fwiw: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57537795/poll-decisive-win-for-obama-in-final-debate/ Also video: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57537795/poll-decisive-win-for-obama-in-final-debate/
It has one already: http://sportstwo.com/threads/222943-THIRD-PARTY(S)-2012-PRESIDENTIAL-DEBATE-OCT.-23
i dont know about aircraft carriers but submarines are not included in the number of ships. In fact, the number of subs are kept secret.
I watched most of the debate and then got bored. Seemed like Obama was looking to try to embarrass Romney at every step with his experience. Obama gambled that an aggressive tone (and being able to say he won 2 out of 3 debates) would seal the deal. It didn't, obviously, because most Americans right now just don't care that much about Syria or Libya or Israel or anything beyond their next paycheck, health care bill and/or mortgage. Romney, by contrast, seemed to realize this debate could really only hurt him. Nobody is going to vote for Romney because of foreign policy. Undecideds just want to know he passes "The Button" test, meaning he won't nuke the planet on a whim. And I think he more than passed that test. It was a pass/fail test for him, and he passed it by playing it cautious and implying he'd pretty much do what Obama has been doing, only with more boats. So the debates are over, and I stand corrected. I thought they'd be an utter waste, and really two of them (#1 and #2) were quite good in helping me understand the candidates better. #3 I thought was interesting in helping me put our role in the world more in context, so even that one had some merit. These were by far the best presidential debates I can remember going back to at least Clinton. It terms of entertainment/drama and information/education about the candidates.
lol. I'm a pretty liberal Democrat, so my choice is obvious. But having seen Romney pass through these debates, I gotta admit he's alright. I disagree with some of his policies and I think it's hilarious how he gets away with changing his mind on practically everything, but I respect his intellect. Being President is a lot about improvising, and everything about him is improvisational. I've given up hope on his policy prescriptions because he'll just change them anyway. Sandra Day O'Conner was picked by Reagan, remember--not everybody turns out like you think they will. But the Republicans stepped up their game in my view over their recent candidates. I lost all respect for McCain when he chose Palin. I lost all respect for Dubya pretty much from the get-go. I thought he was a nincompoop, and his handling of Iraq and so much else pretty much bore that out. But these debates have led me to believe I can disagree with Romney yet still respect him. He's plastic and awkward, but in a Ned Flanders kind of way that has an underlying layer of competence about it. I could live with him in the same way I could've lived with Gore or Kerry. I'd prefer Obama. But if he loses, I'm glad for our country that he's not losing to a buffoon or somebody who picked a buffoon for his vice president.
I suggest we table this discussion until one of two things happen: One of us changes worldviews vis-a-vis mass murder and "Might makes right" (which hasn't been in vogue since before the Magna Carta) and dictatorship, or you read up on the examples I brought up.
To be fair, MARIS suggests that it is the people (in your examples) who should have defended their own rights and sovereignty vs a 3rd party nation stepping in.
Mook, you pretty well covered how I was thinking last night, but then I got to thinking about it more. The moderate version of Romney I saw last night appealed...he seemed pretty reasonable, but that same Romney was sounding very right wing during the primary. I think he's incredibly gifted at telling people what they want to hear in the moment, but the downside is that it's hard to find him credible when you put the whole picture together. He's been all over the place in a number of different issues. The way he approached debate #1 versus #3, was wildly different. You could say it was just smart strategy on his part, but it leaves me not knowing what he's about. His big focus on the economy also leaves me confused...I like the idea that we can cut taxes, increase defense spending and decrease the deficit simultaneously, but it feels like the equivalent of building a perpetual motion machine.
No, they're not. You can look up in Jane's for the exact names, and the numbers are on wikipedia. One thing I was hoping to hear (but didn't) was a discussion about how the budget cuts that the military has already signed up for and those projected (through sequestration or new budgets) will shape the force heading toward 2020 and beyond. Right now we have fewer submarines and carriers than any other time in the last 50 years, while our missions (as defined in the national security strategy and other governing documents) have only increased. Part of my work on the outside was projections of force levels with funding requirements for new classes of ships as these retire. In the next 20 years, there are Congressional requirements to have updated classes (due to performance and security requirements, as well as aging) of a) ICBMs (currently an Air Force-only force), b) sea-launched nuclear missiles, c) ballistic missile submarines (Ohio replacement), c) carriers, d) continuing the Virginia class production runs (which are currently under budget) while the Los Angeles class ages out and retires, and e) replacements of the conventional ships -- destroyers and frigates -- that are the backbone and force multiplier of the various partnerships we're setting up around the world (in order to have a smaller military overall). And that's just the Navy.
