Darrell Cody

What did you think of the first Presidential debate?

34 posts in this topic

Obama looked pathetic. If you've ever taken even one public speaking or theatre class in high school you'd know to always look firmly at your audience when speaking. Fidgeting glances and staring at the floor do not convey confidence; it makes you look weak and scared. I cannot believe he'd function this poorly. I know his skills as an orator have been exaggerated grossly, but I still expected more than stuttering, mumbling, and staring at the floor. He's an empty gas bag that's been deflated by a crash with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't watch it but saw a few clips that out of context mean nothing, but the commentators on Fox, even Democrats, and 'polls' are saying he did very well and that Obama didn't. Personally it doesn't matter because we already know what he is and isn't and that public 'performances' for an election are not the way to find out anyway. What matters is if it helps to defeat Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama looked pathetic. If you've ever taken even one public speaking or theatre class in high school you'd know to always look firmly at your audience when speaking. Fidgeting glances and staring at the floor do not convey confidence; it makes you look weak and scared. I cannot believe he'd function this poorly. I know his skills as an orator have been exaggerated grossly, but I still expected more than stuttering, mumbling, and staring at the floor. He's an empty gas bag that's been deflated by a crash with reality.

Maybe Obama, too, is a schm*ck.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't watch it but saw a few clips that out of context mean nothing, but the commentators on Fox, even Democrats, and 'polls' are saying he did very well and that Obama didn't. Personally it doesn't matter because we already know what he is and isn't and that public 'performances' for an election are not the way to find out anyway. What matters is if it helps to defeat Obama.

It at least finally reveals the truth: that years of kid gloves treatment from the media left Obama unprepared and untested. He, and Democrats, seriously believed that all it took was for him to smile and say pretty words, then the tingles would run up Chris Matthews' leg and the seas would stop rising. He's never been held accountable for anything in his life, and at his fist contact with actual disagreement and resistance crumpled him like a paper sack. While Romney spoke, staring at Obama firmly, Obama merely stared at the floor, often literally with his eyes closed, as if he were quietly enduring a nuisance that should be beneath someone of his stature. In his mind he's not supposed to be challenged, his narcissism can only conceive of one outcome: smile, say pretty words, get some softballs from the media, watch the public fawn over him.

The illusion of Obama is being destroyed. The reality is a pathetic, resentful marxist who got elected because he was young, charismatic, and carried a novelty factor because of his being black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama got nailed last night. He not only sounded incoherent at times and all over the board, but he broke a cardinal rule in a debate; he kept looking down as Romney was speaking to him. I have always thought that Obama won't survive re-election, this debate seals the deal. (and yes, there are two more for Obama to sweat through)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Carlos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney had the clear advantage - the state of the economy throughout Obama's run has left Obama with no credit of being able to get any sort of practical result. Obama looked as if he knew any plans or ideas he talked of were going to be tainted with his past failure. As for how Romney did, from what I saw, he had lots of easy attacks on Obama's horrible track record but was not that confidence inspiring when it came to his own ideas and plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all the conservatives' euphoria over the first debate, Mark Levin (daily radio show 10/4/12) is the only person I have heard say that Romney should not be pandering to Obama's class warfare resentment by emphatically promising in the debate not to lower taxes on "the rich", as if "everyone knows" it would be improper to even think about such a thing. (Subscribe to Mark Levin itunes free podcasts at here.) If Romney wins it will get rid of the overt egalitarian nihilist Obama and his immediate destruction, but will not be the end of major battles (which Levin also recognizes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modest proposal: count votes in terms of dollars, specifically, dollars paid in all taxes in the past year. Whichever candidate has the most voted dollars wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modest proposal: count votes in terms of dollars, specifically, dollars paid in all taxes in the past year. Whichever candidate has the most voted dollars wins.

That would disenfranchise most of us. You want rich liberals buying the election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a horse and pony show. On this occasion Lord Obama was the Horse's A**.

