or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Debates: Three President/One VP
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Debates: Three President/One VP - Page 3

post #81 of 239

Biden is silent on this issue. Might be a coverup by the White House who really knows.
 

post #82 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I thought there was no disagreement now on that - he was claiming that the original claims that they made were based on the intel that they received.  But anyway - I'm missing the connection with the weapons issue.

 

It relates to his claim that we would know if Iran starts down the path to highly enriched uranium.  He said we'd have plenty of time to act if that's the case.  But then in the same breath, he's saying our intelligence didn't even know a terrorist attack was coming on 9/11 after multiple attacks in the months prior, nor could they initially determine whether it even WAS a terrorist attack.   Now, we know he's not accurate with that (whether he's mistaken, manipulating or outright lying) because we know the intelligence community and State Dept. said they knew it was terrorism within 24 hours.  But putting that aside, what kind of confidence does this inspire in our intelligence?  Speaking of which, didn't Democrats go BALLISTIC over Iraq's lack of WMDs?  What has changed?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I thought there was no disagreement now on that - he was claiming that the original claims that they made were based on the intel that they received.  But anyway - I'm missing the connection with the weapons issue.

 

It relates to his claim that we would know if Iran starts down the path to highly enriched uranium.  He said we'd have plenty of time to act if that's the case.  But then in the same breath, he's saying our intelligence didn't even know a terrorist attack was coming on 9/11 after multiple attacks in the months prior, nor could they initially determine whether it even WAS a terrorist attack.   Now, we know he's not accurate with that (whether he's mistaken, manipulating or outright lying) because we know the intelligence community and State Dept. said they knew it was terrorism within 24 hours.  But putting that aside, what kind of confidence does this inspire in our intelligence?  Speaking of which, didn't Democrats go BALLISTIC over Iraq's lack of WMDs?  What has changed?  

 

OK - got it. It certainly is reasonable to question the record of the intelligence community, especially in light of the Iraqi WMD fiasco, but it's important to keep in mind that the precursors to a deliverable Iranian weapon would be rather more objectively measurable than most intelligence on terrorist operations. There is a pretty good track record of monitoring nation states in their path to nuclear weapons capability.

 

I don't think the criticism of the Iraq affair was at all limited to Democrats, although in the US they were more vocal than the Republicans - rather inevitable since the President was a Republican. In any case - I don't really understand your question; what do you mean by "what has changed"?

post #84 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - got it. It certainly is reasonable to question the record of the intelligence community, especially in light of the Iraqi WMD fiasco, but it's important to keep in mind that the precursors to a deliverable Iranian weapon would be rather more objectively measurable than most intelligence on terrorist operations. There is a pretty good track record of monitoring nation states in their path to nuclear weapons capability.

 

I don't think the criticism of the Iraq affair was at all limited to Democrats, although in the US they were more vocal than the Republicans - rather inevitable since the President was a Republican. In any case - I don't really understand your question; what do you mean by "what has changed"?

 

You said (wrote) it yourself.  The record of the intelligence community has not changed. If Biden is telling the truth, it doesn't make any sense.  Our intelligence indicated chemical and bio weapons stockpiles and facilities in Iraq.  The CIA said this wasn't even a question.  Other major intelligence agencies (Israel, UK, France, Germany, et al) agreed.   Well, it turns out we were all hugely wrong on that.  So how is that their track record is good with record to weapons of mass destruction?  Biden is saying, literally, "calm down...don't worry...we've got this."  Uh, really?  Why don't I feel any better?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - got it. It certainly is reasonable to question the record of the intelligence community, especially in light of the Iraqi WMD fiasco, but it's important to keep in mind that the precursors to a deliverable Iranian weapon would be rather more objectively measurable than most intelligence on terrorist operations. There is a pretty good track record of monitoring nation states in their path to nuclear weapons capability.

 

I don't think the criticism of the Iraq affair was at all limited to Democrats, although in the US they were more vocal than the Republicans - rather inevitable since the President was a Republican. In any case - I don't really understand your question; what do you mean by "what has changed"?

 

You said (wrote) it yourself.  The record of the intelligence community has not changed. If Biden is telling the truth, it doesn't make any sense.  Our intelligence indicated chemical and bio weapons stockpiles and facilities in Iraq.  The CIA said this wasn't even a question.  Other major intelligence agencies (Israel, UK, France, Germany, et al) agreed.   Well, it turns out we were all hugely wrong on that.  So how is that their track record is good with record to weapons of mass destruction?  Biden is saying, literally, "calm down...don't worry...we've got this."  Uh, really?  Why don't I feel any better?  

 

Right - but I was making a distinction between WMDs, which includes chemical and bio, as you pointed out, and deliverable nuclear weapons. My point was that I believe that there is a good track record of monitoring the progress of nations towards nuclear weapons - I did not mean WMDs in general.

post #86 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Right - but I was making a distinction between WMDs, which includes chemical and bio, as you pointed out, and deliverable nuclear weapons. My point was that I believe that there is a good track record of monitoring the progress of nations towards nuclear weapons - I did not mean WMDs in general.

 

I don't know...I think that might be a distinction without a difference.  I suppose it's possible that in this one area of WMD intelligence we're much better than we are at chem and bio weapons intelligence.  But somehow that doesn't sit right with me.  It's more of a hope, which as Romney correctly points out, is not a strategy.  I definitely don't think we know everything Iran is doing with respect to their nuclear program, nor do I buy we will have a long warning period before they either announce or demonstrate one.  What do you think?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #87 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Right - but I was making a distinction between WMDs, which includes chemical and bio, as you pointed out, and deliverable nuclear weapons. My point was that I believe that there is a good track record of monitoring the progress of nations towards nuclear weapons - I did not mean WMDs in general.

 

I don't know...I think that might be a distinction without a difference.  I suppose it's possible that in this one area of WMD intelligence we're much better than we are at chem and bio weapons intelligence.  But somehow that doesn't sit right with me.  It's more of a hope, which as Romney correctly points out, is not a strategy.  I definitely don't think we know everything Iran is doing with respect to their nuclear program, nor do I buy we will have a long warning period before they either announce or demonstrate one.  What do you think?  

 

It's a distinction with a difference. Iran's nuclear program is under very close scrutiny. It's also made easier because much of the infrastructure and equipment needed to do that work is highly specialized and very tightly controlled. They can't make it and they can't purchase it without an obvious trail. It really is much easier to track than chemical or bio weapon work, which requires no special equipment. And, of course, testing is a dead giveaway, whether it is launch vehicles or the weapon itself. It's not just the US watching either.

 

I have no idea what will happen if they do acquire the capability. It could get very messy.

post #88 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It's a distinction with a difference. Iran's nuclear program is under very close scrutiny. It's also made easier because much of the infrastructure and equipment needed to do that work is highly specialized and very tightly controlled. They can't make it and they can't purchase it without an obvious trail. It really is much easier to track than chemical or bio weapon work, which requires no special equipment. And, of course, testing is a dead giveaway, whether it is launch vehicles or the weapon itself. It's not just the US watching either.

 

I have no idea what will happen if they do acquire the capability. It could get very messy.

 

Reasonable answer, though I still don't believe we know everything with regard to their program.  We probably know a lot, but if we're off by even a small amount, it could lead to them crossing "the red line" so to speak.  Obviously testing is a dead giveaway, as you say.  But once they've tested a weapon it's far too late.  We need to prevent them from acquiring one.  So far, the sanctions, despite being effective at harming their economy, don't seem to have deterred the regime's will or aggressive stance.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #89 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It's a distinction with a difference. Iran's nuclear program is under very close scrutiny. It's also made easier because much of the infrastructure and equipment needed to do that work is highly specialized and very tightly controlled. They can't make it and they can't purchase it without an obvious trail. It really is much easier to track than chemical or bio weapon work, which requires no special equipment. And, of course, testing is a dead giveaway, whether it is launch vehicles or the weapon itself. It's not just the US watching either.

 

I have no idea what will happen if they do acquire the capability. It could get very messy.

 

Reasonable answer, though I still don't believe we know everything with regard to their program.  We probably know a lot, but if we're off by even a small amount, it could lead to them crossing "the red line" so to speak.  Obviously testing is a dead giveaway, as you say.  But once they've tested a weapon it's far too late.  We need to prevent them from acquiring one.  So far, the sanctions, despite being effective at harming their economy, don't seem to have deterred the regime's will or aggressive stance.   

 

Testing isn't a one off event that enables the capability. In any case, if sanctions are not working then what do you think is the next step?

post #90 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Biden was brilliant and didn't take prisoners whilst Ryan was clinic and removed.

 

Devastating to the Romney campaign. 

 

What was it with Ryan's bobbing head and all the water?  

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #91 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It's a distinction with a difference. Iran's nuclear program is under very close scrutiny. It's also made easier because much of the infrastructure and equipment needed to do that work is highly specialized and very tightly controlled. They can't make it and they can't purchase it without an obvious trail. It really is much easier to track than chemical or bio weapon work, which requires no special equipment. And, of course, testing is a dead giveaway, whether it is launch vehicles or the weapon itself. It's not just the US watching either.

 

I have no idea what will happen if they do acquire the capability. It could get very messy.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just honestly wondering...  I agree that the equipment for nuclear enrichment is indeed highly specialized and should make monitoring of the enrichment processes somewhat easy to monitor.  However, doesn't Iran already have some kind of rocket capability?  Didn't they recently successfully test a medium range rocket with the potential to hit Israel?  Seems to me that this would mean that the basically have the delivery vehicle in place and all they need is the fissile material and the actual warhead.  Now, my question is concerning the actual warhead...  Is this something that Iran can't build in a secret bunker somewhere without any telltale external signs as to what they are doing?  I mean isn't the warhead going to be some mildly sophisticated electronics and some small shaped charges?

post #92 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

What was it with Ryan's bobbing head and all the water?  

 

I may have missed the bobbing head, because I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.  As to the water, I think they captured him taking a drink 4 or 5 times?  This doesn't seem strange at all to me for the amount of speaking he was doing over a 90 minute period.  I will say that this is really encouraging if your main criticism of Ryan's performance is that he was thirsty.

post #93 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

 I will say that this is really encouraging if your main criticism of Ryan's performance is that he was thirsty.

 

 

Don't worry.  It's not.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #94 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Testing isn't a one off event that enables the capability. In any case, if sanctions are not working then what do you think is the next step?

 

What?  Testing a nuclear weapon doesn't show capability?  I don't think that's what you mean, but...what do you mean?  

 

As for the next step:  Looking at where we are now, I'd say the next step(s) are as follows:  

 

  1. Make the "red line" clear for Iran.  Make a public statement to the effect that crossing this line (be it enrichment levels or what have you) means that the United States and Israel will use all means necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  
  2. Simultaneously continue to levy more sanctions, both unilaterally and multilaterally.  Include Central Bank sanctions.   Isolate them even further.  
  3. Set a time frame for reassessment, say 90 days.  During this time, engage in a military build-up in the region to make threats of force credible.  
  4. Give Iran one final opportunity to halt its program.  
  5. Crossing the red line outside of the timeframe results in military action

 

 

The point is that the Iranians must believe we are serious about using military force.  Ironically, this is the only way we have a chance to avoid having to use it.  The ideas, as Paul Ryan says, is to get them to change their minds.  They are not doing that now.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

I may have missed the bobbing head, because I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.  As to the water, I think they captured him taking a drink 4 or 5 times?  This doesn't seem strange at all to me for the amount of speaking he was doing over a 90 minute period.  I will say that this is really encouraging if your main criticism of Ryan's performance is that he was thirsty.

 

Didn't think his drinking waster was excessive, but the SNL parody was hilarious nonetheless.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Don't worry.  It's not.

 

Perhaps not, but in keeping with the deep interest in being substantive, you couldn't help but bring it up.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #96 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
Didn't think his drinking waster was excessive, but the SNL parody was hilarious nonetheless.  

 

I don't watch SNL, or at least I haven't in years.  That said, I have several SNL favorites like Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, The Ambiguously Gay Duo, the original Weekend Update, and the Belushi deli samurai bit.  There are a lot of other good ones, but none of the more recent stuff I've seen (though I haven't watched at all in the past 10 years) has even come close to the classics.

post #97 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

I don't watch SNL, or at least I haven't in years.  That said, I have several SNL favorites like Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, The Ambiguously Gay Duo, the original Weekend Update, and the Belushi deli samurai bit.  There are a lot of other good ones, but none of the more recent stuff I've seen (though I haven't watched at all in the past 10 years) has even come close to the classics.

 

I watch parts of it, mostly their debate parodies (which are great).  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #98 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Testing isn't a one off event that enables the capability. In any case, if sanctions are not working then what do you think is the next step?

 

What?  Testing a nuclear weapon doesn't show capability?  I don't think that's what you mean, but...what do you mean?  

 

As for the next step:  Looking at where we are now, I'd say the next step(s) are as follows:  

 

  1. Make the "red line" clear for Iran.  Make a public statement to the effect that crossing this line (be it enrichment levels or what have you) means that the United States and Israel will use all means necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  
  2. Simultaneously continue to levy more sanctions, both unilaterally and multilaterally.  Include Central Bank sanctions.   Isolate them even further.  
  3. Set a time frame for reassessment, say 90 days.  During this time, engage in a military build-up in the region to make threats of force credible.  
  4. Give Iran one final opportunity to halt its program.  
  5. Crossing the red line outside of the timeframe results in military action

 

 

The point is that the Iranians must believe we are serious about using military force.  Ironically, this is the only way we have a chance to avoid having to use it.  The ideas, as Paul Ryan says, is to get them to change their minds.  They are not doing that now.  

 

I meant that a weapon test does not demonstrate deliverability, and I would not necessarily even expect a first test to be successful.

 

Interesting list of actions, but what do you mean by military action. Invasion looks like the only real option - is that what you had in mind? With or without UN sanction?

post #99 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I meant that a weapon test does not demonstrate deliverability, and I would not necessarily even expect a first test to be successful.

 

Interesting list of actions, but what do you mean by military action. Invasion looks like the only real option - is that what you had in mind? With or without UN sanction?

 

Unfortunately, a successful test is likely the only demonstration that we are likely to get.  I believe that both seismic and EMP signals are a giveaway to a successful nuclear detonation.  Neither of these exist without success, so how would we even detect a failed test.  The only way we would even know of a failed test is if Iran were to announce either their intentions or their failed results, neither of which I think they would be likely to do.

 

The options don't look good concerning Iran.  Ryan, and Obama for that matter, have the right of it in that the only good way to resolve this is to have Iran give up it's nuclear ambition.  This has got to be the goal for both Republicans and Democrats and I believe that it is, one of the fewer areas of honest agreement.  If Iran won't give up it's ambitions we should absolutely go in with a UN force.  If the UN won't in the end sanction this method...  I really don't know.

post #100 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I meant that a weapon test does not demonstrate deliverability, and I would not necessarily even expect a first test to be successful.

 

Interesting list of actions, but what do you mean by military action. Invasion looks like the only real option - is that what you had in mind? With or without UN sanction?

 

They can't yet get a weapon here, but they can do a whole lot of damage.  They can hand it off to terrorists.  They can get it to Israel.  They can threaten our forces in the Middle East.  They can essentially blackmail the United States and Israel.  This is worse than a war right now.  

 

As for the military option, I again would like to see it avoided. We can assume Iran will retaliate aggressively with conventional and non-conventional attacks (not WMD per se, but terrorist strikes, etc).  But, that is why if we do need to take military action, I wouldn't want to see us simply take out a few nuclear sites with bunker busters.  I think we would need to conduct a much larger operation, destroying their air defenses, command and control, and other military targets.  The goal should be to not only seriously damage their program, but do enough damage to minimize their retaliatory capability.  I would envision very few if any ground forces beyond special ops.  We should be able to pretty much destroy their navy and air power with our own.  No need to engage ground forces.  

 

I would not involve the UN.  The UN is useless beyond anything more than humanitarian aide and racking up parking tickets in Manhattan.  My view was once that we're better off influencing the UN than ignoring it, but that view is quickly changing.  THe UN does nothing productive.  It is corrupt, anti-semetic and anti-American in large degree.  It is completely ineffective at preventing conflict, stopping the spread of WMD, etc.  It's also beholden to an antagonistic China and less-than-friendly Russia, who can veto anything we want to do anyway.  I say do it with Israel and call it a day.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

Unfortunately, a successful test is likely the only demonstration that we are likely to get.  I believe that both seismic and EMP signals are a giveaway to a successful nuclear detonation.  Neither of these exist without success, so how would we even detect a failed test.  The only way we would even know of a failed test is if Iran were to announce either their intentions or their failed results, neither of which I think they would be likely to do.

 

The options don't look good concerning Iran.  Ryan, and Obama for that matter, have the right of it in that the only good way to resolve this is to have Iran give up it's nuclear ambition.  This has got to be the goal for both Republicans and Democrats and I believe that it is, one of the fewer areas of honest agreement.  If Iran won't give up it's ambitions we should absolutely go in with a UN force.  If the UN won't in the end sanction this method...  I really don't know.

 

The UN will do nothing.  If we have to take military action, we do it alone or with a few nations that share our interests.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #101 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I meant that a weapon test does not demonstrate deliverability, and I would not necessarily even expect a first test to be successful.

 

Interesting list of actions, but what do you mean by military action. Invasion looks like the only real option - is that what you had in mind? With or without UN sanction?

 

They can't yet get a weapon here, but they can do a whole lot of damage.  They can hand it off to terrorists.  They can get it to Israel.  They can threaten our forces in the Middle East.  They can essentially blackmail the United States and Israel.  This is worse than a war right now.  

 

As for the military option, I again would like to see it avoided. We can assume Iran will retaliate aggressively with conventional and non-conventional attacks (not WMD per se, but terrorist strikes, etc).  But, that is why if we do need to take military action, I wouldn't want to see us simply take out a few nuclear sites with bunker busters.  I think we would need to conduct a much larger operation, destroying their air defenses, command and control, and other military targets.  The goal should be to not only seriously damage their program, but do enough damage to minimize their retaliatory capability.  I would envision very few if any ground forces beyond special ops.  We should be able to pretty much destroy their navy and air power with our own.  No need to engage ground forces.  

 

I would not involve the UN.  The UN is useless beyond anything more than humanitarian aide and racking up parking tickets in Manhattan.  My view was once that we're better off influencing the UN than ignoring it, but that view is quickly changing.  THe UN does nothing productive.  It is corrupt, anti-semetic and anti-American in large degree.  It is completely ineffective at preventing conflict, stopping the spread of WMD, etc.  It's also beholden to an antagonistic China and less-than-friendly Russia, who can veto anything we want to do anyway.  I say do it with Israel and call it a day.  

 

I'm sure we could do a lot of damage from the air, but if I were them I would have put the operation underground and out of reach from air strikes. Invasion is a very unattractive option though.

 

I think you have mischaracterized the UN. It's not anti-US, but it does suffer from veto problems, especially from the Russians and Chinese.

post #102 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I think you have mischaracterized the UN. It's not anti-US, but it does suffer from veto problems, especially from the Russians and Chinese.

 

I don't think that he mischaracterized the UN at all. It is comprised of so many dictatorial regimes and non democratic countries, that the UN is basically a threat to the free world and to all free people. The US should pull out of the farce known as the UN. I would like to see the UN destroyed.

post #103 of 239
Thread Starter 

So tonight is the second debate. CNN is hosting it along with moderator Candy Crowley.

 

As we can see, CNN has some history of problems related to "undecided voters."

 

It turned out the "undecided" voters were all Democratic bloggers, staffers and activists.

 

I think it has been rather interesting how each time the bias of media activists has harmed the Democratic ticket. In the first instance with Obama, he had spent so long taking soft-pedaled questions, setting up strawmen and knocking them down (some say....), and finally caricaturing his opponents that when he had to deal with reality, he sort of withdrew and sulked.

 

Biden on the other hand came out swinging for the most part and probably would have had a pretty good debate, but, in my opinion at least, the moderator initially was acting very biased, and spent disproportionate time basically repeating and asking Ryan to defend Biden claims. It caused a two-fold problem. First Biden had to complain he wasn't getting time (hard to get when your time is an accusation which the moderator then seizes and throws at the opposition candidate) and second the calm responses along with accommodating moderator allowed Biden to basically become UNHINGED. He began giggling, laughing and heckling Ryan.

 

Clearly this sort of behavior wasn't seen in a favorable light. Being enabled, hurt rather than helped Democrats.

 

One thing that really has been shown to me across both debate so far, and I hope this continues tonight is that it is much easier to get by and be efficient with your time when you are presenting a plan rather than demonizing your opponent. Certainly both Romney and Ryan have criticized the Obama first term, but it's so easy to do that it comes across as almost a zinger. Trickle down government, what you spent on green energy could have hired 2 million teachers. The points are quick and they stick. The short-hand Democratic dog-whistles if you will, clearly don't translate well to undecided voters and trying to defend a record along with trying to demonize an opponent means that even with MORE time in each debate, they've not been at the better end of such exchanges.

 

I expect another round of the same tonight.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #104 of 239

Let me say right now...  Irregardless of how the debate turns out I think this is the least useful of the debates.  The format does not allow for follow-ups or any back and forth between the candidates.  If Obama or Romney throws out something off the wall or blatant red meat, there is to be no chance for a rebuttal?  For instance if Obama talks about Romney's $5 trillion tax cut for the rich, then it's just supposed to stand without any attempt by Romney to clarify it.  Or the reverse, if Romney says that his healthcare plan covers pre-existing conditions then Obama doesn't get a chance to push him on just how it accomplishes that and still saves money?

 

The debate seems stacked mostly in favor of the moderator and her bias since she is picking the questions and there is no rebuttal or back and forth.  This is why I see this debate as having the least value of the three.  I would much rather hear one candidate put forward a policy initiative and then have the other candidate offered the chance to question it or pick it apart.  This debate isn't a debate so much as joint Q&A.

post #105 of 239

I don't get why just about every single moderator chosen has to be some disgusting liberal loon? Why do the Repubs even agree to go along with that?

 

What would Democrats say if Rush Limbaugh were chosen to moderate? 

post #106 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I don't get why just about every single moderator chosen has to be some disgusting liberal loon? Why do the Repubs even agree to go along with that?

 

What would Democrats say if Rush Limbaugh were chosen to moderate? 

 

Are you suggesting that Rush is a disgusting right-wing loon?

post #107 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Are you suggesting that Rush is a disgusting right-wing loon?

I don't listen to his show, as a matter of fact, I never listen to the radio.

 

I am suggesting that liberals would claim that he's a disgusting right-wing loon.

post #108 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Are you suggesting that Rush is a disgusting right-wing loon?

I don't listen to his show, as a matter of fact, I never listen to the radio.

 

I am suggesting that liberals would claim that he's a disgusting right-wing loon.

 

Just checking.

post #109 of 239

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #110 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm sure we could do a lot of damage from the air, but if I were them I would have put the operation underground and out of reach from air strikes. Invasion is a very unattractive option though.

 

I think you have mischaracterized the UN. It's not anti-US, but it does suffer from veto problems, especially from the Russians and Chinese.

 

My understanding is we have the capability to reach those facilities.   As for the UN, we disagree.  As Apple ][ says, there are many non-democratic, dictatorial and corrupt regimes that are part of the organization.  Leadership of various commissions and committees rotates.  For example, the commission on human rights was held by non other than Libya several years ago.  The UN is a joke, and has beee for decades.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The rules of the debate

 

Pretty pathetic.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #111 of 239

Ah, Romney is wearing his blue tie tonight.  That means he's in favor of more government funded college educations.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #112 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm sure we could do a lot of damage from the air, but if I were them I would have put the operation underground and out of reach from air strikes. Invasion is a very unattractive option though.

 

I think you have mischaracterized the UN. It's not anti-US, but it does suffer from veto problems, especially from the Russians and Chinese.

 

My understanding is we have the capability to reach those facilities.   

 

Where did you learn that?

post #113 of 239

Which deductions Mr. Romney?  Oh, OK, he'll make up a number.  Got it.  What a well-thought out plan.

 

No tax on capital gains helps the rich more than anyone else, Mr. Romney, you two-faced liar.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #114 of 239

Just describe your fucking plans in detail, Romney.  Is it really that fucking hard?  Which deductions?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #115 of 239

No need, Mr. President, for you to lie about Mitt Romney's immigration position regarding the Arizona law.  Romney has plenty of other hypocrisies that could be exposed--no need to fabricate one.

 

Edit:  Mr. President did clarify his claim in that Romney's immigration advisor wrote the Alabama and Arizona laws in question.  So, not a total fabrication.  Half-truth, most likely.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #116 of 239
Thread Starter 

Remember America, you have $4.00+ per gallon gas because this economy is so amazing that there is just incredible demand.

 

Remember America, Fast and Furious shows Obama's gun control policy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #117 of 239

I'll wait for the fact checking before discussing winners and losers.  Sounding confident but lying one's ass off does not a winner make.  Again, highly disappointed that Romney didn't get into any specifics regarding his tax plan.  I would love if rates could drop for everyone while being budget neutral.  I'd also like a genie to grant me infinite wishes.  Neither seems likely.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #118 of 239

Ms. Crowley:  Hypothetically, what would you do if the numbers don't add up?

Mr. Romney:  The numbers do add up!

 

Good job there, Romney, for not understanding what hypothetically means

 

 

Imagine you are on an airplane.

I'M NOT ON AN AIRPLANE!

 

Yes, but imagine you are.

I'M NOT ON ONE.

 

That's not the point.  What if you were?

NOT ON ONE, NOPE.

 

*sigh*

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #119 of 239

The Obama camp's new spin on Libya is that the White House recognized it as a terrorist attack and then the President went to a fundraiser in Vegas.

 

That's going to make things better.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #120 of 239
Thread Starter 

Perhaps an unbalanced moderator would stop asking a candidate to address hypothetical failure while ignoring the very real failure we have in office now.

 

Interesting tidbit. Across three debates, Republican candidates have gotten almost 9 fewer minutes of talking time even when it seems like they are having to be aggressive or interrupting to get to speak.

 

Tonight Romney was given 4 fewer minutes of talk time during the debate. He made some devastating points even while watching the dealer (moderator) deal from the bottom for the other candidate.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Debates: Three President/One VP