Maybe America is that Dumb. How do you Lose a Debate When...

[rapbeats]

Or what's more dumb is that immediately after, the media and people across the US were discussing style points and how "aggressive" each candidate was; rather than discussing that nothing of true substance was even brought up by either candidate. How you going to have an hour plus debate on the economy and not discuss anything of real relevance like the Fed, or QE3?

Or rather how dumb is it that America is so polarized that we pick our leaders like dudes pick colors to wear in the streets? shyt is so polarized it's disgusting.

now this right here is why i turned it off right after they finished. I CAN'T STAND listening to the talking heads. especially in a scenario like this. when one guy is down in the polls to the point where his own party is talking about jumping ship. so you already know. the media will use that as an excuse to make something where there is nothing.

i'll prove to you. this is how the media is this day and age of whats TRENDING now.

they do this with the lakers all the time. there is nothing going on in laker land. we got a stacked team. REAL stacked. yet they keep asking every nba player from every team how they feel about the lakers. its like they are trying to start something that isnt anything. why would you ask some clown from a joke of a losing team about the lakers? their team wont be there in JUNE REGARDLESS. but hey stir the pot.

you even have the tag team radio hosts trying to play good cop bad cop about it. "well what if, the lakers dont make the playoffs at all" i mean real stupid stuff. just to get a rise out of people. so they can get callers. its ridiculous. this is the media we deal with today. so you cant even listen to them in these scenarios.

the only reason i somewhat liked cnn in 2008. because both parties were all going for the same goal. since bush had two terms. so there was no one person who had such a ridiculous lead in the polls where it looked like a landslide.

 

[Mikael Blowpiff]

70 percent how you look, 20 percent how you sound, 10 percent what you say. Izzard Da Gawd breaks it down:

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Think about the romney obama debate like 2 coli posters going at it one of which isnt very liked by the coli. One is saying non-funny factual posts about the state of affairs and the other is coming with dozens jokes. People will troll the guy they dislike by propping up his opposition even if what hes saying isnt that great but as long as it paints the picture of the opponent as a loser, its all good,

Its so demonic, friends.

 

[daze23]

Obama has to come out in the next debate and fact check Mitt in his opening statement. I mean he has all he lies on the table go in

they should do it before that with adds. it's hard to pin these things down when it's just someone saying a bunch of numbers. but if you can put those numbers up on the screen, it's easier to see the discrepancies

 

[rapbeats]

Think about the romney obama debate like 2 coli posters going at it one of which isnt very liked by the coli. One is saying non-funny factual posts about the state of affairs and the other is coming with dozens jokes. People will troll the guy they dislike by propping up his opposition even if what hes saying isnt that great but as long as it paints the picture of the opponent as a loser, its all good,

Its so demonic, friends.

so we are dumb then.

 

[Shogun]

what did obeezy say that was a lie? go ahead and post it. dont hide it like romney. and i wont care what you post. cause they are all politicians . so we know they all lie at times. some more then others. i'm not even talking about lying at this point. i'm talking about romney not actually debating anyone without mentioning how he would promote his policies.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.

Overselling the Health Care Law

Obama wrongly said that over the last two years, health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, not premiums. But even if Obama had worded the claim correctly, he still would have been off in suggesting the Affordable Care Act had caused the slower growth in spending.

Obama: And the fact of the matter is that, when Obamacare is fully implemented, we’re going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. And over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it’s true — but they’ve gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we’re already beginning to see progress.

The growth in employer-sponsored family premiums has fluctuated in recent years. It went up just 4 percent from 2011 to 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, but it increased 9 percent the year before, a big jump from the mere 3 percent increase between 2009 and 2010. Clearly the growth rate over the last two years isn’t a 50-year low — it was sitting around 5 percent from 2007 to 2009. However, the growth of health care costs is at a 50-year low for the past two years.

President Bill Clinton used this statistic, correctly, in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, also implying that the federal health care law deserved credit. But as we said then, most of the law hasn’t even been implemented yet. And experts say it’s the sluggish economy that’s mainly responsible for the slower rate of spending. As the Washington Post reported, experts with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that many lost employer-sponsored insurance when they lost their jobs, and other individuals chose to “forgo health-care services they could not afford.”

The New York Times quoted experts saying that consumers’ and medical professionals’ behavior could be changing in anticipation of the law, but it was still the economy that was the leading factor.

As for that increase in health care premiums, experts told us the federal health care law has had a limited impact on those, too, but the impact was to increase costs. They said the law was responsible for a 1 percent to 3 percent increase last year because of more generous coverage requirements.

5 million jobs?

Obama claimed that “over the last 30 months, we’ve seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created.”

Obama’s figure is nearly half a million jobs short, according to current Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. But he’s including in his count a preliminary revision of jobs figures that BLS will not finalize until next year.

The current BLS numbers are based on monthly surveys of businesses and government entities and count how many workers are on the payroll. Those figures show that the number of private-sector jobs grew by 4.63 million between February 2010 and August of this year.

But BLS often revises those figures. Each year, the agency looks over companies’ tax records in an effort to get a more accurate number, a process that takes several months. In late September, BLS released a preliminary estimate for its revised numbers, adding 453,000 private-sector jobs to its count for the time period between April 2011 and March 2012. BLS will release its final numbers in February.

The addition of the preliminary estimate brings the number of private-sectors jobs to more than 5 million.

Same Rates as Under Clinton?

Obama repeated a favorite talking point, saying that his tax plan would return rates for the wealthy back to where they were during economically prosperous times under President Bill Clinton. But those making over $250,000 a year would actually pay more than they did under Clinton due to new taxes imposed on upper-income people to pay for the health care law.

Obama: But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.

Obama is referring to his plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for higher-income taxpayers. The top federal income-tax rate would be allowed to rise from the current 35 percent to 39.6 percent, which was the rate that prevailed after Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, and before Bush’s tax cuts. The next-highest rate would go back to the Clinton-era 36 percent, starting with family income over $250,000 (or $200,000 for singles), up from the Bush rate of 33 percent.

But Obama did not account for the new taxes on those same upper-income taxpayers included in his Affordable Care Act. Starting next year, there will be a new 3.8 percent tax on “unearned” net investment income — such as capital gains from the sale of stocks or real estate, dividends, interest income, annuities, rents and royalties. Also starting Jan. 1 is a new 0.9 percent Medicare surcharge on top of the current Medicare payroll tax. Both taxes apply to taxable compensation that exceeds $200,000 for singles, or $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Those two taxes combined are projected to bring in nearly $210 billion over the next seven years, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

Obama’s $4 Trillion Reduction Plan

Obama: I’ve put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. It’s on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise.

Nonpartisan and bipartisan budget analysts have been critical of the methodology Obama employed to get to the $4 trillion in cuts outlined in “The President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction.” Specifically, the plan’s inclusion of “more than $1 trillion in savings over the next 10 years from our drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq,” was criticized by Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, as a “gimmick.”

“Drawing down spending on wars that were already set to wind down and that were deficit financed in the first place should not be considered savings,” MacGuineas said. “When you finish college, you don’t suddenly have thousands of dollars a year to spend elsewhere – in fact, you have to find a way to pay back your loans.”

And as we have noted, even if you accept Obama’s $4 trillion claim, the president’s own Office of Management and Budget projected annual federal deficits would never be lower than $476 billion. That’s higher than any year of the Bush administration except for the $1.4 trillion shortfall for fiscal 2009, for which Obama himself bears some responsibility. And under Obama’s plan, deficits would again rise during the last three years of the 10-year period, reaching $565 billion in 2021 (see table S-1).

 

[Tommy Fits]

Obama had a website in 08 detailing what he wanted to get done and detail how it would come to fruition

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

body language and perception were everything last night

 

[NoMayo15]

Plus, 80 to 90 percent of Americans identify with some sort of organized religion.

Yes, Americans are dumb.

 

[Shogun]

Plus, 80 to 90 percent of Americans identify with some sort of organized religion.

Yes, Americans are dumb.

You think the rest of the world ain't religious?

The reality: most Americans,like yourself, are arrogant.

 

[NoMayo15]

You think the rest of the world ain't religious?

The reality: most Americans,like yourself, are arrogant.

I'm not saying there aren't as dumb of countries, sure. But America's up there too.

I'm not sure how the rest of the world being religious makes us less dumb, though.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not saying there aren't as dumb of countries, sure. But America's up there too.

I'm not sure how the rest of the world being religious makes us less dumb, though.

Not the point. My point is that very often you "open minded liberals" are very condescending to anyone who thinks differently.

It's ironic is all

 

[Darts]

All Team Obama has to do now is run nothing but "flip flop" ads about Romney till Nov...its not like there isn't a TREASURE TROVE of material out there to choose from.

It looks like they already started:

 

[NoMayo15]

Not the point. My point is that very often you "open minded liberals" are very condescending to anyone who thinks differently.

It's ironic is all

Okay, and I'm fine with you thinking I'm arrogant because I deal with reality on reality's terms.

I'm not saying I know everything, but there are some things that are demonstrably true. And whether we're talking about politics or science I'm not going to give credence to ideas that are patently false.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Not the point. My point is that very often you "open minded liberals" are very condescending to anyone who thinks differently.

It's ironic is all

TRIBALISM CAN AFFECT EVEN THE MOST WELL-MEANING PEOPLE, BROTHER!