Originally posted by whodeyBoth candidates repeated lies thay have told on the campaign trail. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/ and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/false/
Now was that McCains strategy or a tactic. You know, sometimes I get the two a little confused. 😛
Originally posted by WulebgrI have to say that I am shocked! 😲
Both candidates repeated lies thay have told on the campaign trail. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/ and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/false/
And to think that all my trust in these two has been misplaced. 😞
Originally posted by ivanhoe"The end of the beginning" was how Churchill described the victory at El Alamein:
McCain: "This isn't the beginning of the end of this crisis, this is the end of the beginning."
What does this mean ? Is it going to get worse ? Is it going to get better ? This is a rather enigmatic statement if you ask me. The conclusion I draw from this debate is that McCain doesn't have a clue of what is happening and what should be done in the field of reforming the financial system.
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
McCain's statement seems off the mark. We haven't won a victory on our way to greater victory over the financial crisis, in my view.
Originally posted by spruce112358McCain was trying for a win in the sound byte war and came out sounding a bit muddled.
"The end of the beginning" was how Churchill described the victory at El Alamein:
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
McCain's statement seems off the mark. We haven't won a victory on our way to greater victory over the financial crisis, in my view.
If the debate was about public speaking and articulation, then Obama would have surely won. But even though those are important elements and I know a lot of Americans are going to vote for a candidate based on those specific elements; the main point at issue during the debate was foreign policy and it was apparent to me that McCain's views and judgement on the key issues were much stronger than Obama's.
Originally posted by irontigranWatching the debate, my impression was that McCain was "winning" because he wasn't getting torn up as badly as I'd expected.
i think its not about the points they make for who won, but what independent uncommitted voters thought. and obama won them so he won the debate. everyone else of course liked their guy better
I agree with you though, that "winning" really should be determined by counting how many voters each side picked up.
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeCan you give some examples ?
If the debate was about public speaking and articulation, then Obama would have surely won. But even though those are important elements and I know a lot of Americans are going to vote for a candidate based on those specific elements; the main point at issue during the debate was foreign policy and it was apparent to me that McCain's views and judgement on the key issues were much stronger than Obama's.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, for starters, Obama's notion that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place therefore we should pull out seems very naive to me. The point at issue with Iraq isn't about our previous justifications for the war, but rather that we are already there in great force and how we use that force will affect the stability of the region for the next couple decades. I believe a premature withdrawal would destabilize the region and could give more power and influence to belligerent states and entities like Syria, Iran, and Al-Qaeda. Turning our back on Iraq when it isn't ready to properly defend itself could lead to a failed state that would become a training ground for terrorist organizations. Obama claims that we should focus solely on where the War on Terrorism started, Afghanistan; he argues that we made a strategic error in the War on Terror when we diverted our attention from Afghanistan five years ago to go to war with Saddam and now Al-Qaeda is resurgent in Afghanistan. But by diverting our full attention back to Afghanistan would in fact be repeating the same mistake that Obama claims we made five years ago in Afghanistan. Obama inaccurately assumes that a withdrawal in Iraq won't lead to a resurgent Al-Qaeda in Iraq. McCain accurately recognizes that leaving Iraq right now means that we might have to return later to deal with a even bigger mess. McCain wants to get it right and he doesn't care if his strategy is unpopular.
Can you give some examples ?
In regards to meeting with Ahmadinejad, Obama's notion that reaching out to a belligerent state would improve America's standing among the international community is absurd. It has been well documented that Ahmadinejad yearns for the ultimate destruction of Israel. Earlier this month in an interview with Larry King, Ahmadinejad euphemized his earlier intent on Israel saying that the toppling of the current regime would be a humanitarian victory for the sufferings of the Arab and Palestinian people over the past century. I am absolutely positive that Ahmadinejad would nuke the crap out of Israel if he had the opportunity, and Obama wants to sit down and chit chat with him rather than impose harsh economic sanctions that would prevent Ahmadinejad from obtaining nukes. Having diplomatic relations with belligerent states just doesn't work in reality. It didn't work with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc. and it most certainly won't work with Ahmadinejad.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeSo, how would you say the current administrations stance on Iran has worked so far, because that is the exact same stance that McCain will have.
Well, for starters, Obama's notion that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place therefore we should pull out seems very naive to me. The point at issue with Iraq isn't about our previous justifications for the war, but rather that we are already there in great force and how we use that force will affect the stability of the region for the nex ...[text shortened]... ler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc. and it most certainly won't work with Ahmadinejad.
I think that anyone that is paying attention would say that it has been a complete failure.
As to Iraq, I am pretty sure that you misunderstood Obama's stance on Iraq. It wasn't just cut and run as McCain made it sound. Here is a link to Obama's website which will give you a better idea of Obama's stance - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal The key to this is "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months."
McCain did seem stronger on foreign policy, but looked like a total chump on the economy. The next 2 debates will not be about foreign policy and I think Obama will come away looking way better than he did last night.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYour right wing views are in a decided minority; by a 59%-35% margin, Americans support setting a timetable for withdrawal and by an even greater margin feel the war wasn't worth it. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Well, for starters, Obama's notion that we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place therefore we should pull out seems very naive to me. The point at issue with Iraq isn't about our previous justifications for the war, but rather that we are already there in great force and how we use that force will affect the stability of the region for the nex ...[text shortened]... ler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc. and it most certainly won't work with Ahmadinejad.
So McCain's view is admittedly unpopular; you think stubbornly sticking to it is going to help him win the election? He's flip-flopped on so many things you'd think he'd admit his error here, too.
Obama's right to say that the US President shouldn't be afraid to negotiate with any leader of any country; that's his job. Unilateral economic sanctions don't work and never change a country's policy on matters they view as vitally important. The Bush-McCain policy as regards Iran is and will continue to be an utter failure.
Originally posted by CliffLandinSo under Obama's assumption, Iraq will be completely stable in 16 months. I think that is flawed reasoning. McCain, on the other hand, wants to maintain a strong presence in Iraq until the country is completely stable, then perform a phased withdrawal. I think McCain's strategy is the better of the two.
So, how would you say the current administrations stance on Iran has worked so far, because that is the exact same stance that McCain will have.
I think that anyone that is paying attention would say that it has been a complete failure.
As to Iraq, I am pretty sure that you misunderstood Obama's stance on Iraq. It wasn't just cut and run as McCain ...[text shortened]... foreign policy and I think Obama will come away looking way better than he did last night.
About Iran, do you really think Obama could successfully reason with a man who yearns for Israel's ultimate destruction?
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeIraq will never be completely stable esp. under foreign occupation. Bush-McCain have no plan to ever withdraw.
So under Obama's assumption, Iraq will be completely stable in 16 months. I think that is flawed reasoning. McCain, on the other hand, wants to maintain a strong presence in Iraq until the country is completely stable, then perform a phased withdrawal. I think McCain's strategy is the better of the two.
About Iran, do you really think Obama could successfully reason with a man who yearns for Israel's ultimate destruction?
We reason with the Saudis and other Arab nations that don't accept the legitimacy of the creation of Israel; why not with Iran? What use are negotiations if all you do is talk to people who agree with you?