Home > General > Debate 3 in 2 minutes

Debate 3 in 2 minutes

October 23rd, 2012

 

Final Remarks

 

The debate has been consolidated to 2 minutes. (How merciful!)

Who won and lost?  Probably the person YOU like the best won.

Are we even less clear how Romney would lead? 

What is the one thing you walked away with during the debate?

Election 12 Fact Check  from the Washington Post

 

Categories: General Tags:
  1. Second Alamo
    October 23rd, 2012 at 07:12 | #1

    I loved it when Romney turned to Obama and told him that attacking me is not the way to address the issue. Finally, someone pointed THAT out in front of the nation! At least Obama has stopped attacking Bush for his general lack of success.

  2. SlowpokeRodriguez
    October 23rd, 2012 at 08:01 | #2

    Well, since EVERYthing Obama says is wrong, and Obama says the military doesn’t use bayonets anymore, we can deduce that, sure enough, the Marines still use bayonets. The takeaway, if you bet on the opposite of what Obama says, you’ll be right every time!!

    • October 23rd, 2012 at 08:40 | #3

      Obama didn’t say bayonets weren’t used at all.

      “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed.”

  3. Second Alamo
    October 23rd, 2012 at 08:11 | #4

    As far as a strategy for the nation, lets take a look at a smaller situation. Take for instance that someone has just broken into your house in the middle of the night. Now you could take Romney’s approach of using a solid defense and smack the person with a baseball bat or worse, or you could take Obama’s approach of calling in several of the neighbors to hopefully negotiate a settlement with the person to not rob you or worse. Which action do you feel has the best chance of preventing harm to you and your family? Now replace family with nation.

  4. Elena
    October 23rd, 2012 at 09:00 | #5

    great fact check by Wash Post, very objective and fair to both.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-third-presidential-debate/2012/10/23/91dbdc4a-1c61-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html?hpid=z3

    sucks to lose two debates. Romney sounded like HE was ready to vote for Obama. I thought the Yad Vashem retort by Obama was fabulous. Here’s the deal to being an honest broker, you actually have to appear to be objective. What people don’t realize is that by NOT looking like you agree with everything Isreal does, you gain ground in helping to solve problems. I hope Obama’s next term will bring about peace talks between Palesting and Isreal.

  5. October 23rd, 2012 at 09:30 | #6

    @Elena
    What makes you say that Romney lost? What was the benchmark that you are using?

    And you are right….not a bad “fact check.”

  6. SlowpokeRodriguez
    October 23rd, 2012 at 10:40 | #7

    Cargosquid :
    @Elena
    What makes you say that Romney lost? What was the benchmark that you are using?

    The “acting childish, petulant, and un-Presidential” benchmark. Obama won, no question.

  7. SlowpokeRodriguez
    October 23rd, 2012 at 10:41 | #8

    Moon-howler :
    Obama didn’t say bayonets weren’t used at all.

    “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed.”

    Depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.

  8. kelly_3406
    October 23rd, 2012 at 12:09 | #9

    Horses and mules were used extensively by special operations forces during the initial invasion of Afghanistan in 2002.

    http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2002/February/Pages/Special_Ops_Equipment4138.aspx

    • October 23rd, 2012 at 13:50 | #10

      You are right. Didn’t I do a thread on that very topic or did I dream I did? @Kelly

      I guess there are places in Afghanistan that only horse and mule will work.

  9. blue
    October 23rd, 2012 at 13:11 | #11

    Winners act like winners. Losers act like losers. belittling, not confident, peevish, petty, not confident, not presidential, snarky, cheap shots” game of Battleship platitudes, wrong — and could we say rude? and then there was Mitt.

  10. Elena
    October 23rd, 2012 at 14:06 | #13

    Good one Moon ;)

    I was wondering if Romney was going to endorse Obama by the end of the debate! He was actually quite smart to follow the Obama lead on foreign policy. What he doesn’t realize is that he can’t have it both ways. On one hand Romney suggests Obama is “weak” but then agrees with 90% if his foreign policy. HUH? Does that make sense to anyone here who can actually be objective?

