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

[QUOTE=brandonislegend]Romney: "I will create 12 million jobs"

Romney: "Government does not create jobs"

anyone else think this is ****ing retarded?[/QUOTE]

He's talking about creating jobs in the private sector by growing the economy, not by hiring 12 million government employees. It's scary that people are voting in this election do not understand this.

[QUOTE=bmulls]He's talking about creating jobs in the private sector by growing the economy, not by hiring 12 million government employees. It's scary that people are voting in this election do not understand this.[/QUOTE]
And every job Obama talks about creating is government? He'll certainly create more government work but both are (allegedly) trying to spark business to create more jobs in the private sector. The real difference is that Romney thinks the key is just cutting taxes while Obama takes a more active role. It's not an important point which is why Obama doesn't go after him hard on it but it does sound off when Romeny says "government doesn't create jobs" in one breath to argue against Obama and then will say he's going to pull 12 million new jobs out of his ass in the next.

Whoever you guys vote for is gonna make my life more miserable than it is and will get credit and praised for it :lol

[QUOTE=bmulls]He's talking about creating jobs in the private sector by growing the economy, not by hiring 12 million government employees. It's scary that people are voting in this election do not understand this.[/QUOTE]

He is also getting those numbers from economist predicting 12 million jobs will be created regardless of who is President.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/30/factchecker-romneys-12-million-job-promise/"]link[/URL]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Also the reason the one-liner was so potent was that Romney chose a stupid argument that our most pressing military need is more ships when what our military has actually been engaged in asymmetric warfare, counter insurgency and covert warfare.[/QUOTE]

I look at it this way -- here is Obama well into his first term of dealing with real-world foreign policy issues and he has to sit there while Mitt Romney mis-characterizes and over-simplifies every one of his arguments (presumably as red meat for the knuckle draggers watching at home).

That shit must be infuriating.

[IMG]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/307975_10152214125325176_95691591_n.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/581006_10151120428086943_39873399_n.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=rezznor][IMG]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/307975_10152214125325176_95691591_n.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]



Just to play devil's advocate, here's a quote from another forum:

[Quote]
You don't tell another adult, a former governor who controlled a National Guard force, that aircraft carriers are these things that planes land on, and other things that go underwater are called nuclear submarines. The truth is, it was condescending and child-like. Speaking of carriers, a Carrier Group is a potent force, but it has limitations based on the range the aircraft can sorte. We cannot be everywhere at once, and less carrier groups means less coverage. One carrier takes a lot of support ships. How about President Obama address that issue with the potential reduction numbers - even sequestration - that were the real points needing to addressed? Answer - He won't because he knows the future of the Navy's ships isn't going to improve under his administration so he resorts to quips and zingers. [/Quote]

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Just to play devil's advocate, here's a quote from another forum:[/QUOTE]
I understand you are just playing devil's advocate, but the gist of it for me was do we really need to spend an extra 2 trillion dollars on our defense?

[QUOTE=Jello]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.[/QUOTE]

Being for govt stimulus and being against increases in defense spending are not mutually exclusive.

[QUOTE=rezznor]I understand you are just playing devil's advocate, but the gist of it for me was do we really need to spend an extra 2 trillion dollars on our defense?[/QUOTE]


Exactly. That's something that should be debated. But for Obama to reduce the discussion to zingers was a little beneath him imo.


[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/bayonet.jpg[/IMG]

And what is that sharp, pointy thing sticking out of that marine's gun?

[QUOTE=bmulls]He's talking about creating jobs in the private sector by growing the economy, not by hiring 12 million government employees. It's scary that people are voting in this election do not understand this.[/QUOTE]

No one is hiring 12M new gov't jobs when there will be austerity for the majority of the next term no matter who wins.

With much of what Willard talks about there is a disconnect in logic here. If cutting taxes was a sound plan to 12M more jobs anyone would do it, but this ASSumption based on flawed or murky statistics which are lacking detail is just a ruse to get people riled up.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Exactly. That's something that should be debated. But for Obama to reduce the discussion to zingers was a little beneath him imo.


[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/bayonet.jpg[/IMG]

And what is that sharp, pointy thing sticking out of that marine's gun?[/QUOTE]
he said "less bayonets and horses" not no bayonets and horses

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]Being for govt stimulus and being against increases in defense spending are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
huh? The left reference those two historical time periods when the source of major deficit spending [B]WAS[/B] defense spending.

My point completely flew over your guys' heads. Saying something is better than or more effective than does not mean I support it. A much effective stimulus would have been to redirect all stimulus funds to the SBA to help refinance small businesses who are the real sufferers. Also investment in infrastructure does have a long term multiplier of effects but that is besides the point of what I was saying.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Exactly. That's something that should be debated. But for Obama to reduce the discussion to zingers was a little beneath him imo.


[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/bayonet.jpg[/IMG]

And what is that sharp, pointy thing sticking out of that marine's gun?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but a Bayonet is something carried by a troop, and we use a lot less of those these days too.

[QUOTE=rezznor]he said "less bayonets and horses" not no bayonets and horses[/QUOTE]


So? It bordered on childish and petty. The president has a completely legitimate argument and didn't need to belittle himself like that imo.

[QUOTE=Jello]My point completely flew over your guys' heads. Saying something is better than or more effective than does not mean I support it. A much effective stimulus would have been to redirect all stimulus funds to the SBA to help refinance small businesses who are the real sufferers. Also investment in infrastructure does have a long term multiplier of effects but that is besides the point of what I was saying.[/QUOTE]

Yup, sorry youre right. I was skimming the comments in the thread on my way to class and misread your posts.

[QUOTE=embersyc]Yeah, but a Bayonet is something carried by a troop, and we use a lot less of those these days too.[/QUOTE]

Yeah no shit. It was the president who brought it up.

President went after Mitt hard... I think bayonet line was good.. So was the line about aircraft carriers.

The aggressive tone was set in the first debate. Obama got lambasted for laying back and not fighting like Romney was.

Last night Romney laid back a bit and got hit a few times.

thats the tone that has been set by these two, so neither side can turn and complain at this point.

Obama was kicking Romney's ass with the ads during the season, and Romney & his team have been downright disrespectful of the president on occasion.

This is the the environment, so they need to win or go home.

From Allan Louden, political science professor at Wake Forest:

[Quote]
It has been several hours since the third presidential debate from Boca Raton, Fla. - another late night, as it was for those watching baseball or the NFL, likely larger audiences. Many sports fans and political junkies may still be sleeping, a state of consciousness not markedly different than watching the debate last night.

I observed the debate with 80 Wake Forest University alumni in Washington, a sedate crowd most any time, their response, fitting to the debate, was at best tepid. Following the debate I queried the gathering for an instance of “something new learned from the debate“ roundly greeted by blank stares.

I’m not sure if the baseball or NFL football game were dominated by defense, but the presidential debate sure was, the campaigns in “replay” mode, opting for the safe ground of voter reinforcement not conversion.

There was one exchange in the debate that did rile the assembled. President Obama in an exchange on defense spending lectured Romney: “you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”
The exchange may puzzle fact checkers as we still do have bayonets (and a few horses) in the army, but it also serves as a container for the debate. Romney branded the president with softness, and Obama lectured his opponent of how the world looked from the presidential pedestal.

Obama was overall presidential, helping his case, but scolding Romney that submarines exist had unflattering, mocking quality.

Voters were not the winner in this debate. The first two presidential debates had moments of insight with occasional new ground uncovered. This debate was more a compilation of greatest hits from TV spots, stump speeches, and practiced town halls.

Third debates seldom have staying power. The exchange from Lynn College in Florida will prove the rule. The news tomorrow, barring an international incident, will be who has the buses loaded on the way to early voting (or who has the bases loaded in the World Series).

Grades: Obama C+, Romney C+ [/Quote]

He made a mocking comment because Romney said something dumb. It happens all the time in debates. You can't correct someone who says something dumb without sounding sarcastic or condescending.

[QUOTE=niko]He made a mocking comment because Romney said something dumb. It happens all the time in debates. You can't correct someone who says something dumb without sounding sarcastic or condescending.[/QUOTE]


I disagree. The president of the most powerful nation on earth should be above that. But whatever. Thank God these things are over.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Well to be fair the president wasn't exactly full of details himself. [/QUOTE]

I think this is because Obama was mainly describing what he has done and will continue to do. And he has specific achievements to talk about. Also Mitt Romney seemed to be embracing his policies in area after area. As Obama said, [I]you seem to be saying you'll do the same thing only louder.[/I]

He has set up the most restrictive sanctions ever on Iran which is devastating their economy and has brought them to brink of negotiations. And he worked with the world including Russia and China to make them work.

He has refocused our efforts more on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and away from Iraq.

He has truly weakened Al Qaeda via the drone attacks and Romney voiced no objection to the method.

Of course, his biggest success was moving us off the cowboy policies of the Bush years where we routinely insulted our own allies. This has made us stronger. His style of leadership pushed Britain and France to get involved in the overthrow of Ghaddafi and created a new way to build a coalition. We spent less than a billion dollars and zero US deaths.*

So if Obama believes he has a list of achievements to run on, his argument is I'm going to continue the policies that have led to this success, why does he new specifics of a new plan. You can make that argument for domestic policy, but it really doesn't apply in foreign policy.

* and yes Benghazi says we still have work to do and you could even say the verdict is still out. Romney, of course, didn't touch this either, because he was debating to survive without any mistakes.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]He didn't win the debate but I don't think he caused any voters leaning towards him to change their vote.[/QUOTE]

I wonder what military families thought about this debate. I also wonder about real hard-core conservatives, considering that Mitt abandoned his neoconservativism, would Mitt's rush to the center offend them? How will this play out in states where 3rd party candidates on the right are on the ballot?

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
I wonder what military families thought about this debate. I also wonder about real hard-core conservatives, considering that Mitt abandoned his neoconservativism, would Mitt's rush to the center offend them? How will this play out in states where 3rd party candidates on the right are on the ballot?[/QUOTE]


I seriously doubt the amount of neocons voting for 3rd party candidates would be significant at all.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]I disagree. The president of the most powerful nation on earth should be above that. But whatever. Thank God these things are over.[/QUOTE]
It was in a debate though. If he said it elsewhere i get it but they are debating. considering the snide tone of the whole entire last debate i didn't get that from this comment.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]"far fewer"

just saying[/QUOTE]
That's why I posted this last night because conservatives were up in arms about this last night. That's why you knew it was effective. I got it wrong though, he just said "fewer."
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Exactly. That's something that should be debated. But for Obama to reduce the discussion to zingers was a little beneath him imo.
[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/bayonet.jpg[/IMG]
And what is that sharp, pointy thing sticking out of that marine's gun?[/QUOTE]
That's why Obama said "fewer, check the transcript." Here's the quote
[QUOTE]We also have fewer horses and bayonets[/QUOTE]

Let's face it, conservatives are trying to focus on Obama's response, instead of Romney's stupid argument. Romney is trying to say Obama is making the military weaker and he chose a stupid argument to do it.

A question for you, do you think Romney's comparison to the WWI Navy showed the strategic grasp necessary for the job of Commander-In-Chief. Because to me, it was just a plainly deceptive talking point.

Obama had some internet forum poster in him last night.

Interesting.

Because to me it made Obama look better, and more human. It made him look like the victim of the moronic nature of presidential politics. It made him look like he should be above it but wasn't allowed to be.

I had to remind myself that wasn't what was going on. I halfway got tricked.

I wonder if his performance had that effect on anyone else.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]I seriously doubt the amount of neocons voting for 3rd party candidates would be significant at all.[/QUOTE]

I think there's an overlap between neoconservatives and other hard-right voters who really liked Romney's previous belligerence. Seeing Romney moving towards Obama on issue after issue may turn them off.

Since so many states are going to be close this year, .5% or 1% is going to be a big deal.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]From Allan Louden, political science professor at Wake Forest:[/QUOTE]
Some people deserve to be mocked. The argument Romney was using is ridiculous. You don't measure our naval dominance by the number of "ships" and the analogy to horses and bayonets was an appropriate one.

If Obama had just thrown that zinger out there with no prompting, I might agree that it is unbecoming, but it was in direct response to a ridiculous comment made by Romney.


Someone else said it earlier in the thread... The tone was set in the first debate. Romney came out guns blazing, going after Obama hard. In the first debate, Obama attempted some very long-winded explanations of policy positions while also attempting to maintain a presidential posture and not get down into the mud. As a result, he was roundly trounced and it came off poorly.

Somehow, when the roles are reversed in the third debate, it was unbecoming for Obama and he was "too mean" to Romney. This is the FoxNews talking point today and it is sort of hilarious.

I didn't see many people on either side of the aisle claiming the first debate was a tie or a default Obama win because Romney was "too mean" and "not presidential." He lost that debate... Just like Romney clearly looked like the weaker candidate last night.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Some people deserve to be mocked. The argument Romney was using is ridiculous. You don't measure our naval dominance by the number of "ships" and the analogy to horses and bayonets was an appropriate one.

If Obama had just thrown that zinger out there with no prompting, I might agree that it is unbecoming, but it was in direct response to a ridiculous comment made by Romney.


Someone else said it earlier in the thread... The tone was set in the first debate. Romney came out guns blazing, going after Obama hard. In the first debate, Obama attempted some very long-winded explanations of policy positions while also attempting to maintain a presidential posture and not get down into the mud. As a result, he was roundly trounced and it came off poorly.

Somehow, when the roles are reversed in the third debate, it was unbecoming for Obama and he was "too mean" to Romney. This is the FoxNews talking point today and it is sort of hilarious.

I didn't see many people on either side of the aisle claiming the first debate was a tie or a default Obama win because Romney was "too mean" and "not presidential." He lost that debate... Just like Romney clearly looked like the weaker candidate last night.[/QUOTE]



After all 3 debates, who do you feel overall is a better debater between Romney and Obama?

[QUOTE=Heilige]After all 3 debates, who do you feel overall is a better debater between Romney and Obama?[/QUOTE]
Purely based on skill as a debater and not substance? Romney. Debating has never been Obama's strong suit.

If Romney had more substance behind his positions and was better equipped to give detailed responses to policy questions, he would be a very difficult man to beat in a debate.

A. He looks and sounds like a presidential candidate you would create in a lab somewhere. People shouldn't underestimate the power of a guy just looking like he should be president and Romney has the features of the position... And a smooth radio voice to boot.

B. He is very quick on his feet. Yes, he is prone to gaffes, but that has more to do with a lack of experience and a life spent completely unlike the vast majority of the people he is speaking to. His problems relating to the average Joe aren't due to insufficient intelligence.

C. He's clearly devoted a lot of time to becoming a good debater and it shows. He's got the body language and the nonverbal communication stuff down to a science.

He's a far better debater than I ever imagined when I was watching those convoluted Republican primaries with all of the circus acts they had going in that thing. When it comes to one-on-one debating, he is very skilled and tough to pin down.

Obama has the intelligence and experience and he can be a smooth talker in the right debate settings... That was his saving grace in the last two debates. But, I think everyone (including Obama) learned a lesson about Romney in the first debate. You better come in prepared for a fight or he is capable of making you look really bad.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Purely based on skill as a debater and not substance? Romney. Debating has never been Obama's strong suit.

If Romney had more substance behind his positions and was better equipped to give detailed responses to policy questions, he would be a very difficult man to beat in a debate.

A. He looks and sounds like a presidential candidate you would create in a lab somewhere. People shouldn't underestimate the power of a guy just looking like he should be president and Romney has the features of the position... And a smooth radio voice to boot.

B. He is very quick on his feet. Yes, he is prone to gaffes, but that has more to do with a lack of experience and a life spent completely unlike the vast majority of the people he is speaking to. His problems relating to the average Joe aren't due to insufficient intelligence.

C. He's clearly devoted a lot of time to becoming a good debater and it shows. He's got the body language and the nonverbal communication stuff down to a science.

He's a far better debater than I ever imagined when I was watching those convoluted Republican primaries with all of the circus acts they had going in that thing. When it comes to one-on-one debating, he is very skilled and tough to pin down.

Obama has the intelligence and experience and he can be a smooth talker in the right debate settings... That was his saving grace in the last two debates. But, I think everyone (including Obama) learned a lesson about Romney in the first debate. You better come in prepared for a fight or he is capable of making you look really bad.[/QUOTE]



Good points, especially about looking and sounding like a presidential candidiate. Check out this article:

[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/slugfest/309063/[/url]

Remember Todd Akin?

I was watching Indiana's Senate debate earlier and Richard Mourdock, who's in all likelihood going to win, said (paraphrasing) "life is a gift from God. Even when it begins in a horrible situation like rape I think God intended for that to happen."

[QUOTE=InspiredLebowski]Remember Todd Akin?

I was watching Indiana's Senate debate earlier and Richard Mourdock, who's in all likelihood going to win, said (paraphrasing) "life is a gift from God. Even when it begins in a horrible situation like rape I think God intended for that to happen."[/QUOTE]
Your rape is God's will. Nice.

It's an awful but actually somewhat logical conclusion you [I]can[/I] come to if you believe God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all loving.

[quote=Real Men Wear Green]Your rape is God's will. Nice.

It's an awful but actually somewhat logical conclusion you [I]can[/I] come to if you believe God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all loving.[/quote]I really hope it's enough to swing the election but I doubt it. The guy's a textbook Tea Party extremist.

[QUOTE=InspiredLebowski]Remember Todd Akin?

I was watching Indiana's Senate debate earlier and Richard Mourdock, who's in all likelihood going to win, said (paraphrasing) "life is a gift from God. Even when it begins in a horrible situation like rape I think God intended for that to happen."[/QUOTE]

:biggums:




First time I have ever been inspired to use that emoticon.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHdzsXjmkmY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHdzsXjmkmY[/URL]

thanks for reenforcing the Indiana stereotype you asshole

[QUOTE=InspiredLebowski]I really hope it's enough to swing the election but I doubt it. The guy's a textbook Tea Party extremist.[/QUOTE]
I could swear there was a time when the Tea Party was about taxes, government spending and the Constitution. They were making some points back then. Somewhere along the line they became simply another term for pure-right Republican.

[quote=InspiredLebowski]Remember Todd Akin?

I was watching Indiana's Senate debate earlier and Richard Mourdock, who's in all likelihood going to win, said (paraphrasing) "life is a gift from God. Even when it begins in a horrible situation like rape I think God intended for that to happen."[/quote]

Rape is a heinous crime that deserves life in jail and pen!s removed.
However I personally know 2 men that are glad their mother didnt abort post rape. Both are great people, and one in particular is very successful.
It is not a new human's fault how they were conceived, they dont deserve to die because of it IMO.
Its a terrible situation, but due to personally knowing those families, I dont support abortion in that situation.
Yeah not a popular opinion in the foolish western culture.