Knicks · OT: Obama dominated foreign policy...Romney playing four corners running out the clock... (page 1)

Interesting debate...Romney's arguments were to the left of President Obama, amazingly...Romney wants to fund civil institutions in Muslin countries...WOW..Romney basically agreed with all of what Obama said, WOW...Romney stalling until the election...Obama was in command the entire debate...Should the interesting...Oh, Obama won this debate...So 2-1...

holfresh wrote:
Interesting debate...Romney's arguments were to the left of President Obama, amazingly...Romney wants to fund civil institutions in Muslin countries...WOW..Romney basically agreed with all of what Obama said, WOW...Romney stalling until the election...Obama was in command the entire debate...Should the interesting...Oh, Obama won this debate...So 2-1...

hate obama rooting for romney

Boring debates.
There is no dif between them on foreign policy.
The way US had success in Bosnia, Libia, first Iraq war was bombing them to the stone age.
Works like charm.
This what we should do with Assad and Iran.
Just use this 300 ships and all this jets to take out their bases, infrastructure, government and they will love us and obey us.
They like power, they understand it.

arkrud wrote:Boring debates.
There is no dif between them on foreign policy.
The way US had success in Bosnia, Libia, first Iraq war was bombing them to the stone age.
Works like charm.
This what we should do with Assad and Iran.
Just use this 300 ships and all this jets to take out their bases, infrastructure, government and they will love us and obey us.
They like power, they understand it.

Russia and China are backing Iran.

AnubisADL wrote:

arkrud wrote:Boring debates.
There is no dif between them on foreign policy.
The way US had success in Bosnia, Libia, first Iraq war was bombing them to the stone age.
Works like charm.
This what we should do with Assad and Iran.
Just use this 300 ships and all this jets to take out their bases, infrastructure, government and they will love us and obey us.
They like power, they understand it.

Russia and China are backing Iran.

Why this should stop us?
Russia was backing both Serbia and Libia. And both China and Russia were backing Saddam.
It is not about them but about our leaders being inept and politically dead.
This both dudes are weak. No harisma, no personality, no fresh ideas, no live.
Political zombies.

Intrade went up to an 80% chance the President wins re-election during the debate...An indication of who won the debate...

I'm not sure how many people actually care about foreign policy honstly but if Obama gets even just a 1 to 2 point bounce, that would be helpful.

simple minded

IrishKnickFan wrote:
hate obama rooting for romney

ikf - is hate all you got?

can you talk policy or are you stuck on personal bias?

do you think women deserve equal pay for equal work?

misterearl wrote:simple minded

IrishKnickFan wrote:
hate obama rooting for romney

ikf - is hate all you got?

can you talk policy or are you stuck on personal bias?

do you think women deserve equal pay for equal work?

This is why its frustrating to post in the political threads here. Why does anyone who disagrees have to be insulted? I was called ignorant in the other thread. Here you call someone simple-minded. Who are you to insult someone like this? Do you feel that it is possible for someone to have an informed opinion that differs from your own? Or does a difference in opinion have to come from either stupidity or bigotry?

Hate Obama Rooting for Romney

izybx wrote:
This is why its frustrating to post in the political threads here. Why does anyone who disagrees have to be insulted? I was called ignorant in the other thread. Here you call someone simple-minded. Who are you to insult someone like this? Do you feel that it is possible for someone to have an informed opinion that differs from your own? Or does a difference in opinion have to come from either stupidity or bigotry?

izybx - whatever issue you had in another thread is irrelevant. IKF Saying "hate obama rooting for Romney" IS simple minded.

Plain and simple

That type of one liner lacks any substance and is rooted in nothing but personal bias.

Yes, talking politics is difficult because it reveals your world view, naked. It forces you to defend yourself clearly and coherently. Talking politics demands education, accurate information and courage.

To get past the personal bias, I asked IKF where he stood on a specific issue. We shall see where he stands.

Meanwhile, back at the debate....

"Obama Came Off As "Childish, Petulant," "Arrogant," A "Community Organizer"

- Sean Hannity, Fox News

Or

Mitt Romney has nothing really coherent or substantive to say about domestic policy, but at least he can sound energetic and confident about it. On foreign policy, the subject of Monday night’s final presidential debate, he had little coherent to say and often sounded completely lost. That’s because he has no original ideas of substance on most world issues, including Syria, Iran and Afghanistan.

At other times, he announced that he had a “strategy” for the Middle East, particularly Iran and Syria, and really for the whole world, but gave no clue what it would be — much like his claim that he has a plan to create 12 million jobs and balance the budget while also cutting taxes, but will not say what it is. At his worst, Mr. Romney sounded like a beauty pageant contestant groping for an answer to the final question. “We want a peaceful planet,” he said. “We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they’re going to have a bright and prosperous future and not be at war.”

- NYTimes

Note the severe difference in substance.

Opinion AND Analysis

On stage, Romney heeded the limits of diplomacy and policy. Foreign policy is the President's domain; it is difficult to debate a sitting President who speaks from the spectre of global action than a candidate seeking an empty seat.

But Romney was also constrained by his advisors rigid views, whose ideas crept into the debate. As we end two wars, Romney called for the peace dividend to be used to increase military spending! Because the neo-con view of his advisors, he did not critique the effectiveness of the Navy's munitions, more important than a ship count. He made no mention of the Aegis class destroyers, the most advanced weaponry on water and built in Mississippi. He failed to cite small territorial conflicts over islands that matter to China. Of course, Africa was never mentioned (it's off the neo-con radar), and Latin America touted without one example of benefits to small businesses, and trade (major markets to Romney) preempting soft power partnerships on infra-structure, esp. rails.

