Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Brett Favre will have a press conference soon to announce he's undecided. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I think undecideds were watching the debate, I just think they were looking to get a general impression of Romney on foreign policy. Make no doubt about it, if Romney looked totally incompetent or completely lost he would have slipped considerably. He managed not to screw up though and he approached it in such a centrist way that he avoided being labeled as a Bush foreign policy conservative. they might've been watching the debate but i think it's just as likely that if he took a dip due to a poor performance it would've been just as likely to b/c those undecided voters saw it on tv the next day. but the thing is at this point those undecided voters aren't voting on issues anyway so this being on foreign policy doesn't really matter. they're more than likely voting on style and feel. How can anyone even be undecided at this point? If you haven't taken the time to review the stances of both Candidates then you are an uninformed voter and should stay hime. Being swayed by a debate performance is moronic. b/c they're not voting on the issues. they have no clue where either candidate stands on anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I agree with most of your points. If a voter believes Obama has not done enough for the Economy then they are more likely to overlook Romney's flaws, however many there are, and go with Romney. Foreign Policy is a much larger issue for me because I've traveled overseas extensively for work and quite few times for pleasure. Hell I've been to every continent except Antarctica I still think most Americans have a narrow view of America's place in the world and it lessens the impact of Foreign Policy on the election. I take umbrage with the reports that Romney somehow passed the Commander-In-Chief test last night and now looks Presidential even though he was destroyed in the last two debates. That is spin at it's best. I think Romney has the potential to be just as bad a President as GWB and set this Country back even farther. Has Obama been great? Not by any stretch but if you are voting the lesser of two evils, the choice is clear to me. Well in this sense, Romney doesn't pass the test for you and doesn't meet your threshold which is totally understandable. However, the average American likely doesn't hold candidates to high standards in foreign affairs. I'll also point out that in 2008 that Obama's lack of experience in foreign affairs was a question mark, but due to the economic disaster he was able to appear acceptable enough that swing voters decided to go with their pocket books. (He also had a brilliant campaign). I'm with you though on foreign affairs, I think it's a tremendous issue. It's part of the reason why I liked Hilary Clinton considerably more in the Democratic primaries. It's also why I liked McCain significantly more than Romney in the primaries too (nevermind that many of the other candidates on both sides were coo-coo for cocoa puffs). My views might be a bit unconventional as I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a "realist" as I believe in the democratic peace theory on foreign relations (a nation's activity in this can be radical though, which is basically nation building - of which I don't subscribe to) and economic interdependence theories. However, the middle east has been a classic example of realist theory and one that political leaders can't ignore given the nature of the region and structure of regional governments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 while the country w/ the most of our actual enemies (Pakistan) goes for Romney. Umm, Pakistan is one of our allies. Your post makes no sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I take umbrage with the reports that Romney somehow passed the Commander-In-Chief test last night and now looks Presidential even though he was destroyed in the last two debates. That is spin at it's best. I think Romney has the potential to be just as bad a President as GWB and set this Country back even farther. Has Obama been great? Not by any stretch but if you are voting the lesser of two evils, the choice is clear to me. Saying it over and over again does not make it any more true than the 1st time you uttered your nonsense. I don't think Obama has won any debate, but the notion that Obama destroyed Romney is ludicrous. If Romney is a bad as GWB, then at least he will do better than that failure called Obama. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Umm, Pakistan is one of our allies. Your post makes no sense. You... do know that the Taliban has a huge presence in Pakistan and that's where a lot of our drones are bombing..... right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 You... do know that the Taliban has a huge presence in Pakistan and that's where a lot of our drones are bombing..... right? Pakistan is considered an ally though (since 2001, post 9/11). It's weird politics for sure and one more of convenience than anything else, but that's foreign relations for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Pakistan is considered an ally though. It's weird politics for sure and one more of convenience than anything else, but that's foreign relations for you. Didn't say they weren't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Didn't say they weren't. I'm afraid I don't understand your point then. What position are you taking? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 I'm afraid I don't understand your point then. What position are you taking? really... Dude makes a hyperbolic statement saying the international poll shows guys Putin, Chavez and Castro back Obama, none of which are we currently at war w/, and i counter by showing that the people we are actually at war w/, the majority of which are in northern Pakistan, back Romney and you don't get it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 @Cyrus sorry about the tone. i'm apparently a bit short tempered today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 No worries Reo. really... Dude makes a hyperbolic statement saying the international poll shows guys Putin, Chavez and Castro back Obama, none of which are we currently at war w/, and i counter by showing that the people we are actually at war w/, the majority of which are in northern Pakistan, back Romney and you don't get it? Well like I stated before, the international poll is basically irrelevant as I don't think Putin, Chavez or Castro "back" Obama. However the nature of the conflict in Pakistan doesn't necessarily mean that Pakistan is more of a threat than any of those three nations especially since the US is at war with what's considered a transnational (non-state) actor (which possibly has many backers). International relations can be messy business. I suppose I was just looking for clarity on what you meant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanjuicy Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Obama now has the endorsements from Putin, Chavez and Castro. They know who the weaker guy is. lol @ Reagan era foes. Neither of these three leaders even pose a threat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 No worries Reo. Well like I stated before, the international poll is basically irrelevant as I don't think Putin, Chavez or Castro "back" Obama. However the nature of the conflict in Pakistan doesn't necessarily mean that Pakistan is more of a threat than any of those three nations especially since the US is at war with what's considered a transnational (non-state) actor (which possibly has many backers). International relations can be messy business. I suppose I was just looking for clarity on what you meant. yes, it's a counterpoint. He made a silly hyperbolic comment so I countered w/ one as well. It's not about any of them being "threats" as a nation themselves. Fact of the matter is, we're not at war w/ Putin, Chavez or Castro but we are w/ the Taliban who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, thus countering w/ the fact that the people who we're actually at war w/ as being Pro-Romney. There is quite a bit of anti-American and anti-Obama sentiment in Pakistan though in large part due to the drones which is probably why they'd tend to go away from him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 lol @ Reagan era foes. Neither of these three leaders even pose a threat. Castro/Cuba isn't a foe, but Russia and Chavez certainly are. (in different degrees perhaps). Based on the structure of the UN security council (and that Russia and China are permanent members and thus have veto power) they're able to block any multi-national efforts. Anyone who prescribes to an idealist foreign policy perspective and places any weight in multi-national governmental agencies has to see it as a significant issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.