Footer Pages

presidential-debates

Presidential Debates

presidential-debatesThe coming U.S. elections have monopolized the attention of the American mainstream media and voters.

Economic issues held sway over the first of two presidential debates, and foreign policy governed the second.

According to the latest Gallup poll,

Americans who watched the second presidential debate say Barack Obama did a better job than Mitt Romney, by 51% to 38% — a stark contrast to the first debate, of which most named Romney the winner.

The consensus of opinion after the economic debate held that Romney’s business experience would be better for the economy and Obama hadn’t accomplished enough to improve the employment numbers.

The foreign policy debate was notable for more that was missing than for the topics included.

Obama’s use of drones was simply agreed to by Romney, much to the dismay of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

The non-profit Bureau for Investigative Reporting put the total number of people killed in drone strikes, in Pakistan alone, as high as 3365, including 176 children.

The killing of civilians, whether intended or collateral, by unmanned drones, especially in Pakistan, has been a neglected non-issue in the presidential campaigns.

The topics of gas prices and energy independence came up during the debates, but neither candidate related those topics to green energy and climate change.

Unfortunately the American public doesn’t seem  concerned enough about climate change, despite the hottest summer in years, drought conditions that have destroyed crops and clear evidence of melting arctic ice sheets.

A report in Scientific American headlined an article saying the

Last Presidential Debate Marks First Time in 24 Years That Climate Change Went Unmentioned.

As expected, with an attitude that Israel can do no wrong, neither candidate had the courage to question the blind financial and policy support of Israel’s military and violation of humanitarian issues.

According to Haviv Rettig Gur, Washington correspondent for the Times of Israel. “It was clear that each candidate was seeking to outdo the other in stressing pro-Israel credentials,” to woo Jewish voters.

Nothing was asked by the moderator, nor raised by the debaters about the horrific, unmitigated plight of the Palestinians.

Apparently both candidates see nothing wrong with Gaza’s condition as an outdoor prison, with Israel attacking humanitarian ships and fishermen trying to eke out a living from their own sea.

No one raised the issue of the illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem, with the theft of Palestinian land and homes and the destruction of their farms and olive trees.

The problem of the Mexican civil war and drug lords wasn’t raised, nor was the problem of immigration addressed.

Summarising the debate topics Steven Ehrlanger of the New York Times says ,

Iran was mentioned more than 45 times, Israel and China more than 30 times each, Afghanistan 29 times and Mali at least four times. NATO was not uttered, and Europe was referred to only once — in a list of allies reeled off by President Obama — and the euro and its crisis were not mentioned at all.

A CBS News analysis of the debate reported that Romney “declined to draw strong distinctions between his positions and Obama administration policy” partially because “there is little difference between the two men on foreign policy”.

This, of course, represents a major shift by Romney from a far right position to the centre.

The debate was primarily spent trying to relate foreign policy to the interests of the American public in the domestic economy rather than the concerns that Americans should have about the U.S. and the rest of the world apart from Afghanistan, China, Israel and, of course, Mali.

, , , , , , ,

3 Responses to Presidential Debates

  1. Deadbeat October 29, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    I have a different take than that of Mr. Balles and his reporting of the presidential debate:

    [1] Obama gave a lackluster performance in the debate. His whole demeanor was dripping of disengagement. However he did point out that Romney’s budget doesn’t add up — which it doesn’t — with a combination of tax cuts for the rich and increased military spending. The media judged Obama by his performance rather than his substance. That is why they gave the debate to Romney. Romney ecomomic policies will only benefit the rich and the Jewish banks as the U.S. takes on even more debt and austerity. Romney is NOT a business man nor is he an “Adam Smith” Capitalist. He is a Jew disguised as a Gentile and many will argue that Mormons are very close. Romney made is money engaging in leverage buyout (LBO) in the 1980’s like Carl Ichan, Michael Milkin and the tribe forcing companies to carry debt and then wreak the firm (fire workers and even bankrupting firms) to pay the debt back and walk away with a tidy profit.

    [2] The 2nd debate was held at Hofstra University in Jew York. The vast majority of the questioners excluding Candy Crawford (herself a Jew) were Jewish. Americans needn’t involve themselves. The 3rd debate was held in Boca Rotan, FL yet another Jewish bastion.

    [3] Climate change is a bogus issue that is mainly being pushed by the pseudo-Left in order to provide political cover for the banks who will set up Carbon Exchanges FUNDED by taxpayers. This has already been put into place by the Jews who own Julia Gillard. If you’re unemployed, drowning in debt, or have no money to be concerned about “climate change” is a luxury. The Left trek from “pollution” to “climate change” reveals how they gone from the concrete to the abstract in order to fool people — especially if it benefits Jewish banks. Also I followed the 1988 elections quite closely and I don’t recall “climate change” Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush ever debating the issue. “Pollution” has been an issue discussion since the 1970’s. It was only recent to my recollection that the rhetoric morphed to “climate change”.

    [4] The problem of immigration means that NAFTA was off the table just like the Israel-US Free trade agreement signed in 1984 is off the table. NAFTA was mention during the 2008 election but this election is the MOST ANTI-AMERICAN election I’ve every witness. It’s been made clear since the Republican primary that the 2012 election is for American Jews only. American gentiles are superfluous and are quite becoming non-entities.

  2. Deadbeat October 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    I see that Chris Hedges in an article on ICH today, a site where I have been permanently banned from posting and the IP address from wherever I post on planet Earth get automatically banned as well, endorses Jill Stein.

    What Stein candidacy represents is the total takeover by Left-Zionists of the Green Party. I was once a Green and endorsed Ralph Nader’s candidacy in 2004 which was a PIVOTAL year for the Greens.

    Nader in 2000 was approximately 2 million votes shy of the 5% threshold needed to make the Greens a viable 3rd party. Despite all the stunts recently pulled by Stein and the Greens getting arrested because they are “denied” from the debates, what they don’t say is that HAD the Greens obtained the 5% in 2004 they would have been eligable to be in the 2008 debates and probably in the 2012 debates. There is a valid reason these smaller parties less than 5% are omitted.

    Threfore all Nader needed in 2004 was to improve on his showing in 2000. Here was a perfect opportunity for the Left to truly OPEN UP the system by rallying behind Nader and build up the Greens. This was a once in an lifetime opportunity to use the system to beat the system and did they? NO! In fact the did everything to sabotage the Nader candidacy even while his candidacy had the momentum of the people who participated in the anti-Iraq War marches of 2004

    Nader implored the reinstatement of anti-war movement. Even if member in the movement didn’t vote for him it would have push Kerry to the left. But it didn’t. Why? Because the Zionist who infest the Left not only disbanded the anti-war movement but also sabotaged the Green Party. They rallied behind a nobody — David Cobb — a Texas lawyer who had ZERO credibility and the Zio-Greens inside the party namely Ted Glick and Medea Benjamin blocked the party early endorsement of Nader so that they couldn’t speed up the ballot access process. They wanted to delay choosing the Green Party standard bearer until June in order to endorse “Cobb” in a lengthy primary process. Not only that but the Zio-Green abused the internal Green Party bylaws which undemocratically advantaged the smaller states over the vast majority of Greens who wanted the Nader-Camejo ticket. This forced Nader to run as an independent in order to guarantee he had enough time to get on all 50 states ballots.

    During Nader campaigned speeches he spoke about the Israeli Occupied Government and I’m sure this upset Zio-Left celebrities like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky both who endorsed pro-war Kerry in an ad published in the New York Times.

    Here was an opportunity to the door for greater participation and to create a 3rd party in a peaceful and bloodless manner yet the so-called “dissidents” opted for “status quo”. In this election Chomsky endorses Jill Stein who has NO chance of achieving the 5% but because she is a Zionist give her his blessing. The hypocrisy is obvious and judging by some of the comments on ICH regarding Hedges endorsement I’m glad to see that others who are not fooled as well.

    • Blake October 29, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

      That’s strange. Were you given a reason? I thought I was banned for a while because my comments were not going through but emailed Tom who sorted out the prob when I gave him my ip address.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: