2012 Presidential Debates

[Fuzzy]

As a former military person myself. I've seen the worn down equipment our military has to use to protect the U.S. Many civilians don't really understand much of the vehicles, planes, infrastructure, equipment we use was built during the 1970's and 80's. And we are suppose to defend the country with out of date components. I use to work on F-15's that were built before i was even born! That's what is defending me against China, North Korea, Russia, Iran?!

 

I don't agree with the two wars Bush and the politicians lead us into. But folks need to realize, just because we aren't fighting a war doesn't mean we stop paying money to defend our country.

[Army Husker]

I will agree with Romney that we need to put more of the taxpayer's money in our military.

Couldn't disagree more, the military's budget doesn't need anymore tax payer money in it. Once the war stages down the budget shouldn't increase for anything other than inflation. Unless God forbid we enter into an unforeseen large scale war. In terms of US dollars we spend about 6 times as much as anyone else in the world on our military.

The US Military is in more places worldwide than the military of any other country...you are going to need a larger budget to sustain that. As long as US interests stay overseas, and demand soldier presence in the process, the military budget is almost not even something to argue about. Almost.

[huskerXman]

As a former military person myself. I've seen the worn down equipment our military has to use to protect the U.S. Many civilians don't really understand much of the vehicles, planes, infrastructure, equipment we use was built during the 1970's and 80's. And we are suppose to defend the country with out of date components. I use to work on F-15's that were built before i was even born! That's what is defending me against China, North Korea, Russia, Iran?!

 

I don't agree with the two wars Bush and the politicians lead us into. But folks need to realize, just because we aren't fighting a war doesn't mean we stop paying money to defend our country.

 

I agree we need to invest in our military; we need to get our asses out of other countries and stop forcing them to take a democratic government. That is not, nor has it ever been, nor should it ever be, our mission. We are not the world police. The only purpose for something like that would be if you had plans to form a one world type government.

[Comish]

I would agree with the conventional wisdom that last night was not a game changer. But it could be a momentum changer since Romney has had a bad month. I'd predict a 1-2 point bounce for him.

 

Romney's biggest advantage last night was that he could speak directly to the people without the filter of the media telling us who (they think) he is. And he capitalized on that.

 

Romney was aggressive and benefited by sharing the stage with the President, allowing him the perception of equal stature.

 

Obama looked like a guy sitting on a two touchdown lead, playing soft and bored and just looking to get out of there without a major mistake.

[zoogs]

yeah, I really think we need to maintain strong investment in our military. I don't understand the suggestion that we should be spending a middling or average amount on the military. We should want the best, strongest military in the world at all times.

 

Less costly wars would be good.

[HuskerShark]

End the war, bring the soldiers home, and stop spending money overseas. That's the first thing that needs to be done, and then we can worry about the rest.

 

The Republicans screwed the pooch when they nominated Romney instead of Ron Paul. I think if Paul would have got the nomination, this general election would have been much more interesting because Ron Paul also has a strong Democratic following, as well as the independent types. He would have ran away with it.

[huskerXman]

End the war, bring the soldiers home, and stop spending money overseas. That's the first thing that needs to be done, and then we can worry about the rest.

 

The Republicans screwed the pooch when they nominated Romney instead of Ron Paul. I think if Paul would have got the nomination, this general election would have been much more interesting because Ron Paul also has a strong Democratic following, as well as the independent types. He would have ran away with it.

 

I am voting for Ron Paul! To me, the two guys we have are a joke, and Mitt will end up no different than Obama.

 

I will say that Mitt did look more genuine. To me Obama looked like "how dare you question me" most of the time I was watching.

[HuskerShark]

End the war, bring the soldiers home, and stop spending money overseas. That's the first thing that needs to be done, and then we can worry about the rest.

 

The Republicans screwed the pooch when they nominated Romney instead of Ron Paul. I think if Paul would have got the nomination, this general election would have been much more interesting because Ron Paul also has a strong Democratic following, as well as the independent types. He would have ran away with it.

 

I am voting for Ron Paul! To me, the two guys we have are a joke, and Mitt will end up no different than Obama.

 

I will say that Mitt did look more genuine. To me Obama looked like "how dare you question me" most of the time I was watching.

 

Thatta boy!!! +1

[Ziggy]

As far as the Military spending goes, I would like to see us shift emphasis on force multipliers, combat drones, exoskeleton research, and missile defense work. Also a reduction of forces in non essential countries and a stabilization plan for long term assistance for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Also more money spent on Intel of all types, but mostly HumInt as it tends to be the most effective in finding out attacks in the planning stages. Reduce spending on obsolete tech like main battle tanks, spy planes, and to an extent blue water navy ships.

[Count 'Bility]

I would love to vote for Ron Paul but lets face it. It would be a wasted vote, and we HAVE to get Obama out of there. Romney has leadership experience. He may not be detailing his "plans" but he has a record, and hell of a lot better one than that other guy, and regardless of what the details are, they're worth a shot compared to the road we're taking now. Romney probably won my vote last night.

[BigRedBuster]

As far as the Military spending goes, I would like to see us shift emphasis on force multipliers, combat drones, exoskeleton research, and missile defense work. Also a reduction of forces in non essential countries and a stabilization plan for long term assistance for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Also more money spent on Intel of all types, but mostly HumInt as it tends to be the most effective in finding out attacks in the planning stages. Reduce spending on obsolete tech like main battle tanks, spy planes, and to an extent blue water navy ships.

 

 

I agree with you up to the point of navy ships.

 

My goal for the military is to shut down most of the over 700 military installations around the world and move that function to mobile installations on ships. We have technology to touch every part of the world if we need to from a very very long distance. In my eyes, we don't need boots on the ground in every country in the world. Put that technology into mobility and we will be in international waters where we won't piss off so many locals in countries around the world.

[huskerXman]

I would love to vote for Ron Paul but lets face it. It would be a wasted vote, and we HAVE to get Obama out of there. Romney has leadership experience. He may not be detailing his "plans" but he has a record, and hell of a lot better one than that other guy, and regardless of what the details are, they're worth a shot compared to the road we're taking now. Romney probably won my vote last night.

 

I understand your point but it is not a wasted vote to me. I don't like either guy, so I won't vote for either of those guys. In my opinion, any temporary relief brought by Mitt, will be just that, temporary.

[krc1995]

I would love to vote for Ron Paul but lets face it. It would be a wasted vote, and we HAVE to get Obama out of there. Romney has leadership experience. He may not be detailing his "plans" but he has a record, and hell of a lot better one than that other guy, and regardless of what the details are, they're worth a shot compared to the road we're taking now. Romney probably won my vote last night.

So you think that Romney's business experience is a plus? I ask only because I read an article that used the statistic that 60% of American's feel that Romney's business experience is a minus. I just don't understand how business experience can be construed as a minus in a democrasy. I do think that people don't trust business right now and with the greed of the banking and housing industries, I don't blame them. But I think I will vote for Romney based on bringing the power and decisions back to the state level as that philosophy resonates well with me right now. I don't see how Washington can look after Nebraska's best interests, Louisiana's best interests, North Dakota's best interest, California's best interests, etc.

[carlfense]

First wave of fact checks summary from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Count 'Bility]

I would love to vote for Ron Paul but lets face it. It would be a wasted vote, and we HAVE to get Obama out of there. Romney has leadership experience. He may not be detailing his "plans" but he has a record, and hell of a lot better one than that other guy, and regardless of what the details are, they're worth a shot compared to the road we're taking now. Romney probably won my vote last night.

So you think that Romney's business experience is a plus? I ask only because I read an article that used the statistic that 60% of American's feel that Romney's business experience is a minus. I just don't understand how business experience can be construed as a minus in a democrasy. I do think that people don't trust business right now and with the greed of the banking and housing industries, I don't blame them. But I think I will vote for Romney based on bringing the power and decisions back to the state level as that philosophy resonates well with me right now. I don't see how Washington can look after Nebraska's best interests, Louisiana's best interests, North Dakota's best interest, California's best interests, etc.

Experience as the leader of a government. Governor. Spending numerous years dealing with a majority of the opposite party, to positive results. Obama didnt do jackshit as a leader before becoming President. He's in way over his head, and the past 4 years are proof. Last nights debate was extra evidence. He had no answers when he had to think for himself and guys doing the research and writing lies about Romney to speech on the last couple months were not around., And yes I guess as a business leader is fine too. If his businesses are prospering-and I assume they are because all the whiners are bitching about how much money he makes-then that's a plus for me too, because right now this country is a business that is in the shitter going belly up, fast. Faster than we can fathom.

 

The bold gets a +1 from me. Romney's explanation of the constitution in the "role of gov't" portion was an absolute kick to Obama's head, because all Barack has done in four years is trample, burn, chew and spit out, and wipe his ass with our constitution.