2012 Presidential Debate - Third and Final Debate

[asterism]

God, the Romney Klan.

How many of those grandkids did Mitt father?

That's a very asshole thing to say. This is something bad about many leftists - they go after the personal.

What are your thoughts when people make fun of the First Lady's appearance?

 

[candycorn]

Governor Romney:

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

Good night Mr. Romney.

Government Motors is still a fail Candy.

Really? How so?

 

[Intense]

FWIW: HERE is what Romney ACTUALLY said in his Op-Ed piece:

Op-Ed Contributor
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008


IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

--
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1&

Ooops. Once again the actual record supports MITT, not the President.

Obama lied?

wow... who'd have thought?

Yeah. I didn't know he was pro coal, gas, and oil. Yeah.... makes me want to change my vote.

 

[rightwinger]

Romney showed he is weak on foreign policy. He made few valid points and for most of the night.....backed Obamas policy

 

[candycorn]

Well...here's why Romney won this debate. The reason why is because Obama needed a huge victory and at best he got a draw (a draw favors Romney), he soothed fears that he would immediately go to war, he kept bringing it back to the economy where Obama has no credibility...basically Romney let on that in regards to foreign policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two and the differences that exist are very specific in nature. On those points Romney is stronger.

As a side note I don't think the smart ass comments about what aircraft carriers and submarines do will play very well with the American people

Obama has and has had an electoral advantage. Improper foundation for a silly post.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think Romney did well on presenting himself as a likeable candidate. He showed he knew what he was talking about. Made Obama come off the agressor. I think he did what he needed to do to continue getting momentum.

 

[asterism]

Oh no!
Tagg isn't on the stage is he????!!!!

Tagg, LOL.

A white kid who thinks he could fight a black man.... Those boys are funny, especially when they're drunk.


The bottom line with this debate: "I agree with the President."

Race matters in a fight?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Romney showed he is weak on foreign policy. He made few valid points and for most of the night.....backed Obamas policy

So backing Obama's foreign policy is weak? You prove your idiocy time and time again.

 

[Sherry]

Well...here's why Romney won this debate. The reason why is because Obama needed a huge victory and at best he got a draw (a draw favors Romney), he soothed fears that he would immediately go to war, he kept bringing it back to the economy where Obama has no credibility...basically Romney let on that in regards to foreign policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two and the differences that exist are very specific in nature. On those points Romney is stronger.

As a side note I don't think the smart ass comments about what aircraft carriers and submarines do will play very well with the American people

Yes, the expectation for Obama was for him to clearly lay out his plans for a second term...all we got was that he'd continue on autopilot, which is not going to get us where we need to be.

 

[Political Junky]

Romney furthered his movement to the middle. He's no longer interested in being aggressive ... reversed his far right positions he used up until now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Mitt doesn't know geography either.

And how many times did he congratulate the president for his policies and actions?

Mitt has lost two out of three and then there's the fact checkers ....

 

[Intense]

Well...here's why Romney won this debate. The reason why is because Obama needed a huge victory and at best he got a draw (a draw favors Romney), he soothed fears that he would immediately go to war, he kept bringing it back to the economy where Obama has no credibility...basically Romney let on that in regards to foreign policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two and the differences that exist are very specific in nature. On those points Romney is stronger.

As a side note I don't think the smart ass comments about what aircraft carriers and submarines do will play very well with the American people

Obama has and has had an electoral advantage. Improper foundation for a silly post.

Only if you believe the hype. This Election is closer than you can bring yourself to admit to.

 

[hazlnut]

Oh no!
Tagg isn't on the stage is he????!!!!

Tagg, LOL.

A white kid who thinks he could fight a black man.... Those boys are funny, especially when they're drunk.


The bottom line with this debate: "I agree with the President."

Race matters in a fight?

Fighting.

Dancing.

Track and Field.

Basketball.

Football.

Big dick contests.

 

[Conservative]

CNN just said Obama lied about not wanting to leave some troops in Iraq.

 

[Rocko]

Oh no!
Tagg isn't on the stage is he????!!!!

Tagg, LOL.

A white kid who thinks he could fight a black man.... Those boys are funny, especially when they're drunk.


The bottom line with this debate: "I agree with the President."

You're one dumb fuck!

 

[candycorn]

Well...here's why Romney won this debate. The reason why is because Obama needed a huge victory and at best he got a draw (a draw favors Romney), he soothed fears that he would immediately go to war, he kept bringing it back to the economy where Obama has no credibility...basically Romney let on that in regards to foreign policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two and the differences that exist are very specific in nature. On those points Romney is stronger.

As a side note I don't think the smart ass comments about what aircraft carriers and submarines do will play very well with the American people

Obama has and has had an electoral advantage. Improper foundation for a silly post.

Only if you believe the hype. This Election is closer than you can bring yourself to admit to.

Obama has and has had an electoral advantage...still even after your bellyaching.

 

[candycorn]

Oh no!
Tagg isn't on the stage is he????!!!!

Tagg, LOL.

A white kid who thinks he could fight a black man.... Those boys are funny, especially when they're drunk.


The bottom line with this debate: "I agree with the President."

You're one dumb fuck!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Obama was very kind.

No mention of Freeport...even when Mitt threw in Solyndra.

He did not call out Mitt on the Afghanistan flip.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Less horses and bayonets. Trending on twitter. (and none of it good for Romney.)

 

[Political Junky]

Romney furthered his movement to the middle. He's no longer interested in being aggressive ... reversed his far right positions he used up until now.

Will he maintain the support of his neocon supporters?