Similar to last week's Presidential debate, "Who is winning the debate" is in the top four rising +Google search terms. Take a look at the list! 
Carly Steven's profile photoParul Batra's profile photoSusana Pabon's profile photogeorge leotisg's profile photo
Sad so many people did not know what conflate meant. 
Conflate, easy. It's cornflakes that have been left in milk too long and gone soggy.
Public debates should be about discovering what the candidates really think, and deciding how you will vote. But everyone seems to want to pick a "winner" and "loser", like it was  boxing match or something.
People want their guy to win because they already know what the candidates think. Take Romney for example, he thinks 47 percent of people are freeloaders who depend on government and don't take responsibility. 
Guys take my word, Obama will Win the election  hands down whereas Romney will win the debate!
People who say 'Biden's a joke' appear to misunderstand 'Biden is funny'  and that performance was hilarious.  Only person who could have spanked Ryan harder was probably Clinton, but it wasn't the right type of debate for that.  No, Biden owned him.  He got in the 47% comment, pointed out religion is fine, but not to be used as a club against others, eviscerated Ryan's tax/healthcare plans.  No, that was masterful.   Shame Obama's performance wasn't even a fraction of that.  Hopefully Biden can coach him.
While im most likely not going to vote for Obama or Romney I thought Biden did great. you really could see the experiance Biden had over Ryan, now im not saying Ryan is no good he just didnt seem as experienced as Biden when it comes to things like this.
Clearly one for the donkeys
I have never seen a bigger jackass than Biden. It is frightening that he is one heartbeat away from the Presidency. Can you imagine how well his laughter and smirks would go over during a Middle East peace summit? Ugh! I still feel pretty locked into +Gary Johnson, but Biden's arrogance makes me want to vote for Romney.
They were probably searching "Biden" because they didn't know who he was before
I know he has been doing it for much longer, i was just pointing it out because people are coming down a little hard on Ryan and not looking at the person he was debating (im not saying I support either canidate)
Well, it sure is easy to tell who's in "the 47%"!
yes, it is, the elderly (worked all life), working poor (working but not earning enough to pay a income tax but still paying sales tax) and serving military personnel constitute majority of that 47%. 
Just now watching the recap of the debate to see what I missed while I was at work. It seems to me like Biden's plan was to make sure Ryan didn't get a word out without him interrupting and laughing at it. 
+Stephen Ross, yes, that's why he's been in the senate for fourty years. Ryan may not make it through his next race, if we're lucky.
Yup. English as a second language for Americans who cannot speak or write. I pacifically told you not to do that. I brung it!
Well put, trouble is, people want to be lied to it appears, otherwise it'd not be such a core part of the GOP strat.
Ryan clearly one the debate I don't think Biden new what hit him.  I am sure he will laugh it off and go on to some other gaft...
+Fenoy Butler II  Oh? In what way do you consider he won?  To me, it appeared Biden did, by correcting all his malarky.
+Robert Mahon VP Biden and the President have been a disaster and you want to give them 4 more years to do what??
Continue to repair.  Handing the keys to the hen house back to the wolves doesn't seem the right way to fix anything.
We need a smaller Government.  that will be the only way to fix things. 
Maybe, but though the GOP talks about small government, why does it always expand when they're in power?( TSA for example).   What works better with a smaller government, seems like the US is big and has a lot of people, does reducing the people helping to run it help/hinder?  Would replacing vital services with private companies increase/decrease the price to get vital things fixed?
+Jeffrey Price You're taking two different situations to be one and the same. If you've ever watched CSPAN when Biden was in the Senate, he's the most serious guy you can imagine - he really does know his stuff, back to front, when it comes to just about any governmental policy.

This was a completely different situation, where Ryan was clearly in over his head, and Biden treated him like the neophyte he is. The eastern Afghanistan section was the definition of Ryan having no clue what the facts are at all - and in that moment where it was clear that instead of just lying he had no clue, and Biden went from "laughing at the kid making up stories" mode to "oh, shit, you really don't understand, that's bad" mode. 
The great thing about Joe is that right or wrong he displays passion for his position. The figures showing Ryan won on likability probably means any little move would favor him. The picture painted of Ryan is one of a crazy, nasty, greedy man. It will be hard to continue that tack for the Democrats since both men came off as decent people.

