The Debates
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
The candidates do a great job of refuting what the other says without the moderator stepping into the spotlight.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
It is a controversy and rightly so. If this happened and a Republican President was in office then it would be in the news for the next 3 weeks 24/7. People did die and it looks like the Administration has lied. Believe what you want though.
We just disagree. I think the moderator is there to moderate, and part of that can include directly stating a fact when disputed. In this instance she bent over backward to give Romney the meat, the only reason it was memorable is because Romney primed the pump for the better part of a minute to make it memorable trying to make it a "gotcha" moment.
I hear that complaint about this message board all the time.
I like how you always resort to something along the lines of what is Romney was the victim though!? Please give me more credit than that Kicky.
I disagree on why it is memorable. She directly refuted Romney. That is not her place. It was Obama's and I think he would have done so.
Horrible.
So, while Romney has a larger nest egg, Obama's public pension is in fact, much larger than Romney's. Oh, and Obama does have a Cayman Island account as well as money invested in China.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...-says-obama-also-has-investments-chinese-com/
Of course all anyone will remember is Obama's comment admitting that Romney's is larger than his own.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...-says-obama-also-has-investments-chinese-com/
Of course all anyone will remember is Obama's comment admitting that Romney's is larger than his own.
The offshore stuff is interesting but I couldn't care less whose is larger. Completely unimportant.
Brown Notes
Well-Known Member
No, Romney refuted a fact and he was wrong. For the Moderator to interject to confirm or deny a fact is necessary to keep the debate from devolving into continuous counter-assertions. (Yes I did!! No you didn't!!)
It's a little tougher with political grandstanding because these guys are speaking to a large audience of useful idiots instead of a room full of professionals at a conference. It's hard to moderate these without injecting a bias whether intended or not--or just perceived.
If you are looking for the moderator to keep them factual then the debates would last 10 hours and nothing would be accomplished.
To me that is an excuses that doesn't cut it. If it did devolve to a YES I did! No You Didn't! thing then she interupts and gets them back on target but she does not refute them on any facts or policy.
If you disagree then that is fine. To me she messed up and any attempt to justify it is pure ********.
The only reason it would be somewhat important is that it was an attack point from the Obama campaign against Romney, and it turns out Obama is in almost exactly the same situation.
This.
Oh, gotcha.
candrew
Well-Known Member
I think you're conveniently missing the point. The allegation is that Romney had off-shore accounts for the express purpose of sheltering his money. What tax advantage would Obama have by these investments in a pension plan? Even your link concedes there is none.
As for the China thing. Hell I invested in mutual funds that derived from investments made in China around 6 or 7 years ago and made a killing. I think plenty of folks did. Nothing wrong or unethical with that (although it does deserve to be exposed). Might as well get something from them before they turn us into one giant sweat factory.
Last edited: