Jump to content
Will Smith Drops New Freestyle! Read more... ×
Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince Forum
bigted

Anyone Watching The Presidential Debate?

Recommended Posts

I've been watching it since it started over an hour ago, they started out talking about the economy for the 1st part and now are talking about foreign policy, here's a live blog I found that covers the debate:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09...y-night-fights/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been watching on CNN. Obama held his own. when they have the economy debate obama will crush him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think they both did very well, but obama was had the edge. he didnt let mccain get to him and shut down any false facts he tried to get out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally saw the full debate.

I've also been watching much of the responses and I believe that the way the candidates worked the debate made each set of supporters convinced their 'guy' won.

For me, I saw a landslide in McCain's favor. Georgia/Russia, out-of-control spending (and Obama's contribution), Iraq, Kissinger question, Iran/preconditions-for-talks, really anything focused on the foreign policy experience/positions all seemed decently expressed by Obama, but absolutely detailed and focused through historical and parallel examples by John McCain.

Now the Gallup poll shows Obama won the debate, so I get that people would say Obama came across nicer, less 'hot-headed'. Personally, he seemed lofty, but not so nuanced (which surprised me, considering he usually has that in his corner). McCain came off very agressive, but factually aggressive, with some strong nuance on Soviet influence of the world.

It's weird for me too, cause I like Obama much, and I never let myself fall into one corner or start hating one group just because I support a different one. So I would have been very open to him winning and I thought I had agreed more with him on Iran before the debate. McCain's reasoning historically just really put his position in perspective much more than any stump speech or town hall could.

The only thing with which I was really disappointed was the bailout discussion, because both Obama and McCain hardly answered the question, with McCain finally giving an OK to it after much push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama did better and he won on the surveys made by cnn and tbs..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also been watching much of the responses and I believe that the way the candidates worked the debate made each set of supporters convinced their 'guy' won.

Ha, yea, that's not very surprising. What's interesting/important is that the polls show that independents thought Obama won, by a little bit.

As I watched it, I, not surprisingly, liked Obama's answers better. However, I really thought the general population would like McCains answers better. I figured McCain had a slight (general population wise) edge on both the economy (mostly because of the taxes argument) and foreign policy (because he was more aggressive).

The whole "precondition" thing I thought Obama really came up short. McCain was mischaracterizing Obama's stance and Obama kept letting it slide. I would have rather seen him say exactly what he would and would not do, rather than trying to play defense on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCain came off very agressive, but factually aggressive, with some strong nuance on Soviet influence of the world.

And herein lies the problem, apparently both you and John McCain believe that the Soviet Union still exists. When McCain expressed his determination to add The Ukraine and Georgia to the ranks of NATO it confirmed for me that he is too dangerous to be elected. Russia will NOT sit idly by and let this happen. If this man is elected prepare yourselves for war. :susel[1]:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also been watching much of the responses and I believe that the way the candidates worked the debate made each set of supporters convinced their 'guy' won.

Ha, yea, that's not very surprising. What's interesting/important is that the polls show that independents thought Obama won, by a little bit.

And there it is... discounting out those who are partisan and have already taken sides in this election, the majority of those polled who have yet to decide who they would vote for believed Obama won the election.

As I watched it, I, not surprisingly, liked Obama's answers better. However, I really thought the general population would like McCains answers better. I figured McCain had a slight (general population wise) edge on both the economy (mostly because of the taxes argument) and foreign policy (because he was more aggressive).

I thought Obama allowed McCain to get too comfortable when discussing the economy. He allowed McCain to rely on his earmark argument while also allowing him to level the charge that Obama requested more than 900 million in earmarks over the last three years. Obama should have responded that many of those earmarks went to places like Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, the Illinois Primary Health Care Association and the Illinois Institute of Technology, and that if McCain is really upset that Obama sought money for hospitals and health institutions, he'd be more than happy to travel with him to those places and request that they return that money instead of using it to provide better health care.

Obama also did well in making the case that the trickle down economic philosophy hasn't served the nation well.

The whole "precondition" thing I thought Obama really came up short. McCain was mischaracterizing Obama's stance and Obama kept letting it slide. I would have rather seen him say exactly what he would and would not do, rather than trying to play defense on it.

I don't think he came up short there. He said that the idea of refusing to meet with the leaders of unfriendly nations is foolish. He said that preperation is of course needed, but "preconditions" won't be set. He made the point that the refusal to meet with leaders hasn't worked in Iran or North Korea. He also made the point that 5 former Secretaries of State have agreed that the US should have direct diplomatic talks with the leaders of unfriendly nations. McCain tried to mischaracterize his position, but it seemed clear to most people that it was a mischaracterization. I do think Obama was forced to play defense, but it did give him the platform to draw a sharp contrast with McCain. It's basically, "Look, I want us to seek more diplomatic solutions in our foreign policy. John McCain wants us to continue the current Bush policies concerning how we conduct foreign policy. How well have the last 8 years gone for us on that front?"

I think Obama could have been even stronger, but he did pretty well on what many have perceived to be his weakest issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And herein lies the problem, apparently both you and John McCain believe that the Soviet Union still exists. When McCain expressed his determination to add The Ukraine and Georgia to the ranks of NATO it confirmed for me that he is too dangerous to be elected. Russia will NOT sit idly by and let this happen. If this man is elected prepare yourselves for war. :susel[1]:

Good try, but big FAILURE on your part.

You forget history and why the word, "Soviet" is more than appropriate in the context of current events. Georgia, along with any other eastern block former Soviet territory, is quite vulnerable to Russia's acts of aggression. If you don't recognize what Russia is trying to do, then you are either (a) ignorant (b) blind.

You said Russia will not sit idly by. Good point, considering they are making moves like the attack on Georgia. What we cannot do, is sit idly by. We can't ignore that Putin is using a puppet president now to mime democratic rule. We can't ignore the squeeze on the press in that country. And we certainly cannot ignore what Russia has in mind for her former territories. Does that mean we go to war with Russia? No, but we don't watch them slaughter others for living independently. We stay vigilant, and pro-actively urge other nations to accept these Eastern Block countries into NATO as a firm warning we won't let groups of people be killed to satisfy a greed of Russia's elite.

Edited by Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And herein lies the problem, apparently both you and John McCain believe that the Soviet Union still exists. When McCain expressed his determination to add The Ukraine and Georgia to the ranks of NATO it confirmed for me that he is too dangerous to be elected. Russia will NOT sit idly by and let this happen. If this man is elected prepare yourselves for war. :susel[1]:

Good try, but big FAILURE on your part.

You forget history and why the word, "Soviet" is more than appropriate in the context of current events. Georgia, along with any other eastern block former Soviet territory, is quite vulnerable to Russia's acts of aggression. If you don't recognize what Russia is trying to do, then you are either (a) ignorant (b) blind.

You said Russia will not sit idly by. Good point, considering they are making moves like the attack on Georgia. What we cannot do, is sit idly by. We can't ignore that Putin is using a puppet president now to mime democratic rule. We can't ignore the squeeze on the press in that country. And we certainly cannot ignore what Russia has in mind for her former territories. Does that mean we go to war with Russia? No, but we don't watch them slaughter others for living independently. We stay vigilant, and pro-actively urge other nations to accept these Eastern Block countries into NATO as a firm warning we won't let groups of people be killed to satisfy a greed of Russia's elite.

There are no more Soviets. Look up the word before you use it.

The Russian attack on Georgia was preceded by the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, which is predominantly Russian and has been de facto independent since 1991. Yes, Putin is asserting himself as a strongman. Strongmen have ALWAYS ruled Russia and are an indelible part of their culture. Before we go meddling in Russian affairs we need to understand them. The Georgians thought that they could flex some muscle and that Putin would back down due to our involvement. They were wrong. If they were in NATO how long would it take for them to try again?

Putin is out to rebuild the Russian Empire and reassert Russia's status as a superpower. He will not shrink from confrontation if pushed into a corner. It is one thing to add former Eastern Bloc nations to NATO, it is another to add former Russian provinces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's been doing better in the polls since the debate, definately because he held his own in Mccain's strength of foreign policy, it'll be interesting to see what happens tonight between Palin and Biden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no more Soviets. Look up the word before you use it.

The Russian attack on Georgia was preceded by the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, which is predominantly Russian and has been de facto independent since 1991. Yes, Putin is asserting himself as a strongman. Strongmen have ALWAYS ruled Russia and are an indelible part of their culture. Before we go meddling in Russian affairs we need to understand them. The Georgians thought that they could flex some muscle and that Putin would back down due to our involvement. They were wrong. If they were in NATO how long would it take for them to try again?

Putin is out to rebuild the Russian Empire and reassert Russia's status as a superpower. He will not shrink from confrontation if pushed into a corner. It is one thing to add former Eastern Bloc nations to NATO, it is another to add former Russian provinces.

I am using the word Soviet because the aggression is de facto Soviet. Maybe not de jure, but in all tenses a true return to the Soviet oppression of the Eastern block. Also, yes, Georgia hit Russia with a flyswatter, so Russia hits Georgia with a lead bat? Please, Russia has been egging Georgia, through political maneuvering. We can head-off Russia if we act to show unity among Western nations early. It's the isolationism/ignorance that allows for massacres and suppression of freedoms in other countries.

We need to get these countries into NATO so they can be shown, with resolve, to be a part of the international community, not just Putin's land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no more Soviets. Look up the word before you use it.

The Russian attack on Georgia was preceded by the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, which is predominantly Russian and has been de facto independent since 1991. Yes, Putin is asserting himself as a strongman. Strongmen have ALWAYS ruled Russia and are an indelible part of their culture. Before we go meddling in Russian affairs we need to understand them. The Georgians thought that they could flex some muscle and that Putin would back down due to our involvement. They were wrong. If they were in NATO how long would it take for them to try again?

Putin is out to rebuild the Russian Empire and reassert Russia's status as a superpower. He will not shrink from confrontation if pushed into a corner. It is one thing to add former Eastern Bloc nations to NATO, it is another to add former Russian provinces.

I am using the word Soviet because the aggression is de facto Soviet. Maybe not de jure, but in all tenses a true return to the Soviet oppression of the Eastern block. Also, yes, Georgia hit Russia with a flyswatter, so Russia hits Georgia with a lead bat? Please, Russia has been egging Georgia, through political maneuvering. We can head-off Russia if we act to show unity among Western nations early. It's the isolationism/ignorance that allows for massacres and suppression of freedoms in other countries.

We need to get these countries into NATO so they can be shown, with resolve, to be a part of the international community, not just Putin's land.

Georgia and The Ukraine were not part of the Eastern Bloc, they were provinces of the Russian Empire. In fact, Russia was born in The Ukraine. Having influence there is one thing, bringing them into NATO is quite another. Putin would react to that in the same manner as we would react to an independent Puerto Rico aligning with Russia.

As for your fly swatter metaphor, how else would you expect a superpower to react? How did we react to Afghanistan, Iraq, even Grenada and Panama? The bottom line is Georgia is the one who did the bombarding and invading first, emboldened by our influence. That alone should tell us to proceed cautiously, not announce to the world our intention to add Georgia to NATO and provoke the Russians further.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×