Thank god the unemployment rate dropped into the 7s out of nowhere today . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would disenfranchise most of us. You want rich liberals buying the election?

I wasn't aware that only liberals made money in America. Also, from what I've heard, Romney raised far more than 0bama this year.

In any case, I think it's objectionable that those who pay no taxes at all get to cast a vote to increase the welfare state - and the poor are the biggest supporters of 0bama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a horse and pony show. On this occasion Lord Obama was the Horse's A**.

Thank god the unemployment rate dropped into the 7s out of nowhere today . . .

Yeah, funny how those things happen. It's like France following the 2008 crisis: it had one quarter of negative growth followed by one quarter of 0.1% growth. Tadaaaa, no recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would disenfranchise most of us. You want rich liberals buying the election?

I wasn't aware that only liberals made money in America. Also, from what I've heard, Romney raised far more than 0bama this year.

In any case, I think it's objectionable that those who pay no taxes at all get to cast a vote to increase the welfare state - and the poor are the biggest supporters of 0bama.

Liberals are not the only ones who make money and no one said otherwise. You advocated that votes be counted in accordance with how much each voter pays in taxes. Between 1% and 5% of earners (which may be even smaller among eligible voters) pay half the total income taxes. The top 25% pay almost 90% of income taxes. If votes were counted in accordance with taxes paid then elections would be determined by a small minority and most of the population, regardless of political ideas, would be disenfranchised .

Some of the largest incomes are to outspoken liberals like Warren Buffet and others with connections with government, as we saw in there support for Obama the last time. Not every wealthy person is a liberal, but the trend has not been good for over a century. "Capitalists are the last to defend capitalism and freedom". There are plenty of crony fascists and a very large number of professionals who have been educated to follow progressivism against their own interests. Regions like the liberal northeast are flooded with them.

You can't assume, as in Marx, that wealth determines ideas, so that only letting people with large incomes vote would get rid of collectivism.

There are a lot of ignorant poor who don't pay taxes and who are easily stampeded by an agitator like Obama, and there are plenty of 'pragmatists' who don't pay much taxes and who are easily led by the nose to support 'soak-the-rich' schemes to "solve a national emergency", even though they don't benefit from the take directly but who are not themselves directly impacted by the punitive taxes. That problem is becoming worse.

But there have always been honest people who are poor or who have low or middle incomes that can't be presumed to want higher taxes and more government controls. Many who don't pay income taxes, or very little, are retired, deal in cash or are otherwise on "strike", or who prefer an independent occupation that does not lead to wealth, such as the many rural conservatives. Not paying a lot of income tax doesn't make someone a parasite, and paying taxes does not by itself make one not a parasite.

The problem is not that too many people can vote, but that 'voting' itself has become a pragmatic, progressive tool available to excuse anything instead of choosing who will run a limited government. There is no short term solution to that, including weighting votes in accordance with wealth or taxes paid, nor would such a scheme be even remotely feasible to implement politically for the same reason that we have the problem in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no short term solution to that, including weighting votes in accordance with wealth or taxes paid, nor would such a scheme be even remotely feasible to implement politically for the same reason that we have the problem in the first place.

It wasn't an entirely serious suggestion on my part, but variations of it would still be more just than having "one body, one vote". There is massive *in*justice in having a handful of people taxed to subsidize monstrous government spending, and on a pure "one body, one vote", there is no direct incentive for parasites to stop voting in socialists.

In any case, to be more serious, I don't see America surviving much longer, so it actually is a moot point. It has a massive debt that can never be repaid short of hyperinflation of the dollar, which swiftly leads to dictatorship/massive civil unrest/civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, to be more serious, I don't see America surviving much longer, so it actually is a moot point. It has a massive debt that can never be repaid short of hyperinflation of the dollar, which swiftly leads to dictatorship/massive civil unrest/civil war.

While that is possible, I don't see that as inevitable or even likely.

What is more likely would be for the US to default on its debt. That would screw the Chinese and many others who, like the investors in D'Anconia Copper, had plenty of warning and should have known better. At Freedom Fest this past summer, I asked Peter Schiff and several of the principals at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and they all agreed that default or devaluation of the dollar -- was a way out.