    Why do you think Obama was able to get the most stringent sanctions to date? Because he didn’t act like a douchebag insulting leaders of other countries (romney, take a cue here). When exactly DID Iran really ramp up its nuclear program? Was is the day Obama took office? No, don’t think so. Who was the one enemy keeping Iran in check? ding ding ding, yes, it was Iraq. The consequence of getting rid of Saddam was a stronger Iran. So while we were focused on non existent weapons of mass destruction, Iran, with actual ties to real terrorists, was furiously working on their own nuclear program. Does anyone else see the irony is this twist of fate?! You know the old saying, “be afraid of unintended consequences”…….

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/23/us-withdrawal-iraq-defeat-bush-neocons

    But the neocons’ biggest defeat is that, thanks to Bush’s toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iran’s greatest enemy, Tehran’s influence in Iraq is much stronger today than is America’s. Iran does not control Iraq but Tehran no longer has anything to fear from its western neighbour now that a Shia-dominated government sits in Baghdad, made up of parties whose leaders spent long years of exile in Iran under Saddam or, like Sadr, have lived there more recently.

  11. October 23rd, 2012 at 14:24 | #14

    “focused on non existent weapons of mass destruction”

    Actually there was WMD. And as for nukes…. you want to get that stopped before the plans are in place. Saddam had plans for nukes as soon as the sanctions and inspections were stopped.

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm

    Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.

    In 2012, Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what is left of Saddam’s chemical weapons. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam’s regime

    Other that that…I agree with that Guardian’s premise. Saddam WAS Iran’s best check….as long as he had them believing that he had WMD…….

  12. October 23rd, 2012 at 14:25 | #16

    Forgot: The quotes starting with “Later U.S. led….and ending with ….regime.” are from Wikipedia.

  13. Starryflights
    October 23rd, 2012 at 14:33 | #17

    Obama came off looking like our nation’s Commander-in-Chief. Romney came across looking timid and puny. Romney is not man enough to be our nation’s commander in chief.

  14. Starryflights
    October 23rd, 2012 at 14:35 | #18

    Second Alamo :
    As far as a strategy for the nation, lets take a look at a smaller situation. Take for instance that someone has just broken into your house in the middle of the night. Now you could take Romney’s approach of using a solid defense and smack the person with a baseball bat or worse, or you could take Obama’s approach of calling in several of the neighbors to hopefully negotiate a settlement with the person to not rob you or worse. Which action do you feel has the best chance of preventing harm to you and your family? Now replace family with nation.

    The last break-in, 9/11, happened on your party’s watch.

  15. marinm
    October 23rd, 2012 at 15:18 | #19

    Starryflights :Obama came off looking like our nation’s Commander-in-Chief. Romney came across looking timid and puny. Romney is not man enough to be our nation’s commander in chief.

    Does that mean the President must be of the male gender?

  16. marinm
    October 23rd, 2012 at 15:24 | #20

    @Elena

    “I was wondering if Romney was going to endorse Obama by the end of the debate!”

    Amazing how close these guys are on foreign policy, eh?

    “He was actually quite smart to follow the Obama lead on foreign policy.”

    Sort of. Obama flew the neo-con flag loud and proud. Romney was just as neoconish by embrasing the President on his pro-War agenda while still mentioning peace more than a few times (maybe to channel the peace through superior firepower mantra)

    “Does that make sense to anyone here who can actually be objective?”

    I think they agree more than 90%. After all I’ve been saying a vote for Romney or for Obama is really a vote for the same person. The only sad thing is that the anti-war people have all but stopped because they view Obama as pro-peace but last nights debate really showed that the two don’t differ all that much. Which will make the anti-war crowd that much more laughable if a President Romney (ugh) is elected and then they start holding rallys again.

    “Because he didn’t act like a douchebag insulting leaders of other countries..”

    Thats right. Our current elected leader preferred to bow to them and if he could; take a knee.

