• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who Won The Foreign Policy Debate, 22 Oct 2012?

Who won the debate?


  • Total voters
    123

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,357
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Official poll thread for the 22 Oct foreign policy debate. Please no voting until the debate has actually happened.
 
Obama won.

;)
I know, he is so like, the messiah!

obama-halo-ap-new-550x362.jpg
 
I see a liberal says "Romney". How do you know before hand?
 
I have seen enough before the debate and have allready sent in my early ballot.

I don't plan to watch, therefore I will not vote in this poll.
 
Hide the women and children. Tonight is going to be ugly.

And unfortunately for Obama, the Monday night game is Chicago and Detroit, who he already has snowed into a proper trance. Not enough NFL distraction for the independents in the swing states.

The DNC should run promos for other programming all day today.

Independents FULLY understand that getting bin Laden was a collective effort dating back many years, so taking credit for that is tired and empty. Outside of giving the "OK for that (wouldn't any president?), the rest of his foreign policy consists of alienating allies, getting laughed at and disrespected, and bowing to dictatators.

No doubt the questions will be skewed for Obama to look good, but I expect Romney to amply and completely turn the conversation where it should be, and scold Obama like the child he is.
 
Doesn't matter who wins, we all lost already.
 
Hide the women and children. Tonight is going to be ugly.

And unfortunately for Obama, the Monday night game is Chicago and Detroit, who he already has snowed into a proper trance. Not enough NFL distraction for the independents in the swing states.

The DNC should run promos for other programming all day today.

Independents FULLY understand that getting bin Laden was a collective effort dating back many years, so taking credit for that is tired and empty. Outside of giving the "OK for that (wouldn't any president?), the rest of his foreign policy consists of alienating allies, getting laughed at and disrespected, and bowing to dictatators.

No doubt the questions will be skewed for Obama to look good, but I expect Romney to amply and completely turn the conversation where it should be, and scold Obama like the child he is.

All the questions will include "Osama's dead".
 
Nobody. Obama and Romney are both useless.


Ok, so what would you do, if you were President, that would make you a better President, the country more economically stable, and the world a safer place?
 
Doesn't matter who wins, we all lost already.

Indeed. The moment the country cast its collective ballot in the 2000 Presidential elections, the die had already been cast for this country. The question is, what are you doing with your vote now to correct the problem.
 
Ok, so what would you do, if you were President, that would make you a better President, the country more economically stable, and the world a safer place?

I don't have the answers. I just don't believe that Romney and Obama are that much different from each other. I've had it posited here that Obama modeled his policies on Romney's policies in MA. If that's true, we know how poorly they've worked. Is the problem that there's not enough cowbell? (to turn an expression)


Indeed. The moment the country cast its collective ballot in the 2000 Presidential elections, the die had already been cast for this country. The question is, what are you doing with your vote now to correct the problem.

The problem is that the Democrats and Republicans are too close to each other in this one, as they were in 2000. Voting for one or the other is just voting for more of the same.
 
I don't have the answers. I just don't believe that Romney and Obama are that much different from each other. I've had it posited here that Obama modeled his policies on Romney's policies in MA. If that's true, we know how poorly they've worked. Is the problem that there's not enough cowbell? (to turn an expression)

The problem is that the Democrats and Republicans are too close to each other in this one, as they were in 2000. Voting for one or the other is just voting for more of the same.

It is just not true. I have no idea at all, where that notion came from, how it got started and who started the rumor - but these two visions could not be more glaringly different.


- Romney, wants to increase military spending to over $1 trillion as a matter of new structural budget design.
- Obama, wants to freeze military spending at current levels and draw it down over the next decade by design.


These are two enormously different policies that will have enormously different impact on our economy and fiscal policy going forward.


-Romney, wants to privatize your child's K-12 education and improve both teaching and testing.
-Obama, wants to improve teaching, testing and publicly fund at adequate levels the infrastructure that already exists.


These are two enormously different policies that will have enormous impact on your child's education and their access to education.


-Romney, wants to privatize social security to extend its life.
-Obama, wants to restructure social security to extend its life.


These are two massively different approaches that will impact the availability and level of social security in the years to come.


-Romney, wants to declare China a currency manipulator and thinks it will increase exports.
-Obama, wants to apply diplomacy and increase exports organically.


