Who won the 1st Presidential Debate?

[DeMintConservative]

Unfortunately the republicans need to be taught a lesson after the dreadful way Dr. Paul and his delegates were treated, so if I could vote I would vote for Obama to give them a bloody nose and to send them a very strong message not to mess around with me again next time.

Surely if Obama wins that's exactly what Republicans are going to be thinking about.

If Obama wins, in 4 years Obamacare would be as "untouchable" as Medicare is now. Electing democrats only has one lasting consequence: making small government conservatism seem more and more extreme. There's a reason why even a moderate like Romney would be seen as a far-right freak in the entire Europe.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Romney won and it wasn't even close.

 

[Evangelical_Protestant]

I was not sure who won the debate as neither candidate made much sense to me, nor did I hear any decisive clearly explained answers by either candidate the entire debate.

But then Fox had a group of undecided voters, all of whom were 100% neutral prior to the debate, come together in order to form a Fox News focus group led by Frank Luntz. After witnessing 95% of the focus group proclaim that they are no longer undecided, but rather that they are overwhelmingly in favor of Romney, after viewing the most exciting performance by a man in a debate in modern political history utterly crush his opponent. So now I am thinking about supporting Romney.

 

[thoughtomator]

I won the debate

I had it off

 

[surf]

Gary Johnson.

wasn't even close.

 

[Defining Obscene]

Romney was able to sneak all his BS through customs without getting inspected, he looked stronger on camera. He talked alot about not borrowing from China but I'm wondering where he's going to get the 2 trillion from. Maybe Zimbabwe can print it up for us.

 

[supermario21]

Let's try and get a more non-interventionist foreign policy from Romney and see where that gets. But Romney clearly won the debate. As DeMint said, the longer Dems are in power, the further right even we become. Because guess what?? You know who the Dems will be the first to paint as extremists? US

 

[J_White]

I approve this message.
no matter who wins, the American people in general would lose. most of them just dont know that !

Not America.

 

[Smart3]

I can't tell you who won the debate, but I can tell you who lost the debate: America.

 

[Republicanguy]

Let's try and get a more non-interventionist foreign policy from Romney and see where that gets. But Romney clearly won the debate. As DeMint said, the longer Dems are in power, the further right even we become. Because guess what?? You know who the Dems will be the first to paint as extremists? US

Good idea, but with the American way of life, people don't want to change, for as long as Crude oil is the source of the car culture in America, nobody wants to change, be realistic. That is what I notice around here, is the lack of it.

There is a lot of waste concerning energy usage, but Jimmy Carter decades ago told the truth, but was ignored because of it. Regardless of how to change the energy dilema.

 

[Dick Chaney]

Is this a serious question?

 

[maxxgraphix]

I haven't had a chance to watch the debate yet. I've only heard a few clips. One clip stuck out to me, "squeezing the middle class with taxes and rising prices" by Romney.
Rising prices aka inflation. We can't expect Mitt to come out in the msm and state the Federal Reserve is responsible for rising prices. The majority of the people don't have a clue about what the fed does. If he had done that, then the MSM would attack him like they attacked RP. But everyone knows what "rising prices" are. You also can't say that we need to cut spending by 50%. By doing that people think you are taking away their benefits. Basically, not my pie.

What we need is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Mitt can not scare the shit out of the people with facts like RP does. It turns people off or they think your just crazy. Let Mitt be the salesman to those who don't understand the technicals.
Perhaps this is why Rand Paul endorsed Mitt. Rand has not changed one bit and is still pushing hard for a full Fed Audit. Also if anyone here watched the full 47% video of Mitt, there is one part where he warned his audience that the Federal Reserve was buying 60% of the deficit spending and that is going to lead to serious problems.

Mitt knows about the Fed's involvement with the debt, he just can't say it on live TV. I think there is a little bird whispering in his ear. Or maybe it's an angry swarm of bees.

 

[jovasi]

Although it pains me to say it, Willard won the debate. Barry came off as unprepared, nervous and intimidated. Willard came off as hawkish, aggressive and unrelenting. Just a whole lot of prattling about the middle class, jobs and taxes.

 

[Lucille]

Ron Paul.



Gary Johnson also did well.

 

[georgiaboy]

Aggies by 3

 

[jbauer]

Surely if Obama wins that's exactly what Republicans are going to be thinking about.

If Obama wins, in 4 years Obamacare would be as "untouchable" as Medicare is now. Electing democrats only has one lasting consequence: making small government conservatism seem more and more extreme. There's a reason why even a moderate like Romney would be seen as a far-right freak in the entire Europe.

Obamacare isn't going anywhere even if the Republicans took all 3 branches and got to throw out all the Supreme Court. You are correct electing democrats derails conservatism. However, electing republicans has had the exact same effect. The only corrolation between government as a whole and smaller government is time. Regardless of who holds office at the time.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Obamacare isn't going anywhere even if the Republicans took all 3 branches and got to throw out all the Supreme Court. You are correct electing democrats derails conservatism. However, electing republicans has had the exact same effect. The only corrolation between government as a whole and smaller government is time. Regardless of who holds office at the time.

Nonsense. The overton window moves left any time as the more leftist candidate wins elections. I mean, even Obama is running more the left now than he did 4 years ago after 8 years of Bush.

Obamacare is unpopular enough now that a Republican president + congressional leaders would get rid of it just to score some points with the base and please a majority of Indies. The mass of people actually benefiting from it is still too small. In 4 years, it'll be different. Not even sure why is the SCOTUS relevant to this.

 

[Britannia]

Surely if Obama wins that's exactly what Republicans are going to be thinking about.

If Obama wins, in 4 years Obamacare would be as "untouchable" as Medicare is now. Electing democrats only has one lasting consequence: making small government conservatism seem more and more extreme. There's a reason why even a moderate like Romney would be seen as a far-right freak in the entire Europe.

Obamacare is nigh on untouchable now, even Dr. Paul has stated the liklihood of repealing it isn't very good. If I remember correctly he said the best that can be hoped for now is to lessen some of it's effects. Unfortunately I think you are stuck with it. And if you think Romney, architect of Romneycare, who was "severely conservative" during the republican primaries, and who has now luched back into the centre-ground, is going to repeal it, I don't believe he will for one second.

I couldn't vote for Romney because his positions, ever-changing though they may be, rarely coincide with my own. As Dr. Paul has said himself the differences between the two candidiates are slight, so does it really matter which one you vote for? If you vote for Obama and Romney is defeated handily at least you will have the satisfaction of knowing you delivered a bloody nose and a strong message to the conservatives who treated Dr. Paul and his delegates so shabbily. Maybe next time they will think again.

I'm sorry, I could never vote for Romney in a million years after seeing the way Dr. Paul and his followers were treated.

 

[Defining Obscene]

I would sooner vote for Obama than Mitt Phantom. People who want to see a boxing match will claim that Romney won because he threw the most punches. Obama, as mild as he was, was at least respectable as a sitting president.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Obamacare is nigh on untouchable now, even Dr. Paul has stated the liklihood of repealing it isn't very good. If I remember correctly he said the best that can be hoped for now is to lessen some of it's effects. Unfortunately I think you are stuck with it. And if you think Romney, architect of Romneycare, who was "severely conservative" during the republican primaries, and who has now luched back into the centre-ground, is going to repeal it, I don't believe he will for one second.

I couldn't vote for Romney because his positions, ever-changing though they may be, rarely coincide with my own. As Dr. Paul has said himself the differences between the two candidiates are slight, so does it really matter which one you vote for? If you vote for Obama and Romney is defeated handily at least you will have the satisfaction of knowing you delivered a bloody nose and a strong message to the conservatives who treated Dr. Paul and his delegates so shabbily. Maybe next time they will think again.

I'm sorry, I could never vote for Romney in a million years after seeing the way Dr. Paul and his followers were treated.

Again, I have no idea why you believe anyone will be thinking about treating Ron Paul supporters better if Obama is re-elected. In which terrain is that claim grounded? Seems like pure magical thinking. That's a talking point often repeated here but nobody has ever explained how's that supposed to work.

Secondly, many Ron Paul supporters would always say the same stuff about being mistreated simply because Paul didn't win the nomination.

Third, if you think the GOP treats Ron Paul and libertarians badly, if you think the parties are just the same, then you haven't been paying attention. I mean, maybe Ron Paul should try to get the Democrat nomination next time. What about Rand Paul? Do you think he - or Massie or Amash or Bentivolio - could win a Dem primary? Do you think they could even get 10%? Do you think Rand Paul could get a speaking slot in a Dem convention? Do you think his speech would be applauded? If you think the GOP treats you badly, you should try the other side.

That crap about the 2 parties being the same is pure fiction - and the fact that we've never heard about "Liberty candidate (D)" is proof of it. The thesis that Obama and Romney are exactly the same is nothing but a childish fallacy. In the voting booth, I couldn't care less if the differences aren't as large as I'd want them to be. Political advocacy =! voting. Not voting for Romney has no upside whatsoever. It won't make the GOP "treat Paul supporters better". It won't "teach them a lesson". It won't make "them vote for Ron Paul the next time". It won't make them more conservative, more amenable to Paul's ideas. Those are just over-emotional temper tantrums. At some point, one needs to get over personal feelings, move on and make the only decision that matters: vote for the guy who's a lesser evil, even if just by a small margin.

As for Obamacare, check my posts above. You guys really overrate the ideological positioning of politicians. They'll do whatever is popular. Obamacare will be repealed because it's still so unpopular and the hard support for it is still very soft. Wait 4 years and that will change.