US Presidential Election Debate #1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
iloveangels said:
Really? I kind of like to watch him squirm. He has this set of “poker tells” when he gets into trouble or he’s about ready to let a whopper fly, ever notice?
Click to expand...
That’s true, but at least I won’t be falling asleep when Obama speaks. 😃

Man I never saw a more boring man in my life when I saw Obama speak at the First Debate…all my mind kept saying was “Dukakis/Carter! paging Michael Dukakis and Jimmy Carter.”
 
austenbosten said:
That’s true, but at least I won’t be falling asleep when Obama speaks. 😃

Man I never saw a more boring man in my life when I saw Obama speak at the First Debate…all my mind kept saying was “Dukakis/Carter! paging Michael Dukakis and Jimmy Carter.”
Click to expand...
Actually, I kind of like his doorstop impression. It’s less threatening than his “I rule the world” routine with fake Greek columns made of plastic, which I really don’t like.

I thought Wednesday was entertaining. I wanna see another one like it.
 
iloveangels said:
Actually, I kind of like his doorstop impression. It’s less threatening than his “I rule the world” routine, which I really don’t like.

I thought Wednesday was entertaining. I wanna see another one like it.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is fun, but I do need a cup of coffee to keep up with Obama and Romney gives me the shakes cause I’m too excited.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Its about time people see Obama for what he is. An Empty Suit. He wants to be President, but he doesn’t want to do the job.
Click to expand...
He’s got to be getting pretty decent at golf though. Lots of practice.
 
HansTrappist said:
Pat Buchanan just wrote an excellent article on Romney’s debate performance, titled “Folks, We Have a Brand New Ballgame.” He writes, "Mitt Romney on Wednesday night turned in the finest debate performance of any candidate of either party in the 52 years since Richard Nixon faced John F. Kennedy, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan’s demolition of Jimmy Carter in 1980. But where Reagan won with style and quips “There you go again” and his closing line, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Romney crushed Obama on both substance and style…

You can read the rest here: buchanan.org/blog/folks-we-have-a-brand-new-ballgame-5266

I on the fence with Romney, but Buchanan seems to be warming to him which is even more remarkable given the fact that Buchanan’s foreign policy is closer to Ron Paul’s than to Romney’s.

I don’t know though. I still need some convincing to get on board. It’s not just that **Romney and Obama have the same interventionist foreign policy strategy, **but I also feel that this type of strategy not only makes us less safe in the long run but actually hurts the overall economy to the benefit of a few companies in the military-industrial complex, thus cancelling out any gains made by Romney’s domestic economic policies.

And then you have Romney’s exceptions on rape and incest. I would have thought that by now Paul Ryan would have pointed out to Romney the glaring inconsistency and fallacy here. I mean, if you are pro-life and understand the “science of life” you could not possible have an exception for rape and incest where there is direct, intentional killing going on.

Like I said, I am on the fence with this election. It seems to be another Catch 22.
Click to expand...
I think you need to distinguish between “interventionist” and a desire for a strong military as a deterrent. I simply do not see Romney (or Obama for that matter) as interventionist. I DO see Bush 43 as so.

I believe Romney wants to maintain a strong military because it IS the best deterrent. Countries do not poke a stick at strong countries they believe will retaliate While there is some mitigation provided by nutty Islamists, I truly do not think those in power in Iran ALL want to die to create the Caliphate. Those who do are useful idiots for continuing terror and disruption of the suicide bomber. But I truly don’t think the Iranians would continue to saber rattle or Assad would continue to slaughter his people if they believed America was strong. I think Obama has ushered in an era of kum bay ya, talkie talkie while simultaneously doing whatever he can to reduce military spending.

They think we are weak. We need to make them unthink it. Not by intervention or intermittent warnings but by demonstrating a commitment to having and being willing to use this strength. Again that doesn’t mean continuing with thousands of troops in other countries. It doesn’t mean wasteful or stupid spending either.

As to Romney, I still maintain you need to view him as what he is, not an idealogue or a military hawk, but as a businessman who looks at a problem and tries to solve it for the benefit of America. He’s not an aggressive, testosterone filled bully. Nor do I see him with the “nation building” approach of Bush 43. I personally find his approach very reassuring. Weakness draws fire. Strength repels it.

As to his not perfect approach on life issues, remember perfection is the enemy of the good. If you are saying you are trying to choose between Romney and Obama on life issues, well there IS NO CONTEST. If Romney is not perfect (yet!) the Republican platform, his running mate, his judicial adviser all point to a far stronger support of life issues, judicial appointments and regulations that are far more in line with our faith than Obama’s PRO abortion attitude, record and appointments.

No contest HansTrappist. Not even a catch 22.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
I think you need to distinguish between “interventionist” and a desire for a strong military as a deterrent. I simply do not see Romney (or Obama for that matter) as interventionist. I DO see Bush 43 as so.

I believe Romney wants to maintain a strong military because it IS the best deterrent. Countries do not poke a stick at strong countries they believe will retaliate While there is some mitigation provided by nutty Islamists, I truly do not think those in power in Iran ALL want to die to create the Caliphate. Those who do are useful idiots for continuing terror and disruption of the suicide bomber. But I truly don’t think the Iranians would continue to saber rattle or Assad would continue to slaughter his people if they believed America was strong. I think Obama has ushered in an era of kum bay ya, talkie talkie while simultaneously doing whatever he can to reduce military spending.

They think we are weak. We need to make them unthink it. Not by intervention or intermittent warnings but by demonstrating a commitment to having and being willing to use this strength. Again that doesn’t mean continuing with thousands of troops in other countries. It doesn’t mean wasteful or stupid spending either.

As to Romney, I still maintain you need to view him as what he is, not an idealogue or a military hawk, but as a businessman who looks at a problem and tries to solve it for the benefit of America. He’s not an aggressive, testosterone filled bully. Nor do I see him with the “nation building” approach of Bush 43. I personally find his approach very reassuring. Weakness draws fire. Strength repels it.

As to his not perfect approach on life issues, remember perfection is the enemy of the good. If you are saying you are trying to choose between Romney and Obama on life issues, well there IS NO CONTEST. If Romney is not perfect (yet!) the Republican platform, his running mate, his judicial adviser all point to a far stronger support of life issues, judicial appointments and regulations that are far more in line with our faith than Obama’s PRO abortion attitude, record and appointments.

No contest HansTrappist. Not even a catch 22.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Yes, the thing about Romney that not everyone is catching is the fact that he’s not first a lawyer. LOL. He’s a businessman. Lawyers manipulate words for money and that’s their motive; businessmen don’t and that’s not their motive. Businessmen solve practical problems and manage money. This is what we need right now.

Romney’s not going to charge in someplace just to say he did, because it costs money and solves nothing to do such things. He’s going to look at what we get out of what we do, and do what gets us the farthest with what we have.

He’s probably not even going to get into any big arguments about whether we’re “exceptional” or not and all that stuff. He knows who he will be working for and he’s not going to disappoint because there is a bottom line he’s going to try to move for us in terms of prosperity and peace.

EDITED
 
iloveangels said:
Yes, the thing about Romney that not everyone is catching is the fact that he’s not first a lawyer. LOL. He’s a businessman. Lawyers beat people up for money and that’s their motive; businessmen don’t and that’s not their motive. Businessmen solve practical problems and manage money. This is what we need right now.

Romney’s not going to charge in someplace just to say he did, because it costs money and solves nothing to do such things. He’s going to look at what we get out of what we do, and do what gets us the farthest with what we have.
Click to expand...
I’m a lawyer. Are you saying … 🙂
 
Tampa_Dave said:
I’m a lawyer. Are you saying … 🙂
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl:

I’m a lot of things, but business person is one of them. I understand how that works. Mitt will not be out playing the ideologue any more than he has to to get the job done. That’s his style, in case people haven’t already noticed.

I’ve worked with patent lawyers in the past. Great guys but :rolleyes::rolleyes::rotfl::rotfl:

OK, Dave. I edited it a little bit. You have to admit that Washington DC is chock full of lawyers.
 
iloveangels said:
:rotfl::rotfl:

I’m a lot of things, but business person is one of them. I understand how that works. Mitt will not be out playing the ideologue any more than he has to to get the job done. That’s his style, in case people haven’t already noticed.

I’ve worked with patent lawyers in the past. Great guys but :rolleyes::rolleyes::rotfl::rotfl:
Click to expand...
I have my own law practice, so I’m a hybrid lawyer/businessman. I studied for my MBA at John Carroll University before I obtained my law degree. I understand the point you’re trying to make perfectly well. As for patent lawyers …
 
Tampa_Dave said:
I have my own law practice, so I’m a hybrid lawyer/businessman. I studied for my MBA at John Carroll University before I obtained my law degree. I understand the point you’re trying to make perfectly well. As for patent lawyers …
Click to expand...
Ah, okay. Yeah, patent law is … interesting.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
I have my own law practice, so I’m a hybrid lawyer/businessman. I studied for my MBA at John Carroll University before I obtained my law degree. I understand the point you’re trying to make perfectly well. As for patent lawyers …
Click to expand...
I’m probably more familiar with patent lawyers than any other kind. That’s a weird business.
 
Slaney said:
Not me, I liked Ronald Regan, then again I’m Irish before European, being european doesn’t mean a whole lot to me, they’re over there and I’m over here, just the way God laid it out, me happy:egyptian: with that arrangement. :shamrock2:
Click to expand...
Yeah. In my experience in Europe (lived in Thame, England for 6 months, sold to companies throughout Europe), there is definitely a difference between the UK & Ireland and continental Europe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top