  17. blue
    October 23rd, 2012 at 16:11 | #21

    Obama lost Politico’s Chuck Todd last night. Chuck went on the attack, noting that getting conservative and actually having a plan for the next 4 years, just two weeks before the election is not enough. He knew Obama was playing us before the debate, but Obama’s snarky tune finally turned him. And you can see why. This election is about trust. After 4 years we still do not know Obama – never did. I still want to see if he was a foreign student at Harvard. He is still the cheap politiician who promises everything to everyone but has not delievered on anything. Its a gut reaction that is not leadership. What a waste of potential and what a waste of political and cultural capital. He’s a snake oil salesman who has – in his own words – been amazed by how much people were willing to help him. Self interest does that. Even Farrakan went after him this week over that. This community organizer was not the guy who had the background to challenge anybody about the military. I see another Watergate (timing and all), in fast and furious, Bengazi, too many episodes of crony cpaitalism and graft, and in the $2 million minimum in foreign campaign cash. Nixon would not be a crook compared to this guy. And yet we will have a close election based on his flowerly language, lies and the self interest of others, from the unions to the environmentalists to the unemployed. And when he goes, Shultz the Stupid and Shivers Mathews need to go too.

    • October 23rd, 2012 at 17:42 | #22

      Well, just pick up your ballot and vote Shultz and Shivers right off the island!
      I await Shiver-gate!

      I am still sitting here stuck on what cultural capital is.

  18. Emma
    October 23rd, 2012 at 16:57 | #23

    I thought Obama was way too arrogant and snotty, relying more on one-line zingers and attacks on Romney rather than even trying to convince anyone he actually has a real plan for the next a few years.

    And the bayonets and horses thing? Very funny, coming from the Commander in Chief of our “Corpse-men”!

    • October 23rd, 2012 at 18:02 | #24

      After Biden and Bush, I didn’t even notice. A lot just rolls right on by.

  19. marinm
    October 23rd, 2012 at 17:48 | #25

    I would recommend that the GOP adopt a viral campaign with the idea of ‘FIX BAYONETS and CHARGE to NOVEMBER!’

    But, vote for one or another. Same thing. This debate really showed how much of the same these guys are.

    • October 23rd, 2012 at 18:03 | #26

      If you see the bumper sticker, buy it marin and I will pay you back.

      oh wait…I thought that was going to be an Obama bumper sticker. I wanted it!!!

  20. kelly_3406
    October 23rd, 2012 at 17:57 | #27

    @Elena
    The loss of Iraq and resulting gain in influence for Iran belong to the Obama Administration for blowing the negotiation of a Status of Forces Agreement.

    Obama’s statement during the debate that he did not seek a SOFA with Iraq was clearly false. Could he have possibly forgotten???? I knew immediately when Obama denied it that he was “mistaken.”

    According to that right-wing rag known as the NY Times, the Obama negotiating team made critical errors during the final stages of negotiation that doomed the agreement.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-states-and-iraq-had-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?ref=statusofforcesagreement&_r=0

  21. SlowpokeRodriguez
    October 23rd, 2012 at 18:21 | #28

    marinm :

    Starryflights :Obama came off looking like our nation’s Commander-in-Chief. Romney came across looking timid and puny. Romney is not man enough to be our nation’s commander in chief.

    Does that mean the President must be of the male gender?

    Just the latest shot fired in the left’s war on women.

    • October 23rd, 2012 at 19:53 | #29

      Hillary is man enough. Just think “man” as in mankind. You will be ok.

  22. punchak
    October 23rd, 2012 at 18:33 | #30

    @marinm
    What happened to hay forks?

  23. Elena
    October 23rd, 2012 at 18:57 | #31

    Kelly,
    I think your assessment is wholly inaccurate. We never had any influence over Iran or Iraq after a certain point. The crazy thing about a democratic country is that they become demoractic and prefer to self govern. Be careful what you wish for is a mantra we all need to repeat.

  24. Bear
    October 26th, 2012 at 10:27 | #32

    If everyone agreed we wouldn’t need an election. The main reason I support Obama is I honestly don’t know how Romney would react to a hundred different situations from domestic to foreign and that scares me.
    If Ryan became President I do know how he’d react and that scares me more.
    I’m also not fond of their stands on women’s rights.

Comments are closed.