Scratch

Mokat wrote:

There's the third (and final) presidential debate tonight. 

I'll probably watch part of it.

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

CN12 wrote:

Well my choice is the right choice for me. I'm not changing, so don't even try to make me change my mind.

So even if we're proven most of his points wrong (which we have) and you have made little case for him, you're still choosing him? Maybe that's what caused all of the mess in America.

What points have you proven wrong? That lowering the capital gains tax so that rich people will invest (and probably a lot) in companies, meaning companies do well and the middle class will be able to be paid more and will invest in companies which will let the lower working class get more money and soon invest in the new companies created which unemployed people will work for which will also eventually do well is wrong?

Really? Do you people need an 7th grade economics lesson?

See, when people invest in companies, those companies and investors will do well. Also, there will always be rich and poor people, this one of the thousands of reasons socialism, which is the idea that tax money from the rich should go to the poor, is wrong.

The capital gains tax is already low enough as it is. Currently, because of it, most rich people pay lower taxes than less rich people, because the middle class makes most money off income, while the upper class is mostly capital gains. Maybe you need a first grade economics lesson.

backspace_ wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

777w wrote:

why is it that the only candidates you see on tv are mitt romney and barrack obama while the other like 5 people never show up

Ralph Nader, that's why. In the 2000 election it is believed that the democrats would have won (even though they did win  ) if Nader, the Green Party candidate, had not taken away votes from him. Since then, both parties have tried to keep third party candidates out of the spotlight, like by limiting their access to debates and such.

but uhm, thats basically removing any possible chance of one becoming president.

Did you watch that video veggie linked a while back?

Say we have the Democratic party and then the Green Party, used-to-be democratic voters switch to the Green party because it's surprisingly found donations and funding. The Republicans have given this donation because they realize it will take votes away from Democrats, which are in closest agreeance with Green views.

Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-22 19:41:06)

soupoftomato wrote:

backspace_ wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

Ralph Nader, that's why. In the 2000 election it is believed that the democrats would have won (even though they did win  ) if Nader, the Green Party candidate, had not taken away votes from him. Since then, both parties have tried to keep third party candidates out of the spotlight, like by limiting their access to debates and such.

but uhm, thats basically removing any possible chance of one becoming president.

Did you watch that video veggie linked a while back?

Say we have the Democratic party and then the Green Party, used-to-be democratic voters switch to the Green party because it's surprisingly found donations and funding. The Republicans have given this donation because they realize it will take votes away from Democrats, which are in closest agreeance with Green views.

I see, but uhm then you either lose the third parties which won't even have a chance, or you have the third party muscle their way to a win and turn the funding of the enemy party against them.

I support any decision, however, Romney cuts taxes for people like himself, with money, and he also says, if you can afford health care then great, if not, too bad. Also he does not support gay marriage.

Mokat wrote:

AwesomeStar360 wrote:

I support any decision, however, Romney cuts taxes for people like himself, with money, and he also says, if you can afford health care then great, if not, too bad. Also he does not support gay marriage.

I agree with Obama and Romney for different reasons.
Also, so far, the presidential debates seem much calmer than the last ones. On the last ones they were walking around in circles like they were gonna pounce each other xD

When watching this one (I stopped after about 30 minutes), I was the one walking in circles. I was watching it on TV, and while watching it was walking around the room. When watching stuff like that, I am never able to sit down.

Also, another thought.
This doesn't seem to be a "Vote for -----" election. It seems to be a more "Don't vote for -----" election. It seems that most Democrats I know are more not Romney than for Obama, and vice versa for the Republicans I know.

The moderator should do more about the rudeness 
Also, in the last debates, the moderator was clearly for Obama.

Mokat wrote:

The moderator should do more about the rudeness 
Also, in the last debates, the moderator was clearly for Obama.

He was for Romney in the first and SHE was unbiased in the second one...

MoreGamesNow wrote:

These remarks about "economics lessons" and accusations that "maybe that's what caused all of the mess in America" aren't conductive to this thread and can only cause problems.  If you have a point, find a way to state it without belittling the person you're arguing with.  Such belittlement doesn't make you seem confident, it makes you seem flustered and rude.

^True dat!^

On that note... Does anyone have a source that makes Gov. Romney's fiscal plan possible? I'd love to have a sourced debate over this, which I feel is the most important issue of this election.

"I love teachers"

BAHAHAHAHA

I noticed Romney says Washyton.

Last edited by funelephant (2012-10-22 22:33:45)

Australia's Presidential Debate Gambling Odds 

Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-22 22:36:41)

16Skittles wrote:

OverPowered wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

These remarks about "economics lessons" and accusations that "maybe that's what caused all of the mess in America" aren't conductive to this thread and can only cause problems.  If you have a point, find a way to state it without belittling the person you're arguing with.  Such belittlement doesn't make you seem confident, it makes you seem flustered and rude.

^True dat!^

On that note... Does anyone have a source that makes Gov. Romney's fiscal plan possible? I'd love to have a sourced debate over this, which I feel is the most important issue of this election.

romneytaxplan.com

I... Just... Want... The... Details! ;O

Ehrmagerd, by "source," I mean credible, unbiased source. Something paid for by the DNC & Mr. Obama isn't exactly unbiased. :3