Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter bigbottom
- Start date
masteroforion (beej? Jim11?)THIS is why you think Romney won? 
How so? Both were Presidential? In the first debate it was Presidential for Romney to be on the attack but in rest of the debates it is not ok for President Obama to be? Did he pass the role of Commander in Chief, sure but was there any doubt that he would?
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Best political analysis I have seen in a long time. Thank you.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
You're all so Biden-like...
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
I am voting for the guy who is already killing our way out of this mess. Obamanos!"We can't kill our way out of this mess."Regarding Iran that would be sanctions and negotiation. Romney all over the place. ME is "unraveling" yet he basically says he would have done everything the president has done. Libya, Mubarak, etc."And -- and we're going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done."Imagine how the right-wing would have reacted if Obama had uttered 'We can't kill our way out of this mess'? After all this saber-rattling regarding Iran. Obama would have been crushed for saying that. The story would have been Obama does not have the stomach and that he is an appeaser.
Disc Shark
Footballguy
Mitt is John Kerry lite.So we've watched Romney in 3 debates. In each one he's been the moderate guy I've been hoping for all along. He understands what McCain did not: that the Tea Party- base idiots will vote for him anyway, despite the fact that he takes every opportunity to repudiate their views. I think Romney has a decent chance of winning.And guess what Max Threshold, Double G, Jim11 and Boneyard Dog: if Romney does get elected, he's not going to do anything you guys want. He's a centrist and he can't stand your wacky views.
It took you 3 debates to figure this out. Mitt is built for the general election.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
This. Plus the sitting President is privvy to more inside info...
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I love how people keep fact-checking whether or not we still use bayonets.
The Commish
Footballguy
I turned it off. It was to be on foreign policy but (to his credit) Romney kept bringing it back to economy. I've seen that dog and pony show. It was his best option even if it did look bad for him.
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't know what "looks presidential" means...and honestly I don't care. What I do know is that in the part that I watched, Obama last night looked very similar to Romney the first night. So where does that take us?
17seconds
root of all aliai
It makes Obama seem wrong. For wingnuts it causes certain endorphins to find their receptors in the brain.
Where does he say we are not using bayonets? Such a stupid spin.
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher
Footballguy
I didn't watch the debate last night, so waking up to conservatives hemming and hawing about horses and bayonets is pretty surreal and amusing.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Well you see, back in olden times, horses and bayonets were in common use during combat. But gradually, as new technology came to the fore, they fell by the wayside. Classic battleships, as majestic and awesome as they were, are falling by the wayside as actual tools of combat as newer technology takes over. I hope I have helped you and Paul understand this comparison.
Sea Duck
Footballguy
I wonder if Biden actually said that or if the reporter just mis-heard it.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Darn, you're probably right. It makes a lot more sense for Biden to be saying "saber to" instead of sabert tooth. The invokation of saber tooth tigers into the presidential race would have been aweseome though.
timschochet
Footballguy
I wrote yesterday that Obama has been a terrific foreign policy President. Several of you disagreed with this. One guy, DoubleG, presented a long, IMO absurd list of things Obama had done wrong.
Here is my question for those of you who believe that Obama has been lousy at foreign policy: why did Romney largely agree last night with every one of Obama's policies?
Here is my question for those of you who believe that Obama has been lousy at foreign policy: why did Romney largely agree last night with every one of Obama's policies?
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Also, Obama didn't say we dont use or have any bayonets or horses anymore, he said we have less. We aren't fighting battles at sea anymore. We don't have dogfights in the air. Long ground campaigns are not how you win any more. The US military is evolving. I'm not sure what Romney and Co. are missing.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
They're not missing anything. They're distracting from the fact that he "lost" the debate by steering the dialogue towards the absurd. Talk of horses and bayonets is better for them than talk of whether losing the final debate might cost Romney the election. Pretty standard stuff, everyone does it.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Boy people only listen to the parts that fit their meme, don't they.
Mitt said that the Navy proclaims it needs 313(?) ships to perform the mission it's been tasked with AND THEN goes on to say that our Naval strength is the lowest it's been since 1917. Now it is entirely possible and maybe even likely that the Navy is just looking after it's own self interest.
But while taking the second part of Mitt's statement without the context of the first makes a good setup for a funny punchline, it doesn't make as strong of an argument about policy.
Mitt said that the Navy proclaims it needs 313(?) ships to perform the mission it's been tasked with AND THEN goes on to say that our Naval strength is the lowest it's been since 1917. Now it is entirely possible and maybe even likely that the Navy is just looking after it's own self interest.
