This is the only forum I participate on, so here we go...comments on the debates, anyone? After discussing it with family & friends, I thought I'd start a thread here.
Though Obama did call out Romney on some gaps in Romney's policies, I thought Obama was not looking very presidential last night, and in fact was looking quite cowed.
Now, this subdued-looking aspect is not a good thing in terms of foreign policy, because right now there are major issues in the world that could lead to problems in terms of a country/countries standing up to, and even attempting to defeat or take over the United States. I saw Ross Perot's recent warning and, despite any opinion on Perot himself in general, I think he made a good point.
Right now we need someone who can stand up to certain world leaders in a non-submissive way, because, I gotta tell ya, developments in China, Iran, North Korea, and even Russia are showing a very dangerous trend. As Donald Trump pointed out in his last book, and I agree with him (though my stance on Trump himself is mixed), we are headed for some heavy shiznit if we can't get a president who can get his act together in terms of foreign policy.
My girlfriend & I were in busy Old Town Pasadena last night walking around trying to find a bar/restaurant/lounge that may be broadcasting the debates, and we couldn't even find one...which I found disturbing. One employee in a lounge even said, "Oh, playing the volume on the debate here would just ruin the mood."
You know what's going to REALLY ruin the mood? When some psycho with intent to take over the U.S. jams a nuclear weapon/s up our you-know-whats because someone like Obama is not being tough where it's needed.
I look forward to topics on foreign policy tonight, because in my opinion, this is a major, major issue that very few but Perot & Trump have lately seemed to raise. Yes we need more jobs, yes we need a better economy because that will also affect our stance in the world, and yes to attention to other important issues. But this foreign thing is not getting nearly enough attention.
Right now I'm leaning heavily toward Romney because he seemed to steamroll right over Obama last night, and that's what we need someone to do right now in certain areas of the world in terms of dealing with leaders who seem hellbent on unleashing some serious hurt (and no I don't mean "steamrolling" in a dominating way, I'm talking about preventative defense, if you will). Romney showed fire & passion & I found that missing from Obama.
I mean think about it: What happens if the U.S. goes down? Who then will fend off some of what appears to be the world's evils? This issue is coming to a head real fast, and Obama is going to let something terrible happen if we keep that guy in there.
A "bump in the road"? Hardly. That bump is heralding something.
P.S.--Though I got the impression it was Romney who was president last night, and that Obama was trying to get his foot in the door of the presidency, not the other way around, I need to mention I'm not pro-Republican or pro-Democrat or even that much into politics. I pay attention to individuals. And just like Trump, I am worried about what could happen to the United States, and not in a mindless, rabid, patriotic, flag-waving way, but in an individualistic way, in a neutral-stance way of someone who is trying to comment on observations, not comment from a stance of someone with an agenda.
I wanted to add that I'm not looking for approval here. I'm merely bouncing things off of you good folks in an attempt to gain differing views & more knowledge. I'm not very political or very learned in this stuff. So I wanted to hear responses from people in an environment other than what is heard in the media, which seems to oftentimes be from those with some kind of agenda, and who can twist facts around to suit their purpose. I'm prepared & ready to potentially be enlightened on these topics.
I'm not an American citizen, but here are my views:
The world probably doesn't need the United States to fend off the world's evils. Sorry if this disappoints you. I'm sure that any crazy despots who point nuclear weapons at the United States will be dealt with the same regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.
If you're truly interested and worried about the foreign policy angle, surely it would be better to retain a president for a 2nd term who is on a first name basis with the current world leaders, instead of someone like Romney who is only experienced with domestic politics?
It amazes me how the role of President is represented/deified. Remember the entire American system is designed around three equal, counter-balanced parts of the government. Yes, there has been a massive shift in power towards the Executive in recent terms, but the support of Congress and the Senate is vital to fully implement any President's policy objectives.
You should be asking yourself:
* What are Obama's/Romney's actual policies? Where can you read an authoritative list of policies for yourself, not how they are represented in the media?
* How will they actually be implemented once they've passed through Congress and the Senate? Who are the important people in those houses, and what are their policies? How do their policies conflict with the President's? Is what the President wants feasible/possible/legal?
* And finally, possibly MOST IMPORTANTLY, how will the actual administrators in the executive apply the laws/implement the policies? Who are the Departmental chiefs? What experience do they have? What interest groups are they beholden to?
Interesting response, thank you.
Your comment of being sorry if I'm disappointed by your other statement of the U.S. probably not being needed to fend off the world's evils needs no apology at all. I hold the U.S. on no pedestal. I merely wanted discussion, because this election seems so important, and it's the first one in my years as an adult that I've been interested in. I do wonder, though, merely wonder, what would happen if the U.S. was no longer. Would it open a floodgate? History has shown there are men who conquest. And I wonder if the other countries that are as powerful as the U.S. is militarily would be the ones to initiate the conquesting.
As far as it surely being better to retain a president based on his first-name basis with other leaders: That could potentially be a thin reason, on these grounds: Charisma is charisma. As is likability. Some people, by their mannerisms, have the ability to endear others to themselves quite quickly. Now, haha, I don't know if Romney is one of those. I'm just saying I don't necessarily think one needs to be retained on the grounds of familiarity. One can become more likeable as compared to another in a mere evening.
I agree with your comment of the role of President being deified. And the other two parts of government haven't seem to've been doing that effective of a job. And the scary part are these interest groups they are beholden to, as you referred to. It doesn't seem like politicians have their interests in the right places at all. It almost seems like no matter who is elected, we are just spinning our wheels as always.
Seems like the whole system is just one giant mess. Potentially. Not trying to be negative.
I actually don't like either choice for president. But I do wonder if Obama needs to be replaced, since his past four years seem to show that change is needed. Since I wrote my first post, I've been gathering new information which leaves me on the fence. I wish there was a better choice.