Presidential Debate (Page 9)

nancylee - 2012-10-05 7:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

How many times is this lie going to be repeated.... Bush set withdrawal before he left office. Tell me specifically what Obama did to get us out of Iraq... did he speed up the withdrawal? No he didn't.

Working on getting us out of Afghanistan? When he got in office, contrary to what he ran on in the campaign... he INCREASED troops in Afghanistan... he INCREASED the efforts. There are currently more troops in Afghanistan today that there was when Obama took office 4 years ago. Yes he is withdrawing troops now and has laid out a plan for turn over... but he is over troop levels and spending than when he took over. How in the world does that jive with his campaign promise of ending the war when he took office????

Is it ok if I just sit back and watch you refute yourself?  Really, there is nothing that you have written that's worth arguing about.  It's funny, but it's not arguable.  There is not a single thing you could write that would change my mind about the direction this country is headed......nothing.

Yep, as do the 368,000 people who stopped looking for work this month. 

The tears from the 7 Million Americans who want work and have stopped looking could fill Lake Travis...

Just for some context...

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

Exactly!

Is there really anybody out there that thinks this country can get out of the financial mess we are in without rasing tax revenues and cutting programs?  Everyone will have to sacrifice......the game's over. 

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

Honestly the unemployment numbers are such manipulated figures that they aren't worth looking at.

Hugh, one correction.  It doesn't increase taxes, it increases revenue.  If more people pay taxes, more money will be available for the government(s) to pay for the roads and bridges, or reduce the deficit.

Maybe you meant that with your comment and it was just a slight typo.

GomesBolt - 2012-10-05 8:12 AM

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

I've been thinking about it and I think Romney won because he has no real specifics for Obama to attack. Obama says your plan has no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and Romney says yes it does. But he doesn't have a plan. He said he'd repeal obamacare. Then he said he'd keep the pre-existing condition part. Then he said you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions if you've had continuous coverage. What exactly is Obama supposed to argue against in that?

If you think about it, it's actually a good debate strategy. He sounds like he has all of the answers and Obama has no details to really attack. He's going to have to start resorting to 47% comments and Cayman Islands stuff.

powerman - 2012-10-05 9:02 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 7:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

How many times is this lie going to be repeated.... Bush set withdrawal before he left office. Tell me specifically what Obama did to get us out of Iraq... did he speed up the withdrawal? No he didn't.

Technically, neither president got us out of Iraq.  They kicked us out. 

True.  I apologize.  My stats were from the Sept report.  The Oct 5th report says what you have above. 

Doesn't change the 7 Million people who want work and can't get work number.  From the BLS report:

2.5 plus 4.8 is...(carry the 1...) 7.3 Million unemployed.  If we can harness those tears, we can solve our water problem...

GomesBolt - 2012-10-05 10:12 AM

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

That may be the case but so far as I have seen her do in this thread it has been to post nothing but Dems party campaign bullet points.  What were the salient points of Obama's side of the debate?  Where did Obama make a better showing?  It is easy to say Romney is gonna Eat babies and kill the middle class and Obama is the savior of America but really at least try to back it up.I have enjoyed following the conversation in this thread and both sides have made some good well thought out points.  I may think you are wrong but if you present a reasoned argument I will listen.  If all you can do is spot more propaganda, that is trolling in my book. 

Bcozican - 2012-10-05 8:27 AM

JoshR - 2012-10-05 8:16 AM

GomesBolt - 2012-10-05 8:12 AM

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

I've been thinking about it and I think Romney won because he has no real specifics for Obama to attack. Obama says your plan has no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and Romney says yes it does. But he doesn't have a plan. He said he'd repeal obamacare. Then he said he'd keep the pre-existing condition part. Then he said you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions if you've had continuous coverage. What exactly is Obama supposed to argue against in that?

If you think about it, it's actually a good debate strategy. He sounds like he has all of the answers and Obama has no details to really attack. He's going to have to start resorting to 47% comments and Cayman Islands stuff.

I think Romney mentioned the reason for the lack of detail that keeps being brought up by the Democrat side and I think its an interesting position. Basically, if I heard it correctly, he has a set of principles from which an action can be derived by a bipartisan debate/committee. Similar to what he did with a democratic house in Mass. I agree with this since going into a negotiation/debate with your position set in stone and refusing to compromise just leads to legislation like Obamacare being rammed through by one party and further partisan divide. IF, and its a big IF, Washington could work along these lines then new policy and programs would be a result of bipartisan agreement and not a strong arm by either party. I would think this would be better than todays stalemate and help move us forward

I don't buy that at all. Especially with the way he constantly changes his position to fit whomever he is trying to please. There is absolutely no hope of any bipartisanship on the part of congress unless it's for things that no one is supposed to talk about like the NDAA.

Bcozican - 2012-10-05 9:27 AM

JoshR - 2012-10-05 8:16 AM

GomesBolt - 2012-10-05 8:12 AM

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

I've been thinking about it and I think Romney won because he has no real specifics for Obama to attack. Obama says your plan has no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and Romney says yes it does. But he doesn't have a plan. He said he'd repeal obamacare. Then he said he'd keep the pre-existing condition part. Then he said you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions if you've had continuous coverage. What exactly is Obama supposed to argue against in that?

If you think about it, it's actually a good debate strategy. He sounds like he has all of the answers and Obama has no details to really attack. He's going to have to start resorting to 47% comments and Cayman Islands stuff.

I think Romney mentioned the reason for the lack of detail that keeps being brought up by the Democrat side and I think its an interesting position. Basically, if I heard it correctly, he has a set of principles from which an action can be derived by a bipartisan debate/committee. Similar to what he did with a democratic house in Mass. I agree with this since going into a negotiation/debate with your position set in stone and refusing to compromise just leads to legislation like Obamacare being rammed through by one party and further partisan divide. IF, and its a big IF, Washington could work along these lines then new policy and programs would be a result of bipartisan agreement and not a strong arm by either party. I would think this would be better than todays stalemate and help move us forward

I was watching the CNN feed of the debate with the meter at the bottom measuring +/- of the group of Colorado independent voters. The lines for both men and women jumped up and maxed out when Romney was talking about that. Not sure it could actually happen in D.C., but that is exactly what I think a majority of people want to see. 

JoshR - 2012-10-05 10:16 AM

GomesBolt - 2012-10-05 8:12 AM

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

I've been thinking about it and I think Romney won because he has no real specifics for Obama to attack. Obama says your plan has no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and Romney says yes it does. But he doesn't have a plan. He said he'd repeal obamacare. Then he said he'd keep the pre-existing condition part. Then he said you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions if you've had continuous coverage. What exactly is Obama supposed to argue against in that?

If you think about it, it's actually a good debate strategy. He sounds like he has all of the answers and Obama has no details to really attack. He's going to have to start resorting to 47% comments and Cayman Islands stuff.

You're right, Romney hasn't put out a plan for everyone to pick through.  He's a CEO.  CEOs put out a goal "Zero Safety Violations, Increased Revenue of X%, Earnings per Share of $.XX, EBITDA of $X."  They don't put out a specific plan of action. 

They talk in very general strategy terms like "We want to increase revenues by Increasing sales of the new X13 Widgets" or "We have made significant efforts to line-up our shipping efforts to deliver X units of the X13 Widget to new markets in Central America and we expect that will put us at the top-end of the EPS range."

Obama hasn't passed a budget so why does Mitt need to give all the details of his future budget before he's even in office? 

Obama also does something similar with very general plans as shown in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LFW0kma5ek

So the plan is:

1) Army of New Teachers

2) Dependence on Foreign Oil

3) Make College Affordable

4) Solar and Wind and Biodiesel

5) Repair Crumbling Roads and Bridges

6) Put our people back to work

What's Gary Johnson's plans by the way?  I honestly want to know.

Please feel free to start a fresh post if you want.

That undecided's tracker was pretty awesome.  It also showed me that when one attacks the other, they didn't like that.  It went both ways.  If one attacked, the line went flat.

wingsfan - 2012-10-05 9:35 AM

Bcozican - 2012-10-05 9:27 AM

JoshR - 2012-10-05 8:16 AM

GomesBolt - 2012-10-05 8:12 AM

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

I've been thinking about it and I think Romney won because he has no real specifics for Obama to attack. Obama says your plan has no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and Romney says yes it does. But he doesn't have a plan. He said he'd repeal obamacare. Then he said he'd keep the pre-existing condition part. Then he said you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions if you've had continuous coverage. What exactly is Obama supposed to argue against in that?

If you think about it, it's actually a good debate strategy. He sounds like he has all of the answers and Obama has no details to really attack. He's going to have to start resorting to 47% comments and Cayman Islands stuff.

I think Romney mentioned the reason for the lack of detail that keeps being brought up by the Democrat side and I think its an interesting position. Basically, if I heard it correctly, he has a set of principles from which an action can be derived by a bipartisan debate/committee. Similar to what he did with a democratic house in Mass. I agree with this since going into a negotiation/debate with your position set in stone and refusing to compromise just leads to legislation like Obamacare being rammed through by one party and further partisan divide. IF, and its a big IF, Washington could work along these lines then new policy and programs would be a result of bipartisan agreement and not a strong arm by either party. I would think this would be better than todays stalemate and help move us forward

I was watching the CNN feed of the debate with the meter at the bottom measuring +/- of the group of Colorado independent voters. The lines for both men and women jumped up and maxed out when Romney was talking about that. Not sure it could actually happen in D.C., but that is exactly what I think a majority of people want to see. 

I think Romney wins the "ability to work across the aisle" argument hands down.  Obama has proven beyond all doubt that he is incapable of working with Republicans.  He certainly blames them and takes no responsibility, but it doesn't really matter because wherever the fault lies he's incapable of providing leadership that works across the aisle.  In fact, I'd counter that he actively works to make the divide further and further between the parties.

Romney on the other hand has a proven track record of working across the aisle in Mass.  Can he do the same thing in Washington?  who knows.  But, certainly he would do better then Obama.

It was also interesting that women consistently were more positive for Obama than men, even when it was essentially a transition period and he wasn't saying much/anything. After a while, I began to suspect that there were a few women who just kept their dial pegged to max positive for Obama and were skewing the average.

I always wonder how they seed people on the supposed "undecided" panels.  Hey, are you undecided?  yes.  ok, you're on the panel.  lol

I watched the Luntz panel on fox news and there was one guy who thought Obama won the debate, and spewed off DNC talking points, but then said he was still undecided.  Umm, riiiight.

tuwood - 2012-10-05 8:44 AM

wingsfan - 2012-10-05 9:35 AM

Bcozican - 2012-10-05 9:27 AM

JoshR - 2012-10-05 8:16 AM

GomesBolt - 2012-10-05 8:12 AM

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

I've been thinking about it and I think Romney won because he has no real specifics for Obama to attack. Obama says your plan has no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and Romney says yes it does. But he doesn't have a plan. He said he'd repeal obamacare. Then he said he'd keep the pre-existing condition part. Then he said you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions if you've had continuous coverage. What exactly is Obama supposed to argue against in that?

If you think about it, it's actually a good debate strategy. He sounds like he has all of the answers and Obama has no details to really attack. He's going to have to start resorting to 47% comments and Cayman Islands stuff.

I think Romney mentioned the reason for the lack of detail that keeps being brought up by the Democrat side and I think its an interesting position. Basically, if I heard it correctly, he has a set of principles from which an action can be derived by a bipartisan debate/committee. Similar to what he did with a democratic house in Mass. I agree with this since going into a negotiation/debate with your position set in stone and refusing to compromise just leads to legislation like Obamacare being rammed through by one party and further partisan divide. IF, and its a big IF, Washington could work along these lines then new policy and programs would be a result of bipartisan agreement and not a strong arm by either party. I would think this would be better than todays stalemate and help move us forward

I was watching the CNN feed of the debate with the meter at the bottom measuring +/- of the group of Colorado independent voters. The lines for both men and women jumped up and maxed out when Romney was talking about that. Not sure it could actually happen in D.C., but that is exactly what I think a majority of people want to see. 

