U.S. Presidential Debates & Election

[sharkbit]

So...who's going to watch the debate tonoght and how much will they influence you decision?

Or are they just going to talk for two hours and not say anything?

:)

[Sailor Steve]

There is no debate. What they have, and what they've had since the advent of television, is a question-and-answer session. It's not the same.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm tuning in to "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." :rock:

[Oberon]

There is no debate. What they have, and what they've had since the advent of television, is a question-and-answer session. It's not the same.

I've often wondered what would happen if they just put a camera on them, took away all their scripts, and then just asked one question and step back to let the fireworks roll.

Snag is, without their carefully prepared script and questions, both would probably be completely and utterly lost.

What time is the 'debate' on anyway? If it's not too late GMT I might tune in, I dare say the BBC will air it.

[Tchocky]

2am for you Oberon.

http://debate2012.du.edu/

[Oberon]

2am for you Oberon.

http://debate2012.du.edu/

I might still be about at that hour, just done three all nighters so my sleep pattern will be a bit afk. :03:

[TLAM Strike]

I'm tuning in to "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." :rock:

There are far easier and painless ways to commit suicide you know...

[AVGWarhawk]

There are far easier and painless ways to commit suicide you know...

Yes, but I like it long and slow without any means of escape.

[TLAM Strike]

Yes, but I like it long and slow without any means of escape.

But there is the risk of a power failure or the cable going out in which case you may be left a vegetable after the first commercial break.

Or worse you may only end up dead on the inside and be forced to wander the Earth as a reality TV watching zombie, until someone has the mercy to unload a shotgun in to you.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm tuning in to "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo." :rock:

:haha:

Me too.

[JU_88]

Or are they just going to talk for two hours and not say anything?

:)

^Probably this, anyway they pretty much agree on everything dont they? or at least they have done at some point in time.

[Oberon]

^Probably this, anyway they pretty much agree on everything dont they? or at least they have done at some point in time.

Could be worse, could be "I agree with Nick" ;) Still, let's not go there... :dead:

[JU_88]

Could be worse, could be "I agree with Nick" ;) Still, let's not go there... :dead:

Nick? Nick who?, oh yes... him. :haha:
Ill never forget when the Lib dems got a possitive public response in the 2010 TV debates, suddenly they were like - 'oh crap we might actually win this, QUICK guys, make up some policies and stuff!'

[mapuc]

If the debates gets bored, you can always.....


http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff440/mapuc/Drinkdebate.jpg

[soopaman2]

If the debates gets bored, you can always.....


http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff440/mapuc/Drinkdebate.jpg


Sounds like a recipe for alcohol poisoning.:D It is funny because it is true. I can see all that in the first 10 minutes.

[mapuc]

Sounds like a recipe for alcohol poisoning.:D It is funny because it is true. I can see all that in the first 10 minutes.


Maybe that's good to be real drunk during the rest of the debates

Markus

[yubba]

Remember gasoline was 1 Dollar and 70 cents give or take a penny or two the national debt was not 16 trillion dollars and there was not 44 million people on foodstamps when he took office. He inherieted the greatest nation on earth.

[soopaman2]

I didn't know you were running.

You are also heavily full of crap, I remember paying $4.00 plus a gallon under Bush at one point.

8 year gas charts I found tells the same story. It actually went down after Obama took office.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f259/Soopaman2/Ooops_zps20faef43.png


Go peddle your propaganda on the Fox news site where they will believe it blindly. Subsim is not the place for misinfo.

And the free market sets gas prices, not presidents.

[Takeda Shingen]

You are also heavily full of crap, I remember paying $4.00 plus a gallon under Bush at one point.

I remember paying 92 cents a gallon......in 1994. Who was president?

[soopaman2]

I remember paying 92 cents a gallon......in 1994. Who was president?

99 cents when I started driving in 1995. (legally at least ;))

Can I answer? it was the worse president evaarrrrrr!

Bill Clinton, the guy who gave us a budget surplus, so King George could oopsie it.

[yubba]

99 cents when I started driving in 1995. (legally at least ;))

Can I answer? it was the worse president evaarrrrrr!

Bill Clinton, the guy who gave us a budget surplus, so King George could oopsie it.
I feel like I'm living the second term of Jimmy Carter and stare-ing down a third...

[soopaman2]

I feel like I'm living the second term of Jimmy Carter and stare-ing down a third...

That's your right as an American. :salute:

But there is alot of things to kill Obama on. The one you chose is just unfair.:)

Eric Holder is a good start, would be interesting to see if Romney brings up Fast and Furious.

I really should work in politics. :D

[yubba]

That's your right as an American. :salute:

But there is alot of things to kill Obama on. The one you chose is just unfair.:)

Eric Holder is a good start, would be interesting to see if Romney brings up Fast and Furious.

I really should work in politics. :D
You're a good man you should do well..

[soopaman2]

They both, so far seem to be trying to pander to the middle class Americans.

(edit: the moderator just pwned Romney for trying to go off topic)

[RickC Sniper]

I remember paying 92 cents a gallon......in 1994. Who was president?

99 cents when I started driving in 1995. (legally at least ;))

Pfft. You children. :D
I remember 19.99 cents. And it didn't change much for many many years.

[RickC Sniper]

They both, so far seem to be trying to pander to the middle class Americans.

(edit: the moderator just pwned Romney for trying to go off topic)

They are both going off topic and going after each other. That's much better than sticking to the cut n dry questions.

[soopaman2]

Pfft. You children. :D
I remember 19.99 cents. And it didn't change much for many many years.

So what was the Civil War like?

:D (please forgive me):salute:

I am impressed with both candidates. It is amusing watching them step all over Jim Lehrer.

Although after Romney said he would cut PBS funding, I am surprised Lehrer is being so neutral.

[Takeda Shingen]

I think we all can agree that Jim Lehrer has the most unenviable job in America tonight.

[soopaman2]

I think we all can agree that Jim Lehrer has the most unenviable job in America tonight.

It certainly seems personal between these two. My wife walked in the room and gave me mock yawn after seeing what I was watching.

I told her this was more exciting than the Niner game I saw on Sunday, and to be happy I am not screaming at the TV, as what typically happens:har:

[RickC Sniper]

So what was the Civil War like?

:D (please forgive me):salute:
Just a minute. I'll ask my son. :D


I am impressed with both candidates. It is amusing watching them step all over Jim Lehrer.
Me too. It'll be interesting to see if Lehrer ever gets the usual control back.

[soopaman2]

Lehrer: Your 2 minutes is up.
President: I had 5 seconds before you interupted me.
President: (talks about his Obamacare plan, for 30 seconds more.)
Lehrer: your 5 seconds was up long ago.


Poor Jim.

Just give these two boxing gloves, and let the citizens vote with round by round scorecards.

They so hate each other.

[RickC Sniper]

I think we all can agree that Jim Lehrer has the most unenviable job in America tonight.

Perhaps, but I envy his ability to ask these guys follow up questions off the cuff and thus somewhat challenge one of their statements.

[em2nought]

Just give these two boxing gloves, and let the citizens vote with round by round scorecards.

They so hate each other.

That would at least be worthwhile viewing. Although it might look like "The Big Bang Theory".

[Onkel Neal]

It was a decent debate, I would say both sides did well, but Romney clearly had the larger US flag lapel pin...

[Oberon]

:haha:

Well, fatigue caught up with me, so I hit the sack before the debate, but I stuck Radio Four on which was covering the World Service (It switches over at 1am BST) and they were airing the debate, and from what I heard Romney was definitely very much in his stride, but having been doing debates frequently in the run up to this debate he's had experience, but Obama is out of debating shape, he needs to shape up a bit before the next one. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

It was a decent debate, I would say both sides did well, but Romney clearly had the larger US flag lapel pin...

I couldn't tell what the thingy on the flag pin was. It seemed like there was another emblem over the stripes.

[Onkel Neal]

Maybe it was a tiny pink breast awareness ribbon....

[mookiemookie]

Ah yes, October, breast cancer, all that.

I found a picture of Jim Lehrer from last night's debate:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/food/milton-office-space-movie-330.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

Honey Boo Boo was hilarious last night! :rock:

Anyway, I see a POTUS ridden hard and put away wet. I see a guy who has a lot on his plate and beaten down by Washington. He is just one person. It is clear he would take the kudos if everything is going great. It is clear he is taking his lumps because things are not so great. Mitt took the ball and ran with it. There are two other debates forthcoming. Can Mitt continue running with the ball? Is BO really looking to throw in the towel?

[Takeda Shingen]

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2011/12/29/big-bird_320.jpg

Public enemy number one.

[Oberon]

:haha: Yes, how did DeGrasse-Tyson put it earlier:

Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive

[Takeda Shingen]

That's American politics in a nutshell, and why I cannot get excited about it. Last night made it clear to me that there is no discernable difference in effect between the two candidates and debt reduction. Romney has stated that he refusees to do anything about defense spending, but pledges to cut taxes even further while making token cuts in relatively miniscule areas like PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts. Those miniscule areas are also favorite political targets for his party and it's supporters. And so we have seen that neither of these candidates have any plans to solve our debt crisis. They could have saved us 90 minutes of our lives and just said that to start with.

[Tribesman]

Sesame street is brought to you today by the letters F&U

https://twitter.com/BigBirdRomney/status/253708991203532800/photo/1/large

[August]

8 year gas charts I found tells the same story. It actually went down after Obama took office.

How you figure? According to that chart it bottomed out a couple weeks after the election then started back up. Obama didn't take office until January 2009.

[AVGWarhawk]

Those miniscule areas are also favorite political targets for his party and it's supporters.

Status quo.


I truly believe we witnessed a man who is tired. Physically and mentally. It was very telling a week or so ago when BO exclaimed, "You can not change Washington from the inside." It was his most important lesson apparently. In short, I think he has had enough. His lack luster performance echoing his sentiments about changing Washington from the inside.

[AVGWarhawk]

Al Gore said the thin air at Mile High was affecting the President and his performance. Al invented the internet also. :up:

[yubba]

Mile high melt down couldn't have happen to a nicer guy,,like I said a liberal couldn't tell you where he wants to take this country..I liked what he said "that it was the presidents job to protect the american people" like he believed it,, right

[eddie]

And Romney made a whole bunch of promises he can't keep. Just like a typical neocon. Keep the Bush tax cuts in place and lower them another 20%:haha::haha: Except for the rich folks, which he'll lower so they don't have to pay anything at all.

And he never got into any details how he was going to do alll this, just more wishful thinking.

[Onkel Neal]

Status quo.


I truly believe we witnessed a man who is tired. Physically and mentally. It was very telling a week or so ago when BO exclaimed, "You can not change Washington from the inside." It was his most important lesson apparently. In short, I think he has had enough. His lack luster performance echoing his sentiments about changing Washington from the inside.

Funny, my father had the same observation, he thinks it may be that Obama is just ready to call it quits.

I don't think so, Obama knows there are 2 more debates. Just wait till debate #3, he'll set Romney on fire.

Romney cracked me up, he was so hyper, I think maybe they should drug test him. Maybe it was the 10 cups of coffee before the debate? He literally couldn't stop talking.

[August]

Funny, my father had the same observation, he thinks it may be that Obama is just ready to call it quits.

I don't think so, Obama knows there are 2 more debates. Just wait till debate #3, he'll set Romney on fire.

Romney cracked me up, he was so hyper, I think maybe they should drug test him. Maybe it was the 10 cups of coffee before the debate? He literally couldn't stop talking.

I like this one NPR pundits comment:

"Obama won on time spent talking, speaking for 5 minutes longer, but Romney got in 50 more plays."

[nikimcbee]

I like this one NPR pundits comment:

"Obama won on time spent talking, speaking for 5 minutes longer, but Romney got in 50 more plays."

So, if that's the case, Romney is running (using) the Oregon Ducks football offense; They score 21 points in a three minute window.

[AVGWarhawk]

Funny, my father had the same observation, he thinks it may be that Obama is just ready to call it quits.

I don't think so, Obama knows there are 2 more debates. Just wait till debate #3, he'll set Romney on fire.

Romney cracked me up, he was so hyper, I think maybe they should drug test him. Maybe it was the 10 cups of coffee before the debate? He literally couldn't stop talking.


I have seen this in other Presidents. As far as Romney, let's just say the man was on a roll. There was not stopping him. He had the upper hand. He was on point as on point as much as these will be anyway. In short, it was his night at the frat house.

[soopaman2]

Romney won, but he does not have a country to run, his only job is to prepare for this.

Romney killed me when he wanted to shut down PBS, I really enjoy the programming.

He also killed me with how he spewed forth his plans without saying anything of substance, no details. He just said it in a sad voice like he gives a flying frick about people like me. But as you all know, we only see and believe what we want. That goes for both sides of this debacle.

Both should be ashamed of the disrespect they showed Jim Lehrer.

Kudos to both candidates for not bringing up gaffes. Or personally assualting the other candidate.

I remember the Hilary/Obama primary, where she slung so much mud at Obama.

I also applaud both candidates for the lack of outright personal attack ads up to this point so far.

Classy debate, all around, besides how they treated Lehrer.

No matter who wins, god bless America! And may she prosper.

[AVGWarhawk]

And Romney made a whole bunch of promises he can't keep. Just like a typical neocon. Keep the Bush tax cuts in place and lower them another 20%:haha::haha: Except for the rich folks, which he'll lower so they don't have to pay anything at all.

And he never got into any details how he was going to do alll this, just more wishful thinking.

This is how the debates usually pan out. Much too do about nothing. Debates are all about looks, not substance.

[soopaman2]

This is how the debates usually pan out. Much too do about nothing. Debates are all about looks, not substance.

:salute:

Though I have a much less malicious view of Romney.

2 more debates to go.

I want to have faith in our system.:) It is hard sometimes.

[AVGWarhawk]

:salute:

Though I have a much less malicious view of Romney.

2 more debates to go.

I want to have faith in our system.:) It is hard sometimes.

Leadership is what is needed. I do not feel leadership has been presented from PA Ave for close to 4 years. Obama is bright guy. He has got me by 2 years. There is absolutely no way I would or could run a country at my age and experience. Old age and treachery, that's how you run a country. :D

[August]

Romney killed me when he wanted to shut down PBS, I really enjoy the programming.

I like PBS too but just FYI He didn't say he wanted to shut down PBS. He said he didn't want it funded with taxpayers money. Big difference. I understand that public funds only make up a small percentage of their operating budget anyways so it shouldn't be too big of a hit right? Anyways I like the idea of a truly independent PBS.

[yubba]

You, got a choice, a business man that knows how to make money,, or a community organizer that only knows how to spend it. I'd go with business man, I want to be able to make money..and not do a third term of Jimmy Carter..

[AVGWarhawk]

This is just hilarious and reaching. It took all day to dream this up.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/debate-fumble/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[soopaman2]

Leadership is what is needed. I do not feel leadership has been presented from PA Ave for close to 4 years. Obama is bright guy. He has got me by 2 years. There is absolutely no way I would or could run a country at my age and experience. Old age and treachery, that's how you run a country. :D

That is the beauty of our system, which is why I want to have faith in it.

If Obama does not work, we can try something different.

If Romney does not work, then in 4 years we can do the same.

You don't have "lingering" politicians like Putin.

Or a Chinese system, where the elite few pick the sucessor.

We have our flaws, sure. But no one has it better than us. Noooooobody :)

[mapuc]

That is the beauty of our system, which is why I want to have faith in it.

If Obama does not work, we can try something different.

If Romney does not work, then in 4 years we can do the same.

You don't have "lingering" politicians like Putin.

Or a Chinese system, where the elite few pick the sucessor.

We have our flaws, sure. But no one has it better than us. Noooooobody :)

As you, we also have the same benefits of "trying" someone new if the old one didn't made up to his/her promises.

But we, as well as you, are being had by the lies of the politicians or should I say withhold of some facts that they know that would made them lose if they told them to us.

Markus

[soopaman2]

As you, we also have the same benefits of "trying" someone new if the old one didn't made up to his/her promises.

But we, as well as you, are being had by the lies of the politicians or should I say withhold of some facts that they know that would made them lose if they told them to us.

Markus


There is only so much we can do. Money still buys these things.

Joe Blow from some hood in Harlem has zero chance. Even if his ideas are the best.We cannot chose who runs, only who wins.

Look at Herman Cain, and the onslaught he caught from his own party. I am not saying he was best, but too unconventional to pass muster for the repub bosses, so he was smeared. He wasn't white and pretty enough, and too aggressive/impulsive to stand against a calm Obama. Thats what they looked at.

Maybe we can get the George Soros, and Grover Norquist, unelected scum out of the process, and we may have a chance as a country.

[Takeda Shingen]

Leadership is what is needed. I do not feel leadership has been presented from PA Ave for close to 4 years.

Maybe. I'm just not sure that I am prepared to vote Gordon Gekko in as Obama's replacement.

[mapuc]

It's totally different in running for power in Denmark/Sweden and running for president in the USA.

Here your need about 200.000 signatures from people over 18 and they must live in Denmark.

Then your party have been registred. And now you or your party can run for either municipal, county or general election

No you do not need alot of money, but people that would help you.

and when you in an election has achieved a certain number of votes, you or your party are entitled to support from the state.

I wish that my english gramma was alot better, cause I could tell you a fairy story about a swan that became an ugly bird.

Our nonsocialist bloc lost the election after having been in power for nearly 10 years.

We got a new Prime Minister, Helle Thorning S. Before the election, promised her party both the one thing and another and it was on these premise she and the other parties (Rad. V and SF) won the elections and formed a socialist block.

Today, approximately 1 year after the Danes, observe that almost none of these promises have been implemented. The Danes are in other words, very disappointed in her and the ruling parties.

I do hope that your next president doesn't do the same, promise alot.

Markus

[soopaman2]

Maybe. I'm just not sure that I am prepared to vote Gordon Gekko in as Obama's replacement.

Greed is good.
Stop being such a Panty-waste. Capitalism makes the world go around, people are just resources to be exploited. Like an iron mine, or oil derrick, just less valuable to the shareholders.


:O:

I suggest we learn our place, unless the President wakes up and grows the same balls he had in the Dem primaries 4 years ago.

[AVGWarhawk]

Maybe. I'm just not sure that I am prepared to vote Gordon Gekko in as Obama's replacement.

That is the beauty of a write in vote.

[August]

What exactly has the president done?

Got a Democrat controlled congress to pass a expensive heath care bill that's unlikely to achieve what it was intended to do. Said yes to our CIA request for clearance in going after bin laden, our biggest single enemy since Hideki Tojo. Talk about a no brainer decision. Stirred up a lot of partisan strife and division. Took a lot of vacations and played a lot of golf.

and that's it.

I can see why he seemed so subdued during the debate.

[Onkel Neal]

Romney won, but he does not have a country to run, his only job is to prepare for this.

Romney killed me when he wanted to shut down PBS, I really enjoy the programming.






Who says he wants to kill it? He just wants to stop forcing us to pay for it.

[soopaman2]

Who says he wants to kill it? He just wants to stop forcing us to pay for it.


It's better than buying a tank. Or an overpriced joint strike fighter

At least we can all learn something from PBS. The previous 2 things only enrich a select few.

I donate to PBS. I love the Nova series, and the news.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's better than buying a tank. Or an overpriced joint strike fighter

At least we can all learn something from PBS. The previous 2 things only enrich a select few.

I donate to PBS. I love the Nova series, and the news.

And you may have that when commercials aired securing cash.

[August]

I donate to PBS. I love the Nova series, and the news.

As do the wife and I, we've both donated to WGBH in Boston for years. I just don't think it should be funded with public money. I'd prefer it to be independent.

[geetrue]

Bush lost his first debate with Kerry back in 04, right?

Then he came out boxing in the last round and showed his was a fighter and won the match in November 04.

Obama will probably due the same and win in November.

I noticed this morning that the teamsters have just signed up an additional 450,000 people to vote Democratic ticket in November

I think President Obama must have been off his feed what with his 20th wedding thingy, perhaps his wife gave him a hand before the main event lol

President Obama is pre-destined to win and that is the truth "A tall black man leading the biggest army in the west shall defeat the muslims"
"but don't worry he is with us" Prophet Hussien Third Inman 682ad

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=144543

President Obama still has a job to finish ... takes a muslim to defeat a nation full of them. Iran is going down, but when is up to a higher power.

[Oberon]

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2214/52783253338606002418513.jpg

[soopaman2]

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2214/52783253338606002418513.jpg


So snufalufigus is just left out in the cold?

Maybe Oscar can teach him how to scavenge out of garbage cans.:03:

[AVGWarhawk]

Bush lost his first debate with Kerry back in 04, right?

Then he came out boxing in the last round and showed his was a fighter and won the match in November 04.

Obama will probably due the same and win in November.

I noticed this morning that the teamsters have just signed up an additional 450,000 people to vote Democratic ticket in November

I think President Obama must have been off his feed what with his 20th wedding thingy, perhaps his wife gave him a hand before the main event lol

President Obama is pre-destined to win and that is the truth "A tall black man leading the biggest army in the west shall defeat the muslims"
"but don't worry he is with us" Prophet Hussien Third Inman 682ad

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=144543

President Obama still has a job to finish ... takes a muslim to defeat a nation full of them. Iran is going down, but when is up to a higher power.


Kerry was finished after the swift boat incident. The debate did not matter as I recall. Each campaign is dilgently looking for their swift boat incident against their opponent. Old BO tapes at Wright's church. Drudging up the hidden camera Mitt 47% incident.

[yubba]

Good run sharkbit over a thousand veiws keep up the good work. Can't wait to see uncle Joe, debate, Paul Ryan maybe with alittle luck uncle Joe will walk out in front of a bus and take one for the team before the debates.:woot::har:

[Hawk66]

I've seen the TV debate...was shown life in a major German TV channel...I've to say see I was positively surprised by the quality of the discussion...no personal attacks but focus on the topics...is this always the case or was it an exception due to location (university)?

I think both candidates have their qualities, although for Western Europe Romney might be better, since he's more an Atlantic guy...at least this is what some newspapers claim here...

Is it true that Romney plans to reconsider the relations to Russia? Is that related to the conflict in Syria/Iran or what's the issue behind that?

[yubba]

It would be good to have some kind of relationship with the russian people,, we don't need to fall back into that cold war crap..Like Obama said,, he'd be more flexiable after he got re-elected:doh:

[geetrue]

I've seen the TV debate...was shown life in a major German TV channel...I've to say see I was positively surprised by the quality of the discussion...no personal attacks but focus on the topics...is this always the case or was it an exception due to location (university)?

I think both candidates have their qualities, although for Western Europe Romney might be better, since he's more an Atlantic guy...at least this is what some newspapers claim here...

Is it true that Romney plans to reconsider the relations to Russia? Is that related to the conflict in Syria/Iran or what's the issue behind that?

They will say anything to become the president of the United States ...
Whatever they say doesn't always necesarily come to pass.

"believe half of what you hear, part of what you see and everything history reveals to be true"

[AVGWarhawk]

They will say anything to become the president of the United States ...
Whatever they say doesn't always necesarily come to pass.

"believe half of what you hear, part of what you see and everything history reveals to be true"

Debates are for show and looks. Substance is secondary.

[August]

Debates are for show and looks. Substance is secondary.


Not in this age of fact checkers and searchable databases. Every sentence uttered by the candidates will be checked in hope of finding an exploitable inconsistency.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not in this age of fact checkers and searchable databases. Every sentence uttered by the candidates will be checked in hope of finding an exploitable inconsistency.

Hence the substance, which there is very little, is secondary. The entire ordeal is scripted.

[soopaman2]

I took away alot from the debates.

Two con artists trying to out-con the other.:D

Romney seemed more sincere, but Tom Cruise is a good actor too, yet a crackpot in real life.

I want to see the VP debates, Biden and Ryan, 2 even bigger lunatics. One wants to put grandma in the morgue as fast as possible, and the other is too dumb to even remember what a grandma is.

What a country.:wah:

Picture how amusing it will be, an extemist tea-billy, and a moron.

[nikimcbee]

I have more fun watching the pundits go crazy:haha:.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, both VP candidates debated well, seemed pretty sharp. Joe carried the water for the President. But again, Republican Ryan had the bigger flag pin...

[Takeda Shingen]

Paul Ryan essentially got outfoxed by a much more experienced politician.

[August]

Biden tried to bully the younger man but it didn't work as Ryan very commendably kept his cool. Dems will probably get a lift from this after what has been a bummer week, but I doubt it did anything to effect undecided voters.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, Joe was right when he said Ryan got 40 seconds, we timed it and it was 40 seconds. Pretty nice estimate.

[Armistead]

Biden won that one, but not by much. He simply had better debating skills and pushed Ryan around.

[Rilder]

Ryan seemed like he thought Amerika was still in the Cold war versus Russia, at least to me. :hmmm:

[August]

Ryan seemed like he thought Amerika was still in the Cold war versus Russia, at least to me. :hmmm:


America is spelled with a C not a K.

[Rilder]

America is spelled with a C not a K.

I like it better my way. :03:

[Jimbuna]

I admit knowing very little about US politics but the VP debate was far more entertaining than the Obama Romney one IMHO.

One thing I am convinced of though is the fact that politicians from both our countries share the same attributes and ambitions etc.

Looks to me like it is no longer a one horse but sadly I don't think either party has the policies to put the deficit right.....again, same as here in the UK.

[Takeda Shingen]

I admit knowing very little about US politics but the VP debate was far more entertaining than the Obama Romney one IMHO.

The role of the VP in a campaign is one of the 'attack dog' who gets his hands dirty by really slinging the mud, thus keeping the presidential candidate above the fray. As such, the VP debate is always more colorful than the presidential ones.

[August]

I like it better my way. :03:

Your loss.

[Jimbuna]

The role of the VP in a campaign is one of the 'attack dog' who gets his hands dirty by really slinging the mud, thus keeping the presidential candidate above the fray. As such, the VP debate is always more colorful than the presidential ones.

Ah, right, thanks for that T....it certainly lived up to expectations then.

I may be wrong but I believe Obama has another televised debate scheduled with Romney. It will be interesting to see if he performs any better than he did in the first debate.

[August]

Ah, right, thanks for that T....it certainly lived up to expectations then.

I may be wrong but I believe Obama has another televised debate scheduled with Romney. It will be interesting to see if he performs any better than he did in the first debate.

He's got two more actually, both this month. On the 16th which is a town meeting format (Q&A from members of the audience) and on the 22nd which is about foreign policy.

[Jimbuna]

He's got two more actually, both this month. On the 16th which is a town meeting format (Q&A from members of the audience) and on the 22nd which is about foreign policy.

Well I did say "I may be wrong" and I was :)

[August]

Well I did say "I may be wrong" and I was :)

No, you said there was another debate and you were right. I was just trying to be helpful... :up:

[Jimbuna]

No, you said there was another debate and you were right. I was just trying to be helpful... :up:

Rgr that matey :up:

[soopaman2]

As silly as Joe is, I thought he did well. He was quicker and sharper than Obama was against Romney, and I have to admit, I got a chuckle out of him laughing at Ryan, and then slapping him with facts, that Ryan made no attempts to repudiate.

The moron is alot sharper than I though. My apologies Mr. Biden.

There is a picture in a few publications of the 2 men looking at each other as they shook hands, and both had pure murder in their eyes.

Although what politicians say, and what they do....(sigh)

Well, you guys all understand, somehow the average Joe loses no matter what.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, you guys all understand, somehow the average Joe loses no matter what.
Way back in 2008 I stole the AVP slogan "No matter who wins, we lose!"

[Dowly]

Way back in 2008 I stole the AVP slogan "No matter who wins, we lose!"

I'm still struggling to understand that slogan.. or better, how someone was so
stupid to come up with that. :dead:

[Buddahaid]

Thank God I have my ballot already and will vote today. There is nothing, well almost nothing, anyone can say that would change my vote at this point anyway. Plus I just love how fast someone shuts up when you say you already voted. :sunny:

[August]

Quit being negative. No matter who wins next month the Republic will survive. We're far stronger and more stable than either political side or their various media yapping dogs want you to think.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm still struggling to understand that slogan.. or better, how someone was so
stupid to come up with that. :dead:
For AVP, I wouln't know; I never saw it. For modern elections it can be the perfect motto. :sunny:

[Dowly]

For AVP, I wouln't know; I never saw it. For modern elections it can be the perfect motto. :sunny:

Ah, well in the end of AVP the sole survivor is human, so they kinda got the
slogan backwards. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

And once again it is proved that movie slogans, like all advertising, including politics, have the same moral: As long as it sounds cool it doesn't have to have anything to do with reality.

[Dowly]

That's very true. :yep:

[Buddahaid]

And once again it is proved that movie slogans, like all advertising, including politics, have the same moral: As long as it sounds cool it doesn't have to have anything to do with reality.

I'll correct that. "As long as it sounds cool, and is meaningless, it doesn't have to have anything to do with reality."

Ad slogans want to convey an idea of being better in some way without saying anything that the company can held to. Like best in it's class. Means nothing when the class is narrowly defined to exclude the competition.

[Onkel Neal]

Analysts: Romney bolstered by right-wing 'leaners' (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/politics/romney-polls/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

The latest polls show Romney catching or slightly passing President Barack Obama in both the overall race and in some of the battleground states still considered up for grabs and therefore vital to both candidates' chances.

Some of those polls also show a hike in Romney's favorability rating, indicating more respondents were supporting the former Massachusetts governor instead of simply opposing Obama

The late surge follows a rocky period for Romney following the rugged Republican primary campaign, including an ultimately nondescript GOP convention and some unforced errors, such as his so-called 47% comments that were secretly recorded at a fundraiser.

Well, I expect the media will look for every possible thing to go after Romney if this continues.

[Tchocky]

I think Romney is providing us all with enough reasons to go after him, frankly.

That's coming from an observer who's not exactly neutral, but I don't think much of the present race can be blamed on "the media" as per usual. The campaigning has really been horrid all round. "The media" didn't make the President sleepwalk the first debate, "the media" didn't give Romney the idea to run as Mr Fix-It with an economic plan made out of pixiedust and imaginary economics. "The media" didn't cause the mess that the Libya situation has become. And to top it off "the media" didn't tell Mittens to say whatever he thought the makers-and-takers eejits wanted to hear regarding those shiftless lazy irresponsible non-millionaires.

I wonder how it will go tonight - the townhall format means Obama can't be as aggressive as he should have been before, but it also means Romney has to you know...connect....human....language....commencing Regular-Guy-Bootloader..

Edited because I'm kind of grumpy ;)

[Oberon]

We'll see how Obama handles the tonights debate, see if he gets his act together.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm expecting both candidates to come out with a frenzy.

[AVGWarhawk]

Romney has to you know...connect....human....language....commencing Regular-Guy-Bootloader..

I spewed it in other debate threads here in GT and will do so in this thread. It's all in how they look and are perceived. Substance matters little. If Mitt can look like he does not still have a hanger in his sport coat he should look like that homey regular bootleg guy who cuts his grass just like me and you.

[Takeda Shingen]

As I said in another thread, ever since the unemployment numbers came out at under 8%, both campaigns have been working furiously to win this thing. They smell recovery and want to be in office to take credit. Substance be damned.

[AVGWarhawk]

As I said in another thread, ever since the unemployment numbers came out at under 8%, both campaigns have been working furiously to win this thing. They smell recovery and want to be in office to take credit. Substance be damned.


I will agree a second time!

[mapuc]

Found this

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110073567/The-2012-Debates-Memorandum-of-Understanding-Between-the-Obama-and-Romney-Campaigns

I can't say if it's true

Markus

[Takeda Shingen]

Found this

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110073567/The-2012-Debates-Memorandum-of-Understanding-Between-the-Obama-and-Romney-Campaigns

I can't say if it's true

Markus

What about it? There's always a debate contract formalizing the ground rules ahead of time. Not the first time one has been made public either.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's like a boxing match ground rules discussed before the fight. No hitting below the belt!

[August]

What I don't see is any penalty for breaking them so these are more like guidelines than rules.

[AVGWarhawk]

What I don't see is any penalty for breaking them so these are more like guidelines than rules.


Just like boxing! :D

:except ear biting and actually taking a piece out will cause a issue.

[mapuc]

What about it? There's always a debate contract formalizing the ground rules ahead of time. Not the first time one has been made public either.

It was through RT, that's why, I was a little suspicious about it.

Markus

[Tchocky]

What I don't see is any penalty for breaking them so these are more like guidelines than rules.
That's really up to the moderator to decide. I think for something like this you want as much fluidity in the rules as possible, so that a skilful moderator can use their common sense.

We'll see I guess.

[Cybermat47]

Ah, damn.
I just hope that Obama wins.

[vienna]

This is to be a "town Hall" type debate. The questions will be asked by members of the audience. The audience has been selected, more or less randomly, by the Gallup Poll organization. I say more or less, because you never know who really is responding to the Gallup questions. The Gallup people called registered voters in the general area surrounding the debate site and asked a series of questions used to determine if the respondent is actually an undecided/uncommitted voter. If the respondent "passed the test", they were invited to attend the debate and, if chosen by the moderator, to ask their question of the candidate(s). This means the audience is comprised of people who in, in theory, have no political axe to grind and are just seeking a reason why they should vote for one candidate over the other. This can be very troubling for the candidates; recall what happened to GHW Bush in the "Town Hall" in 1992 when he found himself unable to cope with the questions and seemed to be in rather a hurry to get out of the hall...

I've decided to start a drinking game: I will take a drink whenever either candidate brings up a letter they recieved from, a contact they had with an "ordinary American", or cites the words of a soldier, fireman, policeman or one of their family members, etc. I rather expect to be well on my way to inebiation before the debate is over... :)

<o>

[August]

This is to be a "town Hall" type debate. The questions will be asked by members of the audience. The audience has been selected, more or less randomly, by the Gallup Poll organization. I say more or less, because you never know who really is responding to the Gallup questions. The Gallup people called registered voters in the general area surrounding the debate site and asked a series of questions used to determine if the respondent is actually an undecided/uncommitted voter. If the respondent "passed the test", they were invited to attend the debate and, if chosen by the moderator, to ask their question of the candidate(s). This means the audience is comprised of people who in, in theory, have no political axe to grind and are just seeking a reason why they should vote for one candidate over the other. This can be very troubling for the candidates; recall what happened to GHW Bush in the "Town Hall" in 1992 when he found himself unable to cope with the questions and seemed to be in rather a hurry to get out of the hall...

I've decided to start a drinking game: I will take a drink whenever either candidate brings up a letter they recieved from, a contact they had with an "ordinary American", or cites the words of a soldier, fireman, policeman or one of their family members, etc. I rather expect to be well on my way to inebiation before the debate is over... :)

<o>

Sounds like a cool game. I have to work tomorrow or i'd join you.

[Takeda Shingen]

To echo sentiments earlier in the thread, what good are the rules of this town hall if neither of these guys plan on sticking to them? This is becoming painful to watch.

[Oberon]

Just put a sword in the middle.

Two men go in...one leaves! :yep:

EDIT: You guys really need Jeremy Paxman to host these things...

[Oberon]

Boom! Wondered when the Libyan embassy question would come up.

[the_tyrant]

Just put a sword in the middle.

Two men go in...one leaves! :yep:

EDIT: You guys really need Jeremy Paxman to host these things...


Woo! we have to get these guys into a wrestle mania format.

I want to see smack downs, I want to see them with muscles, with pints of oil on them

I want to see obama punching romney, i want to see romney body slamming obama. It would make this whole thing a lot more intresting, that is for sure.

[Oberon]

Woo! we have to get these guys into a wrestle mania format.

I want to see smack downs, I want to see them with muscles, with pints of oil on them

I want to see obama punching romney, i want to see romney body slamming obama. It would make this whole thing a lot more intresting, that is for sure.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOQUnvI3CA

:rock:


EDIT: Romney praised Reagans economic policy earlier but just now said that 'Trickle down government doesn't work in this country', if trickle down government doesn't work...then how does trickle down economics?

[Oberon]

Well, from a UKers point of view Obama was stronger tonight, but still not quite strong enough. One other UKer emailed the BBC (I was watching their coverage) stated that he thought that Romney was talking to people, Obama was lecturing to them. Given the background of both the men it's a plausible statement.

Now, I think we all called it right on this going to be an attack debate, with few questions directly answered. Not exactly what we probably wanted to see, but Obama needed to be more on the offensive this time around to please his supporters after the disasterous first debate.

I still think Obama will win the election, it'll be damn close, but I think, personally, the future of the GOP depends on Romney failing, and the GOP re-evaluating its position and adapting to the modern America. It's starting to do that, but there are still too many radicals that just give Democratic media perfect soundbites to play.

[Armistead]

Obama won that one.

We should see the polls shift now for Obama, who was going to win anyway...

Fox News is already blaming the Moderator..

[Onkel Neal]

This debate was more entertaining. "Binder of women" :haha:

[Red October1984]

In the little farming community that I live in, we are for Romney. IMHO, Romney won that debate. We all think here that he'll be a good president and I remember watching Paul Ryan on Meet the Press. His plans made sense to me. I really think Romney/Ryan can pull it off. Or at least be a little better than Obama.

That's all I'm going to say on this matter. In my tiny little town and several town around, I have yet to meet an Obama supporter.

[Armistead]

In the little farming community that I live in, we are for Romney. IMHO, Romney won that debate. We all think here that he'll be a good president and I remember watching Paul Ryan on Meet the Press. His plans made sense to me. I really think Romney/Ryan can pull it off. Or at least be a little better than Obama.

That's all I'm going to say on this matter. In my tiny little town and several town around, I have yet to meet an Obama supporter.

Tiny towns don't win elections........

As for a good president, I wouldn't give two cents for either of them.

All these plans we hear are just to tickle our ears. I love when I hear one of them say " here is what I will do", we know most of what they plan will never happen. Both will keep putting bandaids on issues until we implode. SS and medicare will go bankrupt. They will serve their special interest and lobbiest and keep passing the issues on. The debt will keep growing, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer. We will have had our time in history, hopefully we can rise again after it falls apart.

[Oberon]

This debate was more entertaining. "Binder of women" :haha:

That is a meme that is probably already happening! :haha:

[Red October1984]

Tiny towns might not win elections, but, we are still citizens.

We have Middle Class People, we have Upper Class and Lower class too. We are still Citizens...our opinion still matters.

I am not an official spokesperson of my town. I bet there's one or two families that have a problem with Romney. But we are also largely Catholic. Birth control and contraception is against our religion. We have more than a few reasons to dislike Obama's administration.

[Oberon]

Tiny towns might not win elections, but, we are still citizens.

We have Middle Class People, we have Upper Class and Lower class too. We are still Citizens...our opinion still matters.

I am not an official spokesperson of my town. I bet there's one or two families that have a problem with Romney. But we are also largely Catholic. Birth control and contraception is against our religion. We have more than a few reasons to dislike Obama's administration.

I'm guessing you live in a Republican 'safe-state'?

[Cybermat47]

But we are also largely Catholic. Birth control and contraception is against our religion. We have more than a few reasons to dislike Obama's administration.

I think that if the woman wants an abortion, it's her choice. But, as an Anglican and a person, I'm opposed to abortion.
But it's not my choice.

[August]

The question is not whether a woman should have access to abortions, I don't see that right being threatened, but rather who should be forced to pay for it.

Making people who see abortion as a form of murder pay for it via mandatory worker health care insurance is forcing them to participate in something against their religious beliefs. Obamacare would have been far more palatable if it didn't include that.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I think that if the woman wants an abortion, it's her choice. But, as an Anglican and a person, I'm opposed to abortion.
But it's not my choice.
Exactly. It shares a likeness with the issue of gay marriage. Its against your religion, and? Your point being? We should start keeping other people from doing it just because your religion says its wrong? No. We leave it to them.

Although there is an issue of when a fetus can be declared a living functioning human. id say about 12-15 weeks, i believe the limit should be about week 17. 1215 weeks is when the baby begins to develop its brain to the point where it is sectioning off areas for different functions and about 17 is moving and very alive indeed. It is a very touchy issue. Week 10 is when they can be distinguished as a human being. before then i believe its a bit too underdeveloped to be called a functioning human, but week 17 seems and appropriate limit. By then woman should very well know if they are pregnant, skipping 4 periods and showing sings of pregnancy.

As for birth control, i think its absurd to denounce it. If you do not have the ability to care for a child, why would you bring him into this world? People who use birth control, even a simple condom, are probably using it to prevent something that they cant possibly afford to do. Having available the ability to control the spread of disease and prevent children from suffering because of the fact that their parents cant afford to take care of them is a dam good outcome if you ask me.

Also, i wasnt necessarily directing this at you cybermat, just to let you know :)

[Oberon]

1215 weeks is when the baby begins to develop its brain to the point where it is sectioning off areas for different functions

:hmmm:

At 23 years old? This explains a LOT about some people... :yep:

(I kid, I know what you meant...I just couldn't resist)

[Cybermat47]

Exactly. It shares a likeness with the issue of gay marriage. Its against your religion, and? Your point being? We should start keeping other people from doing it just because your religion says its wrong? No. We leave it to them.

Gay marriage is different.
Not letting them marry is treating them like a 2nd-rate-citizen.
I whole-heartedly support gay marriage. And I really, really, want to kill that Ugandan priest who thinks its ok for a straight person to rape someone, but it's a crime against nature if a gay person does it. :hmph:

[Tribesman]

Making people who see abortion as a form of murder pay for it via mandatory worker health care insurance is forcing them to participate in something against their religious beliefs.
Should quakers be exempt from tax as a portion of that tax is spent on things that go against their belief?

[AVGWarhawk]

Should quakers be exempt from tax as a portion of that tax is spent on things that go against their belief?
No. This would set a precedence and open the door to all kinds of silly exemptions. The Amish pay taxes like everyone else.

[Tribesman]

No. This would set a precedence and open the door to all kinds of silly exemptions. The Amish pay taxes like everyone else.
Thank you
So that means the quoted obamacare abortions line doesn't work either:up:

[Red October1984]

I'm guessing you live in a Republican 'safe-state'?

It's Missouri...I've been thru a few elections in my life and I don't remember a time when Missouri went democrat.

[AVGWarhawk]

Thank you
So that means the quoted obamacare abortions line doesn't work either:up:

That is debatable. Taxed to death is one thing. Surgically put to death is another.

[Tribesman]

That is debatable. Taxed to death is one thing. Surgically put to death is another.
Not at all since the attempt being made was make an arguement for exemptions based solely on personal fancies

[AVGWarhawk]

Not at all since the attempt being made was make an arguement for exemptions based solely on personal fancies


Understood.

[Jimbuna]

I got the impression Obama was certainly better this tome round and probably edged it but I also thought the moderator helped in, but not on purpose of course:hmm2:

[Onkel Neal]

Obama came out better than the first debate, but that still doesn't change his horrid economic record of deficits and missing budgets. Of course, each side thinks their man won. I noticed Obama walked away from Romney when things got heated, he seemed to shy away from the confrontation. Romney managed the most quote-worthy remarks, though not in a way he would like, with "binders full of women". :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

BO had to do better. If it was a repeat performance we would know for sure he is a man not wanting a second term. It is awfully hard for him to run on his record.

[Takeda Shingen]

You can usually tell by the next morning who had the upper hand in the debate by the level of activity from the opposing side. After the first one the right-wing media outlets were relatively quiet, while those on the left were going bonkers. This time is the opposite. Even here, in the microcosm of SubSim, our resident right-leaning polemicists are out in force today.

Game two goes to Obama. Prior to the Lybia incident, I would say that the foreign policy debate would be a slam dunk for Obama. Not anymore. It's going to be an interesting finish; a whole lot more interesting than I thought it was going to be.

[Oberon]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/419/418/229.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

You can usually tell by the next morning who had the upper hand in the debate by the level of activity from the opposing side. After the first one the right-wing media outlets were relatively quiet, while those on the left were going bonkers. This time is the opposite. Even here, in the microcosm of SubSim, our resident right-leaning polemicists are out in force today.

I think the right wingers are out because of the debate moderator. I see more issue with the moderator than what was actually said by the CinC and Romney.

Game two goes to Obama. Prior to the Lybia incident, I would say that the foreign policy debate would be a slam dunk for Obama. Not anymore. It's going to be an interesting finish; a whole lot more interesting than I thought it was going to be.

Foreign policy was to be Joe Biden's gig. This is how it was sold to the voters in 2008.

[Takeda Shingen]

I think the right wingers are out because of the debate moderator. I see more issue with the moderator than what was actually said by the CinC and Romney.

When their candidate does well, it's due to facts and truth. When he doesn't it's because of liberal bias.

Foreign policy was to be Joe Biden's gig. This is how it was sold to the voters in 2008.

Okay, then we'll have Biden debate both Romney and Ryan on foreign policy for the third debate. Afterwards we can talk more about liberal bias.

[AVGWarhawk]

When their candidate does well, it's due to facts and truth. When he doesn't it's because of liberal bias.



Okay, then we'll have Biden debate both Romney and Ryan on foreign policy for the third debate. Afterwards we can talk more about liberal bias.

Sadly, both sides said the truth was a stretch for the CinC and Romney. We lovingly acknowledge Fact Checker these days.


Joe Biden will spend more time laughing, grinning, gawfing and smiling. No use in the debating of such issues.

Bias comes from both sides. Kind of silly really.

[Sailor Steve]

I've decided to start a drinking game: I will take a drink whenever either candidate brings up a letter they recieved from, a contact they had with an "ordinary American", or cites the words of a soldier, fireman, policeman or one of their family members, etc. I rather expect to be well on my way to inebiation before the debate is over... :)

<o>
So, how drunk did you get?

[Takeda Shingen]

Sadly, both sides said the truth was a stretch for the CinC and Romney. We lovingly acknowledge Fact Checker these days.


Joe Biden will spend more time laughing, grinning, gawfing and smiling. No use in the debating of such issues.

Bias comes from both sides. Kind of silly really.

I think it would be a great show. Biden snorting and grinning, Romney changing his stance by the minute, and Ryan nervously downing gallons of water. Let's do it.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think it would be a great show. Biden snorting and grinning, Romney changing his stance by the minute, and Ryan nervously downing gallons of water. Let's do it.


Make sure Michele Obama is in the audience so she can clap for things she thinks are wonderful.

[Takeda Shingen]

Make sure Michele Obama is in the audience so she can clap for things she thinks are wonderful.

Afterwards the men can retire to ogle Romney's binders of women.

[AVGWarhawk]

Afterwards the men can retire to ogle Romney's binders of women.

I would like to take a peek as well. :D So would Herman Cain. :haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

I would like to take a peek as well. :D So would Herman Cain. :haha:

Between Cain and Clinton, I don't think that anyone will want to touch those binders.

[AVGWarhawk]

I wonder if a blue dress is involved. :hmmm: What a sticky mess.

[Oberon]

http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2012916/560.5binder.ls.101612.jpg

[mapuc]

This thread is for me interesting in many ways

I saw the first half of the debates yesterday and today I saw the danish news about the debate and heard the commentator speak about it

But here in this thread I read the comment from ordinary americans and that's very interesting.

Markus

[Platapus]

I will be sooo glad when this stupid mess is over. :yep:

It seems to be an impossibility: Both sides are, at the same time, worse than the other. :doh:

21 days until the citizens decide that nothing will really change in this country. :nope:

[Oberon]

I will be sooo glad when this stupid mess is over. :yep:

It seems to be an impossibility: Both sides are, at the same time, worse than the other. :doh:

21 days until the citizens decide that nothing will really change in this country. :nope:

Welcome to European politics...we've been expecting you. :yep:

[Cybermat47]

But here in this thread I read the comment from ordinary americans and that's very interesting.

And at least one interested Aussie, and Oberon, who's from Suffolk!
Let's face it: whatever happens in America effects the entire world...

[eddie]

Welcome to European politics...we've been expecting you. :yep:

That sounds like a line from George Harrison's song "Cracker Box Palce",LOL

I welcome you to Cracker Box Palace.......We've been expecting you.....

Of course when it comes to politicians, no matter what side of the Atlantic they are on, they should be in a Cracker Box Palace anyway!:D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/Thony/CB.jpg

[Jimbuna]

I sometimes wonder what other nations such as the Chinese think of these debates.

Not insinuating their political systems are any better mind.

[Oberon]

I sometimes wonder what other nations such as the Chinese think of these debates.

Hu would be quite good at these debates, he loves a game of Ping Pong:

http://www.japaninc.com/files/ab-hu-small.jpg

[Jimbuna]

Hu would be quite good at these debates, he loves a game of Ping Pong:

http://www.japaninc.com/files/ab-hu-small.jpg

A bit like


http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img104/2807/icontennisyk3.gif

[Oberon]

A bit like


http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img104/2807/icontennisyk3.gif

Indeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXGuXJYoT4&feature=related

I certainly couldn't beat the guy, he's fast. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

A bit like


http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img104/2807/icontennisyk3.gif
Which is why it's other name is 'Table Tennis'. :sunny:

[geetrue]

Noticed on GMA this morning that Mitt Romney's son said that while viewing the debate tuesday night

he felt like going out and punching President Obama for calling his father a liar.

Boy would that have made the news ...
they could've interviewed him from jail lol

[AVGWarhawk]

Noticed on GMA this morning that Mitt Romney's son said that while viewing the debate tuesday night

he felt like going out and punching President Obama for calling his father a liar.

Boy would that have made the news ...
they could've interviewed him from jail lol

They should jail all those on twitter stating they will assassinate Romney if he is elected.

I think the jab in the nose comment from a young man over what was said about his father pales in comparison.

[Oberon]

They should jail all those on twitter stating they will assassinate Romney if he is elected.

I think the jab in the nose comment from a young man over what was said about his father pales in comparison.

Likewise those for Obama, works for both sides after all. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Likewise those for Obama, works for both sides after all. :yep:

:yep:

[Armistead]

Noticed on GMA this morning that Mitt Romney's son said that while viewing the debate tuesday night

he felt like going out and punching President Obama for calling his father a liar.

Boy would that have made the news ...
they could've interviewed him from jail lol

Boy, wouldn't that have been great for Obama.

One point during the debate, when they got in each others faces, pointing fingers, I was hoping a fight would break out. I think Obama could take Romney and pay him back for all those moments Romney was a school bully.

[mookiemookie]

:rotfl2: That would have been awesome if like a huge brawl broke out between candidates at a debate.

[tater]

All the entirely unsubstantiated times Romney was a bully, you mean. The family of the supposed victim said they didn't remember any such event as I recall. How about the admitted to (in one of his 2 autobiographies) soft and hard drug use by the president, as long as anyone cares about what kids did in HS?

Non-issues.

As for the thing his son said, yeah, a brawl would be funny. Heck, back in the days of the founders after that debate I imagine Ryan would be calling on Biden to arrange a meeting some morning on suitable ground. Course in those days there would be no VP candidate to act as second, as the guy who came in 2d would be the VP (and I doubt VP McCain would be Obama's second) :)

Wonder how the original system would work out in the modern world, with the VP as 2d place in electoral college. VP Gore under W, then VP Kerry, lol. VP Carter under Reagan, or Bush senior under Clinton.

[August]

Wonder how the original system would work out in the modern world, with the VP as 2d place in electoral college. VP Gore under W, then VP Kerry, lol. VP Carter under Reagan, or Bush senior under Clinton.

Might not be a bad idea. It might serve to put a damper on any administration hanky panky if a member of the opposition is there to keep an eye on things.

[magic452]

That just might be what the founding fathers were thinking. :know:

Magic

[Sailor Steve]

Wonder how the original system would work out in the modern world, with the VP as 2d place in electoral college.
It didn't work in their own world. That's why they dumped it.

Might not be a bad idea. It might serve to put a damper on any administration hanky panky if a member of the opposition is there to keep an eye on things.

That just might be what the founding fathers were thinking. :know:
Actually they were thinking there would be no parties at all. That lasted a whopping twelve years. That's also how long the "Number two is Vice President" thing lasted. It ended when Jefferson's group also ran Aaron Burr, hoping they would both beat out Adams and Pinkney. They did, but Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral vote, and rather than politely step aside Burr let it go to the House, and then actively lobbied there to get himself installed as president. That went on for 36 ballots, until Hamilton convinced his Federalist cronies to withhold one vote for Burr, which put Jefferson over the top. Burr became VP in the midst of a party which now hated him.

By the next election it had changed to the current system of separate votes for President and Vice President, one of the fastest Constitutional Amendments ever passed, taking just six months from the initial proposal to ratification by enough states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutio n

[August]

By the next election it had changed to the current system of separate votes for President and Vice President, one of the fastest Constitutional Amendments ever passed, taking just six months from the initial proposal to ratification by enough states.

But isn't the current system one vote for a combined ticket?

[geetrue]

Romney May Be the End of the Line for the Republican … (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/romney_may_be_the_end_of_the_line_for_the_republic an_establishment)


www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/...

Romney May Be the End of the Line for the Republican Establishment ... and government bailouts, even though their party leaders support them. The GOP ...

[August]

Romney May Be the End of the Line for the Republican … (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/romney_may_be_the_end_of_the_line_for_the_republic an_establishment)


www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/...

That is a really interesting article. Thanks for posting GT.

[Takeda Shingen]

Romney May Be the End of the Line for the Republican ***8230; (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/romney_may_be_the_end_of_the_line_for_the_republic an_establishment)


www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/... (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/...)

All of that is why I feel it is so important that Romney lose this election. If the Republcan party is ever going to return to being in reality what it's supporters state in principle, he must not win this election. That will effectively end the neo-conservative rule of the party. The only issue that I would take with the article is the statement that America requires a 21st century Ronald Reagan. Every president since Reagan has governed on his model of deficit spending. We need true conservatism, not Reagan-conservatism.

[tater]

Of course if he loses, then the SC will be rebalanced quite possibly. Scalia and Kennedy are both 76.

On top of that, there will be no turning off the ACA in 4 years. Healthcare will be nationalized, as that's what that trojan horse is for.

I'd rather see Romney, and have pressure put on by the House and public to make him straighten up and fly right. A 2d Obama term might be impossible to correct.

[August]

How damaging an Obama 2nd term would be depends on which party controls congress. The same goes for a Romney first term.

I want to see Obama loose because I believe that change is healthy thing for government. It takes time for corrupt elements in both parties to get entrenched, better to toss them out and bring in a new bunch as often as possible. Second term presidents should be the exception rather than the rule.

I believe our system of government works best if Congress is controlled by one party and the oval office by the other. It's how the veto and override system was intended to operate.

If Congress is split however then it doesn't matter who owns the White House as gridlock will ensue like it has for the past two years. Not altogether a bad thing though because as my friend says "Gridlock is the best form of government for the common man". There's a lot of truth in that.

[Sailor Steve]

But isn't the current system one vote for a combined ticket?
Technically, no. Each Elector casts one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. There is no rule or law that says the Elector must vote for the party that put him there. He can vote for whomever he chooses. Of course the Electors, with one or two exceptions, have always voted for the candidate of the party that put them in place.

Two things about all this interest me. First is the wording of the original section regarding appointment of Electors.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The States can choose Electors any way they like. They can just appoint them if they want. The fact that every state holds a popular election probably came about because the legislators are citizens too, and they want the people to be represented; or maybe people agitated for it; or maybe a couple of states did it and everyone else decided they'd better too. Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that in the United States Constitution THERE IS NO POPULAR ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. Sorry to shout, but I thought it was important. I've read in at least one schoolbook that "we didn't used to have popular Presidential elections, but now we do". It may seem that way, but it's not true and never has been. If any state legislature decided tomorrow that they were cancelling popular elections and appointing the Electors themselves, that would be their legal right under the Constitution. Of course they would then have to face the wrath of the people they "serve", but that's another story.

The second point I find interesting is that there is no law mandating that all the Electors from a state have to be appointed on an all-or-nothing basis. If two-thirds of a state votes for Obama and one-third votes for Romney, technically the state can divide the Electors that way if they want. The fact that all the states but two (Maine and Nebraska) use the winner-take-all system is by their choice, not from any Federal law. In the past many more states divided their votes by congressional district.

Oh. In 2008 Nebraska gave four Electoral votes to McCain and one to Obama.

[CaptainMattJ.]

How damaging an Obama 2nd term would be depends on which party controls congress. The same goes for a Romney first term.

I want to see Obama loose because I believe that change is healthy thing for government. It takes time for corrupt elements in both parties to get entrenched, better to toss them out and bring in a new bunch as often as possible. Second term presidents should be the exception rather than the rule.

I believe our system of government works best if Congress is controlled by one party and the oval office by the other. It's how the veto and override system was intended to operate.

If Congress is split however then it doesn't matter who owns the White House as gridlock will ensue like it has for the past two years. Not altogether a bad thing though because as my friend says "Gridlock is the best form of government for the common man". There's a lot of truth in that.
Except that congress is the powerhouse of our government. Congress passes a law, and the president vetoes it, congress can simply veto the veto and override it anyway. Congress has easily the most power in our government and having one party control the entire congress, you may as well have them leading the presidency too. the only thing a president can do is do a pocket veto, which doesnt always work and is absolutely dirty.

[August]

Except that congress is the powerhouse of our government. Congress passes a law, and the president vetoes it, congress can simply veto the veto and override it anyway. Congress has easily the most power in our government and having one party control the entire congress, you may as well have them leading the presidency too. the only thing a president can do is do a pocket veto, which doesnt always work and is absolutely dirty.

To override a presidents veto it takes 2/3rds of Congress. The more divided the country is the less likely that one party will have enough seats to achieve an override on their own virtually requiring bi-partisan support for any such effort.

Sometimes a Presidents vetos do need to get overridden, that's a lot of power held in the hands of one man. He should not be able to easily thwart the wishes of Congress, but the genius of our political system is that it requires a lot more than a simple majority to do it. That brings a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches that I believe is key to our longevity as a nation.

[soopaman2]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/best-jokes-from-the-obama-vs-romney-stand-up-comedy-duel/

Nice to see a little fun out of this.

In the end I wish for healing, not divisiveness. It is fundamental differences, and the lack of compromise that is sinking us.

I can see why people like Romney. He has made a great showing for himself lately, too bad I followed this from the beginning and watched him flip flop, depending on what crowd he was adressing.

I just wish the choosing of our leader, and our politics in general didn't turn into the same mentality of soccer hooligans, who riot after a match.

As bad as Bush Jr was, he was a moderate, and told you like it was. I miss him, it was the last time our nation was truly unified, not all this partisan peeing contest crap.

The divisiveness is killing us, and no one side could be blamed. The people are to blame, blind partisan morons.

[mookiemookie]

All of that is why I feel it is so important that Romney lose this election. If the Republcan party is ever going to return to being in reality what it's supporters state in principle, he must not win this election. That will effectively end the neo-conservative rule of the party. The only issue that I would take with the article is the statement that America requires a 21st century Ronald Reagan. Every president since Reagan has governed on his model of deficit spending. We need true conservatism, not Reagan-conservatism.

I'd gladly vote for an Eisenhower Republican.

[Onkel Neal]

Maybe, but if there was one, you probably would not acknowledge him as such. I remember in Bush's runup, the liberals all thought McCain was a darling. When McCain ran 4 years ago, they decided he was crazy.

[Oberon]

Well, they started well, Obama swinging heavily and Romney on the defensive, but over Russia and Iraq they've descended into the table tennis back and forth. "You said this" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't"
Romney saying that Russia is a geopolitical foe is an astute observation though and fits in well with the idea of a new Great Game in Eurasia, but I don't think Romney is quite thinking along those lines and is more, as Obama said, borrowing his foreign policy from the 1980s.

Love this from the BBC live feed:


Jonny Dymond BBC News, Chicago
Who's winning I ask a Chicago liquor store owner watching #LynnDebate 'the Bears, ten to nil' he replies, not missing a beat @BBCNewsUS

[Takeda Shingen]

Romney saying that Russia is a geopolitical foe is an astute observation though and fits in well with the idea of a new Great Game in Eurasia, but I don't think Romney is quite thinking along those lines and is more, as Obama said, borrowing his foreign policy from the 1980s.

Could you imagine a US-Russia summit with Romney? The Putinator enters with his cybernetic bodyguards, looking menacing and yet entirely passive and inhuman. At the other end of the room, the aids wheel in Count Romula's coffin, from which he will burst forth at sunset accompianied by the clapping of thunder and the howling of wolves. Is there any room constructed that can handle that much concentrated evil? :D

Disclaimer: It's a joke guys. Just relax.

[Cybermat47]

Disclaimer: It's a joke guys. Just relax

How is it a joke!?

[Takeda Shingen]

How is it a joke!?

Because Vladimir Putin is not a cyborg, and Mitt Romney is not a vampire. I also don't think that Mitt Romney is evil. Not sure about Putin, though.

[Cybermat47]

Because Vladimir Putin is not a cyborg, and Mitt Romney is not a vampire. I also don't think that Mitt Romney is evil. Not sure about Putin, though.

Now that's a joke!

[Takeda Shingen]

"This is not a game of battleship."--Barack Obama

That is fantastic. Quote of the year, as far as I am concerned. :up:

[Oberon]

"This is not a game of battleship."--Barack Obama

That is fantastic. Quote of the year, as far as I am concerned. :up:

I quite liked the "We have less horses and bayonets than 1917 as well!", that was a big punch from Obama there.

[Takeda Shingen]

I quite liked the "We have less horses and bayonets than 1917 as well!", that was a big punch from Obama there.

Yeah. Obama's kicking some butt tonight. Never seen a Democrat do that on foriegn policy until now.

[CCIP]

Oh, the horses and bayonets line - that was a giant burn :haha:

I'm not one for humiliating opponents, but you can't deny that was witty and rhetorically well-played.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I quite liked the "We have less horses and bayonets than 1917 as well!", that was a big punch from Obama there. When I heard him say that I was like "AWE SNAP!!"

[Oberon]

In regards to the discussion of foreign policy it's been an hour of the 90 minute debate and we've finally moved out of the Middle East.
Romney did mention Latin America as a potential trade zone, which is correct and good. Obama mentions China as a potential adversary and ally, also correct, and good and I think Romney agrees in that method although he wants to go further on stopping Chinese counterfeiting and copying (too little too late really, China has moved to the point where it has learnt from what it has copied and is building home grown stuff now, not as good quality as what it's copied, but it has more of them and they're cheaper).
Romney sees a nuclear Iran as the greatest threat to America whilst Obama sees continued terrorism as the greatest threat, both are correct in my view.

However, absolutely no mention has been made of Europe outside of Russia, and even Russia itself has just been an aside as a criticism of Romneys comments.
Very telling of where Americas future lies, the Middle East and Asia.


EDIT: Also, Romney is taking a much less confrontational tone on military action tonight, no mention of military action against Iran, and more talk of "using all options on the table", basically pretty much what Obama has said already. It's pretty clear that in war weary America he is concerned of being seen as a warmonger and too hawkish.
However, both candidates dodged the question of what they would do if 2014 came and Afghanistan wasn't ready for American troops to leave. They both know that 2014 is a very optimistic deadline but neither can say such a thing otherwise they'll lose the election, nor can they say that they'll leave no matter what as they don't want to see Afghanistan collapse nor embolden the Taliban and Al'Qaeda by assuring them that all they have to do is wait two years and the nation is theirs. Romneys points on Pakistan are true, but his plans are hopeless, attaching conditions to economic aid will not encourage Pakistan to change its current course of action and attack Al'Qaeda.
It is interesting, that in a poll conducted by the BBC World Service of 21 countries, only Pakistan preferred to see a President Romney than a President Obama. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-20008687)

Well, that's the end of the debate, and not a single mention of Europe. In a global economic crisis that Europe and America are both feeding each other off of, that's a bit of a mistake, although Romney scores points for targetting Latin America for economic growth. Certainly it seems that America is moving away from Europe and focusing on the Middle East and Asia, which places my home country, Britain, in a bit of a quandry, being as it is, the gateway to Europe for America, it puts us out to pasture and forces us to look closer to Europe for alliances or focus internally (on what little is left). The focus on Asia and the Middle East also puts further weight behind the theory of a new 'Great Game' which focuses around Eurasia, and is a vast geopolitical battleground between Russia, America and China, with Europe chipping in from time to time. The lack of mention of Africa, south of Egypt anyway, with the exception of a reference to Apartheid South Africa is also quite curious considering that the new rush for oil and minerals will take place in Central Africa as Middle Eastern developed fields begin to run dry, however given that this hasn't really been realised by the general public at the moment it is probably not that much of a talking point.

Well, the countdown to the US election begins now, two weeks to go and then we will see...I still think Obama will win this, although it is going to be close.

[CCIP]

Very telling of where Americas future lies, the Middle East and Asia.

Well, not America's, really. I think this is more telling about where the "hot spot" for the driving forces of history is going to be in the next while.

Which isn't surprising, really. America and Europe made history when their economies were exploding, or when their skeletons came out of the closet in a big way that affected everyone. Now that's going on in a different part of the world.

[Armistead]

All I saw was Romney approve of Obama's foreign policy. The only real difference I saw was Romney wanted to spend another 2 trillion on defense which I'm sure made Defense Contractors very happy. I bet Eisenhower rolled in his grave.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Well the final debate is finally over and I think both canidates did well. Obama came off strong where he needed to and kept Romney largely on the defencive. However both canidates seemed over aggresive at times and that doesn't always look good in the public eye.

A point of Romeny's that I would disagree with is that the US needs to spend more on defence when the military isn't asking for it. I mean technolgy has come so far that today it takes a squad or a platoon to do the job that during WW2 would have taken a company to do. And why spend money that the military doesn't want or doesn't need, isn't that the decision for the Joint Cheifs of Staff to make and not the president?

As for the whole thing with China, I think Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear said it best, "Copyright infringment doesn't translate terribly well into Mandarin." In China they rip off everything from everywhere, and there have been companys who have tryed to sue Chinese companys for making copies of their products and lost. So its not just the United States having to deal with China making knockoffs, its the whole world, and China isn't going to change their ways simply because a president gets re-elected or a canidate gets elected.

An example from the China episode of Top Gear a Chinese company selling knockoffs of Honda motorcycles changed the name from Honda to Hongda. YT links:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_S8eZNEdYg

[CCIP]

Yeah, truthfully speaking, I don't think there is a huge difference in foreign policy between the two at all. Most of the differences are perceived rather than real, happily spun out by the campaigns, but not actually amounting to much. Obama still strikes me as far more competent as a diplomat on a personal level, but he is no dove. He may play the global dialogue card while Romney plays the "tough guy" card, but in truth both of them are oriented very similarly, and both of them remain staunchly interventionist.

[CCIP]

Also, the expediency of the internet to make memes of the debates doesn't disappoint...

http://i.imgur.com/MYJXc.jpg

:D

[Oberon]

Well, not America's, really. I think this is more telling about where the "hot spot" for the driving forces of history is going to be in the next while.

Which isn't surprising, really. America and Europe made history when their economies were exploding, or when their skeletons came out of the closet in a big way that affected everyone. Now that's going on in a different part of the world.

Indeed, and sorry for editting the above in which I agree with you, sometimes I prefer to do that rather than make a new post directly after mine, but it can get a little confusing.
I maintain that the early 21st century will contain much of the same elements as that of the early 20th, and indeed that of the late 19th.
It is interesting that Afghanistan should be the focal point of events for the major powers of the world in the first years of this century when it has the infamous nickname of 'The graveyard of empires', certainly there must have been plenty of historians in the UK that grimiced at the irony that a hundred years after we left Afghanistan we were going back in again, making the same mistakes we made last time we were there, and suffering for it.
In Russia they called the Great Game the 'Tournament of Shadows' and perhaps that's a more accurate name for it as it never involved two major powers directly fighting each other, but rather who could influence certain key states, the most infamous of which, was Afghanistan, a nation between Britains India and Russias Samarkand, Tashkent and Bukhara, it was seen as a pivotal point of control between Russia and Britain, if Russia controlled it, then it could push its way south and threaten India, if Britain controlled it then it halted the Russian advance and kept India under British control.
Thankfully, eventually, we both united against the Germans and the Great Game was largely forgotten aside from a few brief scurries after the formation of the Soviet Union.

This new Great Game is focused primarily on resources rather than borders, certainly America is not out to create some Raj or become an Empire and such thoughts and accusations are ludicrous. What it does need though are resources to feed its economy, and so does China. So what we are coming to, and I believe are taking the first steps into, is a Second Great Game involving the Middle East, Africa and Asia. America currently holds great sway in two of these three locations, and China has spent the last decade building its influence in Africa. It will now need to look at pushing American influence out of Asia and out of the Middle East, without resorting to direct military force. To do this it will need the assistance of Russia which has sway over Central Asia and parts of the Middle East, and it will need to identify key weaknesses in American strategy in the Middle East and apply pressure to them. Romney correctly identifies Pakistan as a key player in this, Pakistan is to the US as Iran is to Russia and China, they don't see eye to eye, but co-operation is essential to further their goals.
The key area though, and where I think the middle to late 21st century will be focused is Africa, the long forgotten nation, which still contains untapped oil reserves, precious metals and other resources which have been buried under decades of civil war and dictatorships. In the late 19th century we had the 'European scramble for Africa' where most of Europe brought up Africa through money and gunpowder, and dug into it and brought back what we found to invest in our economies. Africa saw little benefit from it, and was thoroughly exploited into the 20th century before the First and Second World Wars brought an end to colonial ambitions. However, as current resource rich areas begin to dry up, the worlds major powers are going to have to look elsewhere for their goods, South America is another area which is ripe for resource gathering, but it has seen more development than Africa so there will be slightly less resources there for the taking. There will be no new colonies, or red coats fighting off swarms of Zulus, but there will certainly be greater investment in Africa, for oil, minerals and even farming as the climate shifts to make mass farming in North Africa a viable opportunity. However there will be colonialism by the back door, with multi-national companies edging in to organise resource gathering to its most efficient. This will be sold to the countries involved as 'investing in the local people' when the truth will be that all the local people will be able to do will be the grunt work...not a great step up from their position as slaves to their colonial masters. African governments will seem more stable but will be propped up by American or Chinese money and their allegiences and resources brought by companies of the relevant nations.
It's going to be softer than the colonial governing that European nations put in place, but it will still be there, and the African people will only benefit mildly from it.

[August]

EDIT: Also, Romney is taking a much less confrontational tone on military action tonight, no mention of military action against Iran, and more talk of "using all options on the table", basically pretty much what Obama has said already. It's pretty clear that in war weary America he is concerned of being seen as a warmonger and too hawkish.

I'm not surprised. There's always danger for a challenger to be seen as disagreeing with a good thing just to be different than the incumbent. It's ok to claim one would have done a bit more of this or a little less of that but Romney didn't really need to make any striking differences in this area as the primary issue in this election is not nearly so much about foreign policy as it is about domestic policy. Both sides know it and that's why both sides kept referring back to it.

Given the direction of the polling trends in the past month toward the GoP i'm thinking (pre-fact check dissection of the debate) that Romney accomplished his objective tonight which was not to step on his johnson and Obama didn't achieve his objective which was to make Romney step on his johnson repeatedly.

It's hard for me to tell living in a state that is so blue that at times yellow lights appear green, but absent some kind of "October surprise" that puts him in a really bad light I think Romney just might win this election. :yep:

[August]

Also, the expediency of the internet to make memes of the debates doesn't disappoint...:D


What's with the bad photoshop? Their sabers have been replaced by very crudely pasted cartoon rifles.

Edit: looking at the picture again I actually don't think they had anything in their hands. What's up with that. Republican Confederates not as scary as the real Democrat old skool Confederates?

[Onkel Neal]

"This is not a game of battleship."--Barack Obama

That is fantastic. Quote of the year, as far as I am concerned. :up:


Obama had several cracking good quips tonight :shucks: Love the one about the 1980s are calling, they want their foriegn policy back, and of course, the bayonettes and horses. I reallt don't understand the claim that our navy has fewer ships now than anytime since 1917... what, did the US have 200 battle rowboats in 1922 and they counted toward the whole? One thing is for sure, as Obama pointed out, you cannot compare ships based on numeric totals. One ship in today's navy, say the USS Texas, could easily wipe out all the US ships in 1917. :rock:

I will say this, both of these fellows are really intelligent. And Bob Schieffer did a much better job keeping these guys in line.

[CCIP]

What's with the bad photoshop? Their sabers have been replaced by very crudely pasted cartoon rifles.

Edit: looking at the picture again I actually don't think they had anything in their hands. What's up with that. Republican Confederates not as scary as the real Democrat old skool Confederates?

Hey, don't shoot the messenger... or bayonet him for that matter :D

I just found this floating on the interwebs, and was impressed at how quickly image-macro bandits and memesters grab onto things these days...

[CCIP]

I maintain that the early 21st century will contain much of the same elements as that of the early 20th, and indeed that of the late 19th.


Yeah, I think there's little sense denying that there is a very imperialist-like race for resources going on right now. One important thing for America to realize, as soon as possible, is that China is not their natural enemy - no more than Germany was Britain's natural enemy at the start of the 20th century. But therein lies the real lesson, of course - Britain and Germany inevitably had to maneuver around each other, like the US and China are doing today, and eventually maneuvered themselves into the previously-unthinkable and mutually-destructive position as each other's enemy. It didn't need to happen, but it did. Militant attitudes and an eagerness to get into the thick of others' conflicts played no small part in that.

US foreign policy really needs to keep those lessons in mind. It also needs to be really careful with its "our SOB" approach, especially in the Middle East. It's something that continues to backfire, and something that will inevitably bring America into conflicts it does not need in the long run.

[Oberon]

@CCIP I fully agree, and I hope that we don't fall into another 1914 scenario through militancy and the failure of diplomacy. It's one of the reasons I worry about the rise of extremism in politics, and jingoism through patriotism carried too far.
We've seen the rise of partisanship in America over the past decade, and a rise of patriotic pride which threatens sometimes to spill over into jingoism in a manner reminiscent of Britain circa 1870, but there's still hope that the mistakes of the past can be avoided in time.

@August I think Romney came close a couple of times to stepping on his own johnson, certainly his foot may have brushed it during the military spending section, allowing Obama to impart his one and only 'zinger' of the three debates, and during his attempt to keep claiming that Obama went on an 'apology tour' which is a subjective thing, and quite honestly it's not something I would have challenged Obama on since there was no firm evidence that it was an 'apology tour' despite many on the right claiming that it was. Other than that though, he kept it tight and by not going off too deeply into the right wing territory he pushed into the central ground where he might harvest some votes from.
Honestly, it's too tight to come down firmly on either side, I think we're looking at a Gore/Bush rerun in terms of how tight it's going to be, but I'm still in the belief that Obama is going to get himself a second term. I might be wrong, as I said, it's far too tight to be certain, but that's where I'm leaning at the moment.

@Neal, Obama was on good form tonight, some good soundbites which have already ascended to memes, I did like the whole "Foreign policy from the 1980s, social policy from the 1950s and an economic policy from the 1920s." quote, as well as the two you mentioned. I think, if anything, these debates are going to be remembered for binders and bayonets. :03::haha:

[Aramike]

Obama had several cracking good quips tonight :shucks: Love the one about the 1980s are calling, they want their foriegn policy back, and of course, the bayonettes and horses. I reallt don't understand the claim that our navy has fewer ships now than anytime since 1917... what, did the US have 200 battle rowboats in 1922 and they counted toward the whole? One thing is for sure, as Obama pointed out, you cannot compare ships based on numeric totals. One ship in today's navy, say the USS Texas, could easily wipe out all the US ships in 1917. :rock:

I will say this, both of these fellows are really intelligent. And Bob Schieffer did a much better job keeping these guys in line.That's true, and I think in hindsight Romney would acknowledge that. My problem is that it seems as though he's moving to the right of the center on this, even though his actions suggest otherwise. Indeed, our ships are insanely more powerful - but they are also insanely more expensive, and require a ridiculously intense amount of expertise to fight.

What that means is that each ship is far more invaluable and irreplaceable. Relying on these ships and our intelligence assurances that no other navy can compete is inherently flawed - if the intel ever turns out to be flawed (imagine that), so much of our power is concentrated in so few platforms.

The capability of one aircraft carrier is amazing, for instance. But how much of that capability we lose should that carrier be destroyed would be devastating.

[mookiemookie]

Romney: "Syria is Iran's route to the sea." Syria....is.....Iran's....route to the sea? :doh:

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/middle-east/map_of_middle-east.jpg

[Skybird]

Debate reveals outdated US foreign policy (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/obama-romney-foreign-policy-debate-reveals-a-us-in-decline-a-862873.html)

[Jimbuna]

Just finished catching up on the debate and reading a few articles and IMHO it would appear Obama was the winner so I guess he'll be re-elected.

*I'll get my coat*

[AVGWarhawk]

Just finished catching up on the debate and reading a few articles and IMHO it would appear Obama was the winner so I guess he'll be re-elected.

*I'll get my coat*


Obama should be the winner when it comes to foreign policy. He is, after all, in the know and should be. Let's take for example his campaign 2008. He states Gitmo will closed within the year of his appointment. We will pull troops out of Iraq in a few months after his appointment. It all looks nice and cheery until he got the real picture AFTER he was appointed and sworn in. The passing of the baton includes what is really going on in the war zones. Not what the media is feeding everyone. Gitmo, still open. Iraq troops returning took longer than he stated. Some troops deployed elsewhere. The point is, Willard Romney is kind of in the dark. He does not sit at Camp David getting briefs. He is not in the Oval Office getting briefs. He can talk a good game on funding the war machine and this makes government contractors happy. It also makes the hundreds of thousand that are part of the war machine industry happy. Similar to the folks in the car industry. If it failed...thousands out of work. If the military material manufactures are not needed anymore....thousand out of work. The war machine is an economy in itself.

So, yes, I would suspect BO to have a upper hand in this discussion. It does not belay the fact that a majority of America is concerned with the economy. Therefore, a win for BO is not assured. His record not very stellar.

I believe we will have a tight race similar to the hanging chads of Bush/Gore.

[Onkel Neal]

I just hope there are no super close elections in any of the states.

[AVGWarhawk]

There will be. I suspect there will some civil unrest in a few areas.

DHS purchased 200 million rounds of ammo recently. Why would DHS need this many rounds?

[JU_88]

There will be. I suspect there will some civil unrest in a few areas.

DHS purchased 200 million rounds of ammo recently. Why would DHS need this many rounds?

heh, Maybe in case the dollar eventually fails, things might get ugly in some places then, depending on how it is dealt with.
I still think this debt crisis has alot more in store for us, although the seas are calm for now.
I doubt their purchase has anything to do with the elections though.

[Takeda Shingen]

I believe we will have a tight race similar to the hanging chads of Bush/Gore.

I certainly hope that it won't be a hanging chad affair. That whole ordeal was a national embarrassment.

[AVGWarhawk]

heh, Maybe in case the dollar eventually fails, things might get ugly in some places then, depending on how it is dealt with.
I still think this debt crisis has alot more in store for us, although the seas are calm for now.
I doubt their purchase has anything to do with the elections though.


The seas are not calm. The market has dropped 250 today. :dead:

[AVGWarhawk]

I certainly hope that it won't be a hanging chad affair. That whole ordeal was a national embarrassment.

...of international magnitude.

[JU_88]

The seas are not calm. The market has dropped 250 today. :dead:

Ah...Had to go and jinx it didnt I? :woot:

[August]

There will be. I suspect there will some civil unrest in a few areas.

DHS purchased 200 million rounds of ammo recently. Why would DHS need this many rounds?

Why does any military or law enforcement group need a lot of ammo? It's because practice makes perfect. Not a good idea to restrict how much a law officer can practice with his service weapon.

Between agents and contractors there are about 360,000 people working for DHS. 200 million rounds works out to about 500 round a person. Not an unrealistic amount for an entire year. Heck I can easily blow off 500 rounds in just a weekend at the range.

[AVGWarhawk]

My mistake. It was 750 million round. Apparently on top of the 450 million already purchased. Hollow point :shifty: Not practice rounds. Just how much practice do they need? They are preparing for something. I do not think it is a turkey shoot. :hmmm:

[vienna]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/0efff480f514012ff352001dd8b71c47?width=900.0


<o>

[JU_88]

Why does any military or law enforcement group need a lot of ammo? It's because practice makes perfect. Not a good idea to restrict how much a law officer can practice with his service weapon.

Between agents and contractors there are about 360,000 people working for DHS. 200 million rounds works out to about 500 round a person. Not an unrealistic amount for an entire year. Heck I can easily blow off 500 rounds in just a weekend at the range.

Fair point TBH, Its one of those bits of news I think people often read too much into, thinking its something sinister when its probably nothing much.
And Im betting that 200 million rounds of ammo is nothing compared to the amount of ammo in circulation amongst non-law enforcement gun owners in the U.S. Maybe DHS just want to even up the numbers abit.....just in case :D

[Tribesman]

DHS purchased 200 million rounds of ammo recently. Why would DHS need this many rounds?

Has yubba hacked your account or have you just been to Alex Jones infowars for "news"?
My mistake. It was 750 million round. Apparently on top of the 450 million already purchased. Hollow point :shifty: Not practice rounds. Just how much practice do they need? They are preparing for something. I do not think it is a turkey shoot. :hmmm:
Come on its 1.2 billion over the past six years and they are ordering more to be delivered over the next 4 years...its a conpiracy I tell ya , they even ordered different sorts of ammunition which is worrying because
"acquisition of .308 rounds is of concern because they are set to be used by well-trained snipers.":o
But hold on , what silly bugger ordered all those blanks? how on earth are the evil feds going to gun down the unruly population if they ordered all those blanks, are they going to scare them to death with the noise?
And those paper targets for the shooting range in the same orders, they were printed as paper targets of unruly citizen I tell ya

[AVGWarhawk]

Still begs the question. Why hollow points if these are "practice" rounds? The purchaser is not being a good Stewart of the tax payers money if these are for practice and a less expensive round could be used.

[Sailor Steve]

a good Stewart
Jimmy? Jackie?

[AVGWarhawk]

Jimmy? Jackie?

Just for you Steve. steward. :O:

[mookiemookie]

Jimmy? Jackie?

I'm surprised you picked that and not the "begs the question" misuse to pick on. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm surprised you picked that and not the "begs the question" misuse to pick on. :03:

We are now subject to idiom scrutiny as well? :06:

[Sailor Steve]

Just for you Steve. steward. :O:
I would have just ignored it as a typo if you hadn't capitalized it as well.
:rotfl2:

I'm surprised you picked that and not the "begs the question" misuse to pick on. :03:
I've never claimed to know everything. Or anything. I just thought it was funny.

We are now subject to idiom scrutiny as well? :06:
I'm not an idiom! You're an idiom!

[mapuc]

I saw about 2/3 of the debate, I noticed that Mitt in several cases, Obama is right in several of his opinion.

The following comment from the debate, is from Bo Inge Andersson, the Swedish News' foreign commentator. I've used Google translate and only corrected the places where the translation is not quite correct. I think his comment is right on


Did both win the debate?

It was Mitt Romney that surprised.
Many had expected that he would
be aggressive and require tougher
for example against Syria and Iran and criticized
our president weakness.

But the interesting thing was how often he
nodded assent or concurred in words
When the president spoke.

Romney was profiled recently as
a "peace candidate" who admitted that
violence was the last resort in the case of
Syria and Iraq.

Fair debate technically you could say that
it was Obama who won the debate

Obama was more active while Romney sometimes
seemed almost resigned. It was noticeable
Obama had four years of experience
as president and commander in chief.

But Romney showed up well prepared and
by taking a moderate stance
He also passed the test: Can it
man to be commander in chief (and all-
as president)? For a war-weary U.S.
He would probably be accepted.

Romney thus continued its remarkable
Development having
varitvad he calls a "strictly
conservative "to a more pronounced
my politicians, even if the opponents
mean that it is just tactics.

Americans are tired of party squabbles
and it is possible to Romney won
voters to show agreement with
president and not appear as a
hawkish warmongers.

Meanwhile thus superior Obama
in the debate, but the question is whether
his active - or aggressive - image
in fact, could operate
repulsive on some undecided voters.

So the result might samfattas
that both made gains in this
final debate before the election on
November 6.


Markus

[MH]

This debate is like oprah show.
How the hell people take it seriously.
It sort of looks like it is a thingy for all those in-between guys who also like to vote/bet on winning horse.

[mapuc]

This debate is like oprah show.
How the hell people take it seriously.
It sort of looks like it is a thingy for all those in-between guys who also like to vote/bet on winning horse.

Is that you own thoughts about those debates or is it a common thing? Just like Wrestling- almost everyone knows it's not for real it's just a show

If it's only a show-then it's new to me.

Ups I missed the word "this"

Markus

[AVGWarhawk]

I would have just ignored it as a typo if you hadn't capitalized it as well.
:rotfl2:


I've never claimed to know everything. Or anything. I just thought it was funny.


I'm not an idiom! You're an idiom!

Dam gramer poleice. :O: