TIME’s politics team brings you up-to-the-minute Twitter commentary and coverage throughout the Denver debate.[time-coveritlive id=603cdd4c63]
الدور الذي لعبه ويلعبه النظام الروسي بالتحالف مع دولة الفقيه الايرانية Sami Yousif Ganima لولا تمادي النظام الايراني في دعم النظام لبشار لما تمادى في الاعتداءت على الدول المجاورة لسوريا ان البغي الايراني هو مصائب كل الشرق الاوسط بما يحمل من سموم التعصب القومي الفاشي للفارسية مضطهدا باقي الشعوب الايرانية وهو الذي سالت دماء العراقين ووئد الديمقراطية الوليدة في العراق عبر شخوصه المتواجدين عسكريا في العراق وخلق الفتنة ودمر العراق عن بكرة ابيه وليس في العراق حكومة انما عبارة عن شبح تحركة يد خامنئي وجلاوزته والان تعمل ايران عاى تحويل العراق شبيها بما جاري في سوريا من القتل الجماعي بالمئات يوميا عبرة اكذوبة حكومة الاغلبية وهي لعبة ايرانية فذرة تستجمع حواها من باع نفسه للمال السحت الذي نهب من العراقين وسيسحق اكثر الشعب العراقي نتجة التدهور الاقتصادي في ايران لتغطية عجز الحكومة الايرانية وملحقها العراق في سد مذخرات الاسلحة المستوردة من روسيا كي تمد الى صدور السورين واللبنانين والفلسطنين والعراقين كيما تبقى احلام ولالية الفقيه اللعبة القذرة للسلطة العسكر الفارسي المتشدد الفاشي الذي هو عبارة عن كره بغيض لكل عمل خير وتقدم المنطقة وسلمها - السياسي سامي غنيمة منذ 5 دقائق · أعجبني H & A for بقلم - سامي يوسف غنيمة Sami Yousif Ganima ان نظرية المؤمرة التي اختلقتها المخابرات السوفيتي - الكي ج بي - عبارة عن اكذوبة لتبرير صراعات الاردات المختلفة ولا زالت هذه النظرية تستعملها الان القيادة الروسية ولكن بشكل اخر حيث تعتبر كل تحرك شعبي او ما يسمى بالربيع العربي هو ضد عالمها المتواجد في كل من ايران وسوريا وحزب الله ان المتتبع للوضع بعد 2003 انه بالرغم من تخليص ايران من نظام حربته 8 سنوات وهو نظام صدام تراجعت مرة اخرى وتحالفت مع بفايا النظام السابق وعملت ما عملت في العراق وقتلت من قوات التحالف 4500 مقاتل ومن باقي العراقين لا زالت عملية الابادة مستمرة وتريدها حربا طائفية ولكن العراقين عرفوا اللعبة القذرة لمسلسل - الروسي الايرانيي - عبر منافذهما النظام السوري الذي هو عبارة عن مدخل الى تاجيج النزعات الطائفية والعرقية والمذهبية سواء في لبنان او غزة او العراق ان هذا التداخل الروسي الايراني لم ياتي اعتباطا وانما كان نتجة اندحار النظم الشمولية اولا في اوربا وثم انجرارها الى المنطقة العربية ولغرض عدم تحول الربيع العربي في المحصلة عن التوجه الديمقراطي وهو بناء البنية الاساسية لهذه الثورات في السكن والخدمات وخلق نظام المواطنة وايقاف الهدر السئ للسلطة في المال والادارة مما استوجب افتعال جبهة روسيا ايران والتحالف مع كل قوى الشر الدكتاتورية - القاعدة بقايا الانظمة السابقة من مخالفات الشمولية والتشدد والتعصب والقتل -- وما نراه الان من قتل وتدمير في العراق وسوريا ضد تطلعات شعبيهما نحو بناء الدولة المدنية الديمقراطية ومحاولة وئد من تحررت بلدانها من طاغوت الدكتاتورية والشمولية كيما تبقى هذه الشعوب دون حل واقعها المؤلم الذي عاشته لااكثر من نصف قرن من المعتقلات والاعدمات والحروب العبثية والتسلاطات المذهبية والقومية الشوفينية والعسكر -- والنظم العسكرية البوليسية التي مزقت المجتمعات واصبحت شعوبها تهرب الى المجهول مثل المصرين والسورين والعراقين والبنانين والسودانين واليمنين والتونسين واللبين والايرانين -- نتجة الفهر لانظمة استبدادية حولت مجتمعاتها الى عساكر وبالطجية وامن دولة وبوليس وبطالة وفقر وتشرد دون اي خدمات - العراقي سامي غنيمة قبل بضع ثوانٍ · أعجبني أعجبني · · إلغاء متابعة المنشور ·
I missed the live blog but my debate summary is – Great job to both candidates for having a thorough discussion. Romney: it was the most I've heard directly from him – I'm glad he got a chance to articulate his position in is own words. It was enlightening in many ways. Obama: His statesmanship was admirable. He resisted zingers and soundbites and privileged thoughtfully presented ideas and goals. People will say Romney won because of his directness, but IMO Obama prevailed.
