Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

 The rivals for the US presidency clashed bitterly in their first presidential debate last night as Barack Obama sought to tie John McCain to the failed policies of the Bush administration at home and abroad.

Mr Obama, seen by voters as weaker on foreign affairs, was judged to have held his own in the debate, while Mr McCain did not manage to expose any major weaknesses in his opponent. But his contempt for his rival was on display throughout, as he could not bring himself to look his opponent directly in the eye during the debate. Read more.

Simple question: Who do you think won the debate?

Edit: The Independent called it a draw


( Comment )
Page 3 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
derek_cashman wrote:
Sep. 28th, 2008 03:44 pm (UTC)
Obama held his own pretty well in terms of foreign policy. McCain didn't stick his foot in his mouth (except for the pre-debate part about trying to postpone it),... but the debate itself was more or less of a tie. Which will probably swing in Obama's favor since the polls are headed in his direction currently -- McCain, if anything, needed to deliver some sort of knockout blow, which he failed to do.
slavezombie wrote:
Sep. 29th, 2008 07:09 pm (UTC)
Leading a country as a man who's out of touch with society
I don't think McCain won on the premise that Obama kept trying to make eye contact, but McCain neglected to acknowledge this simple attempt at communication. Later, when McCain was asked about this, his feeble attempt of an explanation was that he was concentrating on addressing the M.C. (Jim Lehrer) and the American people. If he was so concerned about the M.C., or anybody else, then being portrayed as a hypocrite in front of millions of people on TV would be the wrong signals to send for winning an election. I think he seemed prejudice against Obama because of the manner in which he snickered whenever Obama confronted him with embarrassing accusations.
wu_chan wrote:
Sep. 29th, 2008 07:13 pm (UTC)
I don't know if Obama won anything, but McCain definitely lost. He showed himself for the grumpy old man he is.
cwallacesongs wrote:
Sep. 30th, 2008 09:03 am (UTC)
McCain won if you want a WWII (he referenced this) war time President who wants to control the world in a short-tempered, single minded arrogance that we've seen before in W. (that is until recently, when George and co. seem to taken sides with the Obama approach of diplomacy).

Obama won if you are looking for a wise, calm, steady-handed approach with an eye on the normal middle-lower income people, (who make up the masses in America). McCain didn't mention these people at all. Obama clearly had more modern ideas on the economy, ending the war, and the kind of future for Americans that will unite our communities.

How can you fund schools and Universities for the future minds of well-educated Americans, when you're spending 10 billion dollars a month (INDEFINATELY!) in Iraq? Or, is what we really want uneducated masses of Americans who don't follow politics, history, or would rather rally behind a bomb dropping quarterback, than admit they might have voted for the wrong team 4 and/or 8 years ago? You know, the out of work factory worker with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker? Or (this always blows my mind) "Pro-Life Feminists"?!!!

I would think McCain did great with the "shock and awe" voters with the usual war mongering and aggravated name-calling throughout his speech, but is "SORRY TO TELL YA, THERE ARE GOING TO BE MORE WARS" (-McCain) what we really want for our future?
tightshotgroup wrote:
Sep. 30th, 2008 05:13 pm (UTC)
It was interesting to watch the first of the Presidential Debates.

Senator Obama made a good show as always. His ability to tell us what we want to hear is very comforting. His understanding of what the issues are also makes one feel good. He looks good speaks well and appears to be a very nice down to earth guy.

Senator McCain presented the facts surrounding the issues in a manner expected of an elder Statesman. He too seemed very aware of the issues we as a nation face. He demonstrated an additional awareness of how we came to the place we find ourselves now.

I thought Senator Obama made a very good point when talking about our current financial situation. He said that we spend $10 Billion each day in Iraq while they have a $79 Billion surplus. He suggested that we could save $10 Billion per day by moving our troops out of Iraq. Sounds like a good way to save money. He also said that we needed to increase our troop strength in Afghanistan. Also a good move. This guy is all over it!

If, with the number of troops we have in Iraq, it costs $10 Billion per day to conduct operations there, how much will it cost to conduct operations in Afghanistan? I guess it is cheaper to operate in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Is it naive to think that moving the location where we focus combat operations will change the amount of money it takes to conduct those operations successfully?

On the subject of taxation. As I understand him, Senator Obama wants to increase the taxes on all businesses and on individuals who make more than $250,000 per year. This also sounds like a good idea for anyone who does not own a business or who makes less than $250,000 per year.

The rationale for increasing taxes on the "wealthy" is that "they can afford it". Our current personal income tax system is a graduated system starting at ten percent for the first dollar of income and gradually making its way to thirty-five percent for income over $174,850. Doesn't 35 cents from every dollar one earns seem like it should be more than enough. Worse, once we earn $32550 we pay 25 cents on each dollar!

Here is what the Constitution says about taxes:
Article I section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,..." (noticeably, the President does not have this power, the Congress does!)
For what purpose:
..."to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" (notice that there are only three valid reasons for the Congress to levy taxes)

So we see that the Congress can raise money (taxes) in order to pay debts, defend our nation and make improvements on this land which will benefit all United States Citizens.

I think it matters very little what any politician tells us in order to get our vote. What matters, particularly in this election, is will the candidate get this government more in line with its Constitution or continue to erode its provisions.
lc5827 wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 04:51 am (UTC)
Obama appeared more knowledgeable and Presidential!
tightshotgroup wrote:
Oct. 1st, 2008 01:16 pm (UTC)
With the current talks about a government bail out of WallStreet, and the fear some have that jobs will be lost; I think it lends credibility to the Republican position of lowering taxes on businesses.

The reason people are fearful of loosing their jobs now is because, as the news media tells us, businesses won't have enough money to make payrolls.

If the Federal Government raises business taxes doesn't that have the same effect?

Another hidden problem I see in this is that I keep hearing the comment that businesses are borrowing money, and have historically borrowed money to make payroll. Doesn't that bother you? Why do businesses find it necessary to borrow? Are they really making any money at all?
Page 3 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
( Comment )