3rd Presidential debate: focuses on foreign policy, Monday Oct 22th 9:00 pm EST

[QUOTE=christian1923]I think it's time an NfL starting QB ran for president. We need real leaders, not these clowns[/QUOTE] Jack Kemp did twice, lost but he tried

[QUOTE=KevinNYC][url]https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/260574120717217792[/url]
CBS News ‏@CBSNews
BREAKING: CBS NEWS INSTANT POLL Who won the Debate? OBAMA: 53%; ROMNEY: 23%, TIE: 24% (Margin of Error: 4%; Sample Size: 521)[/QUOTE]
What debate were these people watching:oldlol: If Obama did "win", it was a narrow victory. This election is going to be about the economy. Romney avoided looking like a hawk on foreign policy. It was a win for him.

obama schooling mitt on the military

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCGcNNAumUg[/url]

[QUOTE=General]What debate were these people watching:oldlol: If Obama did "win", it was a narrow victory. This election is going to be about the economy. Romney avoided looking like a hawk on foreign policy. It was a win for him.[/QUOTE]


Still baffled as to why Romney doesn't pounce on Obama on the Libya issue. I guess he feels it would be too ugly of a debate between the both of them on that issue, and better to leave it to the national media which has done a good job covering it.


I agree, this election is on the economy, and it's evident that the American people care more about this than what's going on in the Middle East. The Middle East is in a state of disrepair and neither Obama or Romney can fix it in one term or even two terms in office. Don't think either one of them want to fix it either. When Arab countries began to battle each other as it has started happening already, then the Middle East will fix itself.

Venezuela and Cuba are two countries that should have been talked about more.

[QUOTE=General]What debate were these people watching:oldlol: [/QUOTE]

Undecided voters which means that no Romney voters were there to give him a floor of about 40%.

[QUOTE=General]Romney avoided looking like a hawk on foreign policy. It was a win for him.[/QUOTE]

Meaning he reversed all his political positions.

Also pay no attention to all that screaming behind that curtain, I assure you there are no neoconservatives behind it. I didn't hire Dan Senor and he isn't hiding in the closet. John Bolton is not chained in the basement and that is not his keening wail you hear.

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]Still baffled as to why Romney doesn't pounce on Obama on the Libya issue. [/QUOTE]I think it's because it would just remind voters that he stepped in it last time.[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]Venezuela and Cuba are two countries that should have been talked about more.[/QUOTE]
Why? Neither of them are that important.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
Why? Neither of them are that important.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. Showing empathy for embattled countries in the grips of oppressive regimes works wonders in the polls. And of course it works when there is a large Latino demographic here to win as well, the largest minority population in the country. Talking about Iran and Libya don't hit home as much unless you're a hawk for stabilization in the Middle East which is becoming more and more unreachable

I think Latin America was mentioned once during these debates and that was tonight.

I missed the whole debate I was at a basketball game.

Who won tonight?

I thought the debate was very close. I couldn't come up with a clear winner though. The first two, I thought it was pretty clear who won those two but this one I thought there was no clear winner. I guess if I HAD to choose between the two, I felt Obama had a slightly better debate by very small margin.

I was amused watching NBC and FoxNews. Both made it seem as if their candidate CLEARLY won this debate by quite a margin. Hilarious to see how far apart they both are. CNN showed that Obama won 48% to Romney 40% according to their polls. I honestly thought it was even closer than THAT - maybe imho 49% Obama, 46% Romney w/ 5% error margin.

[quote=brandonislegend]I missed the whole debate I was at a basketball game.

Who won tonight?[/quote]Obama, but by a pretty small margin. I also voted for him in 08 so I'm biased, but at least cognizant of it.

I could see the argument that Romney won simply because he was able to force Obama into so much economic discussion (like a third of the debate if not more) in a foreign policy debate.

Obama did get his share of zingers, and we know how those soundbytes sell.

