Presidential Debate

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by katrina77, Oct 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. katrina77

    katrina77 Guest

    What did everyone think of the debate?

    I have to admit I've not been a fan of either candidate (another year of picking the lesser of the evils), but I was really impressed by Romney in this debate. And I'm afraid Obama can across very badly. If the election were tomorrow, it would be a clear choice for me.

    Just curious what others thought.
     
  2. NYJmpMaster

    NYJmpMaster Have a question? Message Me Staff Member Forum Owner ADMIN

    Going purely from the debate, Romney was obvious winner. Feel the same way of deciding which I do not want as opposed to who I do want.
     
  3. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Why would any reasonable person endorse what they see as evil, even if it is the lesser? You act as if there's no third party candidate who isn't with evil intentions, who will be on the ballot in November. Gary Johnson is a very competent two term governor who is against warfare and is the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party. When will people learn.

    Not to mention the absurdity of supporting or choosing to vote for someone who's going to be the President of the United States, who will authorize foreign policy and military actions, sign laws and appoint court justices and judges who will make critical decisions that will affect you directly for at least four years, based on an 82 minute debate between politicians who lie and by their actions we can ascertain that their words have no value.

    As far as performance goes, Romney had bullet points for each problem facing Americans today, which made him appear more aware of the struggle than I had previously thought he was; in the entire debate, the facts about poverty and the astonishingly high and increased number of people who are poor enough to meet criteria and are receiving food stamps, was mentioned one time and it was by Romney. However, even though Romney did a better job of proving his sharp awareness of what's wrong with the economy, none of his plans are the resolution. And we've already seen the resolve of the extent of Obama's plans - we have four years of evidence to prove he's not helping.

    At least wait until the foreign policy debate, but if there's something about politicians that they don't lie about, it's going to war and increasing taxes. They've never went back on a promise to go into warfare or fill pockets.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2012
  4. katrina77

    katrina77 Guest

    I think people vote for the lesser of the two main evils, when they realize that at this point in history there is no chance a third party will get elected. It makes more sense to me to vote in someone who I may not be thrilled with, to prevent voting in someone who I think may do some real damage.

    I am actually a very reasonable person, who spends a great deal of time reviewing the policies of all candidates, and make my choice only after doing a lot of research.
     
  5. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    A third party candidate can't win because people wrongly believe that there's no point in voting for them because they can't win. It's faulty circular logic that's resulting in the unjust terrorism of thousands of people in the Middle East. There is a principle behind the act of voting, that when a President endorses injustice and violence toward innocent people, you by voting for them are responsible for endorsing the person who authorizes such terrorism as well.
     
  6. katrina77

    katrina77 Guest

    Not sure what you mean by saying they are "authorizing the terrorism". Can you tell me what you mean?
     
  7. katrina77

    katrina77 Guest

    A third party candidate cannot win at this time. That does not mean that I agree that there shouldn't be multiple parties involved in the process. I'd love to see this happen, and see the money given to the two major parties spread around. But I believe in being realistic, and that isn't the way it is right now.
     
  8. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    By terrorism I mean the Obama-authorized U.S. attacks in Pakistan and Yemen killing hundreds of children and innocent people, entire communities living in fear of being arbitrarily bombed to smitherines and being grossly labeled as militants. By terrorism I mean the unjust threats of nuclear warfare with a nation of people who are being bullied for no legitimate reason other than that they resist acquiescing to a threat to disarm itself by a nation ready to blow it up.
     
  9. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Screw it. We're doomed.
     
  10. katrina77

    katrina77 Guest

    Well, Jen, maybe we are screwed. But I'm going to try and hang on to a bit of optimism, if not for my sake, then for the sake of my son and his friends.

    In the second part of your above post, are you referring to Iran?

    I think I have a pretty good idea of the foreign policies of both Romney and Obama. I plan on watching all the debates, and it should prove interesting. Watching Biden should prove amusing........ ; )
     
  11. NYJmpMaster

    NYJmpMaster Have a question? Message Me Staff Member Forum Owner ADMIN

    In my opinions there should not be multiple parties involved in the process. I have too main reasons for saying this -
    1) All political parties should be banned - if not outright banned than at the least be given no official recognition at all and party affiliation should not be on the ballot for certain. If you want to seize control of the government from rich and from huge corporations and PAC's then get rid of political parties that owe huge favors to them - no matter how rich you can not buy an election every election cycle. By losing political party backing and support there would be no more automatic re-elects based on districts - what we call a democrat in a primarily urban minority area or a republican in a upper middle class conservative district would no longer run unopposed. Every elected official would have to actually compete in the primary and the general election. The 2 highest vote getters in the primary should be the 2 candidates in the general election- if that meant in the last presidential election Hillary Clinton and Obama were facing off in the general election then that is far preferable than this person against that person based on separate party affiliation. This would have the effect of enacting term limits because if politicians were not doing there job they would face actual competition in both the primary and general election to hold them accountable for their actions. Congress would vote with common sense rather than out of fear of being cut off from party funding in the next election. It makes far less sense for a special interest to put huge resources into getting a person elected if it is not a sure thing for them to stay in power long term. It would also eliminate party ticket voting and simply choosing republican or democrat based on what the AARP or the NRA told you to do or what you "have always done" - God forbid a citizen had to actually watch news and read newspapers and follow debates and issues to decide instead of following like sheep based on the letter beside the candidates name.

    2) Multi party systems are even worse - their are multitudes of countries with long standing true multi party systems - it produces nothing but inaction and deadlock - as hard as it is to get anything accomplished with 2 parties imagine trying to get a majority of 51% with 5 antagonistic groups. It simply does not work efficiently in any way and leads to even more shady back door deals and pork barrel politics.

    Pure opinion of course.
     
  12. Autumn01

    Autumn01 Well-Known Member

    I watched the debate last night. I'm for Romney. He totally nailed it last night! :) Though I was already for him way before last night :)
    VP debate is next Thursday- I think Ryan will nail it too! :)
     
  13. katrina77

    katrina77 Guest

    I listened to Romney's speech for his ideas on foreign policy. I have to admit I was surprised, and not at all pleased. He wants to become more involved with the struggle in Syria, and create a separate Palestianian state. He has a lot of ideas that I don't agree with, and I can't see adding that much money to our overseas spending.
     
  14. OutCaste

    OutCaste Well-Known Member

    Neither romeny nor obama has a plan for the 16 trillion dollar debt bomb.

    Dollar is doomed, China/Russia and other countries are already taking steps to dump the dollar.
     
  15. gloomy

    gloomy Account Closed

    He wants to give weapons to Syrian rebels.
    It's a good thing too, because we all know how well that worked in Afghanistan.

    It's a good thing that Romney is going to lose... Obama isn't going to be so different, but at least he seems to care about education and is trying to regulate the markets. Romney is going to set everything back to where it was before the crash, except worse-- as if wall street is just suddenly going to decide to play fair after 30 years of hardcore douchebaggery and scandal after scandal after scandal.

    I really wish that the Republicans would stop trying to create another Ronald Reagan-- it's not the 80s anymore, and that s--t just doesn't work.
     
  16. gloomy

    gloomy Account Closed

    One of the advantages of being the challenger is that you can aggressively make absolutely ridiculous promises without having to back them up.
    Obama was too busy trying to talk about reality-- probably a mistake, because reality is unpopular.
     
  17. katrina77

    katrina77 Guest

    I'm not sure who will win at this point. It could go either way, depending on the remaining debates, and what happens between now and the election.

    I personally believe we should stay out of the affairs of Syria, and let them fight their own wars. We should have stayed out of Libya, etc.

    I am not any happier with Obama's policies, then I am with Romney's. I know that Obamacare has already caused our health insurance to rise by over 50%, with less coverage. It's a disaster, and I want it repealed. And I haven't seen Obama offer any workable plans to fix the economy, other than additional stimulus plans that don't work. He's had almost four years now, and things are only getting worse. He's done a lousy job, and I'm not willing to give him another four years to try and get it right. JMO.
     
  18. Autumn01

    Autumn01 Well-Known Member

    I disagree with you. Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on.
    Romney was only speaking the truth.
     
  19. Autumn01

    Autumn01 Well-Known Member

    I'm hoping Romney. We are screwed if we have Obama for another 4 years- America would then be no more.
     
  20. gloomy

    gloomy Account Closed

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.