The 2012 Presidential Debates: 3rd debate

[Kelly]

I was waiting for Marx, since he has been our lead on these threads.....but I guess work has got him busy....so...here ya go.

Topic: Foreign policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS) The format for the debate will be identical to the first presidential debate and will focus on foreign policy.

 

[Kelly]

I would be excited about this debate if were not for Bob Schieffer....of all of the moderators, he is the one I would categorize as a political hack. It's unfortunate that the committee chose him...

Hopefully in 4 years they will remember the moderating of the 2012 debates and learn from it.....

 

[Thundercrack85]

Was Big Bird unavailable to moderate?

 

[Kelly]

Was Big Bird unavailable to moderate?

Apparently not..... : /

 

[Marvolo]

I would be excited about this debate if were not for Bob Schieffer....of all of the moderators, he is the one I would categorize as a political hack. It's unfortunate that the committee chose him...

Hopefully in 4 years they will remember the moderating of the 2012 debates and learn from it.....

Really?

 

[Fading]

I think this will be the least important of the 3. Obama will mention getting Bin Laden, and ending Iraq a lot. Romney will probably mention Benghazi 200 times. That's not to say something new couldn't pop up, and I do think foreign policy is very important. I just expect this to be the least informative debate. Which is odd since they've talked over the economy far more than foreign policy this campaign.

With most ppl more concerned about the economy (according to polls), I doubt as many will tune in. Especially since a lot of ppl are bored with the debates at this point. The best either can hope for is a big win exciting the base, and increasing turnout. I don't think this debate will swing many voters, at least in comparison to the other two.

The fallout...pretty much the same as before. Fox will talk about, and pick apart anything Obama mentions about Benghazi nonstop, and MSNBC will pick apart pretty much everything Romney says. This is definitely the debate I'm least enthused about, even if I think the topic itself is very important.

 

[SV Fan]

I think this will be the least important of the 3. Obama will mention getting Bin Laden, and ending Iraq a lot. Romney will probably mention Benghazi 200 times. That's not to say something new couldn't pop up, and I do think foreign policy is very important. I just expect this to be the least informative debate. Which is odd since they've talked over the economy far more than foreign policy this campaign.

Don't forget about 100 mentions of Israel and who loves Netanyahu more.

Personally here is some issues I would love to see brought up(but most likely won't)

1. War on Drugs(since this wasn't brought up in any other debate now is their chance to talk about it, and you can claim it's a foreign policy issue)

2. Illegal Immigration(just because I know this will sink Romney(and once again you technically can label this foreign policy). lol)

3. Afghanistan(you know like the war we are actually in right now that won't get much spotlight beyond one question)

4. Cuba - somebody has to admit how ridiculous these sanctions are(i think we proved the point like 20 years ago), hell add Venezuela to the list of stupid US sanctions(all in the name of big oil in this case, you want to get cheaper gas, how about open your trade partners list)

5. North Korea - just for poops and giggles, I don't really care what either guy thinks but how they answer the question(ie either straight forward or skirting around the issue) would be interesting

 

[Kelly]

Don't forget about 100 mentions of Israel and who loves Netanyahu more.

Personally here is some issues I would love to see brought up(but most likely won't)

1. War on Drugs(since this wasn't brought up in any other debate now is their chance to talk about it, and you can claim it's a foreign policy issue)

2. Illegal Immigration(just because I know this will sink Romney(and once again you technically can label this foreign policy). lol)

3. Afghanistan(you know like the war we are actually in right now that won't get much spotlight beyond one question)

4. Cuba - somebody has to admit how ridiculous these sanctions are(i think we proved the point like 20 years ago), hell add Venezuela to the list of stupid US sanctions(all in the name of big oil in this case, you want to get cheaper gas, how about open your trade partners list)

That should probably be, who Netanyahu loves more....

IMO, Mexico is Obama's weakest point.....I wouldn't be surprised if the moderator skips that one...

 

[SV Fan]

That should probably be, who Netanyahu loves more....

Probably true, I am guessing Romney will drop the name at least 5 times, Obama will just refer to Israel as Israel when talking about that country. Romney will also make mention he worked with Netanyahu before and how close they are.

 

[Excel]

So Iran wants to sit down and talk with us?

BUT I THOUGHT THEY FOUND US WEAK?

 

[SV Fan]

So Iran wants to sit down and talk with us?

BUT I THOUGHT THEY FOUND US WEAK?

I am guessing if they do Romney will claim that thank God Obama listened to him and his idea worked(much like the auto bailout).

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There's too many land mines for Romney to avoid (War with Iran, exploiting Bengazi politically, Bin Laden).

Obama will have Romney dancing around to avoid them.

If Romney couldn't finish off the president with the US economy as the topic he's pretty much done.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Here's a great drinking game. Take a drink every time the word "Benghazi" is said in the debate.

 

[Kelly]

So Iran wants to sit down and talk with us?

BUT I THOUGHT THEY FOUND US WEAK?

And you believe them? wow....

 

[Excel]

And you believe them? wow....

I'll believe it when I see it. Wondering what the WH will say, though.

 

[Kelly]

I'll believe it when I see it. Wondering what the WH will say, though.

Please don't make any nuclear weapons?????

 

[Thundercrack85]

Given that Iran buys its missile tech from North Korea... maybe we really should be encouraging them to make nuclear weapons. Missile goes up, comes straight back down. Problem solved.

 

[SV Fan]

Given that Iran buys its missile tech from North Korea... maybe we really should be encouraging them to make nuclear weapons. Missile goes up, comes straight back down. Problem solved.

Don't underestimate North Korea

Their new leader started to drive at the age of 3

http://www.inquisitr.com/178196/north-korea-kim-jung-un-was-able-to-drive-at-age-3/

In addition to not really knowing how old he is or have much experience in running a nuclear power, there is one thing North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has no problem with…driving. North Korea had announced that Kim Jong Un mastered driving by the time he was only 3 years old.

Let’s not think the round little dictator ended his run there. By the time he was 8 he was able to drive so well that he was driving cars rally style at over 85 miles per hour with laser like precision.

They learn fast there. Hell his dad got 11 holes in one the first time he golfed

Kim Jong Un is not alone in his supernatural abilities. His father, in addition to murdering millions of people during his bloody rule also had many supernatural talents.

He was so good at golf that the first time he ever tried to play he shot 11 hole in ones. It was probably do to all the extra time he had due to the fact that in his biography he told a reviewer that he never had to defecate in his whole life.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'd laugh, if I didn't know children in North Korea were really taught that.

 

[Burgundy LaRue]

I'll believe it when I see it. Wondering what the WH will say, though.

They're saying there's no deal. The NYT has modified their original statement. It's worth noting that the original story came from an U.S. official, not someone directly in the Obama administration, so it seems. An associate of an associate from inside the WH talking too soon, maybe?

Reuters seems to think there's something to the story, but won't go as far as the NYT did with their initial run.

 

[Fading]

So Iran wants to sit down and talk with us?

BUT I THOUGHT THEY FOUND US WEAK?

They can give all the rhetoric they want, the sanctions are crippling their economy. I heard their currency is in the crapper, and the ppl are getting hungry, and angry. You can put on a brave face, but given the arab spring popping up everywhere...I doubt they're going to let this go on too much longer. Something has to give eventually, and they don't even have a delivery system in place yet.

 

[Matt]

I feel like this is a trap debate for Obama. He is going in with planned talking points ("I killed Bin Laden," "I fixed our reputation. Mitt Romney wants war," etc) but we all saw how shaken Obama got at the suggestion that he is responsible for the four deaths in Syria. He was furious. He was able to hold it together and give a good answer for the few minutes remaining in that question, channel his anger into a strong two minute rebuttal. But tonight is all foreign policy. Romney will basically be an internet troll, passive aggressively pushing and prodding Obama whenever he can all while wearing that **** eating grin of his. I think Obama is going to get pissy and break his talking points due to this and Obama is terrible when he has to break from what he has rehearsed. If Romney can push Obama enough to make a mistake and get angry and/or uncomfortable, than Romney will win.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't think Obama is going to crack so easily.

and Romney has to be careful not to come off like a troll or bully.

He might get away with it once but too many times and the audience will take notice.

 

[Fading]

I can agree with that Matt. Ppl are still more impressed by Romney's first debate win than Obama's second debate win. Nontheless, Obama's win was more recent. That puts a bit more pressure on him. Especially since Obama had a lot of foreign policy things happen over his term that he can talk about positively. Meanwhile most ppl aren't looking to Romney for his foreign policy expertise, like they are for an economic alternative.

So Obama's set up pretty well for this debate. Which is exactly why it's easier to stumble. If you really listen to Romney's foreign policy points, they're pretty unattractive, and vague. However he can easily just shift the focus on Obama, Benghazi, and rile Obama up to lash out a bit in frustration. Romney's shown he's the worst opponent for getting under Obama's skin in a debate. He so easily 180's on stances it leaves Obama shell shocked, while Romney calmly brushes the rebuttals off as untrue.

Romney, IMO, doesn't stand a snowball's chance on substance in this topic. On style, and getting under Obama's skin in a visible way though, yeah, I can see Romney atleast getting a tie in undecided voters eyes. Though personally, assuming Obama can keep his cool (and doesn't fall asleep like in debate 1), I say he walks away with a win tonight. As much as a townhall may be set up in Obama's favor in terms of the feel, this entire debates subject favors Obama.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I predict Obama is going to point out Bin Laden's death during his closing statements kind of like his 47% comments last time.