While we may have temporary and significant inflation -- buy gold -- and some economic disruption, with default or devaluation, it will be temporary and we will recover. There are so many real productive assets -- plants, materials, machines, skilled people, etc. -- in this country and they will still be there after the worst is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we may have temporary and significant inflation -- buy gold -- and some economic disruption, with default or devaluation, it will be temporary and we will recover. There are so many real productive assets -- plants, materials, machines, skilled people, etc. -- in this country and they will still be there after the worst is over.

Unless the ensuing riots cause enough destruction to bring the country down so badly it will take decades or even generations to recover.

If the government defaults there will be blood. Count on it.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... What is more likely would be for the US to default on its debt. That would screw the Chinese and many others who, like the investors in D'Anconia Copper, had plenty of warning and should have known better...

But they don't know better and neither do a lot of innocent people being shafted. Inflating away the debt through hyperinflation is not a solution, it is only one way of targeting who will be robbed on a mass scale to pay for it. Nor is the massive debt the only problem, it is only one source of pressure towards a crisis, any of which are leading to massive 'unrest', dictatorship and/or civil war, as Phil put it. With no common recognition of the cause and what is the proper direction to move in, some kind of crisis or collapse with a very bad end remains inevitable. It is only a matter of time and in what form. Phil's understandable fear is analogous to the weatherman who always predicts that it's going to rain: eventually he is right, you just don't know in advance when. Meanwhile we can only try to buy time for our own survival or perhaps some fundamental change in direction that will allow for some generations' recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how we could get a US default without major civil unrest, here and abroad. A US default would start by destroying most US pension funds, which are required by law to invest in US bonds. It would equally destoy US banks, for the same reasons It would cascade across the globe instantaneously. It would be followed by defaults in all other countries which have major reserves in dollars, i.e., close to the entire debitor world. Net creditors would suffer major unrest at home, which when you're talking of countries like China is unlikely to stay local. This would be followed by the failure of most large banks across the world. All that would result in recessions caused both by the collapse of US demand and by the unavailability of credit.

Personally, I think high inflation is more likely, maybe followed after several years by a partial default. Even that would be traumatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil's understandable fear is analogous to the weatherman who always predicts that it's going to rain: eventually he is right, you just don't know in advance when.

I think a much better analogy is the weatherman paying attention to the satellite photos showing the Cat. 5 hurricane heading his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we may have temporary and significant inflation -- buy gold -- and some economic disruption, with default or devaluation, it will be temporary and we will recover. There are so many real productive assets -- plants, materials, machines, skilled people, etc. -- in this country and they will still be there after the worst is over.

But all of those assets - and let's not forget stocks and bonds - are ultimately valued in terms of dollars. The moment a trade is involved, inflated dollars will be involved - including getting loans for capital purchases, paying employees, getting paid, paying loans with non-fixed interest rates, etc. Inflation at a certain level becomes an all-destroyer. The physical stuff may still exist but it will take more than that to avoid the results of the sort of total chaos that ensues when a certain percentage of the country can no longer buy food or gasoline - and along the way, has been liquidating their assets to buy them. So who owns the stuff will also undergo dramatic changes, and not positive ones.

The relation between default on the U.S. debt and inflation isn't entirely clear to me, so that's a wildcard - but logically, since the dollar is fiat currency, and since much of its value is in terms of what it can buy with trade - particularly now China - then if other countries stop accepting the dollar at all, that's effectively total hyperinflation qua foreign trade. I suggest checking the manufacturing origin of anything you currently own to see the significance of that.

Sure, gold is good to have, but it's not going to be meaningful on a large scale in America. If a deadly flu epidemic is raging in your midst, a good vaccine is way too late. I think it will have the most utility in terms of being to escape and go to places where the value of gold is understood and where trade in it isn't taxed and restricted (and ultimately confiscated as is likely to happen again.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites