Shoobee Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 The upcoming debates are scheduled to begin on Wed Oct 3, 2012 on PBS. Although most voters have already decided whom they want to vote for, the debates should attract widespread interest, especially the first. This exercise in American democracy for the presidential election is an exciting spectacle. Hopefully everyone will mark their calendars and watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebeilgard Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 i'll be watching, and have pretty well made up my mind. but, i do think 8% of america has not made up their mind. if romney does well, he'll win by a large margine. i think he'll nail obama to the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoobee Posted September 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 I do not think either participant will "win" so to speak. It will be their chance to enunciate their own ideas, and to respond to questions, and to have their answers replied to. If there is any winning, it will be in November. And to determine a winner we will all need to wait and see on election day. But until then, these debates will be a great opportunity to see their own favorite candidate as well as the other guy speak and argue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Really all boils down to the independent voters and which way they go, who appeals to them and who they believe will help them and help get this country headed in the right direction. Not sure the reason for the polling as they stand having Romney down by 7-8 percent in the key swing states, but a lot of first term Obama voters are extremely frustrated with him and the direction things have been going and while I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head I do know that polls have consistently shown that some who voted for him first time around would not vote for him again. Those democrat voters he will lose. I do not believe any conservatives/republicans will vote for Obama, some may however write in, which unfortunately is in essence a vote for Obama. If Romney gets aggressive with Obama on his failed efforts, Romney should do well with the independent voters. Will be interesting to see how the debates play out, how the media/moderators will handle them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoobee Posted September 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Jim Lehrer has moderated these debates a lot. He normally limits himself to asking questions. Then he simply gives both candidates the chance to respond in their own words. Sometimes Lehrer will repeat a question if a candidate shamelessly avoided answering it. Otherwise, Lehrer does not get involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETMGROW Posted September 29, 2012 Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 As far as I am concerned this debate thing is another staged fiasco we could very well do without. Millions of dollars are spent on two incompetent idiots who end up apoligizing the next day because they said something wrong or misspoke themselves. This whole election process has gotten way out of control for my liking anyway. I would rather base my voting decisions on past performance instead of empty promises. If I had my way there would be NO CAMPAIGNING allowed at all until 60 or 90 days before election day. Then each candidate would be handed X number of dollars and sent out to campaign. This would accomplish two things. They would be able to work at doing their job they have now instead of being paid to do it and running willie nilly around the country kissing babies and handing out candy for three plus years before election day. With the limited amount of dollars they could demonstrate their fiscal responsibility and prowness to get the best from each dollar instead of milking the system and the people for all they are worth. Regardless of who wins this election I think we are headed for another disasterous four years. Sorry for telling how I feel. Be thankful I didn't tell how I really feel! Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoobee Posted September 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 Regardless of who wins the presidential election, the next four years will be equally as tough as the last four. That is precisely why promises of "fixing" the economy are in vain. So it rather boils down to a choice between a completely new and inexperienced candidate versus one with four years on the job training. The debates will be a chance to see this difference first hand with both candidates up on the stage next to each other. They will need to think fast and on their feet, unlike being fed canned lines as in the past. So the debates are definitely worth watching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETMGROW Posted September 29, 2012 Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 Regardless of who wins the presidential election, the next four years will be equally as tough as the last four. That is precisely why promises of "fixing" the economy are in vain. So it rather boils down to a choice between a completely new and inexperienced candidate versus one with four years on the job training. The debates will be a chance to see this difference first hand with both candidates up on the stage next to each other. They will need to think fast and on their feet, unlike being fed canned lines as in the past. So the debates are definitely worth watching. We have certainly seen enough promises in the last four years to last a lifetime. No gain in the ecomomy as far as I can see. Some stupid schemes like " cash for clunkers " and bailout of Chrysler and GM were vote getters for union folks. Neither of these helped our economy as far as I am concerned. An Obamacare bill being passed by the legislature when no one really knew the contents... Remember your beloved Nancy telling all the bill would have to be passed before they could see it and read it. Seriously? Pulling troops out of Iraq well before the misson was complete to fulfill a campaign promise to enter Afghanistan. Where has this gotten us? A Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces who never served in the military. Four years of OTJ training? A better polished speaker and money spender maybe. Watch the next day for the " I Didn't mean it that way " speaches from both candidates. Chances I'll be watching The Outdoor channel. Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoobee Posted September 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 If there was a rule that the CIC had to have served in the military, then Mitt would not be qualified to run either. Although my preference is for military experience in any president, having military experience and then commenting that the fundamentals of our economy are sound only weeks before it crashes like a bubble of speculation does not help matters either. The only reason to stay in Afghanistan now is to keep hunting Al Qaeda bigwigs (big-rags) in Pakistan. And there never was any good reason for going into Iraq in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETMGROW Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 I have thought for a long time the CIC position should removed from the presidential duty list. This started with George Washington and has continued since. This job should be done by a seasoned military person who has had some experience. Unfortunately we have entered too many wars foolishly. Viet Nam was no more than a political action. We walked away defeated but not before we lost over 50000 good men. It's too bad the media doesn't tell all sides of a story. I live in an area where we have alot of military members. If you sit down with a member and talk about Iraq, they will tell you we left a job unfinished. We had rebuilt their infrastructure and brought peace in alot of areas where they had not experienced it in decades. Had we had more time we could have done more education, building and getting the country self sufficient. I never thought we should have entered Iraq. However once we did we should have completed our mission. Not just run off and enter a war in another country. Russia tried for years to bring Afghanistan under control but finally gave up and walked away. If Pakistan is the problem why aren't we concentrating our efforts there? I've strayed from the topic here. The debates.... to watch one who has failed and one who doesn't have a fix it plan argue about something doesn't excite me much. I'm afraid we are in for four more tough years regardless of who buys the most votes. Sadly this is what it is coming down to. Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoobee Posted September 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 It would not be hard to amend the Constitution to say the president must be former military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin R10 man Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Will not waste my time listening to that Muslim tell more lies and promise everything to everybody..I agree the next 4 yrs under his admin may very well be our last 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 So it rather boils down to a choice between a completely new and inexperienced candidate versus one with four years on the job training. If I am not mistaken Obama before the 2008 election said if he could not fix the problems with this country in his first term then he would not deserve a second term. He has failed miserably and learned nothing from his "on the job training", so should we expect to give him 4 more years in a hope that he may learn something and somehow manage to change the direction this country is headed? Sure he took on problems, he knew full well things were in bad shape, part of the responsibilty he took on when he took the challenge. He has made a bad situation worse. I hope American voters are smarter this time around than they were in 2008. Of course voter fraud and intimidation will be an issue again, hearing stories about people coming into nursing homes to register elderly who are incompetent, how is that legal? If that is happening here, cannot imagine about Ohio and Florida. I still question why the black panther group that kept voters from making it to the polls were not pursued for intimidation, had it been flipped and a klan group intimidated voters you better believe that Sharpton and Jackson would have been screaming and exploiting it and the doj would have pursued it, can you say double standard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETMGROW Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I somehow don't think wtnhunt is going to support the current administration. Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I somehow don't think wtnhunt is going to support the current administration. Lynn Astute observation Lynn. I never supported giving "on the job training" to a jr. senator with no leadership experience in the first place. Beyond me how we(voters of this country) could have legitimately elected someone to the highest office when their leadership knowledge was nothing more than that as a community organizer. Obama had total control for the first 2 years of his term and all he really managed was to pass health care reform that around 70% of the country was against. We have watched the debt grow by around 6 trillion in his first term, that is more than it grew under Bush in 8 years. His plans for creating job's has not helped put the economy back on track either. Wasteful spending, giving taxpayer money to co's like solyndra, very bad decisions from this administration. To his credit he did evidently ok the killing of Bin Laden, then he stood in the spotlight and tried to take credit for the job carried out by our finest. Tensions in the middle east are about the worst I have seen in my lifetime. This country cannot afford another 4 more years of Obama's "on the job training". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin R10 man Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well said William...I just have to shake my head in amazement at the stupidity of the people that voted for this quack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruttinbuc Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 If you have the time these videos will open your eyes. This man nails it to a T short..... Marxism in America - Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. (Jerry) Boykin Video | long....... Marxism in America - Part II - Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. (Jerry) Boykin Video | Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Romney had a strong debate, think he did what he needed to. Obama looked frustrated and stumbled some, even clumsily swatted the mic at one point. Will be interesting after last night to see if there is any shift in the undecided voters in the polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUDRUNNER Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 I agree. Romney did very well last night. He looked as if he could go on all night talking about all of Obama's failures and bad decisions. I would think at this point most voters would have their minds made up. If this debate is any indication, I don't see how Obama stands a chance to win the election. I can't believe how much support he still has after what the last four years has brought. Even in small rural communities around here you see Obama signs everywhere. One guy up the road has a "sportsman for Obama" sign in his yard...I guess I just don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 I can't believe how much support he still has after what the last four years has brought. Even in small rural communities around here you see Obama signs everywhere. One guy up the road has a "sportsman for Obama" sign in his yard...I guess I just don't get it. Large percentage of Obama voters are the "me me" voters who could care less about this country and the direction we are headed or about who picks up the tab so long as they get their "freebies". Amazing how many people in this country today are on some form of gov't funded program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoobee Posted October 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Romney had a strong debate, think he did what he needed to. Obama looked frustrated and stumbled some, even clumsily swatted the mic at one point. Will be interesting after last night to see if there is any shift in the undecided voters in the polls. Anyone who is undecided might be influenced by the debates, although the various commentators have all said the debates normally do not make much of a difference. In the case of G.H.W.Bush's debate, when he looked at his watch, it seemed like it made a difference then. Sometime today (Thur 10/4/2012) there will be a fresh batch of opinion surveys and polls conducted and reported. That will tell if there was any change to Romney's numbers. Only 20% of the population (60 million) watched the debates. I know a lot of Repubs who did not watch at all because they hate both candidates. The next debate between the VPs will probably now take on more significant meaning when Biden and Ryan go head to head. And also when Obama and Romney debate again. 2012 Presidential Debate Schedule « 2012 Election Central Democracy works best when everyone pays attention and everyone votes. A lot of people have already voted, and a lot are not paying attention. There will now be a lot of fact checking on what each debater said. Romney seemed like he was flip flopping again, under the guise of clarifications, and pulling info out of his wazoo from nowhere. Those will all be fact checked now. And Obama seemed tired and stressed. He will need to pay attention more to resting up before the next debate. His mind was not very keen, and that was probably due to fatigue. Whereas Romney was more than rested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoobee Posted October 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Large percentage of Obama voters are the "me me" voters who could care less about this country and the direction we are headed or about who picks up the tab so long as they get their "freebies". Amazing how many people in this country today are on some form of gov't funded program. Social Security and Medicare are not freebie's. They are paid-in programs. Whether it is better to try to control Medicare costs by placing caps on hospital costs or by issuing vouchers is the salient issue. As far as freebie's to college aged kids who want a handout for college, the military offers scholarship and benefit programs for college. So those other freebie's can be eliminated. As far as freebie's for foreign aid, only Ron Paul has openly spoken of getting rid of foreign aid. The Egyptians and the Israelis would then squawk and complain about that. And there would also likely be more embassy bombings as well, so more embassies would need to be closed. Freebies like 15% tax rates on the rich definitely need to go. Even Reagan himself, the great guru of the right wing, agreed on getting rid of capital gains tax rates under simplification. But G.H.W. Bush brought them back barely before the ink was dry on Reagan's reforms. There are enough freebie's to go around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoobee Posted October 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Well said William...I just have to shake my head in amazement at the stupidity of the people that voted for this quack Wisconsin is not a swing state. You can be amazed all you want that the rest of the nation does not think like the cheesehead state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Wisconsin is not a swing state. You can be amazed all you want that the rest of the nation does not think like the cheesehead state. Neither is Tennessee, but I still have an opinion. You seem to have a problem with opinions from non swing state members here. Social Security and Medicare are not freebie's. They are paid-in programs. Never said they were. Not sure where that came into this. Too many handouts given whether you agree or not, some even being given to children of illegals while those picking up the bill do not even qualify as if that is in any way right or fair to American taxpayers. Romney seemed like he was flip flopping again, under the guise of clarifications, and pulling info out of his wazoo from nowhere. Examples? I watched but somehow must have missed this. Agree though factcheck should clarify comments from both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gzilla45 Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Obviously it was the altitude that caused Obama to lose so badly......:poke: Excuses, Excuses: Gore Blames Altitude For Obama Debate Performance - ABC News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.