Just wondering what you thought about the "debate".
Depending on the news source - some say Romney did very well
while some say Romney lied throughout the "debate".
Romney gains ground on Obama after strong debate
Both told lies and verbally clever half-truths. Romney's "win" came from issues of presentation and manner (e.g., Obama looking down and smirking when Romney was talking) and from Obama's failure to attack him, as Al Franken or Bernie Sanders might have, for doubting the omniscience of government and proposing to take away some of its wonderful benefits.
If it were a real deba
That's the thing. These aren't actually debates.
I've had trouble with AN cutting off my posts before because the server is so slow. I wrote; If it were a real debate using Oxford rules each participant would be given time to respond to each others comments. There is a comment, a counter, reply, and counter reply as I recall in Oxford debates. They aren't debates and it's an insult to our intelligence to call them that. If they were debates us voters would be able to learn something about their views and the lies would be exposed. My guess is the candidates don't want that and the sponsors, meaning the commercials not the broadcaster want it even less. In 2011 the U.S. ranked #19th out of 25 with full democracies according to The Economist. I read that an independent press is a reason American democracy is rated low.
Thank you Chris for the chart and I would have to agree with you.
They are not real debates and the lies are just told to us for us to believe.
Good thing I see through the lies!
So true - they are not real debates and both of them lie. All politicians for that manner - all liars.
If it were a debate, there would be a central issue TO debate, e.g., "Resolved: That the US Constitution is (not) valid and binding on the federal government." Or: "Resolved: That the US can no longer afford (or must continue to) to police the world."
YES! One central issue per debate, not sound bites from standard stump speeches. We've heard all that before. That's why these "shows" are so boring.
I like your second topic VERY much! IMO policing the world alone was never our job...that was what the United Nations was supposed to be for.
Another topic might be "Rebuilding our infrastructure and creating jobs."
If we hadn't blown trillions in Iraq for no reason at all, we would have the money to repair roads, bridges, add high-speed rail transit, a whole lot of things that need doing. And we wouldn't be in debt to China, of all places!
Iraq wasn't just a waste of money, it was illegal, immoral, totally unnecessary, a waste of lives...both ours and theirs...and shameful. Cheney, Rumsfeld, What's-Her-Name (Oh, Rice), and Bush should be tried as criminals. They controlled the electorate by whipping up fear based on lies. They KNEW Saddam Hussein had no WMDs, had no connections to Al Qaeda, and was no threat to us or any of our allies.
Cheney and Bush needed something to get us worked up enough to keep them in office for another 4 years...that's ALL it was about.
(And Little Shrub wanted to look more macho than his daddy was.)
And in the process they created many more poeple who are now our sworn enemies than there were after 9-11.
I know I'm ranting, but I was against that war from the beginning, and when I see someone like disabled vet Tammy Duckworth (Illinois House Candidate) being ridiculed by her Rove/Koch-backed Tea Party opponent (who never served in our military), I want to hit somebody...or throw things. Or scream. Or all three.
Somebody should pay for this mess...and NOT the middle class taxpayers.
I forgot to add "despicable" to the list of adjectives at the beginning of the above post.
The money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan would have gone a long way toward oil and energy independence. Imagine how far we could have come if that money was spent on alternative energy and mass transit. By gaining energy independence the U.S. wouldn't have to interfere with Muslim countries in the future in attempt to control their oil resources.