Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1092621 Posts in 72303 Topics- by 19426 Members - Latest Member: BassBoneGatz
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumPractice BreakChit-ChatPurely Politics(Moderators: bhcordova, RedHotMama, BFW) Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate  (Read 15899 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
tbone62
"Chief of Stuff"

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Alabama
Joined: Jun 28, 2003
Posts: 6240

View Profile
« Reply #120 on: Oct 20, 2012, 03:01PM »

From "The Gaurdian":
Quote
The delicious irony is that the phrase was supposed to show us Romney the feminist. As governor of Massachusetts, he explained: "We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Instead, he managed to conjure an image confirming every feminist's worst fears about a Romney presidency; that he views women's rights in the workplace as so much business admin, to be punched and filed and popped on a shelf. Worse still, it was irrelevant to the question he'd actually been asked, about pay inequality. And, according to several fact-checkers, untrue. He didn't ask for the binders full of women. The list was compiled before he even took office. It wasn't just a gaffe: it was a Freudian slip, a filibuster and a falsehood.

It also wasn't even the daftest part of his answer. That would have to be this bizarre promise: "We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women."

So anxious, they'll hire women. Subtext: so desperate, they'll hire anyone. Even you, ladies. The implication being that in Romney's dream economy employers will grind their teeth and chew their nails until, in a lengthy silence at the tenth tense board meeting, one brave executive tentatively suggests "Guys, I hate to say it, but I think we need to hire people without penises."

Again, not only is it stupid, but it's addressing a question no one has asked. The problem is that women are paid less for the same jobs, not that the labour market isn't flooded enough for employers to take a charitable gamble on them.

Romney's attempt to paint himself as a feminist only proved he doesn't know what the word means. That's why whole binders full of women won't be voting for him. 


Thanks for posting this quote!  I enjoyed reading it.  :)

As I posted in this topic a few pages ago ( http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,65419.msg911070.html#msg911070 ), the context of the binders comment is what bothered me, not the comment itself, which I found a bit amusing.  The statement I highlighted in the above quote absolutely jumped out at me during the debate itself.   And shall we add minorities and the handicapped in with the women, Sir?  Perhaps you have binders for them as well?  I want to know what you're going to do to address the fact that many employers simply will not promote equally qualified women over a man, or even pay them a comparable salary for the same job.  While we're addressing employment and pay issues here (which decidedly were not adequately addressed during Debate 2), how about figuring out why it's okay for corporate profits to be heading skyward while working class people - if they can find a job - are working longer hours for stagnant pay and with fewer and fewer benefits? 

What do I expect from the third debate?  I'm not going to make predictions as to who will win or lose the debate.  Quite frankly, that's not why I would want to watch it.  What I would LIKE to see is a clear plan to address the questions raised in Debate 2.  For Debate 3, I'd like to see some sort of logical, responsible philosophy regarding foreign policy and some indication that the candidates' interpersonal skills, thought processes, and plans are conducive to handling foreign policy firmly, but also with some understanding of other cultures, customs, and view of the world.  My problem with pinning this whole win/lose thing on these debates is that the only thing we really can get from them is short bits about various topics, and what I really want to see is detail.  Exactly HOW do they propose to deal with these issues?



Logged

-- Alea

"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life--music and cats."  -- Albert Schweitzer

Alea iacta est...
Geezerhorn

*
Offline Offline

Location: PA
Joined: Feb 9, 2012
Posts: 5639
"Lego My Trombone"


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: Oct 20, 2012, 03:03PM »

I must confess, Geezer, I'm not a Star Trek fan so I don't know the episode you refer to.

But I understand your point.  We have some Right Wing folks who will continue to spout the same platitudes forever regardless of whether they make sense or not.  Then again we have some Left Wing folks with a similar attitude.

I just wish they'd stop being so binary:  I may not like Romney and I may prefer Obama, but not because I espouse everything he is (or isn't) doing.  Enumerating Obama's failures won't convince me to change my mind, either.  I have too much experience with Romney.

Unfortunately, both extremes tend to think of this race in terms of black and white. I have always felt that a true leader is able to interpret, make sense of and translate all the grey areas in world and domestic affairs into a plan of action that we can all get behind. I have to give Obama low marks there. But Rmoney strikes me as a throw-back to the sheer greed of the 80-90 decade.
Logged
greg waits
« Reply #122 on: Oct 20, 2012, 03:19PM »

Oh. Ok. Let's pick at the scab again see if we can make it bleed. If it bleeds, we can kill it. I thought we already did.

Relax. You were the one saying you wanted him back in here. This was my response.
Logged
greg waits
« Reply #123 on: Oct 20, 2012, 03:25PM »

OK, it's real simple... even you foggy-brained libs can understand if you pay really close attention.   Idea!

The "issue at hand" is Romney vs. Obama.  First of all, Obama's record is not good: He had no previous experience in any part of governance that matters, and his tenure in the White Office has been marked by broken promises, profligate spending, increasing debt, and dilettante foreign policy dithering. By any measure his administration has been a painful failure, a jumble of irrational spending and misguided thinking.

Romney, OTOH, has a history of experience and success in both governance and business. It's Romney's time!  We need to fire Barry and hire Mitt...this country can't afford or tolerate four more years of Barry's spending and amateurish bungling.

Please, Romney's experience is well documented. He is good at vulture capitalism, cutting salaries, padding the pockets of his and his colleagues, and out sourcing labor to foreign countries. Now tell me how that experience would help the USA again?

Oh, and while I am at it need I point out how many lies he continues to espouse, both in the debates and elsewhere. All of this combined with his penchant for changing positions on every issue from day to day makes me less than confident that he would be a good choice for president.

But that's me.
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9815

View Profile
« Reply #124 on: Oct 20, 2012, 04:01PM »

Romney said:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Too bad Romney wasn't in charge of the International Trombone Festival last summer in Paris. I remember a lot of folks here complaining there weren't enuff women utilized. Romeny would have utilized his binders full of women and made you guys happy. :)

Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Geezerhorn

*
Offline Offline

Location: PA
Joined: Feb 9, 2012
Posts: 5639
"Lego My Trombone"


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: Oct 20, 2012, 04:03PM »

Romney said:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Too bad Romney wasn't in charge of the International Trombone Festival last summer in Paris. I remember a lot of folks here complaining there weren't enuff women utilized. Romeny would have utilized his binders full of women and made you guys happy. :)



Nice shot!  Good!
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18657
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: Oct 20, 2012, 04:08PM »

From "The Gaurdian":
Quote
The delicious irony is that the phrase was supposed to show us Romney the feminist. As governor of Massachusetts, he explained: "We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
 
Instead, he managed to conjure an image confirming every feminist's worst fears about a Romney presidency; that he views women's rights in the workplace as so much business admin, to be punched and filed and popped on a shelf. Worse still, it was irrelevant to the question he'd actually been asked, about pay inequality. And, according to several fact-checkers, untrue. He didn't ask for the binders full of women. The list was compiled before he even took office. It wasn't just a gaffe: it was a Freudian slip, a filibuster and a falsehood.

It also wasn't even the daftest part of his answer. That would have to be this bizarre promise: "We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women."

So anxious, they'll hire women. Subtext: so desperate, they'll hire anyone. Even you, ladies. The implication being that in Romney's dream economy employers will grind their teeth and chew their nails until, in a lengthy silence at the tenth tense board meeting, one brave executive tentatively suggests "Guys, I hate to say it, but I think we need to hire people without penises."

Again, not only is it stupid, but it's addressing a question no one has asked. The problem is that women are paid less for the same jobs, not that the labour market isn't flooded enough for employers to take a charitable gamble on them.

Romney's attempt to paint himself as a feminist only proved he doesn't know what the word means. That's why whole binders full of women won't be voting for him.
Thanks for posting this quote!  I enjoyed reading it.  :)
 
As I posted in this topic a few pages ago ( http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,65419.msg911070.html#msg911070 ), the context of the binders comment is what bothered me, not the comment itself, which I found a bit amusing.  The statement I highlighted in the above quote absolutely jumped out at me during the debate itself.   And shall we add minorities and the handicapped in with the women, Sir?  Perhaps you have binders for them as well?  I want to know what you're going to do to address the fact that many employers simply will not promote equally qualified women over a man, or even pay them a comparable salary for the same job.  While we're addressing employment and pay issues here (which decidedly were not adequately addressed during Debate 2), how about figuring out why it's okay for corporate profits to be heading skyward while working class people - if they can find a job - are working longer hours for stagnant pay and with fewer and fewer benefits?

There's one of the more reasonable negative takes on the comment.
 
Something I'd argue that reveals is that Romney's only real message is that he'll address all of your concerns ... rhetorically, and as presented. He demonstrates a tunnel vision that belies he's fixated on tickling ears--form over substance again, which may be why right wingnuts can stand him and haven't started hero-worshiping another candidate. Because if you actually consider the facts important at all, the far right should have no love for Romney at all. This is also a huge part of the Romney problem. We aren't really certain which Romney will actually take office.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51519
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: Oct 20, 2012, 04:33PM »

Romney said:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Too bad Romney wasn't in charge of the International Trombone Festival last summer in Paris. I remember a lot of folks here complaining there weren't enuff women utilized. Romney would have utilized his binders full of women and made you guys happy. :)

Why?  How many of them were trombone players? Don't know
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Geezerhorn

*
Offline Offline

Location: PA
Joined: Feb 9, 2012
Posts: 5639
"Lego My Trombone"


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: Oct 20, 2012, 04:43PM »

Why?  How many of them were trombone players? Don't know

Good question. If there any, I hope they could get home in time from that silliness to clean house and cook dinner.
Logged
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:16PM »

Romney said:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
. . .

of course, this is not what happened, as previously reported, the material was provided prior to the election to each side as an effort of a nonprofit bipartisan group attempting to increase the number of women in state government.

Mitt did not go to them, they went to both candidates.
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
Titus62
*
Offline Offline

Location: So. California
Joined: Jan 2, 2012
Posts: 153

View Profile
« Reply #130 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:18PM »

You guys still don't get it.  You "can't see the forest for the trees."  You fret about women's pay, abortion, gun control, and Mitt changing his mind on some minor issues. Yes, minor...as in inconsequential to the overall future of our country.

Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.

Men, step back and take a long look at what Obama has done to our country, and where he wants to take us...bankruptcy, class warfare, and second rate nation status.  We desperately need a more sensible, more levelheaded, more moderate president.
Logged
Geezerhorn

*
Offline Offline

Location: PA
Joined: Feb 9, 2012
Posts: 5639
"Lego My Trombone"


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:25PM »

You guys still don't get it.  You "can't see the forest for the trees."  You fret about women's pay, abortion, gun control, and Mitt changing his mind on some minor issues. Yes, minor...as in inconsequential to the overall future of our country.

Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.

Men, step back and take a long look at what Obama has done to our country, and where he wants to take us...bankruptcy, class warfare, and second rate nation status.  We desperately need a more sensible, more levelheaded, more moderate president.
It's W's legacy and it will take YEARS to put it all back together - if we still can.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51519
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:30PM »

No, I guess I don't.

Obama has cut spending by eliminating the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is cutting back on military spending.

He is eliminating social programs that don't work.

We need to take more of your hard-earned money and use it to pay down the deficit.

But we also have a lot of obligations that were established under previous administrations.  It is a long-term contract to build an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine.

During the entire Bush Administration the Republican congress authorized increase after increase of the debt ceiling.  When Obama took office we had a 10 trillion dollar debt and a 42% deficit in the budget.  You guys on the Right think you can simply cut your way to solvency, but it doesn't work that way.  You have nobody to blame for this mess but yourselves.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18657
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:34PM »

You guys still don't get it.  You "can't see the forest for the trees."  You fret about women's pay, abortion, gun control, and Mitt changing his mind on some minor issues. Yes, minor...as in inconsequential to the overall future of our country.
 
Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.
 
Men, step back and take a long look at what Obama has done to our country, and where he wants to take us...bankruptcy, class warfare, and second rate nation status.  We desperately need a more sensible, more levelheaded, more moderate president.