These are two very different approaches to dealing with a nation that owns the highest ratio of U.S. Debt obligations and the biggest trade imbalance on record, second only to Japan, with Germany in third position. China, holds the cards. Push them over the cliff and they can retaliate with Tariffs and Duty, which hurts any chance for U.S. companies to ever reach a level playing field. Push them hard enough, and you end up with full-on Trade Wars with China. These are two hugely different policies with respect to how to deal with China and its currency.


-Romney, wants to get tough with Russia.
-Obama, wants to get diplomatic with Russia.


Two very different approaches that could easily turn-up the heat on a Cold War that has long since been over. Both countries have more than adequate nuclear capability to destroy the world several times over. How you deal with Russia, is never the same with how you deal with a nation that has no strategic nuclear weapons program. This could have stark implications for both U.S. and Russian Citizens, if not handled very carefully into the future.


-Romney, wants to grow the economy from the top down, by offering the wealthiest a tax cut to stimulate job growth based on a fossil fuel model.

-Obama, wants to partner with the private sector, to develop new energy technology products for energy independence at home and for export abroad.


Again, two very distinctly different policies for growing our economy and making the United States energy independent. One looks back to the old fossil fuel dominated economic model, where we continue to rely on oil but do nothing about manufacturing here at home. The other looks forward to new economic model for the future, where energy independence is the baseline from which energy, energy related products and energy related technology can be used to boost the economy through exports to other countries who become dependent upon the U.S. for its innovative resolve.

And, these are just some of the highlighted differences between these two candidates. So, when you say that you don't see much difference between the two, I would strongly suggest that you spend some time actually studying the differences that do indeed exist on a massive scale. We are literally talking about living in two entirely different countries within the next 25 years or less, depending on who you vote for in 2012, and "IF" both men would be successful in delivering on their stated plans for America.

To the contrary - based on the facts of their campaigns, they are not even remotely close to each other except on issues related to some foreign policy such as how to deal with Iran. But, even on foreign policy, I'll give you another very important distinction:

-Romney, wants to directly arm the Rebels in Syria.
-Obama, wants to encourage the Rebels through diplomatic back-channels that fosters more regional support.


If heavy U.S. weapons end up in the wrong hands (like it has in decades of bad foreign policy decisions) and then gets turned on our allies, or even back on the United States, that will obviously be a huge problem. Once you uncork that bottle, you cannot put the danger back inside the bottle. So, simply talking tough about "arming" people, really has to be understood before you arm the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

-Romney, wants to draw "red lines" in the sand on Iran, which by definition means military action in Iran.
-Obama, wants to maintain the strongest international sanctions in history against Iran, and force them to the table diplomatically.


Again, two very distinctly different paths to dealing with two very difficult problems that can get out of hand. Right now, Iran, is signaling that the pressure form the sanctions is actually working. That is why you are hearing reports that they now might be interested in coming to the table after the elections. In Syria, putting arms deliberately into the wrong hands, or mistakenly into a group that you really don't know if you can trust, is highly problematic and could easily come back to bite you in the end (how many times has that happened over the decades?).

These are very different men, with two very different messages. You have to study those differences and not allow the MEDIA to snow you. The MEDIA is NOT your friend. Our MEDIA is predicated on propaganda that best pumps their ratings. That's what they care about - ratings. They long since stopped caring about truly informing the public. They don't simply Report the news anymore. Today, they are in the business of Making news and then reporting it. Or, they Report the news but ONLY after Spinning it one way or another.

You have to dig for real news and then apply common sense to what you know.
 
Last edited:
I added a couple more clear distinctions below that last post.
 
I want to compliment and thank you for this excellent, non-partisan analysis. I suffer from the same confusion as Rocket88 and at times have felt that there was no clear choice. Your analysis is the kind of gem I come here for.

I added a couple more clear distinctions below that last post.
 
Ok, so what would you do, if you were President, that would make you a better President, the country more economically stable, and the world a safer place?

Are you serious? Wait, you are! :roll: The world is on fire! Just because "Obama killed Osama" doesn't mean it's safer out there.
 
Are you serious? Wait, you are! :roll: The world is on fire! Just because "Obama killed Osama" doesn't mean it's safer out there.

