The 2nd Presidential Debate

• sleeper

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1297219 wrote:That was a complete disaster for anyone that cares for reasonable dialogue about substance.

  Yup.
• TedSheckler

  

  But, but, what about the glass ceiling. Grandma hit a glass ceiling in her career. She was a VP in a bank. Everyone she trained moved ahead of her.
  
  Wait....what?
• Belly35

  

  jmog;1297515 wrote:Anyone who understands math and statisics knows this site is bunk.
  
  However, since you want to talk, it has been shown that when you compare men and women based on their actual job title and actual work experience, the pay difference is about 2 cents, or 98%, not 72%.
  
  The 72% claim is apples to oranges and so statistically aweful that someone with a basic statistics course in college can see the mistakes.
  
  You can't compare men vs women as averages across the board when they make different career decisions ON AVERAGE (what type of job, what field, what to do when the family has kids, etc).
  
  Like manhattan said, companies bend over backwards to find women and hire women in management positions, but the problem at times is finding qualified women.

  
  Obama talks the talk but can't walk the walk Proof is in the Whitehouse:
  
  White House employees was 18 percent less than male employees — $60,000 compared to $71,000.
  
  And in 2008, Scripps Howard syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock noted that as in Obama’s U.S. Senate office, women were paid less than men: While the average male staffer brought home $54,397, female staffers averaged $45,152.
  
  
  
  Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/obama-touts-fair-pay-for-women-despite-records-showing-women-paid-less-in-his-own-white-house/#ixzz29ZITshkl
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1297366 wrote:Vague as fuck and means nothing. Same with "crack down on China". It means nothing.

  What would you like Romney to say? "Well the first thing I'm going to do is get a ham sandwich, because I know a Democratic Senator who used to be an ambassador to China likes ham and I'm going to sit down with him and discuss get all the intel about China that is necessary. Then I'm going to go to Congress and ask them what my options are regarding handling trade with China and what the various consequences are. Next, I will go back to my office and figure out what's best for the American people and my framework for America. Once I decide, I will go work with Congress to get a bill passed supporting my agenda; compromise is what is needed."
  
  The whole "specifics" thing is overblown and over-hyped by the liberal media.
• sleeper

  

  BoatShoes;1297431 wrote:No...Obama is not arguing low gas prices tanked the economy. This is a giant LOL. Gas Prices were high in the summer of 2008 ok...Then world economy went into the toilet and demand for oil plummeted and so the price went down ok. What Obama is kind is suggesting is that low gas prices are the consequence of a recession and the last recession was a result of conservative economic policies and that if you elect Romney and his conservative economic policies you'll get a recession and therefore lower gas prices.
  
  
  .

  This is almost as bad as making some link to Clinton and then talking about how Clinton created all these jobs. Must be nice to have a booming economy and a dotcom bubble while you were President; but yeah Clinton really created jobs just like Obama is going to do. :rolleyes:
• mucalum49

  

  sleeper;1297550 wrote:What would you like Romney to say? "Well the first thing I'm going to do is get a ham sandwich, because I know a Democratic Senator who used to be an ambassador to China likes ham and I'm going to sit down with him and discuss get all the intel about China that is necessary. Then I'm going to go to Congress and ask them what my options are regarding handling trade with China and what the various consequences are. Next, I will go back to my office and figure out what's best for the American people and my framework for America. Once I decide, I will go work with Congress to get a bill passed supporting my agenda; compromise is what is needed."
  
  The whole "specifics" thing is overblown and over-hyped by the liberal media.

  This. Reps
• se-alum

  

  sleeper;1297553 wrote:This is almost as bad as making some link to Clinton and then talking about how Clinton created all these jobs. Must be nice to have a booming economy and a dotcom bubble while you were President; but yeah Clinton really created jobs just like Obama is going to do. :rolleyes:

  Yep, the bubble burst and we were heading toward recession before Clinton ever left office. Most people don't know that though, because Bush didn't harp on it for 4 years. Also, we were experience 4% growth prior to Clinton taking office. All Bill had to do was hang out in the WH and not screw things up.
• QuakerOats

  se-alum;1297579 wrote: All Bill had to do was hang out in the WH and not screw things up.

  And you saw how that ended up ....................... :laugh:
• jmog

  se-alum;1297579 wrote:Yep, the bubble burst and we were heading toward recession before Clinton ever left office. Most people don't know that though, because Bush didn't harp on it for 4 years. Also, we were experience 4% growth prior to Clinton taking office. All Bill had to do was hang out in the WH and not screw things up.

  Don't forget the interns...he had to take care of them.
• wkfan

  se-alum;1297579 wrote:Yep, the bubble burst and we were heading toward recession before Clinton ever left office. Most people don't know that though, because Bush didn't harp on it for 4 years. Also, we were experience 4% growth prior to Clinton taking office. All Bill had to do was hang out in the WH and not screw things up.

  And yet WJC signed the legislation that started the housing crisis that we are all still living with today.
• Bigdogg

  wkfan;1297609 wrote:And yet WJC signed the legislation that started the housing crisis that we are all still living with today.