[QUOTE=miller-time]obama schooling mitt on the military

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCGcNNAumUg[/url][/QUOTE]

:roll:

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]I beg to differ. Showing empathy for embattled countries in the grips of oppressive regimes works wonders in the polls. And of course it works when there is a large Latino demographic here to win as well, the largest minority population in the country. Talking about Iran and Libya don't hit home as much unless you're a hawk for stabilization in the Middle East which is becoming more and more unreachable

I think Latin America was mentioned once during these debates and that was tonight.[/QUOTE]

How do you figure Venezuela is an embattled country? Cuba at this point in time is not a major issue, so why would it be brought up with regards to the top foreign policy issues. I think the violent struggle between the various drug cartels in Mexico trumps the two issues you site.

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]I beg to differ. [B]Showing empathy for embattled countries in the grips of oppressive regimes works wonders in the polls. [/B] And of course it works when there is a large Latino demographic here to win as well, the largest minority population in the country. Talking about Iran and Libya don't hit home as much unless you're a hawk for stabilization in the Middle East which is becoming more and more unreachable

I think Latin America was mentioned once during these debates and that was tonight.[/QUOTE]
Working wonders in the polls is for campaigning. It's not the function of a debate and no debate moderator should go into it wondering how candidates can pander. How big a difference between the two candidates would you have expected in their answers? Also again Latin America does not equal Venezuela and Cuba. Outside of Florida, most Latinos don't think Cuba is that big an issue. That's why there is a huge divide in how Cubans vote and how the rest of the Latino population votes. Also say what you will about Chavez the guy was elected and reelected. And as screwed as that country is now, it was pretty screwed up prior to him as well.

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]How do you figure Venezuela is an embattled country? Cuba at this point in time is not a major issue, so why would it be brought up with regards to the top foreign policy issues. I think the violent struggle between the various drug cartels in Mexico trumps the two issues you site.[/QUOTE]

I agree and it would be a more interesting question as well because I haven't really heard any politician address this is a realistic way.

[QUOTE=bladefd]I thought the debate was very close. I couldn't come up with a clear winner though. The first two, I thought it was pretty clear who won those two but this one I thought there was no clear winner. I guess if I HAD to choose between the two, I felt Obama had a slightly better debate by very small margin.

I was amused watching NBC and FoxNews. Both made it seem as if their candidate CLEARLY won this debate by quite a margin. Hilarious to see how far apart they both are. CNN showed that Obama won 48% to Romney 40% according to their polls. I honestly thought it was even closer than THAT - maybe imho 49% Obama, 46% Romney w/ 5% error margin.[/QUOTE]

?

are you conducting your own polls to determine who won the debate in the minds of most Americans?

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]I think the violent struggle between the various drug cartels in Mexico trumps the two issues you site.[/QUOTE]


Ha! Anyone Republican or Democrat will tell you that the Drug War, which seems to be Mexico's biggest problem is an issue no President wants to tackle. The War on Drugs has been a joke and there is no fixing that problem....ever. As long as Mexico is an ally an a successful trade partner, the cartels will continue to ruin shit in that country for years to come. It is going to take something major to happen before we focus enough attention down there, and it's a shame really. Fast and Furious is not enough apparently.

"far fewer"

just saying

The Onion

Obama Takes Out Romney With Mid-Debate Drone Attack

Weeping Obama Breaks Down, Admits Bin Laden Still Alive And Out There Somewhere

The Onion Endorses John Edwards For President

Saw a quick clip on CNN's front page. Obama bent Romney over and spanked him. He told him how defense works today. He said "we also have fewer bayonets" :roll: :roll:

Romney is such a joke. I honestly think you have to be either ignorant or rich to vote for that guy. He got exposed again tonight. This "race" is over.:applause:

[QUOTE=miller-time]obama schooling mitt on the military

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCGcNNAumUg[/url][/QUOTE]

:roll: :roll:

After Obama wins we will all look back and wonder how in the hell Romney ever got to this far.

