• 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.

My thoughts on the 3 debates, their meaning and impact on the election.

Grim17

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
17,282
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For voters, all 3 debates had different purposes:

* The first debate was all about Romney... Who he was and whether he was for real or not. He passed with flying colors and changed the entire race.

* The second debate was about both candidates. Was the first performance by both just a fluke, could the president bounce back, and could Romney stand strong? The answer was "no" it wasn't a fluke and "yes" on the other 2, and that's precisely why the polls didn't change and it didn't effRomney'sneys momentum.

* I believe fhe 3rd debate was more about Obama than it was about Romney though. I think many unhappy 2008 Obama supporters were looking for a reason to support him again. Looking for some reason to justify giving him another chance in spite of the economic failures. In my opinion, that would have required a Romney melt down combined with a strong performance by Obama, and that didn't happen. Yes Obama did give a strong performance, but once again Romney held his own and looked very presidential.


The bottom line on what the debates accomplished:

* Romney effectively made the case that he is qualified to be president. He conducted himself well, has the experience necessary, a history of working with both parties, and a track record of success that instills confidence in voters.

* Except for the first debate Obama held his own, but it wasn't enough in my opinion to overcome what can only be described as a misguided (his focus on Obamacare rather than jobs & the economy) and ultimately failed first term as president.


Conclusion:

These debates without a doubt decided the upcoming election and I think that decision will mean we have a new president the next 4 years. Mitt Romney wins.
 
Agreed.

obama-debate-ass-kicking.jpg
 
Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

I put my thoughts and beliefs on record, so now it's your turn people.
 
Grim17 said:
For voters, all 3 debates had different purposes:

* The first debate was all about Romney... Who he was and whether he was for real or not. He passed with flying colors and changed the entire race.

* The second debate was about both candidates. Was the first performance by both just a fluke, could the president bounce back, and could Romney stand strong? The answer was "no" it wasn't a fluke and "yes" on the other 2, and that's precisely why the polls didn't change and it didn't effRomney'sneys momentum.

* I believe fhe 3rd debate was more about Obama than it was about Romney though. I think many unhappy 2008 Obama supporters were looking for a reason to support him again. Looking for some reason to justify giving him another chance in spite of the economic failures. In my opinion, that would have required a Romney melt down combined with a strong performance by Obama, and that didn't happen. Yes Obama did give a strong performance, but once again Romney held his own and looked very presidential.


The bottom line on what the debates accomplished:

* Romney effectively made the case that he is qualified to be president. He conducted himself well, has the experience necessary, a history of working with both parties, and a track record of success that instills confidence in voters.

* Except for the first debate Obama held his own, but it wasn't enough in my opinion to overcome what can only be described as a misguided (his focus on Obamacare rather than jobs & the economy) and ultimately failed first term as president.


Conclusion:

These debates without a doubt decided the upcoming election and I think that decision will mean we have a new president the next 4 years. Mitt Romney wins.
Click to expand...

I agree with your take on the first two debates, but not on the third. Romney clearly showed that he doesn't know much about foreign affairs. The bayonets and horses comment exposes Romney's rhetoric as unsubstantial and his judgment to be unsound.

However, the most damaging bit was Romney's insistence that Syria is Iran's route to the sea. Iran borders 3 different bodies of water, and has direct access to the Arabian sea. Iran does not border Syria.

This isn't so much a gaffe as a fundamental expression of ignorance of the world outside our borders.

I think that it's fair to say that if Romney were to be elected, America would be in much greater danger.
 
Grim17 said:
For voters, all 3 debates had different purposes:

* The first debate was all about Romney... Who he was and whether he was for real or not. He passed with flying colors and changed the entire race.

* The second debate was about both candidates. Was the first performance by both just a fluke, could the president bounce back, and could Romney stand strong? The answer was "no" it wasn't a fluke and "yes" on the other 2, and that's precisely why the polls didn't change and it didn't effRomney'sneys momentum.

* I believe fhe 3rd debate was more about Obama than it was about Romney though. I think many unhappy 2008 Obama supporters were looking for a reason to support him again. Looking for some reason to justify giving him another chance in spite of the economic failures. In my opinion, that would have required a Romney melt down combined with a strong performance by Obama, and that didn't happen. Yes Obama did give a strong performance, but once again Romney held his own and looked very presidential.


The bottom line on what the debates accomplished:

* Romney effectively made the case that he is qualified to be president. He conducted himself well, has the experience necessary, a history of working with both parties, and a track record of success that instills confidence in voters.

* Except for the first debate Obama held his own, but it wasn't enough in my opinion to overcome what can only be described as a misguided (his focus on Obamacare rather than jobs & the economy) and ultimately failed first term as president.


Conclusion:

These debates without a doubt decided the upcoming election and I think that decision will mean we have a new president the next 4 years. Mitt Romney wins.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with your analysis, until your last line, I'm afraid. I don't have the confidence that Romney can pull it out, although I do think it's going to be a horse race.

I have a great deal of compassion for Romney. He had the guts to run. He's been completely villified as a human being. Yeah, I know, he knew that going in. But still.

He gives an extraordinary amount to charity each year. It's not enough; he's a greedy bastard. He turned around and grew many successful firms in his venture capital firm. He destroyed companies. He paid all the income tax he was required by law to pay. He's a greedy bastard who didn't pay enough. He invests his money like everybody else. He invests in sweatshops!!

Ya' know? As I wrote all of those things? The opposition doesn't have much, does it?
 
Mithros said:
I agree with your take on the first two debates, but not on the third. Romney clearly showed that he doesn't know much about foreign affairs. The bayonets and horses comment exposes Romney's rhetoric as unsubstantial and his judgment to be unsound.

However, the most damaging bit was Romney's insistence that Syria is Iran's route to the sea. Iran borders 3 different bodies of water, and has direct access to the Arabian sea. Iran does not border Syria.

This isn't so much a gaffe as a fundamental expression of ignorance of the world outside our borders.

I think that it's fair to say that if Romney were to be elected, America would be in much greater danger.
Click to expand...

First of all, if the sitting president can't trounce an incumbant in the area of foreign affairs? He should resign his office. Second, maybe he should resign, since he certainly didn't trounce Romney.

You can play gotcha' games all day long. Fact remains Romney held his own against a sitting president. Obama never has, and never will, face that challenge.
 
MaggieD said:
I pretty much agree with your analysis, until your last line, I'm afraid. I don't have the confidence that Romney can pull it out, although I do think it's going to be a horse race.

I have a great deal of compassion for Romney. He had the guts to run. He's been completely villified as a human being. Yeah, I know, he knew that going in. But still.

He gives an extraordinary amount to charity each year. It's not enough; he's a greedy bastard. He turned around and grew many successful firms in his venture capital firm. He destroyed companies. He paid all the income tax he was required by law to pay. He's a greedy bastard who didn't pay enough. He invests his money like everybody else. He invests in sweatshops!!

Ya' know? As I wrote all of those things? The opposition doesn't have much, does it?
Click to expand...

Hmm, let me see if I can scare up some crocodile tears for poor Mitt ... mmmm, nope.

Let's see, Obama has been called: the anti-Christ, a Communist, a Marxist, a Socialist, a Muslim, a terrorist sympathizer, a Kenyan, an America Hater, the Affirmative Action poster child, etc., etc., etc., etc....

And all he's done is rise from being the mixed race child of a single mother of little means to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was president of the law review, to state legislator, to law school professor, to U.S. Senator, to President of the United States, where he staved off another great depression, helped produce better than three years of jobs growth, GDP growth, lower unemployment, huge stock market gains, killed public enemy No. 1, crippled al Qaeda, signed into law historic health care reform bringing coverage to 30 million Americans....

Yeah, that's fair.
 
MaggieD said:
First of all, if the sitting president can't trounce an incumbant in the area of foreign affairs? He should resign his office. Second, maybe he should resign, since he certainly didn't trounce Romney.

You can play gotcha' games all day long. Fact remains Romney held his own against a sitting president. Obama never has, and never will, face that challenge.
Click to expand...
But it's not a gocha game. This is something Romney started saying at the first GOP debate, and has continued to say on the campaign trail, and then repeated it at the debate.

This is catastrophic ignorance combined with a smug reassurance that he's right, regardless of the facts.

I defended a presidential candidates lack of foreign policy experience once. I made all the same arguments that you're making now in favor of Bush. At the time I said, the economy's lagging and Clinton's scandals were an embarrassment. Sure, Gore might be more capable on the world stage, but how bad could a Bush presidency really be?

Yes Romney's a pretty great guy. He does a lot to help those that are around him. He gives to charity, and he's a good negotiator. But that doesn't make a good president. That won't keep us safe.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Hmm, let me see if I can scare up some crocodile tears for poor Mitt ... mmmm, nope.

Let's see, Obama has been called: the anti-Christ, a Communist, a Marxist, a Socialist, a Muslim, a terrorist sympathizer, a Kenyan, an America Hater, the Affirmative Action poster child, etc., etc., etc., etc....

And all he's done is rise from being the mixed race child of a single mother of little means to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was president of the law review, to state legislator, to law school professor, to U.S. Senator, to President of the United States, where he staved off another great depression, helped produce better than three years of jobs growth, GDP growth, lower unemployment, huge stock market gains, killed public enemy No. 1, crippled al Qaeda, signed into law historic health care reform bringing coverage to 30 million Americans....

Yeah, that's fair.
Click to expand...

Only complete hacks have said the things you're suggesting. You know that. Oh, wait. I'm not so sure he isn't a socialist at heart. I'm not a hack. Ha!

Obama's done lots of good things. That doesn't mean I support him. And, of course, it's very difficult to compare the record of a sitting president's accomplishments to one who hasn't been in the oval office making decisions and effecting the course of history. I would point out to you, however, that this? "And all he's done is rise from being the mixed race child of a single mother of little means to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was president of the law review, to state legislator, to law school professor, to U.S. Senator, to President of the United States" Is hardly evidence that we've fallen and can't get up.

Hardly evidence that we are failing our lower- and middle-class people. In fact? It's the exact oppposite. But, I can already hear you: "Maggie!! It's changed!!"
 
Here Maggie, I found the video about the polls... Keep this in mind when you look at the current ones:

 
As an undecided but slightly leaning in one direction here's my thoughts....

1st debate....Romney came out swinging and demanded attention and the last word no matter what and got it....Obama failed to stand his ground and if his intention was to show he could maintain his cool at all time...well he succeeded in maintaining his cool but also succeeded in looking detached and distracted.....neither clearly laid out their plan and most of the debate was focused on what Obama did not accomplish.....but wait....in the 3rd debate if Romeny is questioned on his stances and proposed policies then he is being attacked...his own words..attacked!!....he needs to grow some balls if he feels attacked each time his policies and stances are questioned or challenged.

2nd debate....Once again Romney set the pace demanding to have the last word even when he already used his turn and his rebutal turn....Obama arrived prepared and succeeded in letting viewers know he wasn't going to sleep through this debate.....both men failed to answer specific questions and went off topic too often.....moderator fact-checked and pissed off Romney supporters but Romney was the one demanding to have it on record...go figure!

3rd debate.....and here we are again...foreign affairs topic railroaded and turned into a domestic economic debate by none other than Mr. Personality who has dictated the direction of each one of these debates......Obama then followed the lead instead of getting back on topic....there is clearly no love lost between these two men....they clearly do not like each other and that just makes for more distension between their two parties.....so....by the end of this debate...I once again heard the 12 million job promise....the obamacare repeal promise....the tax cut promise....the increase to military budget promise.....the China needs to be held accountable promise...and so on and so on...but not a freakin' foreign policy or issues promise........when it comes to foreign affairs I want a diplomatic commander...I fail to see diplomacy in Romney.....the only smart thing he did last night was keep his mouth shut or agree with Obama when it came to foreign affairs because he has proven he has no clue on this important topic that is crucial to our security and safety as a country.

So....do I vote for a lot of empty promises from both...or do I vote for the person I think can maintain our safety while continuing to work with other world leaders in a diplomatic way?.....I believe diplomacy goes much further than dictatorship....I fear Romney/Ryan are dictators which some view as aggression and power by their supporters where as Obama's diplomacy is being viewed as submission and weakness by his opposers .....I also fear this aggression may put us back into the throes of wartime.....a world leader should not lead soley on aggression.

so...those are my thoughts for today.....they may all change before the day is over or by weeks end...or not!
 
Last edited:
straykatz said:
As an undecided but slightly leaning in one direction here's my thoughts....

1st debate....Romney came out swinging and demanded attention and the last word no matter what and got it....Obama failed to stand his ground and if his intention was to show he could maintain his cool at all time...well he succeeded in maintaining his cool but also succeeded in looking detached and distracted.....neither clearly laid out their plan and most of the debate was focused on what Obama did not accomplish.....but wait....in the 3rd debate if Romeny is questioned on his stances and proposed policies then he is being attacked...his own words..attacked!!....he needs to grow some balls if he feels attacked each time his policies and stances are questioned or challenged.

2nd debate....Once again Romney set the pace demanding to have the last word even when he already used his turn and his rebutal turn....Obama arrived prepared and succeeded in letting viewers know he wasn't going to sleep through this debate.....both men failed to answer specific questions and went off topic too often.....moderator fact-checked and pissed off Romney supporters but Romney was the one demanding to have it on record...go figure!

3rd debate.....and here we are again...foreign affairs topic railroaded and turned into a domestic economic debate by none other than Mr. Personality who has dictated the direction of each one of these debates......Obama then followed the lead instead of getting back on topic....there is clearly no love lost between these two men....they clearly do not like each other and that just makes for more distension between their two parties.....so....by the end of this debate...I once again heard the 12 million job promise....the obamacare repeal promise....the tax cut promise....the increase to military budget promise.....the China needs to be held accountable promise...and so on and so on...but not a freakin' foreign policy or issues promise........when it comes to foreign affairs I want a diplomatic commander...I fail to see diplomacy in Romney.....the only smart thing he did last night was keep his mouth shut or aggree with Obama when it came to foreign affairs because he has proven he has no clue on this important topic that is crucial to our security and safety as a country.

So....do I vote for a lot of empty promises from both...or do I vote for the person I think can maintain our safety while continuing to work with other world leaders in a diplomatic?.....I believe diplomacy goes much further than dictatorship....I fear Romney/Ryan are dictators which some view as aggression and power by their supporters where as Obama's diplomacy is being viewed as submission and weakness by his opposers .....I also fear this aggression may put us back into the throes of wartime.....a world leader should not lead soley on aggression.

so...those are my thoughts for today.....they may all change before the day is over or by weeks end...or not!
Click to expand...

I appreciate the time and thought you put into that. The thing I think you're missing here is that this years election has far more to do with the economy, than it does on foreign policy. I think you put too much stock on it's importance this election.
 
Grim17 said:
I appreciate the time and thought you put into that. The thing I think you're missing here is that this years election has far more to do with the economy, than it does on foreign policy. I think you put too much stock on it's importance this election.
Click to expand...

Thank you....and you are entitled to what you think.....last time around I voted for McCain simply because I felt Obama lacked foreign policy experience and we were involved in 2 wars....here I am in a similar position once again....as for the economy....it will be what it will be regardless of who wins...I expect the economy to continue to SLOWLY recover regardless of who wins.....there is an economic crisis worldwide that has a huge impact on our own recovery as well leaving too many varying factors to make unrealistic promises ....but....there are no varying factors when it comes to our safety as a country.....we either work with other countries or we control other countries.....it's our desire to control what other countries do and how they treat their own people that has made us look bad in the eyes of the world....I say bravo to Obama for rebuilding confidence in our country and its ability to strive for peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom