I don't like to comment on politics, religion, and money. Since they're usually all opinions that people feel strongly about, and since human brain enjoys finding facts that support their view and ignores facts to the contrary, no matter what is said and supported with facts, usually there's some anti-fact waiting.
That aside, I decided I'll write my opinion on the 1st debate anyway, since no one reads this but me anyway, and I feel strongly enough that I have to vent a little.
Most experts felt Romney was the clear winner in the debate. I'll agree. Romney looked energized, spoke fluently, while Obama looked tired, talked in broken thought bursts, and all of his attacks got deflected.
However, what I really really hated was how vague Romney's responses were, but yet people felt he did a good job. So Obama said "Your tax plan will raise taxes for middle class" Romney says "No it won't because I will not raise taxes on the middle class."" When Obama said how will you pay for your tax plan, he says "I will create new jobs." Then Romney says he will repeal Obamacare, but keep the good parts, he will repeal the Wall Street regulations, but keep the good parts. /facepalm
First of all, I want to see the math, the full math, on how Romney's tax plan will not raise taxes on the middle class. I have the time and most people have the intelligence to comprehend it, after all it's just addition/subtraction/multiplication/division and at worst statistics. It's not like you're doing Nth-order differentials. Just saying "I will not raise taxes" is stupid, I can say I will not raise taxes on anyone and I will create magic money from thin air too! Just show the numbers and shut the critics up once and for all. Otherwise, spouting "I will"'s and "I will not"s are just empty rhetoric that apparently most people are actually buying???
Second of all, he says "I will create new jobs" but his plan is once again vague! I can say "I will create 100 million jobs and end world hunger and bring world peace by being self-reliant, cooperate with our allies, and force everyone to hug puppies" but where is the solid proof? You can't just spout imaginary scenarios and say it will work! Being president isn't a magic wand, your policies can get blocked by congress, declared unconstitutional by the supreme court, and who's to say there will be enough puppies for people to hug? Definitely not the president!
Third, saying you're repeal stuff but keep the good parts, without naming the good parts is once again vague, but people are buying his arguments! This is like saying in front of a table full of people, I will toss away the full course meal on your table but keep the good parts. The people who likes dessert will think, yes, he will be keeping dessert on table, people who likes salads will think, yes, he will be keeping salads on table. All the while, he didn't say salad or dessert, for all anyone knows, he only wants to keep the brussel sprouts that he loves and screw the rest of you at the table. But you'll never know and apparently he says he doesn't even know what he wants to keep on the table until he is elected. Wow... good luck arguing with him on that.
Worse part is, no matter what the argument or claim is against him, all Romney has to do is deflect by saying 'if I get into office, what you're saying won't happen and what I'm saying will,' end all debate there, after all, how can anyone disprove or prove something that hasn't happened yet? So the only way to disprove or prove his words is to elect him into office? Very well played Romney.
I will say Romney played the first debate very well and Obama lost this one in terms of energy and aura, but I'm still not buying Romney's policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment