom in Obama.

I agree that he isn't a supersnarker.

you are correct.

also keep in mind that obama is more of an introvert.

introvert humour is subtle.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Quite honestly I have a bad feeling that a lot of what's about to happen will be negative no matter who's in office, and I kinda feel that several people know that--at least those who are running--and thus the Presidency is being tossed around like a hot potato.

~Chas'88

you know, people were saying this four years ago, and the apocalypse still hasn't happened.