Although I am voting for Romney, I am not buying hook line and sinker that he can do the things he claims. He will not decrease the deficit. But I do beleive he will make tough cuts and not spend as much as Obama. (There is a whole debate I will push aside if the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class stays the same" is that good for the country.)
mobes, I know you understand how you can cut tax rates and raise revenues. How about if you tax 60M people instead of 50M? Those additional 10M would be people who aren't working now that either get good new jobs or who push those already working up the income ladder. I think that's what both he and Ryan mean when they talk about broadening the tax base. Another way of broadening the tax base is if these 60M people also earn 1.x times what they make now, due to a good economy. Another way they can raise revenues while lowering the actual rates is by the elimination of deductions. Romney didn't even pay 15% tax rate for capital gains, more like 14%. So if we actually made him pay 15%, you'd get 1/15th more money just from him (and everyone like him). What I feel Romney and Ryan have not explained very well is the ultimate benefit of lower tax rates, even if there were NO deductions at all. Every additional $1 you earn at lower tax rates means more money you get to keep. This is a pretty good incentive to work longer, harder, smarter, invent things, and so on. Things that ultimately will make the economy stronger and lift all boats, so to speak.
So we should've just let Hitler continue his power grab? Since the Poles, Czechs, French, Romanians, Belgians, Danes obviously didn't want to keep governing themselves? While some may be all for government based on genocide of the opposition, I think that's dangerous. We saw what the "self-governance" Japan ruled over China in the 20's and 30's led to, and that's not something I'm prepared to accept, either. Like it or not, we're a global world now. The time when you could just leave good people alone to deal with genocidal dictators ended a while ago. And it's nothing new. We were a "3rd party nation" stepping in against the Barbary pirates, against the dictators of the Banana Republics, against Austria-Germany in WWI and the axis in WWII, during the Cold War, Kuwait, Kosovo, OEF and OIF. And as long as you have veto authority for the members of the UN Security Council who are only about self-interest, you're going to need to maintain a strong, global force in order to maintain your way of life.
I don't know what would have happened with Hitler if we let him continue his power grab. It seems to me he would have lost to Russia and/or he'd have run out of money. There's a difference between sending out the navy to protect our merchant ships from pirates on the high seas and using the military to install governments in 3rd world nations (banana republics). The former is protecting our people against, well, piracy The second is making us into the enemies of entire nations of people. And we value our society because we fought for it. The Afghanis don't seem to value much of what we gave them after occupying their nation. I mean, they call Karzai "the mayor of Kabul," which is ridiculing our efforts.
He also would've had jet fighters and nuclear weapons. I'm less cavalier with lives of people being victims of genocide, I guess. Call me a bleeding heart. Is Iraq our enemy right now? And we value our society because we fought for it. The Afghanis don't seem to value much of what we gave them after occupying their nation. I mean, they call Karzai "the mayor of Kabul," which is ridiculing our efforts.[/QUOTE] First, I think you need to meet more Afghans. "They" who call Karzai the "Mayor of Kabul" is less a ridicule than a statement of fact. The centralized government still hasn't gained a foothold in (or supplied money to) the villages who have not cared about what went on in Kabul/Kandahar for hundreds of years. That doesn't mean that it's not working, or it's not safer, or the quality of life isn't immensely better. And not to derail the discussion, but less than 9% of Americans alive have ever put on a uniform to fight for it. That doesn't mean that the 91% don't deserve those rights or value it less.
Hitler wouldn't have had nukes, and like I said, he probably would have run out of money. For all the horror of the genocide he committed, they ended up using gas chambers because bullets cost too much. The people of Afghanistan don't want the government we're foisting on them, or they would call Karzai the president of their country.
My suggestion goes a bit further, that governments "propped up" by the US or others are doomed to fail due to lack of representation by the masses.