[QUOTE=kentatm]?

are you conducting your own polls to determine who won the debate in the minds of most Americans?[/QUOTE]

What you mean? I just checked out the two somewhat extreme views from both sides of political spectrum, and my own opinion was it was fairly close. I did not think Obama won this by a wide margin like NBC does, and I did not think Romney won this like FoxNews says. I usually check out to see what the two extreme sides think more for amusement than anything, it's pretty interesting. :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=RoseCity07]Saw a quick clip on CNN's front page. Obama bent Romney over and spanked him. He told him how defense works today. He said "we also have fewer bayonets" :roll: :roll:

Romney is such a joke. I honestly think you have to be either ignorant or rich to vote for that guy. He got exposed again tonight. This "race" is over.:applause:[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what is wrong with our country. Retards who are impressed with shitty 1 liners and bad jokes instead of actual policy and the substance of the debate.

[QUOTE=bmulls]This is exactly what is wrong with our country. Retards who are impressed with shitty 1 liners and bad jokes instead of actual policy and the substance of the debate.[/QUOTE]

What policies with regards to Mitt Romney and how he would handle foreign policy differently than President Obama did you get out of this debate?

Also the reason the one-liner was so potent was that Romney chose a stupid argument that our most pressing military need is more ships when what our military has actually been engaged in asymmetric warfare, counter insurgency and covert warfare.

[QUOTE=bmulls]This is exactly what is wrong with our country. Retards who are impressed with shitty 1 liners and bad jokes instead of actual policy and the substance of the debate.[/QUOTE]

And what policy and substance did Romney bring to the table? From where I was watching it seemed that he agreed with most of the President's views, decisions, actions, etc and the only real divergent idea was Mitt's commitment to add a few trillion dollars to the deficit by investing on superfluous military spending (on top of his $5 trillion tax cut that he plans to offset by closing still yet to be named 'loopholes'). IMO he lacked anything remotely resembling a clear vision for how he would lead the country on the world stage beyond buying more boats.

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]What policies with regards to Mitt Romney and how he would handle foreign policy differently than President Obama did you get out of this debate?[/QUOTE]

That was my point. They said virtually the same thing on every topic, yet this guy thinks Obama "bent Romney over and spanked him." People are more swayed by the pageantry of the debate than what is actually said.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]And what policy and substance did Romney bring to the table? From where I was watching it seemed that he agreed with most of the President's views, decisions, actions, etc and the only real divergent idea was Mitt's commitment to add a few trillion dollars to the deficit by investing on superfluous military spending (on top of his $5 trillion tax cut that he plans to offset by closing still yet to be named 'loopholes'). IMO he lacked anything remotely resembling a clear vision for how he would lead the country on the world stage beyond buying more boats.[/QUOTE]
Superfluous defense spending? A significant increase in defense spending would be a much better stimulus for our economy than the stimulus passed by congress.

Just watched the whole debate, holy **** Romney says the same shit every debate but still doesn't describe anything, how is this guy running for president?

[QUOTE=Jello]Superfluous defense spending? A significant increase in defense spending would be a much better stimulus for our economy than the stimulus passed by congress.[/QUOTE]
So would a jobs bill that went to work repairing and upgrading decaying or outdated American infrastructure. And that's something we actually need.

[QUOTE=Jello]Superfluous defense spending? A significant increase in defense spending would be a much better stimulus for our economy than the stimulus passed by congress.[/QUOTE]

Infrastructure spending would be a far greater boon than defense spending, not too mention have a more lasting economic benefit.

[quote=Jello]Superfluous defense spending? A significant increase in defense spending would be a much better stimulus for our economy than the stimulus passed by congress.[/quote]Sure. If that's what you're into I guess...

[QUOTE=Scoooter]So would a jobs bill that went to work repairing and upgrading decaying or outdated American infrastructure. And that's something we actually need.[/QUOTE]
Deficit spending on anything, according to keynesians, would stimulate the economy but we see the left saying "we didn't spend enough on the fiscal stimulus." They point towards the Reagan recovery or WWII for reference of massive deficit spending and then criticize the upping of defense spending.

Obama looked more knowledgeable when it came down to foreign policy while it seemed like Romney was just agreeing with him on some issues. It wasn't a landslide victory, but Obama was clearly the winner in this debate.

Romney: "I will create 12 million jobs"

Romney: "Government does not create jobs"

anyone else think this is ****ing retarded?

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]Infrastructure spending would be a far greater boon than defense spending, not too mention have a more lasting economic benefit.[/QUOTE]
Of course, but that's not what my post is talking about. I'm just pointing out the disconnect of what is historically fact and what the left condemn.

[QUOTE=Jello]Of course, but that's not what my post is talking about. I'm just pointing out the disconnect of what is historically fact and what the left condemn.[/QUOTE]

Are you referencing things like the Marshall Plan or when the government created the GI Bill and spent large sums of money helping WW2 Vets after WW2 or is your focus specifically on the Reagan years when we ramped up defense spending to bankrupt the Soviet Union amongst other things?

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]Are you referencing things like the Marshall Plan or when the government created the GI Bill and spent large sums of money helping WW2 Vets after WW2 or is your focus specifically on the Reagan years when we ramped up defense spending to bankrupt the Soviet Union amongst other things?[/QUOTE]
Funny thing is, Reagan really had an internal struggle about exploding defense spending and only did so in an effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Once that goal was reached, he wanted to cut the defense budget back down to where it was before he started the massive increase in the defense programs.

The idea was to spend the USSR into oblivion and then bring it back down to earth when the mission was accomplished. Reagan also supported the complete dismantling of all nuclear programs.

Somehow, this guy is considered the neoconservative standard and he would be far to the left of the Democrats on many issues. No way he could be a candidate for the current Republican party with many of his stances. He wouldn't pass the litmus test and would get killed for wanting to cut defense, specifically the nuclear program.

Our military industrial complex has gotten completely out-of-hand... Just as Pres. Eisenhower predicted.

[I]"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."[/I]


Our infrastructure is crumbling. Roads and bridges across the country fall woefully behind many of the other developed nations. And, here we are, bickering over whether or not we should keep our current rate of defense budget as being more than the next 10 nations combined or make a dramatic [I]INCREASE [/I]to that ridiculous number.

It is madness.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Funny thing is, Reagan really had an internal struggle about exploding defense spending and only did so in an effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Once that goal was reached, he wanted to cut the defense budget back down to where it was before he started the massive increase in the defense programs.

The idea was to spend the USSR into oblivion and then bring it back down to earth when the mission was accomplished. Reagan also supported the complete dismantling of all nuclear programs.

Somehow, this guy is consider the neoconservative standard and he would be far to the left on many issues. No way he could be a candidate for the current Republican party with many of his stances. He wouldn't pass the litmus test and would get killed for wanting to cut defense, specifically the nuclear program.

Our military industrial complex has gotten completely out-of-hand... Just as Pres. Eisenhower predicted.

[I]"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."[/I]


Our infrastructure is crumbling. Roads and bridges across the country fall woefully behind many of the other developed nations. And, here we are, bickering over whether or not we should keep our current rate of defense budget as being more than the next 10 nations combined or make a dramatic [I]INCREASE [/I]to that ridiculous number.

It is madness.[/QUOTE]


I couldn't have said it better. Defense spending needs to decrease not increase. Reinvest back into the nations infrastructure and we'll still go a long way towards creating/keeping jobs. If we are talking about cuts then they should be across the board with defense spending being at the top of the list.

Fox News has declared the winner of the 3rd Presidential Debate as a tie.


In other news, Fox News has declared the winner of the NLCS as a tie.

[QUOTE=brandonislegend]Just watched the whole debate, holy **** Romney says the same shit every debate but still doesn't describe anything, how is this guy running for president?[/QUOTE]


Well to be fair the president wasn't exactly full of details himself. They each had their 5 point plans that were more like non-specific wish lists.

Obama was smart in being aggressive like he was in the 2nd debate and as expected the moderator allowed him to interrupt Romney and interject his authority.

Except for the "rout to the sea" remark Romney stayed pretty much gaffe-free. He didn't win the debate but I don't think he caused any voters leaning towards him to change their vote.