Third Debate: a tie?


syrakusos

Recommended Posts

While Mitt Romney did continue to both identify the failings of the present administration and show that his past policies offer an alternative to the continued decline of America, President Obama nonetheless held his ground and replied to the charges with cogent facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't hear a lot of facts out of Barack Obama, cogent or otherwise.

But the debate was a snoozefest.

Obama might come out ahead on this one, simply because Mitt Romney was so dull.

Apparently Romney and his inner circle had decided he wouldn't be going after Obama about the Benghazi attack and the subsequent cover-up.

It was largely downhill from there.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Obama did not do what he needed to do.

On the minutiae of who won points on this fact or that, I don't think it's going to matter.

Romney looked Presidential and, albeit supporting a strong military, did not look like a war-monger.

Obama also looked Presidential, how could he not?, but with some petty attacks and unconvincing promises due to his record (like a repeat of all those promised jobs building roads and bridges that never seem to materialize).

Barring any major catastrophe or scandal by Nov. 6, I believe we are going to get a new President.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"we also have fewer horses and bayonets" now that's funny

Yeah, except he doesn't know what are today's "horses and boyonets." I will give him props for that, however, the only props I've ever given him. I can't imagine he was briefed for that line.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither R nor O understand WTF is going on in the world or what to do about it--if anything, except they'll do something. Romney deciding not to roast and toast Obama means he was taking no chances. Prevent defense sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. I suspect, here, it will work.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Obama did not do what he needed to do.

On the minutiae of who won points on this fact or that, I don't think it's going to matter.

Romney looked Presidential and, albeit supporting a strong military, did not look like a war-monger.

Obama also looked Presidential, how could he not?, but with some petty attacks and unconvincing promises due to his record (like a repeat of all those promised jobs building roads and bridges that never seem to materialize).

Barring any major catastrophe or scandal by Nov. 6, I believe we are going to get a new President.

Michael

Please, Mr. President. Please, be kind to us.

--Brant

four more years of shit or an additional eight years of hell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither R nor O understand WTF is going on in the world or what to do about it--if anything, except they'll do something. Romney deciding not to roast and toast Obama means he was taking no chances. Prevent defense sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. I suspect, here, it will work.

--Brant

Correct. Holding serve works.

However, the image Romney projected was one of a confident, poised and serious person...not good for the narcissistic, spoiled, petulant "child" that we all have to deal with, whether it is in the workplace, your home, or, your community.

You basically want to slap the shit out of the foot stamping baby and explain that there is a reality our there and you need to get in sinc with ...like ...NOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

four more years of shit or the next eight years of hell?

Brant,

I've seen real shit and real hell in Brazil.

What's here in the States doesn't even come close.

At times, I'm reminded of a popular phrase they have down there when describing a doom and gloom person or excessive complainer. They say he's like a child who is crying with his belly full (chora da barriga cheia).

I see a lot of that here in the USA.

Shoot, you can't even starve to death around here anymore. But you can in Brazil...

Something to think about...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

four more years of shit or the next eight years of hell?

Brant,

I've seen real shit and real hell in Brazil.

What's here in the States doesn't even come close.

At times, I'm reminded of a popular phrase they have down there when describing a doom and gloom person or excessive complainer. They say he's like a child who is crying with his belly full (chora da barriga cheia).

I see a lot of that here in the USA.

Shoot, you can't even starve to death around here anymore. But you can in Brazil...

Something to think about...

Michael

Amen to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One ominous "gaff"(?) during this non-debate was Mr. Thompson - I mean Mr. Obama - blurting out the startling statement (that is, a lie) that his administration did not propose the sequestration (it was the fault of the Republican obstructionists in Congress not caving-in to the Democrats' budgetary demands, according to the Obama-ite line) and that the "sequester will not happen." Well, except for that bothersome document, the U.S. Constitution, which would require Congress, not the Executive Branch, to repeal the sequestration...., I suppose Mr. Thompson can enact or repeal any legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Mitt Romney was lackluster last night, but he and his handlers probably decided on coming across as lackluster.

It made for an extremely dull event.

There were a few unforced errors from Barack Obama. About the sequester, about Romney's op-ed regarding bankruptcy for General Motors, and about "horses and bayonets."

Although Obama avoided looking disengaged, as he had in the first debate, he did frequently come across as disdainful or condescending. There's a reason why we've quit hearing about Barack Obama the more likable candidate.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Mr. Thompson - I mean Mr. Obama - blurting out the startling statement ... that the "sequester will not happen." Well, except for that bothersome document, the U.S. Constitution, .... I suppose Mr. Thompson can enact or repeal any legislation.

Actually, right now, at the top of my display is an advertisement to contribute to the Romney campaign: "Obamacare is wrong and I'll repeal it." -- Mitt Romney: A Clear Choice. (Paid for by Romney for Victory, Inc.) The Romney supporters here can now explain what that "really" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now