Even though he spoke better, I still don't know any of Romney's policy plans.
Vote for me, I'll figure it out later.
Vote for me, I vaguely know how a country works. I also ran a business and somehow magically made my state awesome.
To be fair, moderate republicans biggest criticism of Obama 4 years ago was his lack of business experience. They saw him as a community leader with no "big business" experience.
I feel badly for Obama. As the incumbent, not only does he have a job while campaigning (president of the USA?) but he also has to know that if reelected, he's going to meet the same legislative obstacles.
When a Republican candidate talks about "bipartisanship" and "line crossing" but stands with a party that was outspoken about preventing the president from passing legislature during a time of economic crisis, you know it's GOP bull-***.
Lakshmi.Deces said: »
I'm not in charge of being the voice of 320 million people, In the next debate uhhbama will try to refrain from saying "uhh" and after enough times of him not being able to use his coping tool his mind will break. I think it will happen within the first 15min. of the debate.
I can not believe someone actually implied that we should be so fortunate that uhhbama even agreed to debate... wtf year is this 1943 in germany, did you think you elected a king or dictator?
not sure where you're going with that, so i'll take a stab in the dark and say; Adolf Hitler was a tremendous public speaker?
So he was, just was not a good place. I think we both agree about that.
Sure we can agree on that, I just fail to see your point on how Hitler's speaking abilities comes into play into our presidential debate.
He averted the disastrous results that would have come from a poor showing in this debate and came off more polished than the President with his statements... except most of them were flip-flops again like Medicare, Education and Economic Policy.
I would say that Romney repeated phrases (even when it was off topic) he wanted people to remember but that, to me, is not a debate. That is a presentation or speech.
I'm not sure about polished, maybe heavily prepared/coached.
However, I think both need a stronger mediator to control the debate better.
Frankly, the layman doesn't care about such nuances. People typically look at the presentation (outside) and rarely inspect the inside. You can lie like crazy in these debates and not be called on it while looking like an affable professional.
Romney knew this was crunch time and his debate prep was designed to do exactly that - stay cool, say what needs to be said and avoid major gaffes. He did that and Obama returned with gluing Romney to Obamacare but overall the debate looks like:
I don't see how "business experience" guarantees you are an effective President. Corporations are run very differently from the federal government.
It doesn't. But to say that the experience hurts is naive.
I didn't say that the business experience hurt. What hurts is that its constantly brought up, because it distracts from the facts. The facts were that Romney was a governor, and that's probably more relevant to his experience.
EDIT I think Romney did well when he mentioned his experience as Gov. He didn't flaunt his business side, which I think made for a stronger message.
I don't see how "business experience" guarantees you are an effective President. Corporations are run very differently from the federal government.
It doesn't. But to say that the experience hurts is naive.
having community organizational skills doesn't help either.
It's vital. I'm talking about four years ago and not trying to pick on Obama. Hell, I'm going to vote for him this year and the only reason I didn't 4 years ago is because I wasn't in the US.
I'm just saying that the comment doesn't come out of left field.
I felt that when Romney spoke about the economy, he gave the stronger presentation. That is of no surprise to me. Let's all be honest, that's right in Mitt's wheelhouse. He has a corporate mind, and the experience to boot. His biggest failure is the lack of an outline and Obama continually calling him out on it.
I don't see how "business experience" guarantees you are an effective President. Corporations are run very differently from the federal government.
It doesn't. But to say that the experience hurts is naive.
I didn't say that the business experience hurt. What hurts is that its constantly brought up, because it distracts from the facts. The facts were that Romney was a governor, and that's probably more relevant to his experience.
Again. I'm not saying that I agree. I'm saying that it was a criticism four years ago which explains why it isn't out of left field.
Being president is a job. When you apply for any job your "qualifications" are the first thing that are evaluated. I don't think they "distract from the facts."
In fact, they are the only "facts." In an election, the rest is a matter of perspective and promises.
Again, I will take a pare from uhhbummer's telapromper, uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh,uhh, uhh, uhhh, uhh, uhh, vote for me plz. :3
Just terrible. The lack of any educated, informed, or otherwise useful information reduces this and your last few posts to nothing more than fail grade dribble. Unless you have something constructive to add, just keep quiet and let the grown ups talk.
I don't see how "business experience" guarantees you are an effective President. Corporations are run very differently from the federal government.
It doesn't. But to say that the experience hurts is naive.
I didn't say that the business experience hurt. What hurts is that its constantly brought up, because it distracts from the facts. The facts were that Romney was a governor, and that's probably more relevant to his experience.
Again. I'm not saying that I agree. I'm saying that it was a criticism four years ago which explains why it isn't out of left field.
Being president is a job. When you apply for any job your "qualifications" are the first thing that are evaluated. I don't think they "distract from the facts."
Sure, it can be listed as a qualification. But it shouldn't be a centerpiece of discussion, which some people (not necessarily the campaigns) make it.
There is a reason I could never do these kind of "debates" because the amount of *** that gets spewed is just overwhelming and I'd have to tell the moderator my opponent is full of ***followed by firing up my powerpoint and going line by line as I ask my opponent to explain X, Y or Z.
I don't see how "business experience" guarantees you are an effective President. Corporations are run very differently from the federal government.
It doesn't. But to say that the experience hurts is naive.
I didn't say that the business experience hurt. What hurts is that its constantly brought up, because it distracts from the facts. The facts were that Romney was a governor, and that's probably more relevant to his experience.
Again. I'm not saying that I agree. I'm saying that it was a criticism four years ago which explains why it isn't out of left field.
Being president is a job. When you apply for any job your "qualifications" are the first thing that are evaluated. I don't think they "distract from the facts."
Sure, it can be listed as a qualification. But it shouldn't be a centerpiece of discussion, which some people (not necessarily the campaigns) make it.
Ok. I'll agree. And we can both be thankful that no one has been touting Rmoney's qualifications.
