Vice Presidential Debate

[Dahoss]

Anyone else think it's funny that Romney and Ryan flat out refuse to answer how their tax cuts are going to work out mathematically?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is a fact-check of the VP Debate:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-sli...-election.html

[joeydb]

Paul Ryan won the televised debate due to the condescension and sneering smiles coming from Biden.

If you only heard it on the radio, Biden was more aggressive. Both men spoke with conviction and their time was well balanced - within a minute for totals (40 vs 41 minutes). I could definitely understand radio listeners giving the win to Biden.

This is like Nixon-Kennedy all over again. Back then, from what we are told, radio listeners overwhelmingly gave Nixon the win, while it was quite reversed on TV with Kennedy getting the win.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Paul Ryan won the televised debate due to the condescension and sneering smiles coming from Biden.

If you only heard it on the radio, Biden was more aggressive. Both men spoke with conviction and their time was well balanced - within a minute for totals (40 vs 41 minutes). I could definitely understand radio listeners giving the win to Biden.

This is like Nixon-Kennedy all over again. Back then, from what we are told, radio listeners overwhelmingly gave Nixon the win, while it was quite reversed on TV with Kennedy getting the win.

Is that Joey's rule of debates. GTFOH with that nonsense. Then I declare Obama the winner because Romney was a more blatant liar. My equally as absurd rules of debate

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Is that Joey's rule of debates. GTFOH with that nonsense. Then I declare Obama the winner because Romney was a more blatant liar. My equally as absurd rules of debate

It was obviously an opinion.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It was obviously an opinion.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

more crest white strips..joe was just bieng joe..it was a good debate..but i think joe was abit condesending . he made himself look bad talking over and endless eye rolls and outrage pen points ..many times he was playing cover your ass about military matters. 'that is what the joint chiefs wanted..blah blah blah.'. as if to say hey who are we to not do what they say.well if the commander in chief has a nut sack..he does question what the joint chiefs say..look back to 1963..if kennedy had listened to the military back then .we would all be gone....but both sides had a good night..and im pretty sure you saw the next gop runner for prez.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Anyone else think it's funny that Romney and Ryan flat out refuse to answer how their tax cuts are going to work out mathematically?

dodging the question is easier than saying 'well, it doesn't work mathematically'. like stewart said the other day, romney is 'a wizard'!!

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Danzig

dodging the question is easier than saying 'well, it doesn't work mathematically'. like stewart said the other day, romney is 'a wizard'!!

Amazingly enough, those who support Romney and Ryan seem pretty hell bent on dodging it as well.

It's almost as if it didn't happen. Instead of talking about what they said...or didn't say, people want to talk about Biden being condescending.

You know what...if I had to sit there and listen to someone lie over and over and then dodge direct questions I'd be condescending also. Wouldn't we all?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Amazingly enough, those who support Romney and Ryan seem pretty hell bent on dodging it as well.

It's almost as if it didn't happen. Instead of talking about what they said...or didn't say, people want to talk about Biden being condescending.

You know what...if I had to sit there and listen to someone lie over and over and then dodge direct questions I'd be condescending also. Wouldn't we all?

i would think so. i didn't watch the debate, just read a couple articles about it this a.m. i doubt i missed anything. more of the usual circumlocution, bombast, etc i'm sure. yesterday, i looked up 'when did vp debates begin' as i wanted to try to understand why they started having vp debates.
it was 1976. still not sure why tho. probably no good reason for it.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

dodging the question is easier than saying 'well, it doesn't work mathematically'. like stewart said the other day, romney is 'a wizard'!!

http://blogmaverick.com/2012/10/11/m...mney-tax-plan/


I always thought Cuban was a tool - but his views on not providing all the specifics that Romney detractors keep asking for makes a lot of sense - at least to the Romney supporters.

Ryan handled the budget question properly. He was against a seasoned fear mongering veteran of Washington D.C.

What Biden asked was a loaded question. One where he can take the explanation of tax cuts for the rich and use it as a debate slogan.

Ryan is a liar but a good one. Biden is a liar and an unlikeable dic.khead. He made Ryan likeable. That's hard to do.

You do not act the way he did in a debate. The GOP editors are having a field day with it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Anyone else think it's funny that Romney and Ryan flat out refuse to answer how their tax cuts are going to work out mathematically?

Biden only laughed when Ryan was lying or dissembling. Ouch.

[Riot]

The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh
Matt Taibbi Blog
POSTED: October 12, 10:45 AM ET

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz296eLeZd7


The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:

MS. RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well – (chuckles) –

MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet again to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?

Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

REP. RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the –

"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress."

Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.

I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line.

Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:

MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you're doing?

So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:

REP. RYAN: Look – look at what Mitt – look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we're saying is here's our framework: Lower tax rates 20 percent – we raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] in loopholes and deductions. And so what we're saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation –

Three things about this answer:

1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework – "Lower taxes by 20 percent" – and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

So then, after that, there's this exchange.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?

REP. RYAN: – so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here's why I'm saying this. What we're saying is here's a framework –

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I hope I'm going to get time to respond to this.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress –

MS. RADDATZ: I – you'll get time.

REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful – look –

MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.

Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her – and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."

Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president – for president! – promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz296dwGrm3

Rolling Stone. Whoa it must be true.

If I post a link from that piece of s.hit payola mag be sure to e-slap me.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Rolling Stone. Whoa it must be true.

If I post a link from that piece of s.hit payola mag be sure to e-slap me.

It's an opinion piece, rocket scientist.

Originally Posted by Riot

It's an opinion piece, rocket scientist.

a biased opinion piece from a condescending as.shole. No wonder why you ate it up.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

a biased opinion piece from a condescending as.shole. No wonder why you ate it up.

LOL - what happened in the debate - Ryan dissembling, having zero adequate response to a direct question - happened. Direct quotes of Ryan having no answer isn't opinion - it's fact.

That Biden was right to laugh at that, is. Yeah, that's opinion. Yup, I agree with that opinion. Biden only laughed at Ryan when he lied - and like Romney, Ryan lied a lot.

I agree with the rest of the opinion piece, too - that Romney-Ryan should have been laughed off the presidential stage months ago due to incompetence and lack of seriousness, but they have not been due to lack of journalistic incompetence.

And this article agrees completely with 'Zig's Slate article - go attack that, too.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Anyone else think it's funny that Romney and Ryan flat out refuse to answer how their tax cuts are going to work out mathematically?

here's an exhibit of why they don't get into details:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...nvestment.html