As for this debate, it is probably a draw. Little if any movement will come of it. Don't know if that helps either, but the shoe is back on the foot of the Presidential Candidates for the last two debates. Should be an interesting (and I would suggest very close popular vote total) finish. 
+Chris Davidson The thing is, the guy I want to see debate, Judge Jim Gray (L) wasn't invited. So I don't have a dog in this fight. What I saw last night was one guy, Ryan, trying to talk about the issue (well, more dance around it) and I saw another guy, Biden, treat it as a joke. It's odd, watching Biden almost makes me want to vote for Romney. Biden put on the most disrespectful and unprofessional performances I've ever seen in a debate setting (and that goes back to '88).
+Jeffrey Price That is the limitation of the Libertarian movement. I think he would need to have 8% or more (just a guess) to be involved. I know Perot was added as a 3rd debater in the early 90s and Anderson was added in 1980, so it is not unheard of, but the popularity of the candidate needs to demand it, otherwise it just muddies the waters. That's US politics for you.
+Jeffrey Price So the fact is that one was hopelessly/deliberately wrong (which you dismiss as "dancing around", but whatever), and that the other was pointing it out is the guy that loses? That's a bunch of stuff, as it were.

Biden, as I said, didn't treat [each subject] as a joke, he treated Ryan as a joke, for most of the debate. Deservedly so, as Ryan proved he has no actual credibility on most of the issues talked about - by ignorance on the foreign stage, and by straight anti-truth on the domestic. Read my last paragraph of my first comment again - Ryan knows just enough to be dangerous, and when Biden realized that he stopped smiling because shit got real.

(Edited for clarity, in [])
+Chris Davidson Treating your opponent as a joke plays well to the base, but not with independents.

It will be interesting to see how the Benghazi comments come out this weekend on the talk shows. Of all the things covered, this is the one that will probably have legs (because it was already going to be talked about before these statements).

When you look at independent sources, Ryan was seen as believable, likeable and in touch. The Democratic attacks on him will provide fewer results going forward (that is part of what happened in the Obama/Romney debate).
+Chris Davidson This is the problem with politics today (and the Obama administration in particular). If you don't agree with Obama, you are a joke. Obama has NEVER (especially during the health care debate) acted like his opponents have a plan. He's dismissive and condescending, just as Joe was last night. I happen to agree with much more of what Ryan said than what Biden said. I think the Obama administration is dead wrong on the economy and entitlements. However, I don't think they are a joke and I would never laugh or belittle a Democrat just because I don't agree with them. I'd try and engage in respectful dialogue. However, as you are adequately proving, if you don't agree with a Democrat they call you a joke and laugh at you. Bravo...way to win over the independents.
+Jeffrey Price  - This would be my only plea to you, if you believe that the race between these two parties will hinge on a small number of votes and you are in one of those states where this will happen, that you step back from your preferred choice and look at where the real outcomes would take us. All 3rd parties have an uphill climb in our American system, but elections will matter in the short term as well. 

Obviously if you are from New York or Alabama (where there is no chance of small numbers of votes changing outcomes) then push your views and remain solid.

Obviously I have my preference, but that final decision is one you have to make.
The difference between Obama and Romney isn't big enough to make me want to vote for someone who thinks it is the proper for the government to force me to purchase private insurance. I live in a swing state and I vote for fiscal discipline and social tolerance, which is something neither Romney nor Obama represent. Decades of voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us $16 trillion in debt, involved in endless wars, an out of control police state, 40 years worth of a failed drug war, a decline in education and more and more government dependence. That this election is so important is why I'm voting for something I believe in instead of voting against something.
+Jeffrey Price You're not an independent, you're obviously (economically) right-leaning and couching your terms in Libertarianism to make yourself appear as a "man in the middle".

One, Obama has acted as though they have no plan is because they refuse to actually release a plan. In healthcare, Romney has said a bunch of things about repeal, and passing it to the states, etc; but in the debate he switched it and said he's going to somehow kill ACA, but keep the preexisting condition requirement (that he previously said  would revert back to pre-ACA COBRA based coverage). That's not a plan, that's a joke perpetrated on those that don't know the difference. 

The math on what R/R is spouting does not add up, on any economic issue that's been brought into play. Just because you're more inclined to agree with it doesn't make it any more truthful. That's the real joke, that ideological people like yourself see a bunch of half-truths and made up numbers that back up your preferred narrative, and "happen to agree with it" regardless of if it will work in real-world scenarios.

