22 replies to this topic

[Raptor Witness]

I felt that President Obama won, largely because he seemed more prepared, and he kept his voice lower than in the second debate. The undecided monitors I saw on CNN that register sentiment during the debate seemed to favor Obama, especially among women, but with men he was equal or lower than Romney.

I felt that President Obama's strongest remarks were that his openness towards the Islamic world early in his Presidency provided more credibility, and thus, more stability in the region longer term.

I felt that Romney's strongest remarks were virtually nonexistent in terms of foreign policy. I saw no clear distinction from the President with any realistic, better options. Only that he would have moved sooner against Iran.

I felt that President Obama's weak point was when Romney challenged his handling of the Iranian Green Revolution. It may well have been a missed opportunity.

I felt that Romney's weakest point was his lack of distinction on almost every subject, with the President. He basically agreed with most of Obama's foreign policy decisions, and this made him appear weak.

Edited by Raptor Witness, 23 October 2012 - 04:40 AM.

[acidhead]

What else did you expect bud?  They're both pitching for the same team......I thought they both won....at fraudung the nation that they are any different on foreign policy.....a complete sham

[CommunitarianKevin]

Missed this debate...

[Imaginarynumber1]

HuttonEtAl, on 23 October 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

Missed this debate...

Didn't miss much. Romney just agreed with everything Obama has done with foreign policy and tried and failed to call him out about not supporting Israel.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Imaginarynumber1, on 23 October 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

Didn't miss much. Romney just agreed with everything Obama has done with foreign policy and tried and failed to call him out about not supporting Israel.

I guess we will call that an Obama win...

[Imaginarynumber1]

HuttonEtAl, on 23 October 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

I guess we will call that an Obama win...

That's what the major media outlet polls are saying.

[acidhead]

Only a fool would vote for anyone of these clowns.

[The New Richard Nixon]

acidhead, on 23 October 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Only a fool would vote for anyone of these clowns.

Even Canadians?

[Socio]

http://www.realclear...were_petty.html

Quote

Romney Won Unequivocally; Obama's Responses Were Petty

Quote

I think it's unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn't just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he's had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he's a competent man, somebody who you could trust as commander in chief, a who knows every area of the globe and he gave interesting extra details, like the Haqqani network, which gave the impression he knows what he's talking about. But there is a third level here, and that is what actually happened in the debate.

We can argue about the small points and the debating points. Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small.

Quote

Romney made a strategic decision not go after the president on Libya, or Syria, or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger.

I think Krauthammer is right, he was critical of Romney's performance in the second debate, but not here, seeing the bigger picture of performance and appearance over continual attacks.

For the life of me I could not understand what Romney was doing in the debate agreeing with Obama so much, not going after him on Libya, it was baffling.

After listening to Krauthammer I now I realize what he did; by not allowing himself to be painted as a war monger, but a strong bringer of peace instead, he targeted and quite possibly just locked up a large chunk of the undecided/independent vote.

Very shrewed, very shrewed indeed!

Edited by Socio, 23 October 2012 - 11:02 AM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Noo what Romney wants is to invade everyone

[docyabut2]

Great debate at least it was fair:) it seems there were not much differences on Obama or Rommy views on foreign affairs, except  Rommey says Obama`s to weak and Obama says Rommy `s to forceful:) in any case  Rommy acted more Pesidentual.

Edited by docyabut2, 23 October 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[Legaia]

HuttonEtAl, on 23 October 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

Missed this debate...

Lucky you. They both basically said the same things, except how hard the war drums should be beaten.

acidhead, on 23 October 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

What else did you expect bud?  They're both pitching for the same team......I thought they both won....at fraudung the nation that they are any different on foreign policy.....a complete sham

You are absolutely right. I had to turn it off because of the outright lies spewing out of their mouths. I just kept wishing Ron Paul was on that stage with them. He would've turned both of them inside out on this issue.

Edited by Legaia, 23 October 2012 - 02:23 PM.

[Jeremiah65]

I know everyone wants to believe their puppet won the show....sorry folks.  From a neutral third party observation...it was a draw just like I called it a week ago.  Just as the "script" said it would be.

All these things do is drive further division of the sheep herds.  They accomplish nothing...other than give the two extremists sides ammunition to fight each other with...and this is retarded beyond description.  I'll observe the radical exchanges which will assuredly reinforce my position.

Neither of these two are going to embrace peace.  Neither is going to fix the economy.  If you think that either of them is going to somehow improve your personal life, you are smoking something powerful.  It's not going to happen.

It does not matter which of them wins..."We the people"...lose...and that is that.

[Corp]

Romney says that the US saves countries from dictators and no one is howling for his head? You disappoint me UM.


Anyway I missed the debate and since this was on foreign affairs it was the one I wanted to catch. From what I've heard Romney spent a lot of time agreeing with Obama while hinting at a far more aggressive foreign policy. Because if it's one this the US economy needs it's more conflict in the world!

Obama also did a great job at nailing Romney on his point of the US navy being smaller than in 1916. It's called historical context Romney! Yes the US navy is smaller but so is everyone elses. The US navy completely outclasses what everyone else has. A big deal was made of China getting one carrier while the US is sitting on eleven. It's not going to help the economy by building ships you don't need.

[Yamato]

Legaia, on 23 October 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Lucky you. They both basically said the same things, except how hard the war drums should be beaten.



You are absolutely right. I had to turn it off because of the outright lies spewing out of their mouths. I just kept wishing Ron Paul was on that stage with them. He would've turned both of them inside out on this issue.

Ron Paul tells the truth and that's why he's not on that stage anymore.

I swear voters want to be lied to.