Third and Final Presidential Debate Thread.

Obama is lucky to have such one-dimensional opponent, while he has lost most of the spark he had four years ago. With both candidates, absence of eloquence and personal human communication is apparent.
Obama is Carterized and Romney stuck with last-minute career-phobia. Don´t they want it?

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by Sparky63
I think most of you are missing the point Romney was trying to make. We are no longer capable of fighting 2 major wars. Our ability to so in the past has been the key to our strength and some would argue, our survival.

America is in no danger whatsoever from attack by any other nation.

True, but many of our allies are and we guaranteed that we will defend them if attacked. We need to be capable of doing so on more than 1 front.
I don't necessarily disagree with the other points you made.

VIDEO: Romney Wins CBS Focus Group In Ohio...

Romney Wins CBS Focus Group In Ohio

Dean Reynolds held a focus group in Ohio on CBS News, which Mitt Romney won with a clear majority (October 23, 2012).

Originally posted by Sparky63
I think most of you are missing the point Romney was trying to make. We are no longer capable of fighting 2 major wars.

a) if Romney did try to make THIS point, he failed miserably. IMHO the only point he was trying to make was to present Obama as weak, and to do this he had to resort to that idiocy regarding the number of Navy ships back in 1916, which resulted, pardon the Navy term, in a raking broadside from Obama.

b) I'm not even sure that we aren't capable to fight to major wars. You may count Iraq and Afghanistan as minor, but of course some people may decide that you belittle our military and the sacrifice made.

I frankly won't believe for a second that the nation is seriously engaged in a war when people care about things like iPhone 5 or minute detail of M.Jackson's demise. We haven't even started trying to fight in earnest until what we see on TV is news from the front lines and not Jay-Z.

Sorry I can't just take your argument when I look around.

Everyone in America loses with either one of these Jackasses and their minions. None of these people represent American interests or the American people. Hereis my argument. Godspeed.

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by ipsedixit
America is in no danger whatsoever from attack by any other nation.

True, but many of our allies are and we guaranteed that we will defend them if attacked. We need to be capable of doing so on more than 1 front.

Granted, but in discussions in America this sort of thing is often presented as a "WW3" style global strategic consideration.

Realistically speaking America needs to be able to assist Israel against its numerous enemies in the Middle East. It needs to be able to stand tall behind Japan against China and against North Korea.

Most other fronts are relatively quiet with prospects of greater degrees of harmony.

The fly in the ointment is America itself. Its adventurism in the Arab Spring. Its sneaky attempts to put a missile shield directed against Russia in Eastern Europe under the guise of shielding Europe from Iranian missiles.

I don't believe that military strategy is seriously involved in budgetary considerations in the US. I think that a segment of the American economy, the military industrial complex, has hoodwinked Americans into believing that they need ten more brooms in the closet and one stationed behind every door in the house, when the reality is that the house can manage very nicely with just two brooms.

This is creeping corporatism and has nothing to do with real security concerns, in my opinion.

I'm not saying that one should slash the military budget vigorously. I realize that there are serious economic implications involved. I say cut judiciously. American security will not suffer as a result.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Do you like having your view challenged?

No one does. So I cannot fault him for that.

No, but I don't look like sour puss when someone does either. When one is in Command he need not feel threatened by simple questions... At least he shouldn't be visably upset by them.

I expect a lot more from POTUS. Clearly this is a man who has surrounded himself with yes-men. I don't want my staff to be full of yes-men who tell me my new clothes are looking fantastic, when in fact I have no clothes at all.

The man is a classic narcissist - it is clear in the way he speaks, the way he reacts to questions, the way he makes everything about himself or relates it to himself. I have spent years breaking people just like him in interrogation rooms all over the world. It is the most common and easy archetype to break. This is just sad that our POTUS is such a cookie cutter case study in the disorder and yet no one seems to even care.

Narcissists are the most volatile and dangerous of leaders as they are unpredictable when their ideas don't work. If they work it’s all their idea all about them - if they fail, well let’s just say it’s not good to be on their staff at that time because you will get thrown under the bus.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

The issue mentioned for US forces in Iraq was "Status of Forces Agreement".
A treaty recognising the authority of a country where US forces are stationed.

The demand from Iraq that their civil laws govern the conduct of US military forces
caused the early withdrawl from Iraq.

US State Dept could have done a better job with this issue in the years before the Dems won in 2008

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Realistically speaking America needs to be able to assist Israel against its numerous enemies in the Middle East.

Wait, some of the interlocutors here are talking about SURVIVAL of the United States and how being able to wage two wars is crucial for that. Are you saying that the SURVIVAL of our nation depends on its unconditional support of Israel and serving as the Israel's Defense Force?

You lost me here. Are we debating Israeli elections or what?

Torn between two alternatives (OK, not really torn) I opted to skip the Presidential Debate Dog and Pony Show last night in favor of watching my SF Giants clinch the National League title. I knew that ATS would come through with the facts, the figures and the plethora of opinions about the debate that I've come to expect. Thank you, everyone!

The general consensus that I get from reading this thread is that the Obama supporters say Obama won, the Romney supporters say that Romney won, and most of us in the US feel really screwed for having to choose between two evil puppets. As for me, I'm writing in Ron Paul on principle.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
What Obama doesn't mention is that Ghaddafi was replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood. Not good.

Unless you are pro Muslim Brotherhood...

Egypt falls = replaced by Muslim Brotherhood
Lybia falls = replaced by Muslim Brotherhood
Jordan parliment falls = replaced by Muslim Brotherhood

Syria???...
Yemen???...
Saudi Arabia???...

It seems all governments we have hand assistance in toppling this last presidential term have resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood taking control of the governements...

Not a bad foreign policy eh Mr. Barak Hussien Obama.

God Bless,

While I'm glad Obama pounded Romney out again and made Romney appear very unprepared and one dimensional, I was really disappointed that Afghanistan hardly was mentioned, and that climate change wasn't mentioned at all. For a foreign policy debate that continued to wander off topic, it would have been nice to focus on these things some more.

What we know for sure is that Mitt
Romney would be the worst thing for this country. I think the man wants boots on the ground in Iran right now with bombers overhead. This guy welcomes WW3 and more corporate tax cuts. He is dubya the 2nd and we really don't need another depression.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Sparky63
I think most of you are missing the point Romney was trying to make. We are no longer capable of fighting 2 major wars.

a) if Romney did try to make THIS point, he failed miserably. IMHO the only point he was trying to make was to present Obama as weak, and to do this he had to resort to that idiocy regarding the number of Navy ships back in 1916, which resulted, pardon the Navy term, in a raking broadside from Obama.

b) I'm not even sure that we aren't capable to fight to major wars. You may count Iraq and Afghanistan as minor, but of course some people may decide that you belittle our military and the sacrifice made.

I frankly won't believe for a second that the nation is seriously engaged in a war when people care about things like iPhone 5 or minute detail of M.Jackson's demise. We haven't even started trying to fight in earnest until what we see on TV is news from the front lines and not Jay-Z.

Sorry I can't just take your argument when I look around.

It is not my argument. I was just pointing out what Romney was claiming. Everyone wants to focus on Obama's witty reply, and it was a good one, but no one, including Obama addressed Romney's point about the ability to fight 2 wars. I do think that Romney brought up an important issue, too bad is wasn't addressed maturely.

reply to post by Sparky63


Who told you the vast majority of the military doesn't support Obama? Me and my friends do, for what it's worth. Though actually, we don't care who's the Commander in Chief, we care who's offering a pay raise and less deployment.

So stop trying to use the military to further points...

And we have bayonets true, but we don't use them.

I thought the debate was great for both men. They both showed they want the job very bad. What a great country I am so lucky to be born in and can participate in without fear. There are 39 pages so far on this thread that express all kinds of attitudes with freedom. My personal hope is that Pres Obama is re-elected because one half of the country is doing well so someone needs to address the problems of the other half. We do not need to increase defense spending but divert that money to the veterans, especially the ones wounded for life. I do not believe such concerns are in Mr. Romney's heart, only numbers live there.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by ipsedixit
America is in no danger whatsoever from attack by any other nation.

True, but many of our allies are and we guaranteed that we will defend them if attacked. We need to be capable of doing so on more than 1 front.

I don't believe that military strategy is seriously involved in budgetary considerations in the US. I think that a segment of the American economy, the military industrial complex, has hoodwinked Americans into believing that they need ten more brooms in the closet and one stationed behind every door in the house, when the reality is that the house can manage very nicely with just two brooms.

We are in agreement on this. The military industrial complex like every other special interest group will use any means possible to wrest more money from the federal government. I have no doubt that there is tremendous waste and tremendous fraud being carried out in the name of defense.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Who told you the vast majority of the military doesn't support Obama? Me and my friends do, for what it's worth. Though actually, we don't care who's the Commander in Chief, we care who's offering a pay raise and less deployment.

So stop trying to use the military to further points...

And we have bayonets true, but we don't use them.

I have no doubt about your personal support or that of your friends. I'm sure that you are not the only Liberal in the military that wants Obama to win. I am not trying to use the military for any points. I am simply commenting on what I feel is an important point that was overlooked or swept under the carpet. I believe that is my right.

I was recalling this poll showing that 58% of veterans support Romney while only 34% support Obama.
www.gallup.com...
I realize that this is veterans and not active duty troops. I don't like posting polls because as soon as you do someone else will find one that has vastly different results. I am basing my opinion on the feeling of the poll and on my many family members who are serving.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
in Politics



Tuesday, October 23, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 46%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided.

Romney is running for highest office in the western hemisphere and he believes the following

1 - Syria is Iran's route to the sea
2 - Russia is our biggest enemy

There's an elephant in the room. Mitt Romney is dumb.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

double post