Obama is a SEAL?
 
It is just not true. I have no idea at all, where that notion came from, how it got started and who started the rumor - but these two visions could not be more glaringly different.


- Romney, wants to increase military spending to over $1 trillion as a matter of new structural budget design.
- Obama, wants to freeze military spending at current levels and draw it down over the next decade by design.


TRUTH: romney wants to waste $2 trillion on pointless military spending (stuff the military itself has never asked for) to make his Lockheed/Boeing sponsors happy, and finance it by adding $2 trillion to the debt.

-Romney, wants to privatize your child's K-12 education and improve both teaching and testing.
-Obama, wants to improve teaching, testing and publicly fund at adequate levels the infrastructure that already exists.


TRUTH: Romney wants to cut the federal education budget to make room for subsidies for his buddies in the oil industry.

-Romney, wants to privatize social security to extend its life.
-Obama, wants to restructure social security to extend its life.


TRUTH: Romney wants to hand the SS trust fund to his buddies at Wall St. so they'll have more $$ to play with, and proceeds will only be returned to the public if the investments succeed (less commissions, of course). If they don't, the public will take the loss and not be compensated.

-Romney, wants to declare China a currency manipulator and thinks it will increase exports.
-Obama, wants to apply diplomacy and increase exports organically.


TRUTH: Romney doesn't care about the trade deficit w/China, because in the event the dollar is devalued by China flooding the market w/US dollars, he and his Wall St. buddies will see it coming in advance and make the appropriate trades to hedge against it.

-Romney, wants to get tough with Russia.
-Obama, wants to get diplomatic with Russia.


TRUTH: Romney wants to give his oil buddies lucrative contracts in Russia, but mean ol' Putin doesn't want to just hand over his oil fields.

-Romney, wants to grow the economy from the top down, by offering the wealthiest a tax cut to stimulate job growth based on a fossil fuel model.

TRUTH: Romney just wants to hand more subsidies to his sponsors by adding to the debt, which future generations of lower-middle class taxpayers will pay for.

-Romney, wants to directly arm the Rebels in Syria.
-Obama, wants to encourage the Rebels through diplomatic back-channels that fosters more regional support.


TRUTH: Romney is just saying that to sound tough so his gullible GOP voting block will think he's John Wayne. Many of the rebels fighting in Syria are members of radical Islamic groups (i. e. al Qaeda) fighting to take down Syria's Baath (secular) government.

-Romney, wants to draw "red lines" in the sand on Iran, which by definition means military action in Iran.
-Obama, wants to maintain the strongest international sanctions in history against Iran, and force them to the table diplomatically.


TRUTH: Romney is getting paid big $$ from the ADL and other pro-Israeli lobbies to try to keep Iran from obtaining technology that would preserve its sovereignty and force Israel to the diplomatic table instead of just allowing Israel being able to bomb anyone at will.

Key word is "try", because the plan will fail since harsh sanctions don't impede the Iranian government, but merely punish its people, hence creating more popular animosity against the West in Iran and more support for the Iranian government from its own people.

You have to dig for real news and then apply common sense to what you know.

TRUTH: Konservatives believe the only real news is what rush limbaugh and FoxNews tells them, and therefore do not read anything else or think, as it would cause unnecessary pain to their brain.
 
Last edited:
Apparently so.

Now see if you had said he was flying the helicopter that crashed I would believe you, but now......
 
:fly: Psst....I'll let you in on a secret....tonight's debate won't matter unless someone goes batpoop crazy. It is all about the economy & jobs.....always has been. The rest is just partisan porn.
 
solletica said:
TRUTH: Konservatives believe the only real news is what rush limbaugh and FoxNews tells them, and therefore do not read anything else or think, as it would cause unnecessary pain to their brain.

What you are saying is completely wrong. We Conservatives/Libertarians are not mindless zombies who think it's true because Limbaugh said so. Rather, we listen to him because he tells the truth, and is a thinker! A lot of us are disgusted how much Fox lies in order to be "Fair and Balanced". We read a lot of things that are written by some crazy old Libertarians who are so-called the Founding Fathers. Yes, those evil rich racists who make this stupid country that has given people the crazy idea of becoming successful without the government telling us how to do it.

We are right, not because we say so, but we say so because it's true.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom