In the final debate, President Obama played offense, saying Mitt Romney is "all over the map." Romney called Obama's leadership weak. The debate, which was supposed to focus on foreign policy, covered Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and more - but the economy and other domestic issues were never far away from the discussion.
Now that the debates have wrapped, what questions were not answered? What issues did you want to be addressed that weren't?
Share your thoughts on iReport or add your comment below.
Earlier this week, GPS readers weighed in on what they thought the presidential candidates should discuss.
Mithila Saraf was one of many who suggested that Iran’s nuclear program should be the key U.S. concern.
“Between America’s commitments to Israel and the escalating tensions between Iran and several of its neighbors, America’s action (or inaction) in this matter will be vital to how the situation unfolds,” Saraf said. “So far, the Obama administration has held a firm verbal stance, but there has been little inclination towards physical force. Several Republicans have expressed…that they would want to change that.”
Some readers, meanwhile, were more succinct, but no less emphatic about what they wanted Obama and Romney to talk about. Rotney O’Shea, for example, simply noted:
“Global warming. Iran. Global inequality. Why we are still in Afghanistan? What are we going to do about Syria?”
What do you think? What unanswered questions do you have?
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
When Romney was asked a hypothetical question what would he do if Israel said they are going to attack Iran, Romney said let's not be hypothetical and ignored the question. That's not a leader.. A president candidate should be ready for any situation and answer any hypothetical presidential question
I believe that the meaning of the answer was that Israel WAS NOT GOING to attack Iran. You see, Israel WILL NOT use force against Iran unless as a last resort in case there will be no other way to prevent Iran from obtraining nuclear weapons. If it happens the US will have no choice but to support Israel and ANY President will do it.
History says that Isreal will indeed pull the trigger.
Then why didn't Romney just say that?
Romney already stated in the debate that he would Stand by isreal with out a doubt. Re-read the transcripts. Obama is the one that is mediocre about it, as hes too afraid of conflict.
Yeah, just like Isreal didn't fly across two international borders to bomb a nuclear plant in the past. Isreal can and will use force and much of their defense capability is based on first strike.
Also one word particular word emerged from Mitt Romney's performance during the third and final Presidential debate: Peace. Isn't it contradictory when he at the same time criticised Obama's cutting defence spending?
IT is not contradictory – you don't get peace by not being prepared to fight, you just get more attacks. You get peace from bullies by making sure they understand the price to be paid for attacking.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. Peace is always best won and maintained from a position of strength. Remember "Speak softly and carry a big stick." This president likes to do just the contrary. Bullies look for weakness and that's just what Iran sees in Obama, someone who is all bark and no bite. They know Obama will not use military force and will do everything he can to keep Israel from using it. This is not to say we should rush off to war, but when all diplomatic means fail, we need a president willing follow through on the threat of force else we become a paper tiger.
@ GB What you describe sounds more like intimidation rather than peace, but then again that's exactly what Romney described as well.
In case you have not noticed, this President has taken out more "bullies" and "terrorists" than any other President in the last three administrations combined.
Brother John- "Speak softly and carry a big stick," indeed. How much bigger does the stick need to be?
We already have MORE war making capacity than the next 10 most well-armed countries.
Romney's strategy is "Bluster loudly, threaten before analyzing the situation, and bankrupt the country to have an even bigger stick."
Theodore Roosevelt Romney:
Speak loudly and let someone else carry the stick !
Synapse -
Highly incorrect. We do NOT have "MORE war making capacity than the next 10 most well-armed countries"
We just spend MORE then the next 10 countries. Does NOT mean we have MORE war making apacity than the next 10 countries.
Under Obama, the United states has had the hardest time fighting two conflicts, and Obama even SAID that in last nights debate when he said when we pulled from the Afganistan war and focused on Iraq. Obama does not want america to have such capabilities no more, as he feels there is no need as we have more capabilties militaraly than previously–though that is correct, but so do OUR ENEMIES.
NO WAY. Military spending cut is never an option. If you do so then America will fall behind specially because the way China is building up military quietly. My friend, China is bigger threat in my opinion. It tries to reply (show strength) to America in every possible way either in hitting space station with missile or whatever you say. If we do not want to create more ships then invest in research of new technology or create some program for our veterans. Ignoring China in military area is going to be big disaster for us.
In addition to my above post, building economy is the only way out. If you cut military budget by 1 trillion this year then let me tell you that if our economy won't recover then next year you have to cut it by 2 trillion. On other hand country like China will have military budget doubled in 2 yrs and will try best to reach where we are today. This is not the way to work. We have already shown our weakness to this world and it is true that many countries started taking us for granted.
Yes because our actions in Libya were so non-forceful. We were apparently dropping flowers and leaflets and asking the Libyan pilots nicely not to fly their aircraft.
I found it equally contradictory that Romney stated that we "can't kill our way out of this war", yet he strongly condoned the president's use of drones "in killing the bad guys". I have no idea what Romney stands for, or where his mind is...
Yeah,
I've noticed that BO answers EVERY question in great detail – NOT!
Mitt is a man that leads not a spectator like BO
A one and done governor, who then spent the next eight years running for president, and is still trying to convince his own party that he is a leader. Yeah, that's a leader. Please, Romney couldn't lead a school bus full of children to school parked in the school parking lot, much less lead our country. We need a change on both sides of the aisle. Get rid of both Democrats and Republicans. The two party system is just ruining this nation. We are a nation of many not one versus the other. But it just seems to me like the Republicans would rather divide than unite this country. It is always their way or no way. Never have they compromised in the modern era of politics. If they weren't going to get the credit for something they wanted nothing to do with the policy or the idea.
I agree with Dave.
A leader leads by example. Romney is not leading by example.
When he ran for Senate, he demanded his opponent release his tax returns, saying, and I quote "the public has a right to know". When he ran for Governor, not only did he demand that his opponent release her tax returns, but, since his opponent's husband filed separately, he also demanded that his opponent's husband release his tax returns as well. Romney keeps demanding that all his opponents release their returns, but refuses to release his own. Why does the country have a right to know in one instance, but not another?
When Romney brought Romneycare to Massachusetts, he said it would be the model for the nation. Now that it is, in fact, the model for the nation, he wants to repeal it.
Romney, as Governor, talked down coal, calling coal mines death mines. Now that he is running for President, he is pandering to the coal miners for votes.
Governor Romney was pro-choice. Presidential candidate Romney is not. His professed views keep shifting depending on whose votes he needs.
That is not leading by example.
Romney has guaranteed 12 million new jobs, but won't say how he'll accomplish it.
Romney won't talk about what spending cuts he wants to make until after he is elected. What a crock!
Seriously, the man has had 8 years to run for President, and THIS is the best he can do?
Epic, epic, fail!!!!
Dave is spot on on this one. It would have been great to get a guy like Ron Paul in office. I know he is still labeled R but he goes with his own ideas. The country would be a better place with someone in charge with his own ideas.
Jackson wrote "Romney has guaranteed 12 million new jobs, but won't say how he'll accomplish it.
Romney won't talk about what spending cuts he wants to make until after he is elected. What a crock!"
There's the questions I want answered. He's been repeatedly saying that 12 million jobs line, but has yet to say how they'll just magically appear, particularly considering the huge cuts in Ryan's budget plan.
In the third debate, Obama came accross as smug, pompous, arrogant, and sarcastic ... Romney came accross as Presidential.
The numerous failed Obama green energy companies ... which squandered hundreds of millions of hard earned American tax payer dollars ... while making Obama's cronies / contributors rich ... purchased their solar panels from China, resulting in even more American jobs going over seas. Save America ... Romney / Ryan 2012
Funny, the debate I watched was about foreign policy and not energy policy. Nice try you troll.
I would say the debate was pretty even but I am usually with Ron Paul in that we need to mind our own business and quite wasting money on countrys that don't give a hoot about us. So this debate meant nothing to me, except that they are both wrong and the both lie continuously.
Interesting: "the numerous failed green businesses" costing the US "hundreds of millions". If a Republican did this it would be called investing in small business, and guess what – investing in small business doesn't always lead to success. No mention of course of the other "green businesses" that are still in business or how they are doing.
Meanwhile, if given a choice between investing hundreds of millions of dollars to "numerous" businesses, and investing hundreds of million dollars in ONE business (e.g. Exxon-Mobil), a sounder investment strategy is to choose the numerous, smaller investments.
Sorry I agree with Dave, Jackson and Dale. We need a change of both parties. Clean slate. All they care about is themselves and there own party. They don't care about the American people. And further more talk about yourself and what you would like to see happen and stop pointing fingures. We teach our kids to place nice and these are grown men. Bad bad example.
"Romney looked Presidential" ............more Republican spin........Romney wouldn't even be presidential if he had the Presidential Seal tatooed in the middle fo his forehead
You will never succeed if you don't try.... at least someone is trying to create the backbone of alternative energy and prepare the country for the future and on par with China, which is installing 21st. century infrastructure. So stop using the rethoric of tax payers money because previous administration wasted much more of taxpayers money and american soldiers lifes, not to mention the ones who survived but will carry forever the marks of irresponsible agenda.
I would emabassed for having a flip flopper, empty bag, hollow man as my president.... sad. 25 years experience of creating jobs? you gotta be kidding me... years to take advantage of tax loopholes and create self whealth you mean... does he really care about the middle class? don't think so.. Bain Capital just shut another plant down and off shore the jobs to China and Romney fells the pain of the jobless... really? .I might change my opinion when I don't belong to the 47%.... or rather become one of the 1%.
Actually I believe that was the absolute best way to answer that question. It was a stupid question and no one running for office would be advised to answer it. Regardless of your answer, you would get in hot water with that one. If Obama was given the chance to answer, I believe he would have done the same. If not, he should.
Gatorfisch, I think you are correct that Israel would let us know, but I don’t believe they would tell us as they were doing it. We would know well in advance if an attack was going to occur (barring some unknown incident). Even if you are correct and this scenario did play out, it was a stupid question politically speaking. I would not expect either of them to answer that question.
It was a stupid question and he called Bob on it. Isreal is not gonig to call and say we have bombers on the way. What are you going to do?
Sorry, but I don't agree. I DO believe that Israel is going to call the POTUS before it takes action. Just as I am sure that our President let Israel know that there was something going down in Pakistan the night our troops took out Bin Laden. Anyone who understands foreign diplomacy knows this. Neither has to go into details, but there is definitely communication regarding military objectives, etc.
I believe that Romney was disadvantaged regarding foreign policy. First, our country [US] has been more generous than necessary to support other countries by the dollar of tax paying citizens. Our focus needs to change to secure our own economy.. Second, there is much knowledge sharing within the federal government that cannot be accessed by even the highest-level ranking government officials in each state. We need to change this information exchange and develop an accuracy of knowledge development. The playing field on foreign policy is not level for Romney.
With all due respect, I perceive Romney as making the US change.
You are incorrect. Romney did answer the question. His answer was (drum roll): it wouldn't go down that way. Shall we play a game of "what if the earth turns purple tomorrow"? That won't happen either. But people like you still want to know what Romney would do if the earth suddenly turned purple. Strange. How about if we deal in reality instead? Just a thought.
He answered it perfectly. He said his relationship with Israel (and I would argue Obama's relationship as well) will not result in that hypothetical getting that far. I would have considered that a good no answer from either candidate. If it wasn't, the pres woulda been all over it.
His answer was spot on. If you get a call that Israel is getting ready to push the button – you haven't done your job. When a problem escalates to that level for an ally of the US – you should have already been involved before it got that point.
It's too bad the question was posed to Obama first – I think his answer would have been more telling.
Really? remember 1981 and the bombing of Iraq? There was no consultation with the US then. Also 1983 invasion of Lebanon, and the 1967 pre-emptive strikes on Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Israel does what it wants when it wants. But that is the definition of soverignty. So a U.S. President needs to be able to react when an Ally does something you wish they hadn't like the 1956 Suez Crisis involving our then closest allies Britain and France.
We don't live in 1967 or 1981. Our policies and approaches should adhere to what is going on the world today. I think Romney's response was a responsible one. It showed confidence and restraint – if it were not, Obama surely would have called him out on that.
Very bad hypothetical by Schieffer, but it would have been fun if Romney pulled back the covers a little on Obama's relationship with Netanyahu's, and his relationship with Netanyahu. You see, Obama was involved in a little dialogue with Sarkozy in November 2011 where they didn't realize they were mic'd. Sarkozy said of Netanyahu,"I can't stand him. He's a liar." Obama replied,"You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day." Awesome relationship-building with a key ally, eh? Romney and Netanyahu worked at Boston Consulting in the 70's and have remained friends since then. He alluded to his relationship with the Prime Minister of Isreal last night, but never in a manner that the average dumb Democrat who has absolutely no understanding of foreign policy would be able to discern. But, yep, Obama is the dude who is relationship-building with our key allies. lol.
Especially in a situation where you are trying to gauge a person's position, like a debate. I absolutely want and should be able to know what he would do in that case.
True but neither candidate replied to that question. Also there were other questions that the candidates ending up debating each other while neither in fact answered the question. I remember thinking several times "that's a good question" but never getting a good answer from either of them. If I were the moderator I would keep interupting and saying "that's all very well and good but could you answer my question?"
I think it was an irresponsible question – regardless of who answered it first. We must remember that there are tensions in the Middle East, especially between Israel and Iran. If we are trying to bridge some type of common ground (if that is even possible) – an answer to a question like this can cause a great deal of harm. I thought Romney answered it well and, if it he hadn't, you can be sure that Obama would have been all over him.
Romney did answer by stating a hypothetical situation like that WONT happen – that Israel respects the USA enough NOT to drop such scenario on the USA. Obama didn't even address the question after – he dodged out. You must have gone for a beer or restroom break 'cause you apparently missed it!
i agree... i wish there was some type of counter that counts how many times one of them lies
I think on election day, Nov 6th, republicans should be nervous. After hearing Romney multiple agreed responses to Obama's policies and views, Romney may vote for Obama!
If Mitt Romney loses, he could still candidate in 4 or 8 years time. He would have to do some soul-searching if he wanted to make it next time.
doesn't that require a soul?
I don't know about that. He ran in 2008 and lost to McCain. If he loses now, that will be two failed campaigns. What is the historical record for people running multiple times?
Keep in mind he doesn't have some other political office to go back to if he loses. McCain was able to say "I guess I'll go sit back down in my senate chair." Romney will have been unemployed since 2006.
HE CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT UNTIL THE CAYMANS RUN OUT OF MONEY.
I cant wait to see the OBUMMER FAMILY go back to chicago.
> Now that the debates have wrapped, what questions were not answered? What issues did you want to be addressed that weren't?
I don't think either candiate understands how to run a foreign policy. Neither has higher aspirations than the same old nonsense they must have heard in the roman empire days...the imagined duty we have of being the world's cop. I would like to see the focus turned to the application of democracy, specifically at the United Nations. As long as the US continues to treat dictators as if they are legitimate representatives of nations...Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, China...we are lost.
gary
http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
But of course, Gary... YOU know how to run foreign policy and how to treat legitimate leaders of foreign states, dictators or otherwise.
It's not that complicated. Either the guy was elected or he wasn't. Democracy 101.
gary
While a noble idea, I think it is quite a bit more complicated than this. We simply cannot just stop doing business with China (and many other countries) for many reasons. Unfortunately we have to play politics to maintain our standing and interests in the world. Also in the case of China it would be not as straight forward even following your standards. The people elect the congress which in turn elects the president. So the officials are elected, but some more indirectly. There are however many countries whose leaders commit horrible atrocities, and we still do business with them. I think there are countries we could cut ties with and not hurt our interests terribly.
I've heard these argument for the status quo before. It's always more comfortable to just keep doing what you're doing. But pretending that dictators are legitimate representatives of people is NOT a neutral activity, but instead works AGAINST the cause of democracy.
Perhaps I can make my point by example. Suppose a ruthless gang of terrorists were to take over Denmark by force. The elected officials are put against the wall and shot. The next morning one of the terrorists shows up at the UN, demanding to be seated behind the DENMARK nameplate. Would you let him? If not, why not? Just like the guys behind the Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and China nameplates, no elections were involved...
gary
When have you won a war on terror?
55,000 dead in Mexico. Council of the Americas calling the drug war a complete failure. Largest prison population in the world. The last 3 presidents have acknowledged past drug use. Should we keep fighting the drug war and if so how do we justify/ correct these trends?
Heroin for everyone! You are brilliant! Bet you are voting for BO!
Actually, it's mostly marijuana. Legalizing certain "drugs" could not only end the drug war and lighten the load in our prison system, it could also add BILLIONS of tax revenues to the local, state, and federal governments.
Marijuana is the drug we're talking about. Its already legal for medical use and is no more dangerous than alcohol. You'll find it on every college campus- which means there are thousands and thousands of productive members of society that have used it or may continue to use it- doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen – you name it. Also, look at legal prescription drugs. Look at the side effects and how addictive they are. How many thousands are addicted to painkillers? Yet these are ok to purchase? At some point, you need to get past 'its illegal so we need to fight it' and ask yourself 'Why is it illegal? What's the gain in this? What is the benefit?' Seems to me we've cut off our nose to spite our face with this drug policy, and I don't even smoke the stuff.
If Romney cannot answer Israel bombers on the way hypothetical question while wide awake, what would he do if Bibi called him at 2 AM. Come on, Bibi, Let me sleep now; It might be morning in your country, but is late night here. I am so tired after having a lesson of Geography from these Chicago Public school teachers that earth is round and Iran has a coastline. My Mormon Charter school taught that earth is flat and America does not exists on this earth. We are only a territory on Moon. Come on Bibi, let me ask Him in my dreams to guide me and probably you too!
We continue to monitor the economic, political and cultural bubble burst/malaise in India and are very concerned with the continued state of deterioration. At this point, we restate our view that India is in a precarious situation and that a geo-political implosion is imminent (if not already in process) and the need of the hour. As you will recall, India has an unmanageable large population mired in poverty and we are spinning our wheels trying to prop it up. Additionally, it is also too big of a geographical unit to govern. Americans now need to focus on its own people and cannot afford to handout more financial and technological aid to India.
A PRIMER FOR MIDDLE EAST:::
THE ECONOMIC SUBJUGATION OF INDIA & The Taming of Hindus!!!
The one most successful aspect of recent American foreign policy has been the conquest of India without firing a bullet. That is the beauty of capitalism used as a Trojan Horse! Economic victory! Give them a taste of steak and they will never settle for hamburgers again. USA now owns India Inc. not only economically but also militarily as economic subjugation ultimately leads to military domination. The recent win for US multinationals has been pressuring the Indian Govt to open up majority ownership of domestic companies by foreign investors. US will now be virtually able to control the government policies in India via remote control in Wash D.C.
The take away is that US needs to find a similar mechanism Middle East/North Africa/South Asia to control events without having to depend on military dictatorships to do the biding. Economic subjugation appears to be the way out but what may be applicable to Hindus may not work in case of Muslims. That poses the dilemma that we are struggling with. Israel may have to be the sacrificial goat to make this happen, I am afraid.
How many Americans are out of work due to outsourcing jobs to India?
20% unemployment in some US States due outsourcing @mklsgl
The denuclearization of South Asia (Subcontinent) particularly India is imperative.
Quid pro quo transfer of nuclear technology by USA to third world countries such as India needs to be opposed on moral grounds. Billions of people live in that neighborhood and would be at risk from such catastrophes which I am sure the American people would not like to be a party to. We are all well aware that that region is prone to floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, massive power blackouts and of course terrorism placing such nuclear installations at tremendous risks. US Congress is urged to reconsider and cancel all the agreements for the transfer of such technologies due “Force Majeure”.
Wow, where did that come from? India by far has an impeccable record of non-proliferation and that is what prompted the Bush administration to sign a civilian nuclear deal with the country. India also has a 'no first use' policy when it comes to nuclear weapons. No such thing can be said about Pakistan. Even Romney, for all his foreign policy shortcomings, acknowledged that a nuclear Pakistan is dangerous if the weapons fall in the hands of the terrorists. There was no mention of India at all. Also, India has nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Sharing a border with China and Pakistan made that a necessity. If you talk about billions of people, then the population of China is more than that of India. Why not denuclearize China? And what about North Korea?? India is the last country the US needs to worry about when it comes to either nuclear proliferation or instability. If anything, the two countries share common goals when it comes to fighting terrorism.
It is also a matter of great concern that the safety of India’s nuclear installations is questionable as identified by its nuclear audit agency CAG. This poses a grave danger to India’s population and its neighbors. Let us keep in perspective that over 3 (Three) Billion people live within the region close to more than half the world’s population !!!
As just an example, in the most recent accident at a nuclear plant, more than 40 workers at the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station in northern India were exposed to tritium radiation in June and July.
India needs to be denuclearized. Americans cannot be a party to billions of people being at risk of exposure to radiation and live with their conscience as such.
I disagree wih your reasoning.
The American invasion of Afghanistan brought to the forefront the irrelevance of India as a nation. With a population of over 1.2 billion people there was no value that this nation could bring to the table. Their soldiers (ragtag) 1.2 million continue hiding in the trenches scared from Talibans. A few teenage Talibans invaded the country and held it hostage for days on end showing how useless India is. It was embarrasing for the world to observe this humiliation of a nation that was being touted as a regional power. The Talibans brought them down in a few days with some BB guns.
A few talibans conquered India a few years with a coupla shotguns !!!!! What did the nukes do for India. NADA !!!! So get rid of nukes in India.
Is that what you will say about bunch of boys who did not even got BB guns but used our own planes to massacre 10 times more...
Why would a nation such as India that tries to deceive the world by saying it has peaceful intentions have the largest armed forces in the world and a hyper huge nuclear program. All this while the majority of its people are living in poverty.
There is no global worming. It's been proven a scam, and I am surprised that some people are still ignorant enough to even bring up that subject.
By who? The GOP? There whole party is a religious nutcase SCAM!!!!!
Proven a scam by who? By conservatives who expect us to believe that Methuselah lived to be 900 years old? THESE are the people you get your science information from?
Global worming? You're right, that's not really a big problem.
Global climate change, though, is a very big deal, and it may affect worms as well.
Remember folks, liberty is not cheap and must be defended from time to time as history has shown us.
The best defense is a readied offense, and that is what JFK and Regan did splendidly. You don't show weakness,
and you NEVER compromise or negotiate with terrorists. Because they fly in the face of freedom.
Everybody talks about "peace and safety" but you can't have them without the willingness to die for liberty.
The big one not answered was why BO avoided Israel on his visit to the middle east countries, as president. As junior senator vying for president is considerably different that as the leader of a free nation. That was a big dodge.
SAY A LIE REPETE IT TIME AFTER TIME AND PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT.........SO SAD.....
It is what advertisers learned decades ago, tell a viewing audience something is good or bad over and over again and they will believe it. The same goes with religion, if children were banned from organized religion and given the opportunity to chose a religion when they reached 18, most would reject organized religion. It is that they are brainwashed from the moment of birth with rituals, sacrifices, chanting prayer.
President Obama: Governor Romney has, "the Foreign policy of the 1980s, the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policy of the 1920s..."
Romney looked confused and incoherent at times last night, clearly out of his element. This, combined with the GOP's fascination with legislating morality and a return to the free-wheelin' economic policies of the Bush era, is why I am voting for the President.
Obama has the economic and social policies of Russia, and the foreign policy of France. And before you embarass yourself in public by blaming the crisis we are in on Bush, educate yourself on the Community Reinvestment Act and Glass Steagall Act. ORRRRRRRR, you could explain how Bush caused the financial meltdown. I know... you can't.
Perfect pic to go along with the article here on CNN.com. They look like conjoined twins at the head and shoulders. No matter who you get, it will be the same result. The lesser of two evils if you will.
1. Romney boasted about his charitable giving. How much of that reached the workers whose jobs and livelihoods he had destroyed?
2. Romney is anti-union. Once you have destroyed the unions and made American workers powerless and cheap, would "peonage" be the right term for their status?
AAH, THE SELF TAX. ANOTHER OF ONE OF THE RICH PEOPLE'S DELUSIONS.
Nothing about one state or two state solution. No one wants to discuss controversial foreign policy issue 2 weeks b4 election because it might cost them florida. Actually obama admin avoided any controversy concerning israel for last 4 years because it might cost them reelection. This is why I don't get netyanhu's outrage because israel got everything it wants from obama white house.
At the end of the day Romney is just a one term governor with NO foreign policy experience, who left Massachusetts with a 34% approval rating.
I really want BO to explain this one...
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50
So BO how does that work – Oh Yeah and don't answer with Mitt's numbers don't add up – yours DON'T!
I think you are making a great point, but my question is: Will Mitt Romney’s plan be any better? I don’t believe it will. I think both candidates will take us down a path to increasing our debt and deficit, but will just have a different way of getting us there. Slim pickings this election.
Well, we could apply Romney's great answer to all these ills: ask your [rich] parents to borrow the money you need. Or sell off some of your Trust Funds to pay for the debt. Take more deductions, like for the dancing horse. And I'm sure there's some sort of write-off available for the bayonets no longer used. Just a thought.
Sure lets talk about it in terms of household budgets.
If your household is in debt you have MULTIPLE options, not just one.
1) cut spending, 2) increase income (e.g. second job, try for a raise/promotion), 3) some combination of 1 & 2.
Mitt's backers keep telling him that 2 & 3 aren't an option. Only 1 is an option.
So if you're a family trying to get out of debt, apparently your only solution is to stop buying food, cancel your telephone, and stop visiting the doctor.
The President's agenda is simple:
Invest in the social, technological and physical infrastructure needed to employ Americans in good jobs in the 21st century.
This means investing in new technologies/industries, investing in education, investing in a health care system, investing in roads, bridges and communication infrastructure, and then standing back and watching American Entrepreneurs take advantage of those investments.
Its what our country has always done.
The problem is that no one wants to make any new investments, they only want returns on investments that are 60 years old.
Mexico? The slaughter that goes on down there because of the drug war? Where was that?
One thing I know....whatever mitt doesnt yet know on foreign policy, he will learn on the job like obama had to ...however,tonight, clearly, obama came off as an angry person, a condescending person, a mean spirited vindictive type of person, and I think THAT more than anything else, makes Romney the better choice for the country, especially with romney's understanding and backround in economics....if you wonder where the obstruction and anger is coming from today in american politics, it comes from the top...it comes from obama and it flows down..it was downright ugly tonight just how mean this president was and that is the last thing he said he'd be in 2008.
Suggest you head off the dentist without delay. That nerve Obama hit last night has you wincing in agony.
Your comment says more about you than President Obama 2012 !
Did Obama even answer the question asked in the second debate about who denied Ambassador Stevens requested security before the terrorist attack?
Answer this Willard: Why don't you show us your tax returns for the last 20 years. You are a criminal for not disclosing your income from off-shore accounts on your tax returns!!!!! THAT's why!!!! Hahahaahahahahaha
I want to know how Romney can be Commander and Chief as a Concientious Objector?
He was unable to go to Vietnam because of his religious beliefs against war/fighting to the death. (though that is not an objection amongst all Mormons-many served and continue to serve in the military)
How can he then be Commander and Chief, and take personal responsibility for sending troops in to harms way–and yes, possibly ordering them to directly kill someone (like Obama did with Osama bin Laden)–if he truly claims to be a Concientious Objector? Either he lied about that status to get out of having to go to Vietnam, or he completely switched his moral compass on the issue, and has no problem now with sending any one of his own boys into battle.
Seriously all, I would like to hear some other opinions on how this stance can be reconciled. Is this not an issue to anyone at all?!
It's a lot easier to send other people to die in combat than to go yourself. If nothing else has become more apparent about Romney, it's that his primary concern is for himself.
Hey Chrissy...........
Can you tell me Obama's Military Record of Service to this fine Country??? No you can't!!!!
I'm beginning to believe that Sarah Palin is the only one who can heal and re-unify our country. She is the "right" kind of Christian and she will see to it that we all get more of the Baby Jesus in our daily lives. But first she must return to her motorhome and resume her cross country tour. She will have to visit cities both large and small, taking care to speak only to "real Americans", dispensing her sage advice and folksy, homespun common sense solutions. We can be a great nation once again but first we must all follow the Palin Path.
I am sorry, but Sarah Palin is an ignorant fool. I do not want her ANYWHERE near the "button". Please tell me you were being sarcastic.
Neither candidate really answered how we will tackle the problem posed by large corporations recruiting and training legions of foreign technology workers and using them to displace American workers. Obama was going to tackle the issue, but backed down quickly when India protested. Romney seems to want to open the doors wider and issue green cards with diplomas.
If OB is re elected, how is he going to repair the damage from ramming his Obama care through congress?
Why is the media soooooo concern as to who won the debates. Romney's first debate he was on the attack, he was presidential, he showed all the characteristics of a leader and a president. Obama during first debate was known to be less engaging, not focused....or simply a president who didn't care. Both men have learned through this journey that whomever the American people decide to lead this country in the next four years will need the entire support from everyone from both parties and certainly the American people. There are so many people who truly wanted to see Obama fail and have publicly stated "Rush...Hannity" just to name two! Obama didnot create this mess....for over 230 years whites males have SOLD this country to HELL....and now certain segments of our country are so caught up with racist tactics, refuse to see the forrest for the trees. If Romney or McCain was elected President in 2008 with the same ideals Obama had and offered an agenda for the future....there would be no conversation. It's time to move from the 1930's mentality and take this country into the 21st Century. It's time for change...we as white males have truly destroyed America over GREED. The time has come to allow someone else an opportunity.
SH
Well said Steve.........
I wish one of them would have at one time during this debate said " And I am going to pull the plug on Bernake's money printing press, as it prints 10 Billion dollars a week, before this nation implodes" That person would have gotten my vote for certain.
I am very concerned about the comment Pres. Obama made to the Russian President and when Romney commented on it Obama said nothing......This comment by Obama concerns me more than anything else and is the reason I will not vote for him.
That the president will have more flexibility? Duh.
You have a pretty narrow focus. Somehow I doubt that's what your decision hinges on.
The late 50s/early 60s called, Caroline, they want their Red Scare back.
Governor, Mr.President, what would you do if asked to sign the death warrants of American citizens, and execute them without trial.
We all know the answer to that one. Obama does not even bother signing warrants, he just uses drones. Romney would not dare to criticize him on this, because I believe he will do the same. This is one contention many voters have regarding Obama’s policies, and he will lose a lot of votes over it. But again, I think both parties are on the same page with this one.
After last night's debate, even Mitt Romney will vote for Obama. Mitt foolishly said, that people vote for the sake of peace. If that was so we should be looking for another Mother Teresa, for president. People look for somebody who can make intelligent decisions for economy,war, foreign policy, etc.
The GOP has Rove, Cheney, Akin, West, Walsh, Bachman, Perry, Kantor, DeMint, McConnel...etc. Nutters all of them.
How is this race even close?
Both of candidates are missing the point as to what really rules global leadership today, it is a strong financial country with sound economic policies in place, we have neither one and we are movng fasster and faster to loosing our leadership in the world. We owe trillions to many other countries, our dollar is weaker and weaker, and trade deficent is growing despite what Obama told you which is not true. IRAN is gonig to develop a nuclear bomb soon, as to become a member of the nuclear weapns countires and welid their power just as Pakistan does now. We have no plan in place as to what will be done when that happen despite Obama's insistence that Iran's development will not happen. If you believe that you are a complete fool. A sound currency rules the world and we are loosing that leadership quicker and quicker! When these all happen which it will within the next 4 years after Obama is e-elected I will have no pitty for you.
United States should not take hasty decisions on Iran. They should ask themselves if they can afford another war? Tough economic sanctions with the cooperation of all the allies is the best option. If Iran's economy is crippled, they can't afford a nuclear weapon
You currently have a great President. The problem you have is that your expectations are to high. Do you think that any President, Republican or Democrat, could actually dig you out of the hole that Bush put you in, in 4 years. BO has done a great job uniting your country and the world. Unfortunately, the crap he had to fix outweighed the good he wanted to do. Give him a break. The alternative is that you vote for Romney at which point you become a red neck.
I think most people would be willing to give him a pass – we all know that he "inherited" the economy. It would not have mattered who President – it still would have been a mess. But what does not sit well are campaign promises that aren't fulfilled. If it takes 8 – 10 years to get the economy moving again – great, just be upfront and honest about it.
Don't promise the American public you'll cut the deficit by 50% and the end of your first term – if you can't do it. Don't promise the American public you'll close Gitmo, if you can't do it. Don't promise the American public that unemployment will be down to 5.4% (or whatever number he threw out) – if you can't do it. It's not so much a matter of being dishonest, it's more a matter of being inexperienced. There was no way he could keep those promises – don't make them. He could keep the promises on Iraq and Afghanistan – they were already in place before he took office. I'm glad we're out of Iraq, but I don't think the draw down was done appropriately – which was discussed in both the VP and Pres debates. I think will come back to haunt us.
Doesn't help having a Congress that has done absolutely nothing. They've blocked jobs bills that would help unemployment, they blocked any possibility of closing Gitmo, they've blocked all revenue increase that would affect the rich, they directly caused the debt ceiling crisis resulting in the credit rating being lowered, not to mention all the cuts around the country at state level affecting unemployment. It takes a lot of nerve for the GOP to blame Obama for problems they intentionally caused.
Thank you and agreed. I am not from the US however I do have an interest in who leads your country and right now, Romney scares me more than Bush. Whatever happens, I wish you success and safety.
The question I would have liked to see, was about the meeting the president had with Russia's president, when he thought he was off the microphone. I would like to know just what Obama meant by saying he would have more flexibility after the election. Is he planning on doing something that he is afraid would be unpopular with the voters, so he has to wait until after the election? In my opinion, Romney should have brought it up, he missed an opportunity.
That is exactly what it means. He will reduce our strategic defenses to appease Putin. Romney should have used this opportunity to say that. Poland was supposed to get a missle defense system to help reduce threats from the Middle East but Obama stopped it. Russia is all upset over that becoming a reality again. Well....if Russia wasn't supplying Iran with components and technology to further their conventional and nuclear ballistic missle program, we wouldn't have to place a missle sheild in Poland in the first place. The biggest winners out of politics seem to be the weapons manufactures and coffin makers.
The United States of America should start doing what is in the best interest of the United States. Just like every other country does including Israel.
We should pull out of the middle east and focus on our own problems. We should only lead by example. That's it.
I would like to see the format of the debates changed the next time around. Two minute sound bytes do not lend themselves to in depth discussion. I also think that including ALL of the candidates, not just those from the Republican and Democratic parties would help add insights and perspectives.
I believe that Climate Change should have been brought up at least one time during the four debates, which is was not. I also think that the issue of Citizens United and Super PAC's should be highlighted for the blatant corruption that it is. Also perhaps some discussion of GMO's and Obama's placement of Monsanto employee's in charge of Food Safety. And could we please have an intellegent discussion on the illegality of the Patriot Act and NDAA.
What will the next president due regarding our maritime disputes with Canada (in the Beaufort Sea) and the Bahamas (the lack of maritime boundary)? And how about addressing Tokelau's claim to Swains Island, a part of American Samoa?
Why were there no questions about Mexico?
I ll tell you why.... Obama's amnesty for illegals makes Americans mad! The liberal biased media will do anything to try and keep obama from looking like the traitor he is! So no hard questions for obama.
What a freaking joke!
this is a very bigoted statement – wow!
You're right – we're so focused on the Middle East, we forget what's in our backyard. And coming over our borders in droves.
Romney: Did you take the IRS tax amnesty deal on unreported income on your Swiss bank account?
Obama: Why have you allowed the Bush/Cheney rollback of Habeas Corpus to stand?
Facts to keep in mind: FIRST: Gov. Romney correctly claims that Massachusetts rose to #1 in education—but it was based on former Governor Weld’s education reform plan. Governor Romney moved in the opposite direction–he vetoed bills that would have strengthened preschool education. SECOND: when the legislature provided a budget amendment to stop contracting with companies that outsource state work to other countries, Governor Romney vetoed the provision. This meant he supported outsourcing jobs at the expense of U.S. workers. However, the issue is not so much how he voted, but that Mr. Romney won the governorship by presenting himself in one way – JUST AS HE IS DOING NOW – and by the end of his single term, he had acted in an entirely different way. Mr. Romney re-created himself and changed his positions during the first Presidential debate in Colorado because he knows he must sound more moderate in order to win the independent vote. After that, all bets are off.
Question for Romney pertaining to priorities. Given that presidents don't get everything that they desire, which is his higher priority: to make sure the rich get a tax break, or to make sure the middle class does not lose their deductions (mortgage, charity, education, child, etc.)? He signed a pledge saying he would never raise taxes on the rich. Would he be willing to sign a pledge about the middle class deductions? If one of those had to go, which one would go first?
OMG CNN...unanswered questions? Yes GUNS???? What are the candidates positions on Guns and gun control. I noticed during this season we've had another shooting and the Media aint askin and the candidates are not talking about guns and gun control what a waste.
What part should we play in participating with the global community toward the issue of global warming?
We didn't learn what either would do about the thousands of nuclear weapons still on hair-trigger alert 20 years after the cold war is over – costing $50B per year to maintain.
How about why Obama failed to close Guantanamo as he promised in 2008? Discussion on the necessity of the Patriot Act, wiretapping, collection of personal information by the government. European banking crisis and U.S. involvement in resolution? Per usual, the foreign policy debate got suckered into a very narrow discussion on the Middle East with a passing bashing of China thrown in for good measure.
You are all missing a big point, obama wont tell you what he has in for store for the next 4 years, welll let me tell you my friends how do you like sociallism beleive me he has angenda , AMERICA will never be the same i have lived in a socialist country they control you. No more FREEDOM so for those of you who think he so great try Europe live there for awhile, i will guarentee you you will be back here in a heart beat. Read the book the AMateur by ed Klein see behind the scenes what he has in store America will go down quickly if hasnt already. 4 more years of him weel be a 3rd world Country is that what you want. i became a citizen and yes the right way i value what i have done and become and proud to be an AMERICAN i wish i had born here. USA FOR EVER LET FREEDOM RING , LIBERTY FREE FREE he has to get out of the White house along with sorus
I am sorry, but America is not free. Just google "Countries with most freedoms" and you will see that the US does not rank very well.
And my question..... what is with the hatred of socialism? If you keep hearing from Rush that Socialism is bad..mmmmkay, i guess i can see why you would believe it. But try researching socialism on your own, not sure a bad thing.
And also, Obama, is NO WHERE NEAR socialism, and trust me, i would vote Socialism/Marxism any day.
I have not heard any hard questions or answers regarding environmental policy and/or global warming.
I suppose that Global Warming was a myth after all. Neither campaign has mentioned it.
If it was really important, then the candidates (especially Obama) would have talked about it, right?
Where's candidate Al Gore when Mother Earth needs him?
What about Indefinite Detention of US citizens?
Prosecution of corrupt bank CEOs?
Drone strikes killing thousands of innocents?
Assassination of American citizens without trial?
Moderator's question: Would either of you confirm the statement that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on America by your administration?
Neither of them would confirm that statement. They both made comments that Israel is our best friend in that region, that "we have Israel's back," that we would support Israel fully... but not the statement posed to them. I thought that was very, very interesting.
UNINSTALLING OBAMA.....……………. █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete.
Can anyone answer me this:
Why does America feel the need to police the world? Morally and with democracy?
Why do you guys give a rats $#@ about everyone else.
How about this, you guys can be a beacon of desire/hope, when you have no unemployment, when you have no homeless, when you have no poor and no sick.
Until then you are just like everyone else.
Get the $%#& over yourselves. Most countries hate you guys. And it is because of you imposing nature.
I can answer those questions, but only on a personal basis. I don't feel a need or even a desire to police the world. I don't give a rat's $#@ about everyone else, especially Canucks – who keep posing these silly questions. Other nations decide if we are beacons of desire/hope, not us. And we're not advertising for you or anyone else to come here. I don't care who you think we are like, or not like. And all "countries" hate somebody. They hate who or what their own culture tells them to. If left to my designs, we wouldn't be "imposing" anywhere. I'd let YOUR country do it.
We need a clean slate and start all over. Get rid of all of them.
NEW YORK: Renowned Indian activist and novelist Arundhati Roy has decried the silence of the international community over the continued “brutal Indian occupation of Kashmir” and said Kashmiris should be given the right to self-determination……
She said so little was known about the atrocities being committed by more than half a million Indian troops, the continuing repression and indignities let loose on Kashmiri men, women and children.
More than 700,000 troops were concentrated in the tiny valley, with checkpoints at every nook and corner of Kashmiri towns and cities. The huge Indian presence, she added, was in sharp contrast with 160,000 US troops in Iraq.
Ms Roy alleged that Indian army or security personnel were killing young children, pregnant women and elderly.
"It is no secret that Hitler and his Nazi cronies sought inspiration from Indian extremist groups including the branding of his Nazi Party by adopting the Swastika, a traditionally Hindu symbol and representation of Hindu god Ganesha, as its marketing tool. The thesis being that like the Norwegian massacre the Jewish holocaust orchestrated by Hitler was inspired by the inherently violent cult of Indian Hindus and the manifesto of its then extremist/terrorist groups still in existence today. These groups are now the successors to and carrying out the vision of Al Qaeda all over the world albeit in a clandestine manner."
PAKISTAN !!!!
THANK YOU …. THANK YOU…. THANK YOU!!!!
FOR MAKING USA SAFE FOR MAKING THE WORLD SAFE>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since Sep 11, 2001, over 200,000 Pakistani civilians, armed forces personnel have either sacrificed their lives or wounded; more than 3.5 million have been displaced while the country has lost over
US $ 1 Trillion due to terrorism.
Despite sacrifices, Pakistan was still engaged in 'the war for world peace”.
No other country has even come close to selflessly sacrificing so much.
Pakistan, no one can ever repay you enough for your contributions.
You deserve a permanent seat in the UN Security Council for your contributions to world peace and emergence of a new world order. We welcome your rise as the new regional military power. God Speed.
It is not what question was not answered, it is what question the debate has raised. I seriously doubt now if I have a clue where Mr. Romney stands on any issue. May be a great debating strategy to change stand on almost every issue to startle oppenent but opens up a possibility of a US president being more tacticle than strategic. I guess what else you can expect from a person who spent life appeasing wall street every quarter.
Why was a privately funded bailout ok for FORD, many people believe that they weren't bailed out. They needed the bailout as bad as GM and Chrysler, but chose now to jump through the hoops that the government was asking for. Instead they asked a wallstreet investment company for the money. They by the way also came out stronger without borrowing taxpayer money. It is my understanding that GM got off without paying as much interest as Chrysler while claiming to have paid all the money back...I would be interested to know whether they really did pay it all back with all the interest. I don't think so
I would also ask the president, if his personal investment broker put him in debt like his admistration has done to this nation, would he continue to employ that broker.
What will you do you do to prevent future "near government shutdowns". I found each near shutdown to indicate that the president doesn't have the political clout to take care of business and to show americans and people worldwide the united states is unstable. Couple that with debt and a downgraded credit rating that has other nations laughing at us like car guys do when somebody with a 500 credit score acts picky about what they will buy.
I would ask both parties why they continue to spew propaganda over each others parties. Why can't you work together to solve problems like a business would do. Your so stuck along party lines that you couldn't possibly see clearly. Do some research. Stop taking pay increases, vacations when you can be solving problems that need to be solved. I just love it when I hear that congress is going to wait to vote until after the elections. That's B.S. Look at an economy and or at policies that work and do it here. Be leaders, not politicians
p.s. both sides need to stop the lies and stop spinning everything. And while I'm at it, the spin stops here, should be , the spin starts here.
as for the comment above about Pakistan. I would like to congratulate Pakistan being Taliban free. Not! And for their participation in harboring bin laden and who know who else. Only countries that are weak or poor would allow this. As far as I'm concerned they are not friends of the US. hey I know, lets send more jobs there, that should help.. they're almost as barbaric as everyone else in the region. They're just better educated.
sorry, I needed to vent somewhere
Who are you? Where are you going
My questions. Do they have a clue that we are bankrupt ? Do they have a clue that the Federal Reserve, a private bank, run our country ? When are we going to bring offshored jobs and factories ?When are we going to legalize hemp-a miracle plant for industrial production , for recreational and medical purposes ?When will the illigal immigration stop ? When will lowering of pay for Americans due to work visas stop ?When are we going to stop endless wars that are destroying our treasury ? When are we going to stop borrowing money from China ?
Most important : when will our President and Congress start serving the people that elected them and not the 1% ?
My unanswered question. Why do CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS all so overtly in support of Obama? The news has not been real impartial journalism for decades. You all should be taken to court for influence peddling and meddling in our election process.
Only ONE!
Why are people so WILLING to give Obama a free pass, on his lies, deception, and failures???????
Is it simply because the "grand experiment" of a black man in the WH, has been a FAILURE????? Perhaps we can view that, as its own form of RACISM!
It is certain, that Obama would be attacked from everywhere, if he were WHITE!
Why isn't anyone talking about Romney's answer concerning his 6 to 8 year plan to fix the economy? And Romney says the President had 4 years to fix the economy and failed when he admits he can't do it in 4 years!
One would think that's kind of an important...
I want to know how Romney plans to make $5 trillion disappear. Tax cuts don't fix the deficit. Tax neutral doesn't fix it either. So, how's it going to vanish? Smoke and mirrors? Hocus-pocus auto-focus!