BF2S Forums 2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama

FEOS wrote:

You Euros/Aussies really have a skewed view of the US because the vast majority of what you get about us is what .

Cybargs wrote:

This isn't having a dig at America, but you do have a ton of fat people because people eat a lot of fast food thats terrible for your system and you don't burn enough calories. Obesity related diseases are your #1 health care cost. This isn't about America having fat people, but if you eat shit of course your body is going to be shit. Obesity is a global issue in developing and developed country. Stop eating mcdicks and start exercising and you'd see a huge decrease in your health care cost.

13urnzz wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You Euros/Aussies really have a skewed view of the US because the vast majority of what you get about us is what makes the news;

yeah. nothing to see here. come back in two weeks, we'll have legitimate rape, Rmoneycare, an invasion of iran and the first president that can talk out both sides of his mouth around his foot while his head is stuck up his ass.

Monday night's presidential foreign policy debate probably won't change the opinion of many voters. Proponents of President Barack Obama are still convinced that Mitt Romney is a fool and a liar. Proponents of former Gov. Romney have the same view of the president.

The True Objective of Debates

A debate is not about policy. It is impossible to state a coherent policy on any complex matter in 90 seconds. The debates between Lincoln and Steven Douglas did go far in that direction, but then it wasn't on national television, and it was for senator of Illinois, not the presidency. That left room for contemplation. It should be remembered that prior to the Kennedy-Nixon race of 1960, there were no debates, partly because there was no television and partly, perhaps, because the ability to debate was not seen as the appropriate measure of a president.

Debates test one thing: the ability to quickly respond to questions of numbing complexity that are impossible to answer in the time available. They put a premium on being fast and clever but don't say much about how smart a candidate is. Nor are they meant to, in part because being smart, in an academic sense, is not essential to be president -- as many have demonstrated. At their best, debates test a candidate's coolness under pressure and ability to articulate some thought at least vaguely connected to the question while convincing the viewers that he or she is both personable and serious.

That is, after all, what leadership is about. We have had enormously intelligent presidents who simply couldn't lead. Here, I think of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, both of whom had substantial and demonstrable intellects but neither of whom, when confronted by the disastrous, could rapidly contrive both a response and a commanding and reassuring presence in public. In that sense, their intellects betrayed them. Each wanted the right answer, when what was needed was a fast one. Each was succeeded by someone who could provide a fast answer. FDR's famous first 100 days did not solve the Depression, but they did give the sense that someone was in charge. FDR and Ronald Reagan could reassure the country that they knew what they were doing while they rapidly tried things that might work.

Therefore, the question of who won Monday's debate is not one that a viewer who spends his time focused on foreign policy can answer. The candidates weren't speaking to those who make their livings involved in or watching foreign affairs. Nor can we possibly extract from the debate what either candidate intends to do in foreign policy, because conveying that was not what they were trying to do. They were trying to show how quickly and effectively they could respond to the unexpected, and that they were leaders in the simplest sense of being both likeable and commanding, which is the incredibly difficult combination the republic demands of its presidents.

The question may come up as to who I think won the debate. My opinion on that is no better than anyone else's, nor, as I pointed out, do I think it really matters. The winner of the debate may or may not have persuaded enough voters of his virtue to be elected. But in the end, our response to the debate is idiosyncratic. What moved me may not have moved others. After all, the country appears divided down the middle on this election, so obviously we are seeing different things. Therefore, who I think won the debate is as irrelevant as who I think should be president. Besides, there are more important questions than our own opinions on the candidates. For me, one of those is trying to understand what we are doing when we elect a president.

lavadisk wrote:

Romney looks so shit and is a psychopathic liar just so that everyone will notice that and want to vote for Obama.(that's what they wanted him to do) .. ROMNEY Doesn't KNOW ANYTHING. Please care about America and vote Obama.