Final US presidential debate - thoughts?
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
I thought it was a rather good debate. I thought President Obama was cool and confident, yet assertive. Although, I feel that Mitt Romney was being duplicitous tonight about his approach to foreign policy. I've listened to some of his stump speeches and I'd have to say that he seemed to be more hawkish in those than he was tonight.
several very basic thoughts. still thinking about stuff.
One - excellent moderator. did a fantastic job
Two - a lot more agreement than expected. Which is fine, doesn't always have to be dissent, but Romney agreed with the President more than I initially expected
Three - While funny, Obama's "Horses and Bayonnets" comment seemed unnecessarily demeaning. I know it was intentilonal debate tactic (not to mention what seemed a bit like a staw man assuming i'm thinking of the right fallacy) but it was a bit excessive. I think Romney was aware of that, so it just came off extra patronizing. I thought the President did have a great point about what he was saying regarding the military though, less about sheer numbers and more about the how.
Four - Romney seemed to want to bring it back to the economy a lot. While i see these two are clearly interconnected, this was a debate about foreign policy, not the economy. I know Romney was trying to play his strong suit, but it was a bit much
Five - For being one of the Senator's weaker areas, he did better than I expected.
Six - The President had the clear trump going in: both to say 'he' was responsible for the location and execution of bin Laden as well as actually having the experience and ability to implement foreign policy, unlike Romeny, as the President was sure to point out.
To me, seemd more even than the others. Hesitant to use the term winner, but haven't sorted out who did better this debate, personnally.
One - excellent moderator. did a fantastic job
Two - a lot more agreement than expected. Which is fine, doesn't always have to be dissent, but Romney agreed with the President more than I initially expected
Three - While funny, Obama's "Horses and Bayonnets" comment seemed unnecessarily demeaning. I know it was intentilonal debate tactic (not to mention what seemed a bit like a staw man assuming i'm thinking of the right fallacy) but it was a bit excessive. I think Romney was aware of that, so it just came off extra patronizing. I thought the President did have a great point about what he was saying regarding the military though, less about sheer numbers and more about the how.
Four - Romney seemed to want to bring it back to the economy a lot. While i see these two are clearly interconnected, this was a debate about foreign policy, not the economy. I know Romney was trying to play his strong suit, but it was a bit much
Five - For being one of the Senator's weaker areas, he did better than I expected.
Six - The President had the clear trump going in: both to say 'he' was responsible for the location and execution of bin Laden as well as actually having the experience and ability to implement foreign policy, unlike Romeny, as the President was sure to point out.
To me, seemd more even than the others. Hesitant to use the term winner, but haven't sorted out who did better this debate, personnally.
also interesting/relevant. Seems relatively unbiased. (The article itself): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/22/fact-check-third-presidential-debate/1650865/
I mean yeah, more organized and more substantive but both candidates were both lying their pants off when it came to the big issues
1) Iran is not building a "nuclear weapon," the only reason the US wants to thwart Iran's development of nuclear power is because if they fully develop nuclear power, they'd be energy independent and able to sell all of their oil in the free market, become a first world nation and have greater influence throughout the Middle East.
2) Syria is not "gunning down its own civilians." Assad's been in charge for 11 years, and starting last year he suddenly wants to attack his people? Makes no sense. After Iran, Iraq, and Syria signed a 11 billion dollar pipeline deal, Turkey lost its shit because that deal threatens a monopoly they currently have on another pipeline with a few other nations, and Israel's been writing policy papers about wanting to see the collapse of Syria since 2000. The people fighting against the Assad regime are paid mercenaries, funded by the US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Obama looked better than Mitt tonight out there though, Romney didn't really look Presidential material.
1) Iran is not building a "nuclear weapon," the only reason the US wants to thwart Iran's development of nuclear power is because if they fully develop nuclear power, they'd be energy independent and able to sell all of their oil in the free market, become a first world nation and have greater influence throughout the Middle East.
2) Syria is not "gunning down its own civilians." Assad's been in charge for 11 years, and starting last year he suddenly wants to attack his people? Makes no sense. After Iran, Iraq, and Syria signed a 11 billion dollar pipeline deal, Turkey lost its shit because that deal threatens a monopoly they currently have on another pipeline with a few other nations, and Israel's been writing policy papers about wanting to see the collapse of Syria since 2000. The people fighting against the Assad regime are paid mercenaries, funded by the US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Obama looked better than Mitt tonight out there though, Romney didn't really look Presidential material.
Last edited:
It was more controlled this time. The candidates had a better hold on their emotions (about time). I would say it was pretty even but if I had to pick one now I would say Obama won this one.
I still don't like either one of them and I wish we had other candidates to pick from (a girl can dream). It's funny how we get to choose from only two people for President and fifty for Miss America.
Sigh
I still don't like either one of them and I wish we had other candidates to pick from (a girl can dream). It's funny how we get to choose from only two people for President and fifty for Miss America.
Sigh
Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way... and I didn't even hear about this until a couple minutes ago.
http://www.jillstein.org/lawsuit_cpd
http://www.jillstein.org/lawsuit_cpd
Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way... and I didn't even hear about this until a couple minutes ago.
http://www.jillstein.org/lawsuit_cpd
I would vote for Jill Stein.
She is on my ballot.
Among others. I too think the debates should include all that are on the ballots.
The year President Obama was elected there were thirteen names on the ballot in Florida, it would have been impossible to have any real debate with that many people, it might be better to add more parties based on the support they'er capable of drawing, that way the most likely parties are brought in.
Now that I think about it, as much as I would like to vote for Jill Stein, it would be a wasted vote (at this point). Right now this battle is between Romney and Obama. Our jobs is to vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm going with Obama.
Oh, yes, could not agree more.
Here is a list of all that are on the ballots, broken down by state:
http://www.politics1.com/p2012-ballot.htm
Also
First: you need to make up your mind. Thumbs up or Thumbs down.
Second: Your are right. It is too staged and too bland. And, yes. More than Obama and Romney are running and the whole system IS shitty. But we can't change any of that before November 6th (-8th), 2012. Hopefully Jill Stein makes some sort of leeway by suing the Commission of Presidential Debates and future elections are conducted differently. But right now, whether you like it our not, this fight is between Romney and Obama.