Politics politics .........

Mash watched with interest the live 90 minute presidential debate in Denver ,,,,,,,, im now wondering

IF ,,,,,,, an American , just who would i vote for ?
Who came out on top after this debate .

Being impartial but interested ,,,,,,, its a tight race , what do UM American members think as it will effect them more than others .

mash

I like wbu alum's avatar!

For those voters who waited until these debates and had not been paying attention previously, Romney "won" the night's debate. For those voters who HAVE been paying attention, they are barfing in bags after all the twisting, spinning, and pandering Myth is so very good at. The guy's a pro. He ditched half the stuff he has been running on and did another "reboot" for the estimated 50,000,000 viewers tuning in. It was amazing. I will say this positive about Robme: The fact checkers are hiring like crazy to keep up with him!

Mash I have never understood why people put so much importance to the Presidential debates. Believe me the candidates have all had extensive training in debates, public speaking, etc. I have had such training and was totally amazed how you can answer a question without actually answering it, but make the other party satisfied that you have answered it.

As far as who to vote for, I don't think it matters because the US President actually doesn't have much power. All the power lies in the legislative and judicial branches of government. The President can act as a cheerleader, make stirring speeches, and draw up wonderful plans but he can't do squat without the congress passing laws, approving budgets, etc. Witness Obama when he was elected and his party controlled both branches of the legislature, he still couldn't get his pet plans through, especially Obamacare, which was a boon to the Insurance industry and nobody else.

My personal philosophy is generally vote against any incumbent, lawyer, or anyone who has held public office for say five of the last ten years. I really think Romney has a better chance of managing the country, but I don't like his stance on Women's rights. So with the current crop I will once again vote for "None of these Candidates". As I have done since 1992 when I voted for Bill Clinton. After that it's been good old "None"

The only way to know who "won" the debate is how it affects the "fence sitters". After all, most people at this point have made up their minds who they are voting for and so from here on out it's all about scratching out the last few voters who are undecided.

I think Romney looked energetic and eager for a good old-fashioned debate. Obama looked tired to me. I'm guessing most folks will read this as a "win" for Romney.

Mash, you only need look at the CNN poll -- a liberal cable news outlet.

The sample of debate-watchers in the poll was 37% Democratic and 33% Republican.

That means that 30% were independent. And yet, only 25% of all respondents thought Obama won the debate. That means even Democrats in the poll thought Romney won.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ig-margin/

Pesonally, I didn't watch. The debate doesn't matter to someone who has already decided he is not voting for Obama. It wouldn't have mattered what Obama said or promised because he's been talking and promising for five years.

We need to hear more from them. Good luck the USA!

Wow saw the debate, and I am an Obama fan but I think Mitt might just have pulled me over. Mitt was on the ball, Obama looked old, tired and like he didnt really want another four years of this....

LoveDaBlues wrote:I think Romney looked energetic and eager for a good old-fashioned debate. Obama looked tired to me. I'm guessing most folks will read this as a "win" for Romney

Thats how i saw it LDB ..... it seems most of the wordlwide news networks gave Romney the "win" for the debate but for differing reasons .

pienmash wrote:

LoveDaBlues wrote:I think Romney looked energetic and eager for a good old-fashioned debate. Obama looked tired to me. I'm guessing most folks will read this as a "win" for Romney

Thats how i saw it LDB ..... it seems most of the wordlwide news networks gave Romney the "win" for the debate but for differing reasons .

The Democrat Party Spin machine is sheepishly busy crafting a new "It was Bushes fault" response to the POTUS's lackluster and pathetic performance. Even had MSNBC's Chris Matthews fumbling for words to explain the debacle......

I watched the debate and thought that Romney did very, very well.

One of many articles very succinct about what happened:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/ ... tance?lite

"Indeed, it seems to me Romney thrived in large part because he abandoned the pretense of honesty. And as it turns out, winning a debate is surprisingly easy when a candidate decides he can say anything and expect to get away with it."

Everywhere i go, i am hearing about the election this year. Lots of hateful ads, attacking each others and stuffs. its just nasty. However, i watched the debate last night and i would say Romney was slightly better than Obama in terms of speaking. Romney has been screwing up for during the whole campaign and he got his ---- together last night. But he was just attacking Obama but Obama didn't fight back. I am just so amazed Pres. Obama didn't mention the "47 percent" "Bain", or Romneys offshore accounts in Cayman Islands, and why Romney is not releasing his tax returns. Maybe that was Obama's strategy. Not to attack and keep things smart and simple.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable
of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far
easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the
necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to
have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more
serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the
prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools
that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less
likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him their
president."

Nice 'quote' there gudty. Can you cite a source (verified)?

Erica wrote:Everywhere i go, i am hearing about the election this year. Lots of hateful ads, attacking each others and stuffs. its just nasty. However, i watched the debate last night and i would say Romney was slightly better than Obama in terms of speaking. Romney has been screwing up for during the whole campaign and he got his **** together last night. But he was just attacking Obama but Obama didn't fight back. I am just so amazed Pres. Obama didn't mention the "47 percent" "Bain", or Romneys offshore accounts in Cayman Islands, and why Romney is not releasing his tax returns. Maybe that was Obama's strategy. Not to attack and keep things smart and simple.

Attacking Obama, or attacking his policies?

Romney released his tax returns. If Romney's offshore accounts were illegal, he'd be in jail.

Your 47% reference has already been explained by Romney, and that particular recording of Romney's reference has already been exposed for being edited. It's missing about 2 minutes, and David Corn admitted it. Had Obama brought it up again, Romney would just have given the same explanation again.

You will continue to be amazed. Obama is not on the campaign trail speaking to a crowd and without cameras most of the time. He is on national television in a debate where his claims will be challenged. He's not used to that, which is why he had little or no response. And the moderator isn't there to rescue Obama. If Obama is caught embellishing in a debate, it is much different than going unchallenged on the campaign trail and just whipping a crowd into a frenzy.

The difference between Obama in 2008 and Obama in 2012 is that Obama had no record in 2008. He could say anything and promise anything and never give a single detail about how he would do it. In 2012, Obama has a record that is difficult to defend.

I follow this everyday, it is a reflection of the leadership of the USA: http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert/?From=USD&To=THB&Amount=1

parrot wrote:Nice 'quote' there gudty. Can you cite a source (verified)?

Best I can gather it is from the Czech Republic Observer. Sometimes the view is a little clearer from the outside looking in.

"Czech Republic Observer"

There seems to be no information to back that up.....other than a viral email that uses them as the source.

gudtymchuk wrote:"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him their president."

I don't care who said it. I agree with it.

I've seen it before and didn't care where it came from then. It makes perfect sense.