Printable View
I have to confess I did not watch this time around, did not even sneak a peak. I am so afraid of four years of a Republican in charge that I just skipped it and I figure I can find out what I need to know online soon enough. This election is turning into a nail biter for me and I just didn't want the emotional overload of watching the debate. Lol. My blood pressure thanks me I'm sure! Rob
Yawn - same talking points we have heard from both sides. Plus for Romney in getting the Foreign Policy debate turned around to the ecomony -- the topic more Americans are really concerned about. No clear winner - if there needs to be a winner at the debates.
I gotta crush on Obama!
And couldn't wasting all our money on wars have anything to do with the economy?Quote:
Plus for Romney in getting the Foreign Policy debate turned around to the ecomony -- the topic more Americans are really concerned about
The third debate actually lowered my blood pressure quite a bit Rob.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
I watched all 3 prez debates and veep debates in full and am very glad that I did.
I am whole-heartedly confident in going in the booth Nov. 6 and pulling the lever for Obama/Biden.
If Romney should win, I must admit that I am secretly looking forward to my 20% tax cut, since I think we will all be getting them, right?
And I also am very curious to see the 12 million jobs he will create.
He is a politically expedient man and he just might have what it takes to be a very effective Jobs Czar, but for the whole package of President, Commander in Chief, Leader of the Free World he would not be my choice in a million years.
I am just completely flipped out by the GOP right now.... I do not think they are choosing battles that are going to move the country into the new ever-changing world.
Why in the world does smaller government need to be linked with archaic social policy? I just don't get it.
I am so ready for Wed. Nov. 7 to get on with the tasks at hand.
I am looking forward to the 12 million jobs Romney will create. Maybe it will be in the bayonet manufacturing area. I learned how to fix bayonets in the army but that was in 1965.
It was weird how Romney was naming all those countries and his view of what the government should be doing with each and every one of them - WHERE DID HIS IDEA ON SMALLER GOVERNMENT GO?
We're does Romney get the idea that all countries in the world should be are children. Egypt had free elections. We may not like the out come but that is their choice. Does he want to rule the world? That type of reasoning is why so many people in the world do not like the US.
In the countries I traveled foreigners like Americans but do not like our government .
Romney and Obama are such different individuals. Romney is so aggressive and Obama is so deliberate.
Freein05........I agree about the U.S. not being all the other countries' parent. I sooooo wish Obama would have said something as direct as "Its not up to us to make everything right all the time!" He sort of alluded to it when he would say things like "that country needs to take responsibility".........but it wasn't enough. And I wish he would have said to Romney "Listen Bud......its easy to have all those plans of yours when you've never been in my seat." I couldn't believe that Romney kept saying how important it was to have peace everywhere. I think that's the first time I've heard him talk about peace. Usually its about building the military and beating the hell out of everyone.
Obama is a peaceful man and works with people without intimidating them.
Once again, Romney just seemed like a robot to me. I will be really scared for all of us, if he gets elected. Obama might not get everything done that people hoped he would........but I think he can get our country in alot less trouble than Romney can.
Objectively, I'd call it a tie. Romney seemed to calm at least some of my concerns over being a fear mongering military hawk. Obama did a reasonable job reviewing his level headed approach to international politics. Romney keeps talking about getting tough on China, but doesn't get specific enough for me. Other than military spending, they actually seem sort of similar.
From a personal perspective, I think it is well past time that we scale down our role as a global policeman using military might and focus on a global peacemaker with policy and alliances. It's time for other countries to step up, whether it is the NATO or UN alliances or the mid-east addressing their own internal problems.
After the three debates, I think Romney's economic plan has a possibility of helping but is a wild card and so far the "math doesn't add up". Obama is a clear winner on a balanced approach to energy and the environment. And Obama is my choice for toning down the military and a calm approach to foreign policy.
The debates did nothing to show that either has refreshing new ideas or that either is an especially strong leader and speaker. I think Romney will have problems repealing Obamacare. Very generally we are in for four more years of the same regardless and wish we had better choices.
I thought it was a good debate. President Obama laid out the many things he has accomplished overseas, as well as the ways they are working diplomatically to keep us out of future wars. Because he is peaceful and quiet man, as Cathy said, we don't hear of these efforts very often. That doesn't mean they aren't working diligently all the time, we just don't hear about it.
Romney pretty much spent the evening saying 'Yup, me too'
Mr. Romney, IMO, has a Reagan-esque vision of what our military strength can do for us. It is the one aspect of his platform that I am most leary of. It worked 30 years ago, but there are no Soviet Unions in today's world. The most resounding discussion on that point is where I have to side with the President. I liked his analogy about this not being a game of Battleship, meaning we should do more with strategic initiatives and technology and less with raw firepower. I feel the same way.
I do think we should expect a sitting President to be the stronger candidate in a foreign policy debate, and when the discussion was focused there I think that's what happened. It was interesting how often the discussion turned to all things economic. To me its clear that Romney has a better grasp of that and I think that is what most Americans are primarily concerned with right now.
It was refreshing to see two men with obviously opposing views treat each other with respect. Regardless of how much 'handling' it took behind the scenes they both pulled it off. I hope Joe Biden was taking notes. And yes Obama fans, "horses and bayonets" was the best one liner in the debate.
That precisely mirrors our experience as well. In most of the places we've been people just want the American government to butt out. I would be more than happy to oblige.Quote:
Originally Posted by freein05
Slam dunk for Obama.
Oh, I don't know. I kinda liked that "ships that go underwater" line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Am I imagining it or does Romney's voice quality and inflection sound like Reagan? It is creepy to me. I am still undecided on who to vote for but it won't be Romney:)
How many countries are we either at war with or drone bombing now?Quote:
Obama is a peaceful man and works with people without intimidating them.
And lets not forget about the kill list.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Either way, its clear to me that neither of them is destined for a post-Presidential career as a late night host. I still miss Carson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
And oh by the way, thanks Bob Schieffer.
He single handedly committed weapons and other resources to the insurgents in Libya without even bothering with Congress. Have we ever had a President do anything like that before?Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
I was expecting the moderator to bring that up. Maybe it takes away from the "peaceful" narrative, or perhaps it would make those old guys in Stockholm look silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
Hmmmm.....Alan, I'll have to look into that.
OH, I suppose we could count the gun-running operation Reagan had going in the White House basement!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Actually, that was a covert operation which was never tied directly to Reagan, although many people tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
Do you have another example of a sitting US President openly authorizing military support to insurgents without Congressional approval?
The kill list? Are you talking about targeting top Al Qaeda leaders? The ones Bush didn't really give a damn about because he was too busy KILLING Saddam Hussein? The same list that included the name of Bin Laden, the guy who ACTUALLY attacked us on 9/11? That kill list?Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
If Bush had been working a 'kill' list, he would get a ticker tape parade from the republicans!
It just kills the republicans that Obama has been successful in combating terrorism, and bringing to justice the ones who actually were responsible, without getting us into another long, useless war.
Oh, OPENELY! So, we aren't counting illegally...got it.:laff::laff:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
President Bush did not kill Saddam Hussein. He was tried, convicted and executed according to Iraq law.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
The list I'm referring to contains US citizens. Is that the one you're defending?
So, are you implying that President Obama's actions are illegal as well? If so, I would agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I don't even remember what mission the "Mission Accomplished" banner referred to when W landed on the aircraft carrier in all the brew-ha-ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
And if Obama and his surrogates are even to mention the killing of Bin Laden at Obama's direct order that equates Chest Pounding.
Please someone tell me the recipe for the Amnesia Kool-Aid that close to half of our population is drinking.
I wouldn't exactly call what Romney has a 'better grasp' of economics here at home. For starters, his math just doesn't add up, and when questioned on it, he just says, 'oh, we'll let you know after the election'. Yeah, right, and Nixon had a 'secret plan' for getting us out of Vietnam!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
A pie in the sky wish list of an elevator in every garage and a dancing pony in every barn isn't a plan.
I can stand on a stage and say "I'll create 12 million jobs, bring manufacturing back, lower everyone's taxes, educate every child, and grant every wish every neocon and/or ultra conservative has". So should i be elected? Do I have a 'grasp' of the economy? That is pretty much all he has said. He hasn't said how he will do all these miraculous things, just that he's gonna do it, and in 4 years! Amazing!
It just blows me away how anyone can buy into this hollow person with his 'chicken in every pot' campaign. There is no there, there. And last night should have shown that. No thoughtful answers, no evidence that he gives the rest of the world even a minutes consideration.
The economy is going to do fine. Thanks to the policies that Obama has set in motion, the economy is getting better and will continue to improve. (re-read the housing thread)
But the world stage is very unsettled and volatile, and we need someone who is thoughtful, and careful, and who knows a little bit about history and the nature of diplomacy to steer us forward, or we will find ourselves in yet another war with many more American lives lost. If you have to pay a few more dollars in taxes it won't kill you. But another war will kill. Real lives, on the line. And that's the bottom line.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnlaurel
It was the bi-partisan, Congressionally approved mission to bring down the Iraq government and defeat their military, which was a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnlaurel
I'm not sure I'd call it Amnesia Kool-Aid, it seems to me to be more in line with Orwell's 'memory holes'. When historical events don't match the current propaganda, they must be purged.