The R/R budget/tax cut plan bases the supposed deficit reduction on the assertion that cutting taxes on rich people will somehow lead to those rich people hiring people, and those hired will pay taxes, and those taxes will make up the additional deficits that their plan incurs.

The lynchpin of that view is that giving rich people tax breaks means they hire or create more demand - a view that has been demonstrated false in every aspect, respect, and permutation since the 60s. The joke in this is that 'right-leaning' people continue to believe it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The rich save that money for a rainy day, overwhelmingly, and the numbers back that up.

But your response will likely focus on the fact that I called your beliefs a joke and that's wrong, and maybe invoke "Reagan proved that you can cut taxes and get more revenue" - which completely ignores his raising taxes two years later because he realized that he went too far (and those rates are still above where we are now, btw). 

History and facts are simply not on your side on the economic spectrum, and you're arguing about how we're telling you you're wrong. That's a joke to me.
+Dale Burgess I didn't say it would win anyone over, but I think the two plausible alternatives are worse. You can either let almost everything that R/R say that is an outright fabrication slide (as Obama tried to do in the first debate), treat them as the naive children they are (as Biden did), or be a Debbie Downer factchecker, which plays well with no one.

Going up against sociopaths doesn't leave much room for maneuvering.
1. Difference of Opinion <> Outright Fabrication
2. Romney/Ryan have moved beyond that caricature that the Dems tried to portray them as. Only those who are already too far gone haven't noticed that both came across as reasonable alternatives, capable of leading. I think apart from any specific issue, this is why Romney/Ryan have gained in the polls.
3. Opinionated "fact checkers" simply create a difficult terrain for undecideds to navigate.
4. Keep believing that they are sociopaths Chris. That opinion is harbored by you and the hard left. America has seen different. Again the reasonableness of both men resonates with people who are undecided - not the mean, name-calling (nor the misplaced laughter) by a partisan.
+Paul Vasquez
Ted Kennedy 50 years, Idiot and possibly murderer (deceased)
Barney Frank - Idiot 32 years.
Diane Feinstein - Idiot - 20 years
Barbara Boxer - Idiot - 10 years
Nancy Pelousy  - Complete idiot and imbecile 25 years

whats your point?
+Chris Davidson I don't know why you expect me to defend R/R. While I think their plan is better than Obama's spend and tax plan, doesn't mean I think it's the best plan. I'm also not a big fan of Reagan and his tax cut and spend plans. I do think you can cut the tax rate and eliminate deductions and see an increase in tax revenue. That's not hard to believe or to understand. This is of course in direct contrast to the Bush/Obama cut taxes and leave deductions alone which has done quite a bit to lower government revenue.

Once again you try and marginalize anyone that disagrees with you. You call R/R sociopaths. I may no agree with you but I can do so without resorting to the 4th grade antics of you or our Vice President.
+Dale Burgess I'm going to focus on one part of this to keep it short - when they were talking about tax rates and small businesses (and using personal tax rates), Ryan said that the O/B plan to let the top-tier tax cuts expire would somehow effect most small businesses, and cost a (flatly made up) amount of jobs. Biden rightly refuted that 97% of small businesses have <250K in profits (and house an overwhelming % of the employees), and those would not be affected by letting the tax cut expire (as they were talking about at the time).

The numbers clearly back Biden, and unlike the R/R plan they refuse to outline, Biden's numbers are based in current law codified.

Ryan continued to press this, intentionally mashing the two disparate points together in an effort to confuse the issue. Explain how that is not deliberate, misleading, and factually wrong.
+Jeffrey Price You may be able to cut rates and eliminate deductions, but not to the extent that their proposals do. The math does not add up. It just doesn't, and no amount of "yes it will lalalalalalala" [will] fix it.

If it did add up somehow - in a manner that the public would find palpable, mind you - the R/R campaign would shut everyone up on my side and release exactly how their numbers work. Everyone telling them to prove it knows that it can't add up while still keeping deductions that would prevent a full mutiny of voters.

They (and their defenders) can't have it both ways - either release the numbers, or admit that the cut/deduction changes that are proposed have to be vastly different than advertised.

