I'm not a Mormon, but I'm angry about the state of the economy. It didn't have to be this way. Obama has put changing the role of government in our lives over the well being of the populace. Tens of millions of people are hurting, and it's due to these policies of centralizing power.
Strengthening the middle class is a much better strategy for fixing the economy than giving tax breaks to the rich. Shit, if it were up to Romney, he'd make every state a right to work state. That would be a disaster.
I think those people are morons, too. I agree with a few of President Obama's positions, but the choice was obvious to me. I know people who agree with several of Gov. Romney's positions, but are clearly going to vote for Obama. If you're still weighing your options, I would wonder what on earth your heirarchy of decision-making could be.
What economic evidence do you have to support your opinion? So far, President Obama's policies have hurt the middle class, so I'm curious as to why you think more of the same policies will suddenly change the direction of the country. And what's wrong with "Right to Work"? I don't think people should be forced to join a union if they don't wish to do so just to get a job.
In my defense, it gets tough when the candidates positions keep changing... Don't you worry though, we'll have it all sorted out in time for me to cast my worthless ballot. I do after all live in California.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to sound snarky, it's just the differences are so vast. I applaud anyone who researches and considers the issues.
Good debate, I enjoyed that. I think Obama won the debate. More importantly probably made those who want to vote for Obama but were feeling uneasy due to the state of the nation and his last debate performance, now can vote for him with confidence. Were independent voters swayed by this debate, I don't know. I am again in fear that Romney will be so favorable for the rich. But maybe a business man making tough cuts is what this country needs. Still tough for me to accept that people like Romney makes millions a year and pays less tax rate (by a lot) than I do. Obama isn't much better in that category. I'm one of the idiots/morons confused at this point. I want a strong middle class, i don't know which one will be better. If I default to foreign policy, I sway back to Obama (understanding the debate on foreign policy is still to come.) But my priority is still the state of our economy and the fear of erosion of the middle class. I'm glad my vote doesn't count as I will probably finally make a decision when I mark my ballot.
Just read an article that hit true to me. Most debates have a moment that defines the debate: The moderator correcting Romney with regard to the diplomats, will be that moment for many.
I was listening to some analysis and they made an interesting point. Although Romney won the first debate by more than Obama won this debate, there are far more sound bites from this debate that could have staying power than from the first debate. And most all of those sound bites either make Obama look good or Romney look bad. I don't know if this is true, especially the staying power part, but it will be interesting to see. My guess is the only sound bite with staying power will be Romney getting corrected by the moderator. Perhaps the women issues answer too. Most others I expect will fade quickly, and the next debate will be what the voters take into the polling booth.
next debate is only about foreign policy, most average amurricans will tune out. now its just about attack ads.
Incorrectly correcting, of course. Which article did you read? This one on Time is pretty good: http://nation.time.com/2012/10/16/w...eans-this-act-of-terror/?iid=pf-main-mostpop2 It reads to me, from the entire transcript, that he was talking about September 11 (like THE September 11) towards the end of his speech. If he wanted to call the attack an "act of terror", he'd had about five minutes to specifically call it that. Might he have meant to call the September 11, 2012 attack an act of terror, putting it in the pantheon of other acts of terror? I guess. Maybe. Was it so clear that the moderator should have "corrected" Romney? I don't see it that way at all. Ed O.
Personally I think this is typical politics. You can take one statement and twist it around where two people make two logical arguments on the same statement and both sound correct and both are probably partially correct. I don't think the moderator should have stepped in like that, but my point is it is a moment in the debate that will stick in the minds of watchers, right or wrong.
One of the things that President Obama really has had going for him is his likability. For those who watched the debate and like him, did he still come across as a good guy or did he seem thin-skinned? I need to watch the debate a few more times to arrive at my conclusion, but I'm interested in the opinion of everyone else. Also, for those who believe the meme of the Obama campaign, does Mitt Romney still seem like a robber baron who would throw your baby in a garbage disposal for a buck or have the debates changed your opinion of him?
i mentioned this in the thread, but his voice sounds very annoying when he's defensive. gets all high pitched and whiny.
Michael Barone's thoughts: http://washingtonexaminer.com/thoughts-on-the-second-presidential-debate/article/2510980 I like the fact he admits he's partisan, but he provides good insight nonetheless.