Actually they probably weren't all top Al Queda leaders (and we now kill their sons too - justice worthy of the mafia). But really the principle of the thing is more important than whether a person was or was not a top Al Queda leader. Bad things happen in war, and that the frame that excuses it in many minds. However, the President personally deciding who exactly should be targetted really is unprecedented. I really think the key to understanding the horror that is this administration is the NDAA not the kill list though. The kill list may be objectively more horrible, killing people, killing American citizens to boot, but it's more easily "framed away" (time of war blah blah blah even though the war is undeclared and it probably violates most international agreements on war), NDAA can't be framed away.Quote:
The kill list? Are you talking about targeting top Al Qaeda leaders?
They Republicans wouldn't be complaining about it yea (I mean a few principled people would, but principled people on the left think kill lists and NDAA are also beyond the pale). Partisans may play a game of: "Democrat did a bad thing!" I play a game of wake up, things are bad and getting worse, see all that's going on and DESPAIR! Haha, but it's the only way I see out of here really, I guess.Quote:
If Bush had been working a 'kill' list, he would get a ticker tape parade from the republicans!
You mean the percentage of the population that votes? Take heart, for I believe it's actually less than 50%, less people are fooled than you would think.Quote:
And if Obama and his surrogates are even to mention the killing of Bin Laden at Obama's direct order that equates Chest Pounding.
Please someone tell me the recipe for the Amnesia Kool-Aid that close to half of our population is drinking.
I guess that mission didn't leave that great of an impression on me as being accomplished (which you are right that specific goal was met) since we continued to stay heavily entangled in Iraq until just recently....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
George W Bush in the fighter pilot suit just seemed a little premature at the time, like my son wanting to celebrate his birthday on the 10th of each & every month.
Can I have a cake for being 5 and a quarter mom?
Shoot, when we went to war with Iraq I kept thinking, "They must have access to information that they can't share with us."
Ends up there just weren't any WMDs --- it was like me writing a college paper where I only pick the quotes that fit my thesis.
Bush led by the NeoCons were bound and determined to get us back into Iraq.
Maybe history will prove him right as he said.... but all the $$$ going overseas and lives of soldiers lost, while we are sucking air here in the homeland feels pretty foolish right this second.
Peggy, I agree with most of what you have posted here. My only divergence from what you have posted - I don't personally believe that many are going to see a good economy - in the sense of what we experienced during the bubbles - again in their lifetimes, and this I feel is the case no matter who gets in - even if Obama - who I want to win - gets in. My take is that there are too many people out there and technology is advancing the the point that it is not feasible to employ all of them. I think there are going to continue to be painful adjustments for many, and some few may get to the point where they just leave the US.....Unless I am wrong and things do get better - and who knows, I don't see the future - my take on leaving is not going to seem as radical to as many in another five to ten years. Kind of like same-sex marriage doesn't seem quite as radical to many now as it once did not very long ago. I for one, welcome such dicussion, I think it is long overdue. But back to the original point - I just don't see things getting all that much better no matter who is in charge of the ship. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by peggy
This is a good reason why the world hates the US government. We don't like a government so we take it down. Where are WMDs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I was actually thinking the same thing this morning. Maybe his hair is influencing his voice or something. I wonder how much of this is real and how much is part of him marketing himself. I mailed my ballot this morning. I was waiting to see if there would be any surprises through the debates, and I didn't see any.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
My question is this - what gave the United States the right to invade Iraq and do this? To this day I have yet to get an answer that makes any sense to me. No wonder so much of the world hates us, can anyone blame them, given the facts? I am thinking much of the world may envy the consumer culture here in the US - which seems to be on it's way out the door for many - but they don't like how aggressive the US is overall. Kind of like a steamroller demolishing anything that gets in its way.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Well, at least that's pretty much all you heard. For the record, he repeatedly said 8 - 10 years for most of the plan, not 4. Your guy made the rookie mistake of saying he should be accountable after 4 years and is now probably wishing he would have said 8 - 10 as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I remember Obama saying right after he got into office that he would be accountable for his performance in the next elections four years down the road.....and that if the people were not happy, he'd be on his way out. So yeah, I do think he should have mentioned a longer time frame, I totally agree with this. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Gregg