I don't think you have much of a case for any of those claims. All I see is right wing dogma. I'm not impressed that a lot of far right wingers think this is what's been happening, because they don't really concern themselves much at all with the facts (all form, no substance--no concept of nuance or anything that complicates the bottom line, assuming they're even paying any attention to the actual bottom line to begin with--that sort of thing), so you're going to need to actually make a case rather than to preach. Preaching has a credibility problem with those who are interested in substance and things like facts.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3365

View Profile
« Reply #134 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:37PM »

You guys still don't get it.  You "can't see the forest for the trees."  You fret about women's pay, abortion, gun control, and Mitt changing his mind on some minor issues. Yes, minor...as in inconsequential to the overall future of our country.

Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.

Men, step back and take a long look at what Obama has done to our country, and where he wants to take us...bankruptcy, class warfare, and second rate nation status.  We desperately need a more sensible, more levelheaded, more moderate president.
Wait, what?

I'm still not certain why people thing Obama's a liberal...  Hillary was the liberal candidate.  Obama beat her by being a centrist.  His landmark 'achievements', the stimulus and Obamacare, we're both drafted with many Republican ideals in order to get some bi-partisan support, not that it helped.  Heck, he even ditched his favored immigration reform to take up a bill that had been sponsored by several republicans, just to have it spat beck in his face.

So, let's vote for the self declared "severe conservative" so that we can have a more moderate president?  Not sure where Romney the moderate thought line is coming from.  Is that Romney version 39.0 that was just released?

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18657
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:42PM »

Not sure where Romney the moderate thought line is coming from.  Is that Romney version 39.0 that was just released?

Being more moderate is what won him popularity in MA. He's good at appealing to whoever he has to appeal to. Unfortunately for him (or possibly us) right now that means right wingnuts. If he were to get into office we're not sure who that would be, or who that would become, so we don't really know who'll show up to play president at any given time if Romney wins. Right now it looks like it would probably be the wingnuts' Romney, at least to start out.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 10036

View Profile
« Reply #136 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:53PM »

Romney's actually a pretty impressive guy, and he's done well at almost everytthing he's done.

My only reservations about voting for him:
1) I don't know which Mitt Romney's going to show up after the inauguration.
2) Supreme Court nominations.

Other than that, I think either guy would do well. It's a common trope in every election to say, "In a nation of 300 million, these are the best two guys we could find?"

But I think these are two pretty good guys.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 10036

View Profile
« Reply #137 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:57PM »

Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.

Just to pick two points:

Name three Obama policies that reflect blind liberal Utopianism.
And what exactly is your beef with his foreign policy? Can you be specific? I think he's been better in foreign policy than in domestic policy.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18657
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: Oct 20, 2012, 05:59PM »

Romney's actually a pretty impressive guy, and he's done well at almost everytthing he's done.
 
My only reservations about voting for him:
1) I don't know which Mitt Romney's going to show up after the inauguration.
2) Supreme Court nominations.
 
Other than that, I think either guy would do well. It's a common trope in every election to say, "In a nation of 300 million, these are the best two guys we could find?"
 
But I think these are two pretty good guys.

With the exception of #1, a concern that's been dramatically exacerbated by the political climate and the way Romney's responded through the campaigning, I tend to agree. Once Huntsman was rejected (no surprise) I was kind of surprised the wingnuts didn't eliminate Romney in short order, but they actually managed to choose the best remaining option. If I knew Governor Romney would take office I'd be okay with that--not especially pleased, but okay. The real problem is the wingnut influence on the right.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Geezerhorn

*
Offline Offline

Location: PA
Joined: Feb 9, 2012
Posts: 5639
"Lego My Trombone"


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: Oct 20, 2012, 07:03PM »

I've got a crystal ball that I'm using to predict the outcome of Monday's night debate, but, sorry to say, I dropped it this morning, and it busted into a million pieces.

The tiny crystal pieces are hard to differntiate, so it is taking my a lot of time in putting it back together again, but don't fear. I should have the predictons ready to go by at least Tuesday or Wednesday.

That's the good news!

You had a crystal ball? I didn't know that anyone on this forum had any balls. :)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11   Go Up
Print
Jump to: