After watching the third presidential debate there are repetitive style of argument styles of the debates. After watching the presidential debates there are some questions that arise from confusion or contradictions after the debate. I realize that President Obama have discussed some issues with half true facts as well as readdressing the past/situation every time Romney had finished discussing his main views. President Obama pinpoints the flip-flopping that presidential nominee Mitt Romney and discusses the flaws of his arguments. Also, president Obama tries to sell his story even more with the foreign policies by trying to have other nations to get involve to decrease the nuclear arms of Iran to keep the pressure. 

On the other hand,  it seems that Mitt Romney didn't have his usual fire-like enthusiasm like the past two debates. Mitt Romney became a bit of a more yes-man and agreed with president Obama on some occasions, though maybe because it was from a negative feedback from the population. Romney's style of argument pinpoints the fact that the change Obama proposes haven't been effective and the rates of unemployment been bigger than ever. He even criticized the tour that Obama had around the middle east countries had made U.S viewed as weak by his lack of reactions. 

Both candidates seem to repeat the jabs that have been previously made before with a different context and content in the debate. There was nothing major in either speeches that made me want to join to either's side immediately, but it is through my background and the benefits I would make from either's standpoints that encourages me to vote.

Reading the “Social Changing Model” has changed my perspective of viewing the presidential debates. My feedback of the presidential debates is that the debates were much better in addressing the problems in some cases. Though President Obama seems to have a lot of sources to back him up and that’s due to the help of expertise of his staff from his cabinet and the white house. These sources backed him up against foreign affairs and trade as well as job growth. Presidential nominee Romney attacks successfully by comparing these numbers to other eras of job depression and so forth. President Obama is bashed upon the job growth rate and the health bill that he has passed. The job growth rate being too slow will basically lead U.S. into a greater deficit and Romney voices his opinions that it will be great harm to the U.S. The health bill is a great option for the lower classes, but Romney says that people who don’t work will leach off the rich. Romney’s scenario is very valid and relates to those who work earnestly and are successful.

               President Romney has to deal with a lot of personal images and values that the some parts of society do not accept. Romney often has to deal with the image of being a corrupt CEO and flip flopper, and in this debate Romney gets heated and sometimes voices his complaint that much of Obama’s campaign money is spent on negative ad upon Romney. Reason being I believe I’ve seen a greater impact and rage that Romney has shown in this presidential debate.  I believe that if Romney wants to win he needs to be much calmer and not fall into President Obama’s games. Whereas Obama needs to again direct his problems in a clear sense instead of making a story, it is great to voice the reason why such problems are being addressed. But being direct has its charm on the people as well. Again I’d rather vote third party if I didn’t have to choose the lesser evil. 

What do you think leaders need to implement change? Is change always necessary? How do you know when things need to changed? How do you get other leaders to buy into your change?

                The leaders on both sides need social influences in congress as well as other areas in government, social groups, and different layers of chain of command in society. They need people’s interest and support to implement change in the country. In this country, James Madison was afraid of factions or groups would have too much power and overthrow the government in “Federalist Paper 10.” The way a situation or change is caused by is the people whom reports the problem and addresses the solution through a cyclical process. So if the leaders were to have the people’s support and interest the lower chains of government would have less of a problem addressing the solution. Obama’s health care consumed a lot of time because there were gridlocks and less support in the government. In this way he needs social influences as well as expert power.

Change isn’t always necessary, but it is the most favored option when nothing is going well. Change is really needed when things are desperate at times or when things are unstable in the country or organizations. If people are demanding change and the leader runs out of solution than it is time for change before the citizens change it for the leaders.

                The best solution to get other leaders attention into buying change is by appealing him through logistics. Though the problem would be the credit and accountability on my behalf would have to be appealing as well. Decisions in the past and the credibility that one creates from the past helps significantly in one’s resume thus that is why resume is heavily looked upon as well as character. As a leader he must use his tone of ethos and logos to buy in the people to follow such change on his part. Leaders are always looking for solutions if it is superior to their model and though they take credit, profits are shared between all the associated members that help create the change.

                

My reaction to the presidential debate is mixed with a bit of disappointment and doubtful after watching the debate. Prior to watching this debate governor Romney's ideas seem very contradictory that leads me to be doubtful. Mr. Romney's behavior or the style of his argument is very aggressive, such aggressiveness that seems like a hot-headed person in my opinion. This attack style may be favorable to some people because of their frustration in president Obama's decision and plans. In my opinion there are other ways to address the commentator and not cut off the commentator.

On the other hand, listening to president Obama's argument style seemed very dull and non direct. Often times Mr. Obama creates an imagery and revelation to why he supports such causes for his health care and other ideals. The reason why such argument style seems very unfavorable, because this doesn't address the solution for the economic problem. The way he addresses his reason for such support is to tell a story and indirectly boast of his characteristics.

I personally wish there was a greater selection of nominees for the presidential election. But I'll make sure my vote counts and choose the "lesser" evil like most would say.