The debates on the Debates

My limit is about a buck, adjusted for the devaluation of the dollar in the past 4 years about fifty cents.

Romney has a cap, as does President Obama. I think President Obama reached his, I think undecideds are going to swing Romney. the margin of the undecided relative to turnout is the key. If for every undecided going for Romney, if President Obama counters with increased turnout of his base, he wins reelection. I don't think that will happen, I believe turnout will be materially lower in 2012 with President Obama's base voters than in 2008.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 at 9:00 AM ---

I believe race was a factor in Powell's endorsement. In 2008, Powell stated he was proud to support the first potential black President and he was proud of the social significance. In 2012 many still have an interest in seeing the first black President succeed and that is a factor in their support. sorry, but I don't play pretend games, I call them as I see them. To pretend race is not a factor, plus and minus, is silly isn't it?

 

Sounds to me like you're ignoring the polls and the trend lines, including those of likely independent voters in swing states like OH, and basing your analysis on a wing and a prayer or acting from the heart instead of the head.

Good luck with that!

 

I hope others comment on this, I am very interested in reading the perspectives of others, it is clear we disagree.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 at 9:06 AM ---

I am not a fanatic of Romney. My vote (I voted early) was a direct response to the first debate. My views on who is going to win is simply my opinion based on what I read and hear.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 at 9:11 AM ---

True.

Not true. I would still dislike President Obama and the people who surround him, but if the value of my house was up 50% rather than down 50%, if my business grew 50% rather than being down 50%, if I felt the country was on the right track I would tolerate my dislike. I can interact with those I don't like, some can't, but that is not me.

What I stand for is clear, what you stand for is not. Who has the problem?

 

Obama attempted to close Gitmo but was blocked (by both parties)
Obama ended torture
Obama set a hard deadline for Afghanistan counter to Bush policies
Obama removed all troops from Iraq based on a hard deadline
Obama has not adopted the Bush doctrine of preventive war (unilateral strike based on a perceived, not real or verified, threat to the US
Obama let others (NATO) lead the Libyan action
Sanctions and military threats against Iran/ N Korea is a policy of both parties
Obama lifted restrictions on family travel and transfer of funds to Cuba and even opened the door on ending the embargo.

 

I'd bite my tongue but not for the sake of "doing the deal" I'd do it out of respect for the other person's religious views.
If Romney would bite his for the sake of the "deal" then Romney has no principles.
Principles don't step aside or disappear as soon as they become inconvenient.
Making as much money as possible is not a principled activity.
Making money with a focus on ensuring no one is directly disadvantaged by your activities is a principled activity.

Romney doesn't see it as compromising his principles?

Do you see it as compromising his principles, Ace?

I agree that it's difficult to stand on principle in the world of business and politics but those who can't manage it don't deserve a pass simply because it is difficult - or because they're skilled at justifying unprincipled behavior.

What appeals to you Ace is not principles but whether or not you can understand the justification behind the behavior.

Romney is a moderate Republican.
During the primaries, he had to pretend to be far right.
If he was honest about his positions, he would not have won.
Winning was more important than honesty.

Most would consider this unprincipled behavior. But in your world Ace, where winning is everything - lies, pretense, and deception are justified as necessary to reaching the goal.

 

Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza | The Nation


this is more of that ethics-free form of predatory capitalism that brings ace to his knees so as to best express his enthusiastic agreement.

 

Unfuckingbelievable.

 

The man could give a shit about America and it's workers and he may be your (and my) President.

 

i maintain some zany optimism that, sooner or later, people will wake the fuck up and see this cowboy capitalism for the form of suicide that it is.

 

Right, the President is not accountable - got it.

Got proof? If the President is not accountable, if the President doesn't know about things like attacks on our embassy by terrorist....how would he know if torture ended??? Or...do we let others torture on our behalf? Are you really as naive as your comment suggests - I don't think you are, I think you are all about the Presidents talking points.

What did he say in 2007 compared to where we are now?

Removal of troops was being negotiated under the Bush administration, President Obama finalized the deal. Unfavorable terms I might add.

I think drone strikes in a sovereign nation without consent could be considered an act of war. If your view differs, we disagree.

A difference without distinction in my opinion.

that is my point - continuation of Bush foreign policy. I see little change if Romney is elected President.

Bush reaffirmed the embargo, but was optimistic. Again, President Obama following the lead of Presidient Bush and has not deviated or accelerated the path of the US/Cuban relationship.

Bush reaffirms Cuba embargo - CNN.com

Anything else?
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 at 4:18 PM ---

If I follow a person who I believe either acted illegally, immorally, or outside of our best interests - there is no possible way I would do anything consistent with what that person did. If Gitmo was wrong - end it! If the Iraq war was illegal, remove our troops immediately. If preemptive military acts is wrong - don't do drone strikes. Your view is disturbing in that you think US drone strike in Canada without Canadian approval is not relevant but that drone strike in a ME country is o.k.??? Is that really what you think? I think if I were Pakistan, I would be pissed off, just like they are. How are drone strikes helpful in building long-term positive relationships? What is wrong with getting Pakistan's general approval for these strikes
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM ---

That was an easy example. What if the prayer was for wiping another nation off the face of the earth? Or a prayer against homosexual people? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Or perhaps the principle in question is not important and that he is governed by other principles.

My wife is relatively more religious than I. I believe in living according to certain values, but could careless about religious traditions. It is important to her. we celebrate all her religious holiday's and raise our son accordingly. The key is that these things do not conflict with and are are consistent with my values. But if she wants to light candles and prepare certain foods on special days, I am happy if she is happy. I do not see this as compromising my principles.

I am not judgmental, seems you are. I don't care if Romney goes to heaven or hell - that is his issue with his maker. I just know that if I ever do business with Romney, I hope he is on my side of the deal.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 at 4:36 PM ---

The US needs a cut-throat business guy. I guy who won't get screwed internationally by other nations. The fact the guy plays the game to win is a plus. If you want a "Kumbaya" (putting it nicely) kinda leader, I feel for you. As they say if there is a street fight, you want a street fighter on your side. Community organizer???? Actually, what does a community organizer do? Was President Obama good at it? Is "organizing" what the world needs????

 

ace, i'm sorry, but that's just idiotic. as usual.

 

Simple. I wouldn't join in and I would make my objections known. Sometimes there are higher priorities than "winning the deal".

That's what principles are. I don't have another definition of principles, because there isn't one.

What makes you think the cut-throat is on YOUR side? He is on HIS side. He will do what suits HIM, even if it means cutting YOUR throat. But, go ahead. Fill your boots.

On drone strikes, however, I can't take too much issue. I'm not defending Obama on that one. They are wrong, in my view.