But while taking the second part of Mitt's statement without the context of the first makes a good setup for a funny punchline, it doesn't make as strong of an argument about policy.
Boston
Footballguy
I think he was wise to agree with what he believed in...one of the big negatives about today's politics is that when one side says black the other says white regardless of what black and white is...Romney did not try to be different for the sake of being different although he did disagree with the President plenty (and to be honest I would have liked him to be a little more direct on some of it)...I see this election starting to come down to three issues...one, the economy (obviously)...two, Obama attempting to run a campaign not based on the past four years but based on attacking his opponent and making it a referendum on Romney and not his administration (I don't think this is working)...three, Obama's attitude...#3 may sound petty but I think what was once a big strength of Obama (being likable) is becoming a negative and this will be a big thing to that middle-of-the-roader who really doesn't follow the issues too closely...I know many on the left will think that this is BS but I just feel like I am hearing that topic more and more and last night's snarkiness didn't help...right now I feel the momentum is on Romney's side but this election is real close and it could tip quickly to either side if anything big happens between now and election day...
Last edited by a moderator:
Because their foreign policy is largely the same, a disaster.
freakinback
Footballguy
There was very little red meat... They seemed to disagree on pulling missile defense out of Poland and reducing the amount of ICBMs with Russia. As to the why... my guess was Romney is trying to appeal to women. It's not like any war mongering Johnny Six-Pack types are gonna vote for Obama anyways so why should he waste airtime appealing to votes he already has.
jomar
Footballguy
can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?
the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?
the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?
Fennis
Footballguy
If the Navy of today got into a fight with the Navy of 1918 who would win?
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
It's perhaps an inelegant comparison, but if the Navy does, in fact, need that many ships for its mission and the actual size is along the lines of what we had when we were primarily an isolationist country - isn't that a problem?
Steelers4Life
Footballguy
He's had dozens and dozens of chances to talk about this, but he avoids it every single time. All he says is that the numbers add up and he expects people to trust him.By reducing rates and eliminating the AMT, that's a HUGE decrease in taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy since AMT is solely a mechanism to make sure people with a lot of deductions still pay a minimum amount of tax. My wife and I paid over $5K in AMT last year. The wealthy are phased out of a lot of deductions already too. Mitt Romney is relying on people being ignorant about taxes and hopefully just believing him because they don't like Obama, but there aren't enough deductions out there to make up the kind of volume he's talking about without hitting some really common ones associated with home ownership or education credits.
Fennis
Footballguy
sure if the Navy needs X amount ships to meet its mission then it should have the number of ships needed. Of course in reality defining the mission is the key. You can define a mission where they need 1000 ships or one where they need 1 ship.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Agreed. But who is currently setting that mission? So either the Navy isn't getting the message about what their mission is or Obama thinks he knows what the Navy needs to perform it's mission better than the Navy does.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Isn't Romney's source a retired admiral? Obama meets with the head of the Navy and Sec of Def. and Joint Chiefs now. Part of the modernization and evolving of the miltary for today and tomorrow's needs involves defining the mission of the branches.
17seconds
root of all aliai
What is most frightening to me about Romney on foreign policy is that his advisers are Bush's advisers, and he's so focused on the economy that a Romney presidency would just give those guys the reigns again.
Nobody can predict what a Romney foreign policy would be. With Obama we have a known quantity and he has exceeded expectations.
Nobody can predict what a Romney foreign policy would be. With Obama we have a known quantity and he has exceeded expectations.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
I guess I don't know. That's why I included a lot of "if's" in what I wrote. Anyway, I'm one that thinks we should have a smaller military, so I'm not too excited about what appears to be Mitt's ideas for growing it.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
saintfool
Dead sexy
tax cuts for the wealthy, er, "job creators" seems to be his pat response. now, wall street has been doing just fine the past 4 years - record profits even - but they have sat out the last 4 years. unemployment fell to 7.8% in Sept, which puts it back at 2009 levels. as of August, according to an earlier Oct report from the BLS, unemployment is easing in the overwhelming majority of our major metro cities too:
the tide is turning here. Romney isn't going to do anything more than line the pockets of fat cats like himself and his sponsors.
Fennis
Footballguy
So you trust Mitt Romney's judgment over the judgment of General Dempsey, Admiral Winnefeld, General Odierno, General Amos, Admiral Greenert, General Welsh, General Grass, Secretary Panetta, and President Obama? I guess that's possible, but seems unlikely to me.
17seconds
root of all aliai
In 2008 when we had the 3am phone call ad, what was your expectation of an Obama foreign policy? Exactly like it has gone down? I doubt that very much.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Clearly not, and we were arguing hypotheticals before this. I'm fine with saying Mitt is wrong about what size our Navy should be.
Fennis
Footballguy
I agree with this anyway. We should be shrinking our military, instead of growing it under Obama or growing it even more aggressively under Romney.I guess I don't know. That's why I included a lot of "if's" in what I wrote. Anyway, I'm one that thinks we should have a smaller military, so I'm not too excited about what appears to be Mitt's ideas for growing it.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
The 313 figure comes from a report when Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense.Current Navy Secretary says 300 is good enough. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120416/DEFREG02/304160011/SECNAV-U-S-Navy-Can-Meet-Mission-300-Ships
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Continuing a war he thought was the good war? Yeah, expected that.Winding down the Iraq war according to the Bush timeline? Yeah, expected that.In 2008 when we had the 3am phone call ad, what was your expectation of an Obama foreign policy? Exactly like it has gone down? I doubt that very much.
Having trouble navigating the waters of the Middle East? Yeah, expected that (would have from anyone).
What else am I missing?
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
I do not think that Obama has been lousy at FP, just that he has had lapses along with his successes. To answer your question, I truly believe that Romney feels he was up on points (overall, not just this debate) and just had to make sure he did not make a blunder. Romney employed a perfect Fabian response to Obama's suspected attack mode for the debate. Last night Romney would have had a segue from the last debate to attack Obama on Libya, a topic that one would have to assume Obama had studied hard to defend, instead he let it drop with hardly a mention; even though it was presented more than once. It relates to your point, one that I happened to disagreed with, that Libya is a loser topic for Romney; by not forcing it, Romney still leaves it on the table - Congress is having hearings on it this week - and he does not walk into any pitfalls that may have turned off a lukewarm Romney supporter like yourself. It was reported that Romney himself had decided that non-confrontational, and above the fray, was going to be his persona at this debate and it just might be masterful. Many Conservative writers are stating that they would of taken the low-hanging-fruit of Libya and ran with it but are realizing what a mistake that could of been. As far as winner and loser of this debate, I would say it is clear that Obama lost if judged by conventional wisdom; Obama needed to show Romney as unprepared, uninformed, or a loose cannon, and he did none of it - of course we'll see what the polls have to say about this. The debate was quite display for Romney, and unlike McCain, it shows he sees the big picture. I will also agree with you about a point you have made earlier, I think the Tea-Party, and the Conservatives, might be in for a new "John Roberts" moment but I think they will happily accept that over Obama. I think Romney is running a textbook campaign where he is clearly out maneuvering the President's campaign.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
And how many do we currently have?
Don Quixote
Footballguy
According to that article, 282, with 38 on contract.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Well then it seems like Mitt is just playing to the warmongers that are (unfortunately) in his base.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
I think Romney wants the debate to be on the economy. If you research foreign affairs you can dissect which side won or lost last night. Most voters don't care that much about foreign affairs to do that. What I believe the independent voter does is go to MSNBC/Fox and view the spin in one direction and then the other. The bottom line is that is hard to bench mark who really scored points on foreign affairs after the debate. It just looks like squabbling.
So people make their derision on who would make the best president not on who talked the best game, but what they see and can quantify with their own eyes. For example,
1. Have we won the war on terrorism? Obama states we cut off the head of the snake (Bin Laden) which makes us safer. Then we see a terrorist attack in Libya on 9-11. So cutting off the head of the snake didn't work?
2. Is Romney going to take us into another war like Iraq? By hugging Obama last night, saying we can't "kill our way out of the this" is essentially saying he is not a war monger. He may be agreeing with Obama, but he is also trying to resolve a fear people have of Romney in general.
3. Does Obama make you proud to be an American? Obama going around the world making excuses and denigrating America, makes USA look weak and unfocused as the one remaining world power. It also pisses some people off.
4. Are we safer with Obama as president- - no see # 1.
5. Israel- The left, IMHO, are hostile to Israel after the election. But everyone is for Israel during the election. This is when Obama is hugging Romney position and trying to take it off the table as an issue.
6. Russia- The video of Obama whispering away national security to a Russian leader. Stating that he couldn't negotiate until after the election.
7. How Obama treats our allies. Most people remember Obama snubbing England (sending Churchill's bust back England..) and his treatment of Netanyahu. Refusing to see him so he can go on the comedy TV shows is very bad form.
8. Leadership- Obama wants to lead from behind rather than lead this great country in foreign affairs.
So what do you believe - what Obama says or what Obama does?
Similar threads
