President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney duked it out in the last presidential debate of the 2012 election season on Monday, sparring on foreign policy issues ranging from Iran's nuclear program and fair trade with China to the violence in Libya and Syria.
Military spending was also a frequent point of contention throughout the debate, which was hosted by Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL.
The sit-down debate, moderated by CBS’s Bob Schieffer, was supposed to be centered on foreign affairs, but there still were stretches when the discussion turned to the domestic impact of overseas military spending.
Did you watch the debate? Who do you think won? Tell us in the comments!
Patch hosted a lively statewide Live Chat during the debate that served as a digital gathering place for state political junkies. We also pulled comments in from Twitter. Here are a few of the highlights.
Thomas:
Obama's biggest advantage in FP will be that Gov. Romney will have a hard time to explain what he would do differently in external relations with Iran or Syria. In Iran at least, we've laid down crippling sanctions that will (hopefully) negate the necessity of military action. If Gov. Romney advocates more invasions, he's going to come off as a new Republican WarMonger.
Tiffany:
"Go after the bad guys" Yea good job sounding like a 5-year-old.
Klair Waters:
Mitt is hitting hard and keeping Obama on topic.
Gerald:
I don't think Romney is taking this Seriously!
Thomas:
Governor Romney keeps criticizing for not "leading", but I haven't heard him suggest anything other than vague platitudes....
Klair Waters:
Mitt is right...there has been NO leadership for the last 4 years.
Craig:
Enough stories, what's there plan. A.B.C. on everything? So far they are not explaining how these promises will be carried out
Angela:
This is foreign policy, Mitt. Let's move on from your economy.
Tiffany:
Romney just said "human rights" doesn't that include WOMEN'S RIGHTS?? He's flip flopping
Sam:
Neither candidate has a good vision for our country. both just want to spend more on the backs of the taxpayers.
jay:
HaHa, a game of Battleship. Obama's on fire in this one
Thomas:
We have fewer cavalry brigades today than we did in 1865!
Sam:
Neither of them is in support of ending the wars. Why don't they just say that?
Jing:
Obama is pulling out all the guns
Klair Waters:
Let's all go to Walmarts and help build China's military and economic strength to peak performance.
Gerald:
Obama won this FINAL debate!
Guest:
Romney is still going to be our next president.
Sam:
I think Romney won, more class, less defensive. Obama came off like a brat
heretolearn:
So Romney just looks like a sleeze ball, everything he says he says with a smirk.
Ah, guilt by association. Just like the McCarthy witch-hunts. Is socialist the new communist?
Rant has now concluded,back to the who won stupid question!
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-inflated-jobs-claim-184609682--politics.html
Your response "Just like the McCarthy witch-hunts. Is socialist the new communist?" implies that being called a "socialist" is a bad thing? Is it? Do socialists feel that their doctrine is bad? Is it wrong to call someone who supports politicians (and therefore their policies), like Obama a "socialist" when it was Obama himself who said "he believes in spreading the wealth around? How is this much different from Karl Marx's credo "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need?" It isn't much different. It's the same. Spreading the wealth around is socialism. Obama is a socialist and therefore, by extension, so are those who support him, his views and policies. Calling socialists "socialists" is not automatically wrong or bad, sometimes it's just plain accurate. Sometimes it's true, and sometimes the truth hurts.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has admitted he is a Democratic Socialist similar to the Democratic Socialism of Sweden. Apparently, the voters of Vermont disagree with the right-wing fear-mongers. We had a progressive system of taxation in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. It spread the wealth around. Would you call Dwight Eisenhower a socialist? Instead of relying on right-wing propaganda, look at our economic and tax policies in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.
Is the environment only a concern for the hippies and extremists now? I hate to break it to you people but have you forgotten no earth, no life. There will no longer be concern of jobs or housing or education or foriegn policy. We worry about nuclear bombs being built to be thrown to diminish us, yet forget the true threat of our place on this planet. What a joke. Mr. Barak, even if you don't agree or like it, took the chance to reform our energy system to try and reconstruct the future of our safety; a threat more real than any terrorist group that we face. Now I look at him, pigeon holed by money driven orthodox republican minds; transforming into the same being. He is behind fracking and creating jobs through unclean energy. I know that we all utilize the technology that calls for these sources of energy, and i would be a hypocrit if I acted like I don't. Either way I think we are doomed. There is nothing Mitt or Obama can do about it. Change must be on a bigger scale. It is time for us to stop being pawns and make a personal change on a daily basis. Lets take some social, economic, and environmental responsibility. The government is not the solve for everyone's problems. Rant took some turns and twists, but is now concluded.
Obama and Romney sound the same to me. Does it really make a difference who you vote for if you vote for either of the two? Nope, it really doesn't. They support the same things.
When I said being a socialist isn't bad I was disingenuous and trying to make a point to make you aware that this is what you implied. I believe that you responded like it was a pejorative knowing, deep inside, it is a severely flawed doctrine. Socialism is not bad ONLY when all the participants are there VOLUNTARILY and can leave or cease participating VOLUNTARILY, otherwise, it is simply a euphemism for slavery. Whether you call it Marxism, Socialism, Communism or Collectivism, it's basically all the same thing, SERVE THE STATE. Collectivism has killed between 100-200 million innocent people in the 20th century alone (depending on who does the counting). Mao killed over 50 million and Stalin (many claim) nearly the same just to name two of the most famous adherents. The same Mao said China could afford to lose 2 or 3 hundred million people and same Stalin who said 1 or 2 deaths is a tragedy, 3 or 4 a statistic. (I admit that different variations of these sayings exist and it's hard to nail down which is THE precise or most accurate versions). Make no mistake about it, socialism is a bad word, and this has been unfortunately, proven.
You really dont' think that they get enough to run this country, you remember, the country that was established with the credo of protecting our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?" Revenue is NOT the problem, CORRUPT CRONY POLITICS/BANKSTERS/CORPORTATION ARE. The debt is now over 16 Trillion yet you think we need to dig up the pennies that fell behind the coach cushions and send them in to these criminals??? You've got to be kidding yourselves, 'cuz you ain't kidding anyone else.
Who do you think writes that website? Mitt Romney is just sitting around in the middle of a campaign, perfecting his website? No, one of his word savvy, media manipulative invisible men takes on the task. My theory is if you can't answer a question with thoroughness and confidence, in person on the spot, you have no right to be up there in the first place. Referring us to his website is a cop out and quite frankly it makes him look incompetent.