Quote:
Originally Posted by JediKooter
I think I have to agree with RendeR. Romney sounds nowhere near someone being presidential. He sounds like someone on American Idol that can barely sing, and then trying to negotiate with the judges to sing another song because he thinks that the judges didn't like the first song, but, in reality, he just can't sing.
Obama is definitely more articulate and does sound presidential. Don't confuse articulate with honest though.
|
OK. But aren't you and RendeR decided to begin with? This election is about those who might be convinced one way or another and those who might turn out for their party if they're inspired enough.
I can't rest too much on this one. To me, Romney is a professional politician from a family of professional politicians. If he had real answers about dealing with the deficit and handling unemployment, I might be tempted to vote for him. But he doesn't, so I'm not.
I thought it was interesting that if I didn't know from being alive the last four years that Obama was the president and Romney the challenger, I would have guessed, from the debate last night and the facial expressions and conduct of the candidates, that Romney was the incumbent.
I'd add that someone needs to advise Obama that the word "decimate" does not mean what he thinks it means. We do not want to simply decimate Al Qaeda's leadership. He needs to go quite a bit further if this is to have any significance, and I think he has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui
How exactly did it seem to "fail in Libya"? I think Libya has shown a great success in putting in a moderate government. Does that mean all the terrorists will stop fighting in its territory? Of course not. But its a damn sight better than how Quaddafi would have dealt with the issue.
|
Really, it's gone fairly well, considering. We have someone in office who has spent most of his adult years in America and is presumably friendly to America. So far, even with the professions of shari'a compliance, it seems to be a peaceful and liberal variety of shari'a.
For some reason, we haven't responded to the attack. And I don't know why. I'd like to know why. Is it because we don't feel comfortable addressing this with Libya? Are they promising to deal with it and just don't have the ability to take on the militants? Or is this a separate failure of foreign policy.
Romney, of course, isn't stepping into this one. He would sound like Bush if he did. It's more what we don't know than what we know that has me worried that it's a failure. I was blasted for worrying about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, because at first they said they weren't going to run for office and that it wasn't their revolution. Well, now we know that's not true, and tensions are pretty high.
We toppled a dictator in Iraq, and justifiably received condemnation from the world. So these kinder and gentler topplings (we're not leading them, at least, despite the bombings in Libya) at least don't anger the Europeans. But what are we gaining? What are the people of these countries gaining?