We witnessed evidence of the Romney balance sheet breakdown, the way he separates rather than combines things. He can point out valued pieces, but can’t put them in innovative combination.

Obama deftly linked global policies to domestic policies, and at his best, combined values with facts to create acts that further all.

Best moment: Mitt has had so many positions he claims he once called for sanctions. Best sound bite: Obama's. "Strong and steady, not wrong and reckless."

- Walter Hett, Charleston, SC

It is not enough to just have a position. You must back it with facts.

misterearl wrote:Hate Obama Rooting for Romney

izybx wrote:
This is why its frustrating to post in the political threads here. Why does anyone who disagrees have to be insulted? I was called ignorant in the other thread. Here you call someone simple-minded. Who are you to insult someone like this? Do you feel that it is possible for someone to have an informed opinion that differs from your own? Or does a difference in opinion have to come from either stupidity or bigotry?

izybx - whatever issue you had in another thread is irrelevant. IKF Saying "hate obama rooting for Romney" IS simple minded.

Plain and simple

Exactly; imagine if someone said "Hate Melo. Rooting for Gallo." Or "Hate Melo. Rooting for JR to start at SF."

What is really fascinating in all three debates is the Romney have not even tried to give a clear coherent representation of who he actually is or what his polities are about...How he would remedy the ills of the economy or the world with sound policy people can follow...It doesn't seem necessary and it's working... He is tied in the Polls mostly as a result of debate 1...I'm not sure what this say about us as a society...Sound bites and military muscularity is winning the day...Clearly it's a strategy...He had momentum that was marginally slowed coming into last night and whether or not this debate changed anything will be seen in a few weeks...

Bonn1997 wrote:

misterearl wrote:Hate Obama Rooting for Romney

izybx wrote:
This is why its frustrating to post in the political threads here. Why does anyone who disagrees have to be insulted? I was called ignorant in the other thread. Here you call someone simple-minded. Who are you to insult someone like this? Do you feel that it is possible for someone to have an informed opinion that differs from your own? Or does a difference in opinion have to come from either stupidity or bigotry?

izybx - whatever issue you had in another thread is irrelevant. IKF Saying "hate obama rooting for Romney" IS simple minded.

Plain and simple

Exactly; imagine if someone said "Hate Melo. Rooting for Gallo." Or "Hate Melo. Rooting for JR to start at SF."

I'll respond here rather than earls cut and paste bananza. I'm not defending irish's post, but rather talking about a bigger problem on these threads. For some reason we can't discuss politics without insults. In 2008 I was called a racist and ignorant because i supported McCain. All I'm asking for is that we show some respect for one another.

Romney is going to lose the election if for no other reason than the "our Navy has less ships than it did in 1917" comment. Who is writing this garbage for him???

Obama sounds at times like he's a senior in high school picking a fight with a third grader during recess.

The poor poor Governor. It's tough to try and come off as a man of substance and ideals when you've flipped on some of the most hot button issues your party used to represent. A record of executive decisions is a horrible thing to have to run away from, or with.

But that's just my ignorant one-liner. Apologies in advance to the Answer Man.

CNN after the lection said Obama 'won' 48% to Romey's 40%

Romey barely 'won' on the 'would you be more likely to go with the other guy' polling question 25% to 24%

Again, it's either insane or wishful thinking to say Obama dominated because that just isn't true

SupremeCommander wrote:CNN after the lection said Obama 'won' 48% to Romey's 40%

Romey barely 'won' on the 'would you be more likely to go with the other guy' polling question 25% to 24%

Again, it's either insane or wishful thinking to say Obama dominated because that just isn't true

If you going to tell the story, tell the whole truth...The majority of people they asked those questions were Republicans and they haven't released the percentage...So if you ask 60/65% of Republicans and came away with 48% for Obama, well dominance probably took place...

holfresh wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:CNN after the lection said Obama 'won' 48% to Romey's 40%

Romey barely 'won' on the 'would you be more likely to go with the other guy' polling question 25% to 24%

Again, it's either insane or wishful thinking to say Obama dominated because that just isn't true

If you going to tell the story, tell the whole truth...The majority of people they asked those questions were Republicans and they haven't released the percentage...So if you ask 60/65% of Republicans and came away with 48% for Obama, well dominance probably took place...

so you're saying that CNN only mostly polled Republicans? Source?

In this election one should vote for the party/candidate they are against.
The next 4 years will be a disaster and whoever will be a president will suffer the major loss of legacy.
We are facing issues which cannot be resolved from above and will only get worth, but all responsibility will go to President.
So if you are Republican let Democrats take it - they will surely regret it. If you Democrat give it to Romney.
You will have a good escape-goat in 4 years.

Also, this reaffirms my position that both candidates suck as it was a foreign policy debate and NO discussion of global climate change; cross-boarder impacts of American drug policy; challenges in Greece/Spain/Italy and the solvency of global markets; Cuba, Chavez and Latin America... Based on last night, one would think our only foreign policy interests were exclusively in the Middle East and China.

from Slate - "The World According to the 2012 Foreign Policy Debate (MAP)"

SupremeCommander wrote:

holfresh wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:CNN after the lection said Obama 'won' 48% to Romey's 40%

Romey barely 'won' on the 'would you be more likely to go with the other guy' polling question 25% to 24%

Again, it's either insane or wishful thinking to say Obama dominated because that just isn't true

If you going to tell the story, tell the whole truth...The majority of people they asked those questions were Republicans and they haven't released the percentage...So if you ask 60/65% of Republicans and came away with 48% for Obama, well dominance probably took place...

so you're saying that CNN only mostly polled Republicans? Source?

CNN...OH you missed Wolf saying the polled mostly Republicans...