From election 2012.

That's all ya got to run on, dufus, keep it going :D

No... now he has used "horses and bayonets".... much better.

I'm no advocate of increasing military funding, but that wasn't a smart comment for Obama. He almost literally wins or loses by likability and that hurts him among independents.

All the polls seem to think he came across as more likable last night... so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at CK.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

The horses and bayonets comment was great! Do you mean "independents" wouldn't like it or that women wouldn't like it? Maybe it wouldn't "turn women on" like all the Foxers were talking about after the second debate.

I haven't read any reports on this debate except for fact checking sites. I have little to no respect for what pundits say most of the time unless they are entertainers masquerading as news- intentionally (StewColbsMaher). The problem with any news site like fox cnn or msnbc is that they are... "entertainers masquerading as news"- Nate Silver

Politifact, other fact checkers, and my own viewing of the debate... my tools. Now I just sit back and wait for the results of your election!

Foo, polls I've seen say they were about even on likability for the debate. Problem is that is a gain by Romney because typically Obama is ahead in that category.

Polls immediately after a debate are never accurate because people aren't using their long term memories at that point... just thinking of what happened 15 minutes ago. Give it a week for more accurate polling. I think the most accurate poll will be in 2 weeks though...

noticed that he stuttered a bit while he was thinking up the term "Romnesia". bit nervous, eh? or is it a contagious disease?

A Carrier group(they're 11 of them) consists of how many vessels and how many support vessels?

Not surprising, he's been the more likeable candidate the entire election. But likeability doesn't translate to voting for said candidate. In Maryland, Bob Ehrlich lost the Governor's mansion in 2006 with job approval/likeability numbers from 57-60.

Obama made three huge mistakes in the foreign policy debate. One was the 1980s joke. It was funny. I laughed. It wasn't Presidential and he's a student of history who should know about projecting image. He seemed to realize this and pivot to "As President, I do xyz" later. Then he decided to talk about the military and proceed to imply the Navy is just fine on size and maybe should even be downsized. Did he forget about Pensecola and Norfolk? I mean, what a dumb thing to say. His third mistake was not asking for people's vote in his concluding remarks (it's the first thing every candidate is taught: ALWAYS ask for the vote). His successes came in demonstrating he has a firm grasp on foreign affairs that his opponent largely agrees with him on. And his biggest success was trying to score points on the domestic front tied to Ohio.

Romney played it safe, which is the wise course. He failed to really capitalize on saying things Ohio voters wanted to hear and I think that was a major mistake. He did touch some on making China play fair, but he really should have hammered it home with a discussion about auto bailouts being irrelevant if we're going to let the Chinese cheat American workers out of a job. If he says that, then he really casts a dagger into Obama's biggest Ohio chit.

Anyway, this debate wasn't about winning or losing, but about reaching core voters in swing states. That's why I didn't see it as a win either way. In the end, the election probably comes down to Ohio (yet again).

I'm sorry, I can't vote for a candidate who says it isn't his job to worry about 47% of our citizens.

Kinda sickening to think that some folks have no issue with that.

In the next two weeks, there are plenty of opportunities for things to come out. I have a distinct feeling that something about Mitt's tax returns from previous years will come to light and this will kill him in the end. Also, this 47% video will practically be on every tv every 10 minutes in ohio... or something.

I don't think Mitt can afford to play it safe. If he idles the rest of the campaign, he's lost.

Trife, you're an idiot and it would be better if you just didn't vote. You have never formed a coherent political thought on this message board.

I gotta disagree (which obviously doesn't mean much for you, Klownbaby). The 47% video SHOULD be a deal breaker for middle/low income earners in America... but it doesn't seem to be that big a problem. It just goes to show you that people will always vote against their own interests.

Polls after the debate aren't accurate because this hasn't happened yet: http://www.theonion.com/...gure-out-their-own,29948/

Contextually he was referencing caring about their vote by implying their dependence necessitated they vote D.

Anyway, 2008 is calling and they want to know if you will hold Obama's feet to the fire for his promises =p.

http://www.youtube.com/...H8LM&feature=youtu.be This little snippet was amusing.

Regardless, if you're looking out for the whole then your best bet may be to cast for an R Congress and D President or vice versa. Those usually turn out the workproduct the American people want.

who cares about the term "Romnesia"

why not talk about how Romney's stance on ANYTHING is always CHANGING

the guy has no principles, no real core values -- he wants to win the presidency at all costs.

If he does win (but seriously, how can America elect this guy? Herman Caine would be better because at least he's entertaining!) expect that when he's in office, he'll just do whatever regardless of what he has said during the election. His positions run counter to his previous positions.

Also, did anyone notice that Romney essentially adopted Obama's foreign policy positions? ;p

Which positions are you referring to? And what do you think of Pres. Obama's broken promises (big and small)?

I find it very difficult to make a case for either side...

Gary Johnson >>>

- widthdrawal from iraq ("we shouldn't have left iraq or had a timeline" => "it was good we pulled out -- i would have done it sooner")
- withdrawal from afghanistan ("we shouldn't give timelines" => "we'll be gone by 2014")
-killing bin laden ("we shouldn't move heaven and earth to kill him" => "killing bin laden was an easy decision")

those are just off the top of my head based on what was actually discussed in the debate, but I mean we could talk about his social views, taxing views, lack of math skills, or general lack of substance in any of his policies -- other than sticking to vague talking points.

You can't equate changing your opinion DURING the course of the election based on the audience you're currently pandering too (as Romney has CLEARLY done; the only consistency he has is that he thinks Obama sucks) to actually making promises, working to get them done, and failing to. I believe Obama at least put an effort in, working with the most toxic congress in the history of the USA (check out the filibuster numbers, eh? Both threats and actual filibusters. It's insane.).

In my outsider opinion, as a Canadian who wants America to succeed, it doesn't make a lick of sense for any American to vote for Mitt Romney unless they are rich or lean so far to the right they fall over.

ya, i'm considering this an A-B comparison.

ideally, there would be more candidates who are appealing :p

we have the same problem in canada.

Pang, those aren't flipping positions.

He says we shouldn't have timelines, even if we will probably be leaving by that date. It's basically the same timeline Bush had us leaving in as well. All Romney says is to leave a specific date so as not to encourage our enemies to wait us out.

Bin Laden is the same thing. We didn't move heaven and earth, but we ended up finding him, so the decision to kill him wasn't a hard one. He is trying to minimize Obama's decision to make the kill, not minimize that we killed him. Whether it helps him or not...meh.

Overall Obama kept in place much of Bush's foreign policy, so it makes sense for Romney to agree with much of it. I think Obama came into office with an agenda to leave Iraq immediately, but the reality of the situation is that it wouldn't be smart, so he left the timeline as such and stamped a date at the end for his base.

Sounds like Obama 4 years ago! hahaha

lol

the prism you right leaning folks from the US look through must be as good or better than any drug I've ever tried. it really changes your perception of reality and events that happened.

it also makes you spin uncontrollably (so it's probably mushrooms?)

1) Bush CONSTANTLY rejected the idea of a timeline.

2) Obama was lambasted by John McCain and other conservatives for saying that he would send forces into Pakistan without permission if there was a clear shot at Bin Laden. When the mission was actually executed, the very same people tried to deny credit for the gutsy decision and say "anybody would have done it".

3) Really? Giving a date doesn't "encourage our enemies to wait us out".... When we leave, whenever that may be, they will still be there. Doesn't matter if it is today, tomorrow or ten years from now. They fluffing live there.... Of course they will be there when we leave. The pullout date is just a petty criticism from a petty nominee with nothing left to run on other than "I'd do exactly the same thing, just in a different way!"

Obama increased(or will) my taxes around $1500 a year to pay for somebody else's healthcare. if they want healthcare, tell them to get off their mad fat cow asses and earn it. if i wanna pay to throw peanuts at things, i'll go visit the zoo.

You can't deride a different point of a view as spin simply because you disagree with it. That's like just saying, "you're wrong because I said so." Too easy.

The Iraqi point always interests me because here Obama supporters give him credit for pulling out, yet no credit to the surge policy (which, if you recall, he opposed) working. They pretend that he has stopped torture techniques while mysteriously skipping out on his quadruppling of drone strikes, including against American citizens who were terrorist sympathizers.

But even those aren't what's troublesome to me. It's reading the folks like Woodward, Suskind and others describe Obama's leadership or entire lack thereof. It's telling when he screws up negotiations so bad that two chambers of Congress that despise each other end up working out the deal. Or even more telling when the Speaker of House of his party puts him on mute so folks can hear him and then proceeds to talk over him. When he conducts the Larry Summers debate club. Or when he embroils himself in a race controversy culminating in a beer summit.

I don't think he's a bad person. Quite the contrary, I think he genuinely cares and isn't as power-hungry as some past Presidents, but I don't think he's an effective leader. Some folks credit him with health care reform, but was that him or Rahm Emmanuel doing all the heavy lifting? I mean point me in the direction of his "leadership." What, when he said name-calling and zingers were signs of desperate campaigns and uncalled for in 2008? Oh wait, Romnesia is the topic of this thread.

The successes he's had are despite his efforts and not because of it. Secretary Clinton has done a decent job. Secretary Duncan with his Race to the Top has done a decent job. There is some comptent actions resulting from his Presidency, but again, there is not a path to meaningful solutions except on issues that should have been left to better times.

trumper, as you well know, the biggest part of being a good leader is putting the right people in the right position to get a job done.

If you agree with his underlings work, you should also credit the person who assigned them to their job =)

Cougar, you're not understanding what I'm saying.

A strict timeline (aka a set date of leaving) is what those on the right oppose and still oppose, including Romney. A probably timeline of leaving is a prediction of when the necessary requirements will be done so we can leave. The requirements is the key word here, not timeline. Bush never supported a strict date and neither does Romney. However Obama does and it does embolden the enemy.

Lets say you are in Al Qaeda...American forces are currently in the region and doing this or that, doesn't matter what. Now, you have no idea if or when they are leaving...may be 2 years, may be 5 until they train the necessary replacements from the regional population to stabilize the region. What are you thinking at that moment?

Again, same situation, except now you know you have 2 years until the Americans leave, whether they stabilize the region or not, they are gone. What are you thinking at the moment?

Would you wait 2 years until we leave to strike?


The timeline Obama is using right now IS the probable timeline Bush was using while he left office.

As for John McCain, I won't defend him, crucify him for all I care.


Pang, would you like to explain how my post was incorrect? Or are we dropping to personal attacks here...

I understand full well what you are saying, it just is a distinction without a difference. We are there now, we and our enemies both know that at some point in the future we will be gone, and the terrorists will still be there.

It makes no difference one way or another. By your logic, would it not be advantageous for the terrorists to lay low, cease attacks and feign peace just long enough for us to leave? Simply put, there are attacks now, there will be attacks in the future.

Similarly, were we to not set a firm date, it is not as if our forces would simply up and disappear one night. A withdrawal will take a great deal of time. We've been waiting for "conditions to be met" for what, eight years now? It is long past time for our forces to come home.

I only mentioned McCain by name because he was the standard bearer of the GOP at the time. The criticism of Candidate Obama's statement was universal from the Republican Establishment. You can't shrug if off as if it was just one guy you don't particularly care for, it was the official party line at the time.

Pang doesn't need to explain how your post was incorrect, I just did.

Years later, still learning the difference between quote and edit buttons....

"Obama kept in place much of Bush's foreign policy" lol

Except for the entering two wars part...

what? will terrorists wait until the people that they are trying to terrorize enter a complacency mode? no. they pretty much have to run around terrorizing people or people will forget their fear and end up being too surprised to actually be scared. meh. they're shooting 14 year olds in the head for wanting education. we got 12 year olds getting strangled to death for BMX bike parts. hide all you want, just don't jump out and scare me to death if you're just trying to mug me.

I can't tell, are you trying to be ironic?

going to put the fear of Islam into us?
bugger off. the Mormons actually have the most recent Prophet of God near as i can tell. hmmm, wonder if God can Damn Jesus Christ... or if it's just a bunch of swear words that can be used judiciously...

I wonder if God was ever like" "Goddammit Jesus... eat your peas."

And jesus was all, "Why should I? Its not like I'm gonna get old anyways!"

"My food EATS vegetables!"

probably... they seem to predate JC by a couple thousand years.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/...ideotape-for-his-flip-flo

lol... Romney changed his position on the prolife/prochoice debate in a 24 hour period.

Prove it

so, it's important for a politician to be static instead of dynamic? how do they adapt to new situations if they're stuck with the same old party bullcrap?

Cougar, it is definitely a distinction. One, you care not for the situation, the other you do. It's kinda like saying, when I turn 30 I will buy a BMW no matter what. I may have a good job now, I may be in a good position now, but if I lost my job would I still buy that car? I'm really not sure how you are arguing that they are the same. Did we say that if we didn't defeat Germany by May 1945 we would leave? Would that make any sense? We did defeat them by that time, but would we have announced our date of retreat?

I never liked McCain, disagreed with him on lots of issues and the GOP establishment usually messes up stuff too.

"We've been waiting for "conditions to be met" for what, eight years now? It is long past time for our forces to come home."

Seems you care not for the situation we will leave behind. Yea, that's a great idea.

If that is the argument, then it is not accurate to say that the GOP has an exit strategy, It is just "stay indefinitely". I'd make a large wager that the indicators that a Romney administration would be looking for are exactly the same as those that Obama would like to see and that Bush was hoping on. And yet we are still there.

Forget the inane Nazi Germany reference (Godwin's law, by extension), if the Afghan War was pitched saying "We'll be there at least ten years, and even then there will be no end in sight" Do you still think we would have invaded? Are we safer today because there were still troops in Afghanistan yesterday? If so, is the "gained" security cost efficient, having a full blown military occupation versus using the resources for other purposes (say increased monitoring of the southern border)?

Of course I would love to see Afghanistan become a magical place of unicorns and rainbows, but it just isn't gonna happen. I refuse allow the terrorists to further "hold us hostage" buy bleeding us of tens of billions of dollars every year as well as gallons of the blood of our bravest. To put a blunt point on it, Afghanistan is not worth the trouble. Like the Russians years ago, and many more before that, it is time acknowledge that we are not going to "win" there.

Klown: http://mediamatters.org/...eys-flip-flop-on-a/190538

http://www.globalpost.com/...omney-flip-flops-abortion

http://www.thedailybeast.com/...e-and-legal-abortion.html

I mean, he will definitely try to defund Planned Parenthood (a terrible idea) and will legislate against abortion... but a day earlier he said "There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda."

like a fish.

As an aside... why is he even deciding stuff like this? Doesn't he believe that this should be up to individual states? THAT is what he should have said.

Sorry, but legislation restricting abortion != defunding planned parenthood or appointing justices that would overturn Roe V. Wade.

Overturning Roe V. Wade WOULD leave it up to individual states to determine their abortion laws.

Ha, I'm not saying I agree with his underlings. I agree with a select few of them for some of what they did, hence citing specific examples. I think most were poor choices that have picked ridiculously stupid fights. Labor and the NLRB fighting Boeing... brilliant (said with the utmost sarcasm). The FTC trying to tell states they supersede them on state regs, brilliant (again with sarcasm). The EPA, don't get me started. Etc.

He also chose to surround himself with Larry Summers and his great debate club that accomplished absolutely zero. I mean, seriously, Sheila Bair basically gives up because of it. He chooses to pursue blazenly partisan paths on big issues and then feigns amazement when Republicans don't just cave. Of course then it's left to Congressional leadership to fix his screwups.

If I can credit his lack of leadership for one thing, it's that he's inadvertently shifted the balance of power back more toward Congress and I think that's a good thing.

when deerhunter, dagga, or you call me an idiot, that tells me that i'm doing something right. thanks!

Trife, you're brilliant.