Romney didn't answer any questions in the first debate, but tonight will be different? It would take days to list all that Obama has accomplished, but in a nutshell he prevented the worst depression this country would have ever known, saved the housing industry and kept the dream of home ownership alive for average Americans, killed Bin Laden (our country's number one enemy), enabled tens of millions of non-insured Americans with pre-conditions to once again be able to obtain health insurance, mended torn fences with most of our allies around the world, made huge strides in preventing discrimination, saved the auto industry from total collapse, saved the financial industry from total collapse, put America back on the path toward independence from foreign oil... You are correct when you say he didn't accomplish everything he said he would, but the record shows he tried and it was congress that prevented his success.
No, they aren't. I've been there repeatedly and there are no answers or supportable facts to indicate how he can realistically accomplish any of the extremely vague ideas he says he now stands for.
Yes Candy Crowley, the moderator for Tuesday’s second presidential debate, isn’t backing down. The CNN reporter and host said Monday that she intends to take an active part in the town-hall-style debate, despite efforts by the campaigns of President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney to curtail her role. Crowley left little doubt Monday that she plans to function as a journalist during the debate at Hofstra University in New York. On CNN’s “The Situation Room,” she told colleague Wolf Blitzer: “I’m trying to just know what the facts are, what the [candidates’] positions are, so that when something comes up that maybe could use a little further explanation, it might be as simple as: ‘But the question, sir, was oranges and you said apples. Could you answer oranges?’ Or it might be as simple as: ‘But, gee, how does that fit with the following thing?’ ”
That would be a welcome change, harking back to the debates before Bush Sr.'s Presidency, when The League of Women's Voters sponsored the debates. But I'm not holding my breath. Every debate since has been completely worthless as far as gaining any usable knowledge of the candidates actual plans for America. We're left with examining the candidate's previous actions and their lifestyle to guess at their motives and who controls their actions, and frankly a guy who parks his vast fortune offshore in other countries and profits by sending jobs overseas would have to bring all of his money home to America before I could consider him a fellow countryman let alone a viable candidate for improving our country. If Romney did that one simple thing, transferred all his money that he has sitting in foreign banks into American banks and/or investments, he'd be a shoo-in for President. The fact he won't says more about his character than any debate or campaign ever could.
There's a reason people use offshore accounts. It facilitates international partnerships and investments. It is both unrealistic and unfair to demand he do with his money what MARIS61 says he must. Who made MARIS61 the boss of Romney?
Quit playing the fool. Tax evasion is why people put their money offshore. It's legal, and I'm not saying it isn't. But it's enormously revealing as to the person's character, or lack of. He puts his own private gain ahead of his country's health, and that's not the kind of person I want running America, for obvious reasons.
Awesome. Next time some mexican buyer wants to buy a house from you, let him pay in pesos. You are playing the fool.
Stop taking the mortgage interest deduction. It's legal, but that fact that you use it shows your lack of character.
Anyhow, my take on the debates has been pretty consistent. I've mentioned in the past that what people perceive of Romney is what's been filtered by the media and caricature painted by hundreds of $millions in attack ads. The convention and the debates are truly the only forum where Romney gets to address the people without those filters. The first debate may have exposed Obama for being the empty chair that Clint said he was (Obama didn't show, eh?). But it really contrasted Romney with all the negative crap about him that's been thrown against the wall to see what might stick. People saw for themselves that he's actually a human being. The election proper should be a rerun of 1980. And that's what is happening with the polls. They're moving in Romney's direction in a hurry, as they did for Reagan. My judgment is that it's not a question of if Romney can find a path to 270 electoral votes at this point, it's a matter of if there's enough time left - like a basketball team furiously erasing a huge deficit as the clock in Q4 is running out. My expectation for tonight's debate is a draw. Obama can't do worse than he did last time - I don't think it's feasible. I don't expect Romney to do any worse, either. The script for tonight is fairly obvious to me. Obama: "I inherited a bad situation." Romney: "quit blaming everyone but yourself, you had 4 years and failed." And that opens up the old Reagan "there you go again" line should Obama continue to blame Bush, republicans, congress, etc. Obama: "blah blah blah 47%" (my note - MSNBC is claiming Obama will bring that up) Romney: "they taught us in law school that when the facts aren't on your side, bang on the table; you are seeing the president bang on the table." Rinse, repeat for any personal attack, including being called a liar. The brutal truth is Obama is in a box that's tough to see a way out of. The reason I say it's going to be a draw is that those who support the president will be pleased that he brought up the 47% and that a different Obama (confident? prepared!) shows up. Also, I don't see anything short of an outright failure on Romney's part and superstar type performance from Obama changing the direction of the polls.
Here's Robert Reich's advice to Obama for the debate. I don't think Obama's listened to anything Reich has had to say before now. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/15/memo_to_potus_be_more_passionate/
Reich's mother's maiden name is Dorf. Probably a few people who will get the dated reference and how it might be related to RR.
Lame strawman, even for you. I don't owe enough on my home to take it, but all of my investments are in America, not foreign countries like Romney.
I refuse to take foreign clients as I don't believe it should be legal to sell American real estate to foreign interests.
Of course it's legal. It's a free country. BB30 rightly pointed out that there's nothing in the least (in the least, in the least, in the least!) illegal, immoral, or unethical about having overseas bank accounts. It simply means you do business overseas.
Do you trust Nate Silver? http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...te/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
