3rd Presidential debate: focuses on foreign policy, Monday Oct 22th 9:00 pm EST

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]What policies with regards to Mitt Romney and how he would handle foreign policy differently than President Obama did you get out of this debate?[/QUOTE]

That was my point. They said virtually the same thing on every topic, yet this guy thinks Obama "bent Romney over and spanked him." People are more swayed by the pageantry of the debate than what is actually said.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]And what policy and substance did Romney bring to the table? From where I was watching it seemed that he agreed with most of the President's views, decisions, actions, etc and the only real divergent idea was Mitt's commitment to add a few trillion dollars to the deficit by investing on superfluous military spending (on top of his $5 trillion tax cut that he plans to offset by closing still yet to be named 'loopholes'). IMO he lacked anything remotely resembling a clear vision for how he would lead the country on the world stage beyond buying more boats.[/QUOTE]
Superfluous defense spending? A significant increase in defense spending would be a much better stimulus for our economy than the stimulus passed by congress.

Just watched the whole debate, holy **** Romney says the same shit every debate but still doesn't describe anything, how is this guy running for president?

[QUOTE=Jello]Superfluous defense spending? A significant increase in defense spending would be a much better stimulus for our economy than the stimulus passed by congress.[/QUOTE]
So would a jobs bill that went to work repairing and upgrading decaying or outdated American infrastructure. And that's something we actually need.

[QUOTE=Jello]Superfluous defense spending? A significant increase in defense spending would be a much better stimulus for our economy than the stimulus passed by congress.[/QUOTE]

Infrastructure spending would be a far greater boon than defense spending, not too mention have a more lasting economic benefit.

[quote=Jello]Superfluous defense spending? A significant increase in defense spending would be a much better stimulus for our economy than the stimulus passed by congress.[/quote]Sure. If that's what you're into I guess...

[QUOTE=Scoooter]So would a jobs bill that went to work repairing and upgrading decaying or outdated American infrastructure. And that's something we actually need.[/QUOTE]
Deficit spending on anything, according to keynesians, would stimulate the economy but we see the left saying "we didn't spend enough on the fiscal stimulus." They point towards the Reagan recovery or WWII for reference of massive deficit spending and then criticize the upping of defense spending.

Obama looked more knowledgeable when it came down to foreign policy while it seemed like Romney was just agreeing with him on some issues. It wasn't a landslide victory, but Obama was clearly the winner in this debate.

Romney: "I will create 12 million jobs"

Romney: "Government does not create jobs"

anyone else think this is ****ing retarded?

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]Infrastructure spending would be a far greater boon than defense spending, not too mention have a more lasting economic benefit.[/QUOTE]
Of course, but that's not what my post is talking about. I'm just pointing out the disconnect of what is historically fact and what the left condemn.

[QUOTE=Jello]Of course, but that's not what my post is talking about. I'm just pointing out the disconnect of what is historically fact and what the left condemn.[/QUOTE]

Are you referencing things like the Marshall Plan or when the government created the GI Bill and spent large sums of money helping WW2 Vets after WW2 or is your focus specifically on the Reagan years when we ramped up defense spending to bankrupt the Soviet Union amongst other things?

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]Are you referencing things like the Marshall Plan or when the government created the GI Bill and spent large sums of money helping WW2 Vets after WW2 or is your focus specifically on the Reagan years when we ramped up defense spending to bankrupt the Soviet Union amongst other things?[/QUOTE]
Funny thing is, Reagan really had an internal struggle about exploding defense spending and only did so in an effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Once that goal was reached, he wanted to cut the defense budget back down to where it was before he started the massive increase in the defense programs.

The idea was to spend the USSR into oblivion and then bring it back down to earth when the mission was accomplished. Reagan also supported the complete dismantling of all nuclear programs.

Somehow, this guy is considered the neoconservative standard and he would be far to the left of the Democrats on many issues. No way he could be a candidate for the current Republican party with many of his stances. He wouldn't pass the litmus test and would get killed for wanting to cut defense, specifically the nuclear program.

Our military industrial complex has gotten completely out-of-hand... Just as Pres. Eisenhower predicted.

[I]"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."[/I]


Our infrastructure is crumbling. Roads and bridges across the country fall woefully behind many of the other developed nations. And, here we are, bickering over whether or not we should keep our current rate of defense budget as being more than the next 10 nations combined or make a dramatic [I]INCREASE [/I]to that ridiculous number.

It is madness.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Funny thing is, Reagan really had an internal struggle about exploding defense spending and only did so in an effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Once that goal was reached, he wanted to cut the defense budget back down to where it was before he started the massive increase in the defense programs.

The idea was to spend the USSR into oblivion and then bring it back down to earth when the mission was accomplished. Reagan also supported the complete dismantling of all nuclear programs.

Somehow, this guy is consider the neoconservative standard and he would be far to the left on many issues. No way he could be a candidate for the current Republican party with many of his stances. He wouldn't pass the litmus test and would get killed for wanting to cut defense, specifically the nuclear program.

Our military industrial complex has gotten completely out-of-hand... Just as Pres. Eisenhower predicted.

[I]"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."[/I]


Our infrastructure is crumbling. Roads and bridges across the country fall woefully behind many of the other developed nations. And, here we are, bickering over whether or not we should keep our current rate of defense budget as being more than the next 10 nations combined or make a dramatic [I]INCREASE [/I]to that ridiculous number.

It is madness.[/QUOTE]


I couldn't have said it better. Defense spending needs to decrease not increase. Reinvest back into the nations infrastructure and we'll still go a long way towards creating/keeping jobs. If we are talking about cuts then they should be across the board with defense spending being at the top of the list.

Fox News has declared the winner of the 3rd Presidential Debate as a tie.


In other news, Fox News has declared the winner of the NLCS as a tie.

[QUOTE=brandonislegend]Just watched the whole debate, holy **** Romney says the same shit every debate but still doesn't describe anything, how is this guy running for president?[/QUOTE]


Well to be fair the president wasn't exactly full of details himself. They each had their 5 point plans that were more like non-specific wish lists.

Obama was smart in being aggressive like he was in the 2nd debate and as expected the moderator allowed him to interrupt Romney and interject his authority.

Except for the "rout to the sea" remark Romney stayed pretty much gaffe-free. He didn't win the debate but I don't think he caused any voters leaning towards him to change their vote.