Third US Presidential Debate (Video)

[Zyzzyva]

[video=youtube;tecohezcA78]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78[/video]

 

[Park@82]

what is the general consensus of who won?

 

[hellfire]

Obama

 

[kat06sa]

what is the general consensus of who won?

CNN snap poll: Obama 48, Romney 40
CBS insta-poll: Obama wins debate, 53 percent to 23 percent
PPP: Obama won the debate 53-42

Wouldn't say Mitt was out of depth, just Obama had the advantage of being the current commander in chief.

 

[agerbon]

Where is the rest of the candidates? This is no different to the ANC denying debates with other political parties. What a joke.

 

[Eskimos]

what is the general consensus of who won?

Obama. The first debate was the only real landslide in the three debates although Obama has done well to come back strongly in the last two but the damage that Romney needed to have a chance in the elections was already done.

Obama should win the elections though.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Yeah i know the word "Christian" appears in their name, which may be off putting to some, but for quite some time i've liked the reporting put out by the csmonitor.com. Much of the time it's quality stuff.

Who won presidential debate? Both Obama and Romney, maybe.

President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney each used Monday night’s third and final debate to try to close the deal with a divided American electorate.

In a debate without any glaring gaffes and largely held in a more congenial tone than the combative encounter of last week, both men seemed to accomplish what they may have set out to do: Mr. Romney to come across as an acceptable commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama to portray a successful presidency while planting seeds of doubt about a challenger who recently has had the momentum.

While the debate’s theme was ostensibly foreign policy, both candidates time and again brought their answers back to the domestic economy, jobs, and who would do the better job of building an America for the 21st century.

“After a decade of war, I think we all recognize we have to do some nation-building at home,” Obama said more than once.

“I certainly don’t want to go back to the policies of the last four years,” Romney retorted. “It hasn’t worked.

Within that common goal of steering the discussion to the economy, each candidate seemed to have a particular agenda for the evening. The president seemed intent on portraying his challenger as someone “all over the map,” who lacks the kind of resolve required of the commander-in-chief. “You keep trying to airbrush history,” Obama told Romney at one point. “Your strategy [on Libya] has been all over the map,” he said at another point.

Romney, on the other hand, seemed to have stepped onto the debate stage at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., determined to debunk the image of him – drawn from his own words, in some cases, as well as portrayals from the Obama camp – as a militarist itching to strike adversaries like Iran with a big stick.

“We can’t kill ourselves out of this mess,” Romney said, in explaining to moderator Bob Schieffer what he means when he says US foreign policy in the Middle East is “unraveling.”

Using the word “peace” so many times it became clear he was making a point, Romney even spoke positively of the United Nations and the need to work in cooperation with it.

Romney also appeared to take a lesson from the Karl Rove playbook – where rule No. 1 is, attack your opponents' strengths – when he acted to preempt what he figured would be Obama’s touting of the death of Osama bin Laden.

“We’re going to have to do more than killing bad guys,” Romney said in describing what he described as the Middle East’s backward slide under Obama’s foreign policy.

In one of Obama’s best moments, he explained why it was important to take out Mr. bin Laden. Noting that at one point in the past Romney said he would “not move heaven and earth” to get the Al Qaeda chief, Obama said, “It was worth moving heaven and earth to get bin Laden” because it sent a message to the world, including terrorists who would target America, and it provided the families of 9/11 victims with closure.

He then told the story, comforter-in-chief style, of a young woman, her father having perished in the World Trade Center attack, who told him what it meant to her that the perpetrator of the crime had been served justice.

Surprisingly, the debate did not continue the who-did-what-when on the Benghazi consulate attack that figured so prominently in the last debate. Indeed, on many issues – the Afghanistan war, getting tough on China and its trade policies, stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, strengthening bonds with Israel – the two candidates seemed to agree more than to disagree.

On Syria, Romney tried to make the case that he would address the “tragedy” there without “having our military involved.” But after Romney described what he would do – like work closely with allies in the region and help develop a coherent armed opposition – Obama retorted: “He doesn’t have different ideas because we’re doing what we should be doing.”

Both men spoke of the importance of American leadership, and the role that soft-power goals like empowering women play in ultimately delivering the safer and more prosperous world that is in America’s interests.

Polls show that both nationally and in key battleground states, Americans place foreign policy well down on their list of priorities for this presidential election. As a result, it is likely that many voters watched the debate more to judge each candidate on broad qualities like leadership and vision than to score them on policy specifics of Syria or Pakistan.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...esidential-debate-Both-Obama-and-Romney-maybe

 

[daveza]

Perhaps Obama took a tip from The Greatest and played rope-a-dope in the first debate.

 

[w1z4rd]

The Third Debate: Obama Wins on Style and Substance

President Obama won the foreign policy debate, cleanly and decisively, on both style and substance. It was as clear a victory as Mitt Romney’s in the first debate. And Romney lost in similar fashion: he seemed nervous, scattered, unconvincing — and he practiced unilateral disarmament, agreeing with Obama hither and yon … on Iraq (as opposed to two weeks ago), on Afghanistan (as opposed to interviews he’s given this fall), on Libya and Syria and Iran. He didn’t have a single creative or elegantly stated foreign policy thought and, indeed, seemed foolish at times, using the word peace about as often as George McGovern in 1972 (not that McGovern was foolish, but Romney has run so hot and aggressive on foreign policy that he seemed a sudden convert to transcendental meditation or Yoko Ono’s secret consort). Romney did have some strong moments — but they were, once again, on the domestic economy. And Obama didn’t have a single weak or unconvincing moment.

Read the rest at Time.com

This response is funny Obama pwned Romney in that argument ('We Also Have Fewer Horses and Bayonets')

[video=youtube;PVSfw5TPkos]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVSfw5TPkos[/video]

 

[AthenianOwl]

Too late. I predict Romney will get elected as president. WW3's coming, guys.

 

[Guantanamo]

Romney is a phoney if ever there was one. None of his policies make sense, and those that to do he changed when he needed the support from a particular group.

 

[hellfire]

Where is the rest of the candidates? This is no different to the ANC denying debates with other political parties. What a joke.

Er... are you joking?
There aren't other candidates, not really. Romney is the Republican candidate and Obama the Democrat candidate. One of them will be president of the USA.
A debate took place between the only two contenders for the position. How is this at all like the South African president who won't debate with anyone?

 

[w1z4rd]

Er... are you joking?
There aren't other candidates, not really. Romney is the Republican candidate and Obama the Democrat candidate. One of them will be president of the USA.
A debate took place between the only two contenders for the position. How is this at all like the South African president who won't debate with anyone?

I think he is talking about people with almost no support. Like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. This of course is nothing like Agerbon's ANC analogy. At this level of national debate you have the party in power debating the official opposition. We dont even get that in SA.

 

[STS]

Too late. I predict Romney will get elected as president. WW3's coming, guys.

 

[w1z4rd]

 

[empirex]

Mitt Romney Agreed With Barack Obama So Much Last Night It Was Shocking

Mitt Romney clearly came into Monday night’s debate with a strategy to hold the lead and appear presidential. He may have managed to do both of those things, but in the process he seemed to be agreeing with President Obama much more than anyone would have expected.

The style was such a contrast from the aggressive and effective style he employed in the first debate, it left many pundits scratching their heads.

Watch the video below to see why.

Video of consensus here

 

[daveza]

I missed that - Republican's are not good at geography.

 

[hellfire]

I think he is talking about people with almost no support. Like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. This of course is nothing like Agerbon's ANC analogy. At this level of national debate you have the party in power debating the official opposition. We dont even get that in SA.

I think that Agerbon doesn't actually understand the American political context, but is trying to comment anyway. There would be no point in having candidates for the minnow parties present in the debate as their policy positions will never have a bearing on the running of the country.

 

[RanzB]

I missed that - Republican's are not good at geography.

They learn quick if there's oil discovered there.

I think that Agerbon doesn't actually understand the American political context, but is trying to comment anyway. There would be no point in having candidates for the minnow parties present in the debate as their policy positions will never have a bearing on the running of the country.

It is a bit unfair. They won't be able to debate until they garner enough support, and they won't garner a lot of support if they aren't afforded a chance to present their ideas to a large forum.

 

[agerbon]

Er... are you joking?
There aren't other candidates, not really. Romney is the Republican candidate and Obama the Democrat candidate. One of them will be president of the USA.
A debate took place between the only two contenders for the position. How is this at all like the South African president who won't debate with anyone?

There was only two of them on stage due to ''The Commission on Presidential Debates''. A non profit organization lead by the Democrats and Republicans. That's the only reason. The other candidates were not given a chance/permission (even though they are in the ballot) to enter the debates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

I think he is talking about people with almost no support. Like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. This of course is nothing like Agerbon's ANC analogy. At this level of national debate you have the party in power debating the official opposition. We dont even get that in SA.

What do you mean by support? Money? People? Polls?

The idea of having elections is to see which candidate as most votes, support in other words. The other candidates were cheated out of the debates because the democrats and republicans own the presidential debates.

There is little to no difference when it comes to policy between the Republicans or Democrats. They rarely bring any change. This is why I used the analogy between ANC and other political parties. The ANC doesn't debate because it doesn't want their policies to be ridicule by the opposition. This isn't any different to what the Republicans and Democrats are doing.