I can't believe America's response to the debate tonight. It thinks Romney "won" because he said nice things, which was actually vintage Romney: saying anything to get elected; also, because he showed "emotion", which to me was basically the normal desire to win (believe me, both these guys have the same desire to win; letting it show is no virtue in itself) and sometimes plain fluster. Both men supported their classic philosophical positions and policy views. Frankly, President Obama was clearer in, as the incumbent, defending his record against Romney's charges, while Romney--compliments of Obama's surgical rebuttals--in the end seemed shallow, disingenuous casting about.
This is a President who values calmness. He has carried the unparalleled burdens of the Presidency with grace in averting a Depression, in reforming health coverage, in killing Bin Laden. He is an individual who by nature despises fluff, mere "style".
Right now I am watching the opinions of respected analysts and I am flabbergasted with disbelief. Perhaps because I watched the debate without at the same time watching the social media I could see things nobody is talking about (not even a seemingly mourning Axelrod and Cutter!):
Passion? Obama was just fine; he's the incumbent and he believes the facts and better intent are on his side and he did a great job laying out the how and why of his policies, policies which have been tried-and-true under Bill Clinton. Professorial? Have we reached the point where we can't have a healthy delving into policy points without getting lost, without yearning for a quick fix of talking points, zingers, one-liners? On the other hand, Romney lost steam several times, stating stump-speech fodder but lacking specifics, something made clear as Obama pointed out the inconsistency of "trickle-down" economics as compared to surplus-producing Clinton-era policies. Passion? Romney suddenly unfurled a newfound love for the middle class; I'm surprised how platitudes have so won over people tonight while they forget this man's record of disdain for the nonrich and protection of the rich.
An angry, condescending, listless Obama, who hardly even looked at Romney and never connected with the audience? Blatantly inaccurate: what about the story of his grandmother, the several times he smiled openly, the several times he looked directly into the camera to speak from the heart right to the people, the historical perspective he gave with his example of Abraham Lincoln, and the abundance of things he had to say (evidenced by his speaking 4 minutes longer--and it wasn't rambling!)
Obama looked at his opponent many times; there should be no issue there.
No. Both men are great individuals and the U.S. is fortunate to have such fine choices for President. Romney did a good job as the challenger: throwing everything he could at the incumbent and saying anything to make himself agreeable to the electorate. President Obama did a good job defending his record with facts, restrained passion and class.
It was a standoff between the two ingrained positions in this country. Yes, my guy is Obama and his historical concern for the lower and middle classes, which drove him from Harvard, not to lace his pockets with money, but to the tough streets of Chicago's South Side.
And I--for one--am very proud of him tonight.
Obama lost. Looked completely at a loss for words. Not just "tired" as many websites are reporting now, but out of touch. As if he was someplace other than one of the most important moments in this campaign.
Romney was in total control. His facts and data countered everything Obama had to offer up as any kind of rebuttal or to call Romney out on his past statements. If the other two debates are this bad for Obama, he is definitely done. Even the liberal website are clearly at a loss as to how badly Obama has done.
If you want to say game changer, this was the night. Sleep well, hopefully the liberals on this site don't have too many nightmares over the next 34 nights.
Team Obama is aggressive. Even before the debate
is over, they have started the propaganda that Obama has won. But viewers who
are seeing Romney on the stage for the first time are surprised to see a
dynamic leader, a leader of substance, of ideas and ideals. Till now American
people were brainwashed by Team Obama by indulging in personal attacks and
character assassination. So it is a real surprise for Americans to see a Romney
with a vast knowledge of international affairs and economic issues. His practical ideas to save America from
political turmoil that we see today in the Middle East and economic reforms to
pull the country from deep recession and mammoth unemployment, reminded the
viewers that he is another Reagan who can pull the country out of the current economic mess and restore the prestige of America in world
Before I go to bed, here's something to think about. They had 39 undecided voters with a little device that provided those approve/disapprove lines on the bottom of the screen. they agreed by a 2-1 margin that Romney was the clear winner in the debate. Eight said they'd now vote for Romney. Obama only got eight converts. Way to kick Obama's @ss Mitt. At this rate you'll....lose.
It seems to me that people distrust Romney to the extent that even by winning, he can only come out even. Among undecideds.
Andrew Sullivan is a very, very silly man. He sounds like he just walked away from a tragically poor production of "House of Blue Leaves."
"10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so f-ing sad, confused amp; lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight."
"a staggering personal failure on Obama's part" " Just staggering incompetence on his part."
Mitt can have a great career with Warner Bros. He can star as "Flip-Floppy" in
"Looney Tunes" cartoons.
Romney did one thing Obama didn't expected. Romney came up with new positions about taxes and acted as if he never said the things he did say about taxes only last week. In other words, Romney did what he always does...he changed his story to suit the occasion. That flummoxed Obama. He knew that Romney was a two-faced liar. He just didn't know that Romney was that big a two-faced liar. To understand Romney you only need to watch the movie Body Heat and observe the Richard Crenna character...who tells William Hurt that to accomplish something in business you need to be willing to do whatever it takes. And Hurt says...you mean work hard. And Crenna says no...that's not what he means. What he means is...do whatever it takes.
The people that support Romney have every reason to feel good tonight. When the debate on foreign policy rolls around, what are the chances that Romney wins that one? Can Romney brag about the diplomatic skills he exhibted on his "P!ss the World Off" tour this past summer?
This past summer? Romney managed to offend the Spanish just tonight in the *domestic* debate. When it comes to diplomacy, Romney is a wonder!
This past summer? He managed to piss off the Spanish just in tonight in the domestic debate. When it comes to diplomacy he is a true wonder.
If you think no one is capable of saying "Libya" a hundred times in a 90-minute debate, tune in for that one.
Does anyone remember the South Park episode in which the kids said "sh1t" so often that a counter in one corner of the screen kept track? I think some network should insert a "Libya" counter in one corner of the screen during the debate.
And I hope that when Mitt starts talking about Obama's "apologizing" for the US, Obama gives him both barrels -- facts in one and righteous indignation in the other.
The bottom line on the debate is this: Did Romney give anyone a new reason to vote for him? I didn't hear anything from him that he has not said before, nothing new. Romney did seem to be equivocating on his tax cuts, which will trouble his supporters. But, he did not have a game changing performance. He might get a small bump in his already low poll numbers, but not a game changer. As the text of Romney's comments are analyzed over the next few days, I think he probably did himself some harm with his base and did nothing to win over those who already do not like him, which is the majority of the electorate.
The one new thing he did -- although of course he'll never admit it -- was to throw his tax plan overboard. If he really means to keep it revenue neutral and make sure no one pays higher taxes, he cannot possibly make the math work. Obama caught that point and drove it home with his quotation from Emily Litella.
Romney will square the circle before he comes up with a tax plan that cuts all rates by 20 percent and doesn't raise taxes on someone via elimination of deductions and preferences.
I agree that he didn't make his base feel secure. Mitt made a play for the moderates tonight. The moderates have to hope that Mitt is telling the truth this time and the base has to hope that he lied.
I think all he did tonight was to reinforce the base's suspicion that he will say anything to get elected, and that he doesn't share their convictions.
For all their insanity and ignorance of how things work, give the rabid base their due: they actually believe the sh!t they spew. And they've always suspected that Mitt doesn't. Tonight he proved them right.
If Romney does just as well in the next two debates as he did tonight, he'll make the race closer and pick up a couple of swing states. He'll make the outcome closer. He won't change it enough to win.
I'm not convinced in this day and age that debate performance (even aggregated across all 3 venues) can sway even a single state, given how entrenched in their opinions voters already are this cycle.
That being said, if they can continue discussing substantive differences between them, then I'm all for it and hope more folks tune in. And I do hope Obama improves on delivery and doesn't let Romney float so many whoppers over the plate.
Cable TV's instant analysts are always wrong. Obama played rope-a-dope while Romney frothed. Video replays will mark him as Manic Mittens.
Romney wins on debate appearance, Obama wins on debate substance.
No surprises there.
The morning fact-checking will show Romney as more dishonest and self-contradicting.
No surprises there, either.
Remember when, in reference to Obongocare, Pelosi said "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"? I do, which is why I'm laughing at libs complaining Romney isn't specific enough in a debate.
I appreciate your reminder to everyone that you shouldn't be taken seriously.
I wonder how Willard's country club pals took the news that he won't be cutting their taxes after all?
Romney was great on generalities. Unfortunately, it's the specifics that are going to move voters and the polls. I give this debate to Romney on appearance alone. I didn't see anything that makes me think he's going to take Ohio or the election.
Bingo, you are correct sir. He won on appearance, but it wont change the electoral vote.
I am still a little annoyed that Pres Obama didn't totally take him to town. I think it was a wasted opportunity and Romney came across as a serious contendor. Pres Obama seemed a bit flustered and wrong footed. It's a damn shame.
Romney wins going away, unfortunately I don't think winning a debate will change the minds of people on welfare.
Regarding health care, it is evident that Romney fails to understand an 80/20 or 70/30 health care plan offered by the insurance companies in America to we the people (oops don't take that the wrong way). Not only do we get to pay $700 or so per month (per person in our family), but then we have to hit our max out of pocket expense all the while paying co-pays for prescriptions and doctors visits. Only at the end of the day still running the risk of financial ruin when we have a health issue and our health insurance company say "oops that the most we cover, now go die somewhere else".
If Romney thinks that his plan is going to support the people he's got another think coming. On another note, I don't know why the President didn't drive this issue home while he had Romney on stage.
Mitt just infuriated me with his obvious lies. Fact checkers will bring it all out tomorrow but most unfortunately won't read the facts. Obama didn't capitalize on lot of opportunities and could have finished off MItt early, but didn't. He was too nice.
Math hasn't matter in politics since Bonzo's straight-man won two terms on what Bush-the-first called "Voodoo Economics." Anyway, it was no repudiation, he just lied about it. So what else is new?
Romney has quite a few things he wants to do away with and very few specifics about what would take their place. My guess is endless studies that are never acted upon.
I think Mitt had the better debate by a slight margin. Obama looked rusty to me. I'd be surprised if Mitt sees much of a bump in the polls. He'll see some movement, but not much.
Yeah I agree, am damn dissapointed by Pres Obama though. He could have kicked ares and taken names. Instead he was way cautious. I expected more, but I don't think the poll bump will matter.
I'll stick with Nate on the figures for now.
The talking heads mostly agree with you, sacred. I think that as the TV sets cool, thinking people will realize that Mitt gave a great sales pitch for what is nevertheless snake oil. What worries me is that the low-information voter won't realize that all those "facts" Romney spouted were actually lies.
If Mitt loses, he can always go on tour as Professor Harold Hill in "The Music Man." If he wins, we can always move to Canada.
'f Mitt loses, he can always go on tour as Professor Harold Hill in "The Music Man."'
But he doesn't know the territory!
(I think I actually have foggy to thank for the fact that I even know that)
Mitt may have persuaded some of the undecideds to give him a second look, but he has to repeat his performance in two more debates and I have a hard time believing that he convinced many Obama supporters to switch their votes. There just aren't enough undecideds to change the course of the election.
The election isn't going to be decided tonight and any bump he gets tonight will fade when the fact checkers start saying "Lie. Lie. Lie".