  That FOUX talking point has been long debated and dismissed. Crisis was caused by poor regulation of the banking industry, greed, and criminal acts that have yet to be prosecuted. The last point I do put on the Obama administration.
• gut

  Bigdogg;1297621 wrote:That FOUX talking point has been long debated and dismissed. Crisis was caused by poor regulation of the banking industry, greed, and criminal acts that have yet to be prosecuted. The last point I do put on the Obama administration.

  You cannot be serious. Are you saying pushing for the expansion of home ownership, expansion of low-income housing subsidies, and...ohhhhh....FANNY and FREDDIE had nothing to do with the housing crisis? It was a massive bi-partisan failure spanning Wall Street, the Fed, congress and the WH of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
• HitsRus

  

  This is all true. Yet, it is basically all MOOT; we ALREADY have laws that address this issue; maybe some of the liberals here need to read up on EEOC matters etc... Geesh. The pathetic question during the debate was simply a softball for obama, the community organizing "advocate"; it had no purpose in this debate when the nation is teetering on fiscal calamity and being attacked by terrorists due to this administration's lax security and foreign policy bungles.

  exactly.....this is nothing more that a liberal talking point. The race card has already been overplayed and lacks effectiveness, so now they have trumped up women's issues. Both Romney(as governor) and GWB (as president) had women and minorities in prominent positions in their administrations, so it's not like republicans or conservatives are trying to keep women down. Very simply put, it is a wedge issue that is designed to distract from the real debate and pull people's eyes off the ball.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
  
  
  Romney 51
  Barry 45
  
  Lead widening, as expected.
• gut

  QuakerOats;1297686 wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
  
  
  Romney 51
  Barry 45
  
  Lead widening, as expected.

  
  I'm not sure of their methodology, but the polls won't fully reflect this last debate for about a week. Although I don't think Obama can hope for much more than to stop the bleeding. Even among polls showing he won the debate last night, he got creamed on the central economic and fiscal issues.
  
  Yeah, he may have been more aggressive and thumped his chest to make people feel like he bested Romney, but when you look at the issues that matter Obama lost another debate, and he lost big. Aside from rallying his base and perhaps helping his turnout, I don't see how that performance is going to move the needle for him, especially among independents and undecideds for whom the economic and fiscal issue are a major determinant of who they will vote for.
• TedSheckler

  

  Obama campaign better sue the poll.
• Belly35

  

  QuakerOats;1297686 wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
  
  
  Romney 51
  Barry 45
  
  Lead widening, as expected.

  ty is now MIA
• gut

  Belly35;1297752 wrote:ty is now MIA

  He's just waiting for the email with polls showing Obama up 10 pts in swing states. I guess some days the servers are a bit slow.
• Ty Webb

  

  Belly35;1297752 wrote:ty is now MIA

  
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/17/1145957/-About-that-Gallup-poll
  
  Truthfully....national polls don't matter. Didn't when te Presidnet was ahead ,don't now
  
  I'd be more concerned with the swing state polls...where Romney is losing...like these ones:
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/17/latest_swing_state_polls.html
• sleeper

  

  Ty Webb;1297773 wrote:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/17/1145957/-About-that-Gallup-poll
  
  Truthfully....national polls don't matter. Didn't when te Presidnet was ahead ,don't now
  
  I'd be more concerned with the swing state polls...where Romney is losing...like these ones:
  
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/17/latest_swing_state_polls.html

  Wow, Obama is 1% ahead in Wisconsin? Election over.
• FatHobbit

  

  Ty Webb;1297773 wrote:Truthfully....national polls don't matter. Didn't when te Presidnet was ahead ,don't now

  
• wkfan

  Ty Webb;1297773 wrote:Truthfully....national polls don't matter. Didn't when te Presidnet was ahead ,don't now

  Says the guy who has been posting poll results since 2008......
• believer

  

  Ty Webb;1297773 wrote:Truthfully....national polls don't matter. Didn't when te Presidnet was ahead ,don't now

  LMAO That's never stopped you from using national polls to show your guy ahead the past few years.
  
  But you're right. The only national poll that matters is conducted on the first Tuesday of this coming November.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1297776 wrote:Wow, Obama is 1% ahead in Wisconsin? Election over.

  
  
• BoatShoes

  sleeper;1297553 wrote:This is almost as bad as making some link to Clinton and then talking about how Clinton created all these jobs. Must be nice to have a booming economy and a dotcom bubble while you were President; but yeah Clinton really created jobs just like Obama is going to do. :rolleyes:

  It was a bit ridiculous to suggest that a financial crisis will necessarily result from a Romney presidency which will result in lower gas prices. But, it's equally ridiculous to lay blame on the president for the high cost of gasoline when it has gone up due to a generalized improvement in the global economy. There's probably a more general critique about why they're arguing about the price of gas anyway but that's what joe six pack wants to hear.
  
  This ought to be a very simple concept for the great sleeper to digest. The price was low during Obama's first month in office because the economy was in the shit and that resulted in weak demand. The world economy has improved and consequently the demand for oil has increased which raises the price.
  
  But hey, the media horse race obsession makes it like these two cats have presidential powers way beyond those granted in the Constitution.