Printable View
Did anyone watch? Please state your opinions about the debate, and which candidate you felt did a better job. This thread isn't for debating whether one presidential candidate is better, but you can argue respectfully about their debate and the policies they discussed.
Obama seemed shuffled the whole time, but overall did a good job. Romney couldn't abide by the time limit rules, and did a good job using the old strategy of lying confidently.
Romney came out strong and looked like he was there for a job interview at a used car lot, Obama was calm and collected and looked like a president.
I think Ron Paul, who was at home taking a shit, was the clear winner.
Obama was calm and collected?Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorJesus
He couldn't even look at Mitt Romney, he just stared at the camera or down at his podium.
Romney was more forceful over Obama.
Romney was more calm & collected, as Obama seemed to not even want to be there.
Romney man-handled Obama in the debate.
Taking notes, speaking to the American people and not giving this buffoon any more credibility than he already has. Obama looked presidential, Romney looked like a snake oil salesman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro!
The polls released today reflect that.
I couldn't get over how grown men... men that in all honesty are the only two possible choices for the next President, a representative for 311 million people, could be that inconsiderate of each other and the mediator. It wasn't just Romney nor Obama, but both men clearly did not care at all about honor, integrity, or character. These men simply had to get their point across, no matter if it was in fact true, or if it took bickering like school children to get 30 seconds more talk time.
Childish....
I am sorry, but when my 4th grade sister can be more respectful to others than these men there is a problem.
I went and looked it up afterwards- if you look up "who won" they are claiming Romney won.
I sort of get the car salesman impression from him too.
The way people talk about the candidates (both sides) they seem almost brainwashed, so nothing you could say would change their point of view. They are bitter and angry and downright mean toward people who don't see their way. The whole thing is really sick to be honest. I don't think the debate really changed anyone's opinion - maybe a few undecided people.
In the end, it makes no matter what I think (or most people for that matter) - I live in a VERY red state - Texas will vote all republican, even if the party nominee was Barney the purple dinosaur.
I think more focus should be given to the House and Senate elections I never hear much about that at all.
I don't really focus on the elections but I've heard a lot recently on the radio about the elections and indeed that they already said that Ronney won but i don't really believe that either that is true, i can not say anything because I'm not a person for the election nor a person who keeps myself in the debate i can only say that Ronney as Obama always says that ''We need to change the world'' but nothing really happens doesn't it?
Citate my mistakes if I'm wrong I'm always open for other's opinion but America doesn't seem to change at all because all the poeople say and others sing ''We need to change the world'' and nothing is happening because there are still territory wars and there are still bad things happening and the economy is unlikes but nobody changes it only that Obama killed Osama binladen wasn't it? is a good thing but others are still making nuclear bombs and nothing is happening although that it's not America's business we should still take action against it but nothing is happening
Please correct my mistakes and prove me wrong when you think that i am i might agree
Obama seems to be a nicer person in all and a lot more polite and didn't keep butting in , every time i wanted to listen to Obama he interrupted i know thats the point of the debate but at least let him speak. I think Obama would stick to his promises more than Romney. I like that Obama actually looked at all the people when he was speaking, Romney needs to speak the people more than looking a Obama. Also Obama uses his hands more and seems more jolly than Romney.
I just love this video
Obama accuses Romney of not telling the truth during debate - video | World news | guardian.co.uk
I'll reply with a post about this same topic in a different section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyboy184
Great video. There is no doubt that Romney was switching up his policies to look good during the debate. The reason Obama didn't so well because he was so fucking baffled that Romney was lying about his policies. Besides, Romney couldn't even stay within the time limit and when the moderator said anything, Romney would cut him off like a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoelace
Romney To Lehrer: 'I Love Big Bird' But I Would Cut Federal Subsidies For PBS - YouTube
What'd we get from the deficit conversation from Romney? He likes Big Bird and he wants to keep cheap, cheap, cheap programs like PBS. Makes sense. "Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson
http://deathandtaxesmag.wpengine.net...-bird-600.jpeg
Romney was just saying what he needed to say to look good as a candidate, that's all it was. Not only that but he was almost constantly spewing lies that Obama didn't even call him out on. I don't think Obama was prepared for how aggressive Romney was in the debate, so he was just a bit laid back. But Romney was not talking on ways to fix the Economy or anything of the sorts, he was again just saying what he needed to say to look good. I don't like that at all. Especially the lying part. I think we all know Obama is gonna serve again, too many people still vote for him just because he's the first African American President; as if it all wasn't just a big dog and pony show anyways.
That's because you simply don't have a choice, sure you can make 2 choices, but for most there is only one, even if the guy is completely random.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison
In the Netherlands our government always exist out of a coalition of parties + the queen (since we are technically a monarchy), that means that all parties, even if they are small, have influence, which itself causes people to vote for who they want.
I seriously wonder how many people would even vote for those 2 if they had other options that would actually change something. Of course the elite will never want that, not only because they would loose lots of power, but it would also cause things like socialism to rise up, which they of course could never handle because that's just crazy stuff. ;)
I kind off agree
It's different here, here we have coalitions and Parties that you can depend on they say the things that they are going to change around The Netherlands and they make promises but who says that they are really going to do that because not everything they say is always that so.
Let's take an example and say , here we have Geert wilders he is party leader of the PVV he wants all the foreign people out off the Netherlands, many people do agree but nobody can take so much foreign people out off the Netherlands nor on any other country because there are so many that you literally need to take time to take all the criminal foreign people out and just leave the people who can behave in, because that was what Geert wilders was stating - ''We kick all the criminal foreign people''
I kind off laughed hard at that state due the fact that it's not always the foreign people because there are people who are Dutch and are still criminals and where are these guys suppose to go?
Back to their homeland where they don't have a house nor anything they'll live on the street and still do criminal activities and what for the dutch criminals where are they suppose to go it just can't be happening impossible.
I was watching this at School in form time, Obama looked very relaxed but Romney was plain rude.
Nice little story:
Quote:
Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed with pride! "Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her. "What do you mean?" she replied. So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out and give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house." She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?" I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party." Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.
Live is hard when it goes to voting and making the right decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Livar
You are assuming that the party discipline in the US is as strong as in the Netherlands. Because we have so many parties, the members of them feel much more at home, they usually stand behind everything that gets done.Quote:
Originally Posted by spruitje
In the US they don't, the 2 parties are extremely fragmented, often the democrats will not get the support from all it's members and they need to find republicans to get enough support, same goes the other way around of course.
This is why a 2 party system is absolute crap, how can you force people in thinking in only 2 ways, it's not possible, not to mention that it conflicts in many ways, you've got die hard christians who will vote republican due to their views on abortion and such, while they have a problem with how the republicans look at green initiatives, their capitalistic views, gun control etc, there is just nothing in between.
Most Americans don't vote for the party they believe in, but for the one that is the lesser evil of the two for them.
So fragmentation is as big there as it is here, the difference here is that at least people know for what they are voting and parties (and thus views) can become bigger if the people wish that. In general we get a proper reflection of what the people want whereas in the US you never really know what you get, not to mention that certain views are just banished, if you were to speak positively about socialism, you would get kicked out of the democratic party.
Gohan how is the executive in your country elected, or is the queen the executive? If the queen is the executive, we cannot argue. Your nation has it's preferences and ours obviously has an anti-monarch history. But if the executive is elected, what is the process? Do the multiple parties nominate a candidate and then they fight it out, with the one with the most votes winning?
I know this has nothing to do with the presidential debate, but it ties into a point I am trying to make. If you delete it i jah ganja pusy fuk u up ^^
Like I said, officiale we are a monarchy, that said, the queens only power is that she has to sign new laws basically, her refusing to sign one is unthinkable, so basically it's all ceremonial.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Rule MU
The highest elected function is the role of prime minister. Basically how are elections go are like this.
The people vote for a member in a party, right now we got 11 parties. The amount of votes that a party receives through their members on their list, will determine how many seats they get in our parliament. To form a government (of which the queen is always the head), a majority of the parliament has to agree with each other for their plans for the next 4 years, once they reach an agreement, some members of their respective parties will get a position as minister and the leader of the biggest party of that coalition becomes prime minister.
So while officially the queen is the head of state, practically the prime minister is. That said, the major difference is that our government doesn't exist out of 1 party, it usually requires 3 parties to get a majority, so even though people do vote for the biggest party in the polls on their 'side' (left or right) so that you either get a left or right winged prime minister, in general people do vote for whoever they trust and believe most, not to mention that if a party fucks up, they get punished and people just vote for a different party, this keeps party more true to themselves which in turn gives the voter a real choice in what they believe.
RON PAUL would of kick obamas ass in debate thats why they cheated to make sure he did not get the nomination theres lots of proof that this elecation is rigged and just another way to get obomney into his 2d term cause in relatily romeny says wat ever he think you want to hear and obama is just a pupet for NWO
The result of this election doesn't matter. There were only 2 candidates up there, and there are at least 10 to be considered. The best candidate currently running is neither of them (and he's only the best because they're terrible, and he's slightly less terrible).
As to what actually happened: Romney said nonsensical things, lied a lot. Obama said retarded things, looked like a dumbass, and lied even more.
In the end, two assholes looking like assholes on national TV. The more things change...
This debate was JUST long enough to fill a 1 hour spot on TV with ads. Awkward? A real debate would need to take about 6 hours, cover more topics than the same 3 tired and pointless topics, and need to include at least 4 more candidates. It would also need input from people, not a moderator.
i hope romney will win , i say this as a turkish because ; under the Obama government we saw just war, perhaps romney will change that stuation. Time to Peace.
Just war? I don't remember much war through Obama's time in government. What war do you actually mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by RE5P3CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanSSJ
Well Benjamin i don't know too much about politics but the only thing i can know is that we have parties who promise things but some things aren't even done nor ever going to be done yet
dear my friend , if you need some examples i can give i mean like libya , egypt , syria and iraq , if you asking to me they are responsible about that, and i dont blame just obama because that STUPID Bush starting war in middle east just for money and petrol. thats it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoelace
Sorry for my bad english, also i didnt say Obama not good person and i love america ,i just dont like capitalizm...
i wanna say more things but my english is poor.
i just wanna see romney govermenets.