(Edited for clarity in the [])
I'm going to wade in as a foreigner who doesn't live in the US and has no vote in the final election. I just watched the debate and while I'll leave the fact vs. lies debate to people who are actually knowledgeable about the issue, I will vote on the performances. From simply watching the show, Ryan came out as accessible, like-able and earnest. Biden came across like a political "You're fired"-like Donald Trump - very dismissive, disrespectful and impolite. Hard to vote for Biden after a performance like that one. Good thing that I don't have to.
+Rohit Chikballapur I believe that is going to be common across the spectrum of those US citizens who haven't already committed (the way most of us have). Your observations are mirrored in the early information that is coming out.
Seems to me that debates don't matter, coz everyone has already picked their side anyway and the candidates don't bring anything new to the table but respond with rehearsed replics that have been heard many times already and don't surprise anyone. In the end all that matters is appearance.
+J. S. Hansenius Every time I hear either Ryan or Romney speak, they talk about their plan and how it is going to work. People keep saying that they are being vague but I've heard more concrete details that will work from them than I have from the Obama campaign which is doing a juggling act trying to spin everything that comes out.
Obama's plan in '08 was Hope and Change. We've seen how well that works.
How are we moving in the right direction? Economic growth is slowing. The labor force participation rate is the lowest it's been since the early 70's. The only reason the unemployment rate is dropping is that folks are leaving the workforce (see participation rate) or taking part time jobs (which is why we had the big September dip). There is very little positive about the economy right now. Sure, Obama had to deal with the mess left by Bush and Congress (which was controlled by Dems since '06 and like Bush did nothing to fix the issues).

I don't want to see more laws like the NDDA authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. I don't want to see big government solutions to health care. I don't want to see SS and Medicare's unfunded liabilities ignored. I don't want to see a continuation of the same failed war on drugs. I don't want to see a continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't want to see more budget deficits and $20 trillion in debt. That's why I'm not voting for Romney OR Obama...because that's exactly the type of policies both of them bring to the table.

I also don't want to see a VP that laughs at someone trying to debate him.
+Jeffrey Price Get beat on an issue, reset and spout some tired cliche, that I could use without sarcasm to mean something positive - considering the preponderance of data that says the stimulus saved the economy, despite the R congress' best efforts.

Have any answers on how R/R's tax plan can work, with real numbers? Nobody else does, least of all R/R.

(Edit: And you wonder why we think your movement is a joke)
The answer I saw from Ryan during the debate was that there are $1.1 trillion in tax deductions claimed each year and $1.2 trillion in revenue from income tax. Their 20% tax cut would shave about $220 billion in taxes. Ryan in the debate said he doesn't want to provide specifics on which deductions to eliminate to replace that $220 billion in revenue because R/R would prefer to work with both sides in Congress to reach a compromise. Is that hard to understand? The math can easily work. Cut $220 billion in taxes, remove $220 billion in deductions = revenue neutral.

I happen to favor the Fair Tax (a national sales tax that would entirely replace the income and payroll taxes), but that doesn't stop me from understanding what R/R want to do and why they don't want to provide specifics. Personally, I think removing deductions and complications from the tax code would be a good thing. I'd love to see a flat tax, or even a progressive flat tax. It shouldn't take me more than one page to fill out a tax return, and I sure as heck shouldn't have to pay someone to do it if I have more than 8th grade math skills.
+Jeffrey Price Yes, but not almost of those 1.1T in deductions/yr are off the table, such as carried interest. I believe I saw that same statement, and they don't have numbers in it. Therefore your math isn't "simple" by any stretch - it's obfuscation at best.

People and think tanks on both the left and center have taken the things that Romney has wanted cut, then the things that he has declared off limits, and looked at them. They have universally come back with a simple message - there aren't enough things left on the table to fill the hole he says he's going to dig.

Every other politician talking taxes has had a baseline of what they want. This "compromise" talking point is a canard. In a compromise, you don't go to the table without a list of things that are your demands. Otherwise it's not compromise, because what is their starting bargaining point?

And as a final point, I now have an advocate for an even less progressive and numbers-based tax scheme defending the R/R plan? At least I now know where you're coming from - a even further out fantasyland of numbers than anything the congressional R's have agreed on in years. I suppose that you want to go back to the gold standard too? ;P
In the beginning. of what I call " the Obama experience".....I honestly thought he was going to save us and actually help the U.S. He seemed dedicated and motivated and positive. I was totally for him. But now that some tome has passed, I' be realized that this man I thought was going to change the u.s. for the good, is just like the others. All show no go. Less talk more action people! I mean come on! So I have given on my hope for Obama.
But on the other hand Romneys a rich greedy all about keeping the public in the dark, asshole just like most of our past presidents. They want "their people" to think that they got it under control......when they totally don't.ugh I could go on and on. I say screw em both and bring in someone new.........Obama shouldn't even be legible to be in office.
In the end I'm goin for Romney even though he's like every politician. He's better than Obama.

obama wants the immigrants here, he's making laws so its easier for them to drive. I mean come on. We have enough U.S citizens homeless, poor and starving here.why would he want to add more people's,who can't speak English, they basically are taking. Free money from the government , and there taking a lot of good jobs. I just don't get it. They should just fire everyone in the whitehouse and bring in fresh people to get a different perspective
About all of our problems.
Isn't it common knowledge to know that in order to make things better for your country you have to actually
pay attention and help YOUR country. Duh? I mean if your country is far from pefect wouldnt you try your very hardest, ( especially if country is far from perfect
Britt, I understand where you're coming from, but there are very few people here illegally getting government assistance (aside from in an emergency room, as no one deserves to die no matter how they got here). Most, in fact, either get paid under the table (which the boss would pay income taxes on) or get paid as a worker, meaning that payroll taxes like SS and Workman's Comp get taken out - programs that they will never have access to as non-citizens.

I don't really follow governmental policies on immigration, so I can't give you a good view of either candidate's answer, but from every news report or white paper I've ever read, it seems the real people you should be mad at are running companies like large agribusinesses, or meat processing, or other industries that create the demand for these workers in the first place. They are hiring all these people, usually under the table for nothing wages and poor conditions, instead of paying the cost to hire on-the-level workers and pay for their benefits (and be legally compliant as a company in the US).

It seems common sense to me that if there were no jobs that were available to illegal immigrants, they wouldn't come here to just be homeless and jobless.
Carried interest is what? $17/billion a year? That hardly seems like almost all of $1.1 trillion. I haven't studied R/R plan in detail, so all I can do is respond to your critiques.

Obama hasn't said what he wants with regards to taxes...other than raising them on the rich. Raising them how high? How much additional revenue is he seeking? I don't recall that he's ever said, other than he wants the rich to pay more. As for this method of comprise, it's a lot more open than what Obama did during the Affordable Care Act, where he stated any plan that didn't meat his specific goals would not be considered as an alternative. The truth is that R/R at least seem to be setting a policy goal and are willing to work with Congress on the nuts and bolts of it.

As for the fair tax, I don't see how that's less progressive as the prebate makes sure that the poorest have the same effective tax rate that they currently have, that being 0%. Of course, I  don't actually expect you to engage in an debate on the issue. You seem far more interested in making personal attacks. As for the Gold standard, last I checked that ship sailed in 1971. It's kinda like the Euro from the EU. It's a one way street. Nor do I want to end the fed (though an audit would be nice). Just because someone doesn't agree with you is no reason to attack them...but I guess since you are please with Biden's laugh track from last night you disagree with me on that point.
Jeffrey, I'm about to head to work, but I'll leave you with a couple of points.

Obama has said ideally his levels for taxes on the rich would mirror Clinton's (and said this during the debate, IIRC). This has been repeated, and elaborated, and droned on, etc, till the people like me that pay attention on the left are sick of it, quite honestly (;

R/R's tax plan is not as open as ACA was at all, as Obama said that his framework would be a federal version of Romneycare (ie a starting point). He stated some specifics that were off the negotiating table (much like Romney and carried interest, etc). The point where it was declared to be as-is, and R's raised a shitstorm, was after the senate version was finalized, and the House version had to be identical. It's all in the public record, if you'd care to look it up.

I won't debate tax structures here, because that's far too long for a format such as this. I've seen the numbers of the various fair and flat tax programs, and it comes down to effectively a giveaway to the rich and a gutting of any long-lasting social programs that most US citizens hold dear - in other words, just like 99% of other Libertarian economic policy I've seen in the last 20 years. But you're welcome to that idea, as at least it's honest. ;P

Thanks for the nice debate, cheers!
Add a comment...