I think Romney wins the "ability to work across the aisle" argument hands down.  Obama has proven beyond all doubt that he is incapable of working with Republicans.  He certainly blames them and takes no responsibility, but it doesn't really matter because wherever the fault lies he's incapable of providing leadership that works across the aisle.  In fact, I'd counter that he actively works to make the divide further and further between the parties.

Romney on the other hand has a proven track record of working across the aisle in Mass.  Can he do the same thing in Washington?  who knows.  But, certainly he would do better then Obama.

It's a two way street. Neither side is working with the other. Every congress, the minority party gets more obstructive. You think Dem's would be willing to work with any republican if they lose the presidency/senate? Look for even more filibusters than we have now.

This is why anyone who continues to vote for these two parties is supporting the awful mess we have in congress now.

You'd think if that was the case, the guys running the system or the system itself would just exclude that person. 

Tampering with polls doesn't help your side.  If anything, it gives the other side more reason to work harder.  And takes the pressure off so you don't do your studying and you watch 4 hours of football on Air Force One...

JoshR - 2012-10-05 9:48 AM

tuwood - 2012-10-05 8:44 AM

wingsfan - 2012-10-05 9:35 AM

Bcozican - 2012-10-05 9:27 AM

JoshR - 2012-10-05 8:16 AM

GomesBolt - 2012-10-05 8:12 AM

trinnas - 2012-10-05 10:07 AM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 10:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Guys don't feed the trolls.

I don't think Nancy's a troll.  She posts good food for thought in other threads.  That's why I try to display some measure of respect. 

Besides, this poll has one storyline so-far.  "Debates were a big win for Romney, isn't it funny how the Liberal Media is trying to make excuses for Obama's poor performance."

It's nice to have someone to stir the pot. 

"I say give us more Nancy!"

I've been thinking about it and I think Romney won because he has no real specifics for Obama to attack. Obama says your plan has no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and Romney says yes it does. But he doesn't have a plan. He said he'd repeal obamacare. Then he said he'd keep the pre-existing condition part. Then he said you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions if you've had continuous coverage. What exactly is Obama supposed to argue against in that?

If you think about it, it's actually a good debate strategy. He sounds like he has all of the answers and Obama has no details to really attack. He's going to have to start resorting to 47% comments and Cayman Islands stuff.

I think Romney mentioned the reason for the lack of detail that keeps being brought up by the Democrat side and I think its an interesting position. Basically, if I heard it correctly, he has a set of principles from which an action can be derived by a bipartisan debate/committee. Similar to what he did with a democratic house in Mass. I agree with this since going into a negotiation/debate with your position set in stone and refusing to compromise just leads to legislation like Obamacare being rammed through by one party and further partisan divide. IF, and its a big IF, Washington could work along these lines then new policy and programs would be a result of bipartisan agreement and not a strong arm by either party. I would think this would be better than todays stalemate and help move us forward

I was watching the CNN feed of the debate with the meter at the bottom measuring +/- of the group of Colorado independent voters. The lines for both men and women jumped up and maxed out when Romney was talking about that. Not sure it could actually happen in D.C., but that is exactly what I think a majority of people want to see. 

I think Romney wins the "ability to work across the aisle" argument hands down.  Obama has proven beyond all doubt that he is incapable of working with Republicans.  He certainly blames them and takes no responsibility, but it doesn't really matter because wherever the fault lies he's incapable of providing leadership that works across the aisle.  In fact, I'd counter that he actively works to make the divide further and further between the parties.

Romney on the other hand has a proven track record of working across the aisle in Mass.  Can he do the same thing in Washington?  who knows.  But, certainly he would do better then Obama.

It's a two way street. Neither side is working with the other. Every congress, the minority party gets more obstructive. You think Dem's would be willing to work with any republican if they lose the presidency/senate? Look for even more filibusters than we have now.

This is why anyone who continues to vote for these two parties is supporting the awful mess we have in congress now.

I agree it's a two way street.  It's like two kids pouting on opposite sides of the room.  At some point though somebody has to be a grown up and take charge.  Obama's idea of bipartisanship on the healthcare reform was to hold a summit and invite the republicans in for an ambush.  Then complain that the Republican's won't work with him.  That's not leadership, that's partisanship.