Alfndrate wrote:
Where's the Avengers' carrier?

It's cloaked in that white space at the bottom left.

In other semi-debate-related news, Romney hit 50% for the first time in the newly-released Washington Post/ABC News poll. Obama's at 47 percent.

Other national polls showing Romney with the lead:

Rasmussen: 50/47
AP: 47/45
Gallup: 50/47
Politico: 49/47
Monmouth: 48/45

 Seaward wrote:
In other semi-debate-related news, Romney hit 50% for the first time in the newly-released Washington Post/ABC News poll. Obama's at 47 percent.

Other national polls showing Romney with the lead:

Rasmussen: 50/47
AP: 47/45
Gallup: 50/47
Politico: 49/47
Monmouth: 48/45

I don't trust any polls..

Wasn't McCain leading Obama a bit this close to '08 election? (I need to check... brb)

 whembly wrote:
Wasn't McCain leading Obama a bit this close to '08 election? (I need to check... brb)

No.

Edit: To clarify, according to the RCP average, at this point in 2008, Obama had a 7.6 point lead. Romney currently has a .9 point lead.

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wasn't McCain leading Obama a bit this close to '08 election? (I need to check... brb)

No.

Edit: To clarify, according to the RCP average, at this point in 2008, Obama had a 7.6 point lead. Romney currently has a .9 point lead.

Oh... damn... this election is close...

Do Europeans have no farms or do they all just hang out in bad technobars from the 80s drinking and smoking bad cigarettes like their stereotypes of them that are popular in the US? Funny stuff.

Don't knock German techo. IMO, German techo is probably the greatest thing the Germans have given the world, that and the ability to max out on Panther Tanks in a late war Flames of war army!

That being said, no insult was intended against our American cousins. The video just made me laugh. Living in a city, I don't get to see many things with four legs.





Back OT: Go Mitt!

 Monster Rain wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
@falcon I don't need a substantive argument to counter the garbage you have posted ITT. Mirth and derision will suffice

@MGS QQ more
That is all

I love how certain individuals on dakka can admit in print that they are consciously not trying to add anything constructive to a discusssion and are in fact intentionally attacking others and yet their posts are allowed to stand and the poster allowed to continue to troll away...

Dakka moderation ftw...

True. They are slacking.

Why, they haven't deleted your post as off topic spam!

Wait... Gah! The irony!

Ditto.

 Seaward wrote:
In other semi-debate-related news, Romney hit 50% for the first time in the newly-released Washington Post/ABC News poll. Obama's at 47 percent.

Other national polls showing Romney with the lead:

Rasmussen: 50/47
AP: 47/45
Gallup: 50/47
Politico: 49/47
Monmouth: 48/45

To make matters worse, Romney has a much higher approval rating in the southern states than Obama enjoys in other states.

So the question is how those polls got their numbers. If they are a random sampling of X voters from across the US, then thats great news for Obama, as when you factor in "The Solid South", then Obama should have an edge in swing states.

If those are only polls from the swing states this year, then its really good news for Romney.

If those polls grabbed the percentage of people from each state as to the states corrosponding electoral vote count, then its good news for Romney.

So really, how you make your poll can dramatically alter not only its results but also who its favoring.

 d-usa wrote:
Just because:

I think this photo is actually short a couple US carriers in the left hand column. Looks like it does reflect the retirement of the U.S.S Kitty Hawk though

It has all 9 LHDs. I'm just confuse led as how the top and bottom one are the same. One of them has to be Enterprise. And one has to be Bush...and they aren't exactly identical ships.

Totally off-topic to what this discussion has become, but this is the perfect representation of the OT during election season :

It will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks.

If only. If Romney pulls it out my wife will use that as more leverage to get me to move to Europe.

 Mannahnin wrote:
If only. If Romney pulls it out my wife will use that as more leverage to get me to move to Europe.

Seriously. I'm a straight male who can pass for white pretty easily, lives well above the poverty line and is in a (comparatively), safe career. I am pretty well insulated from the damage that could be done with president Romney + republican congress. Tons of other people though, have their rights on the line. For those folks a Romney win could be something they're going to remember and feel the impact from for decades.

EDIT: Not that president Romney would be terribly beneficial to me either, it's really a wash with both candidates in terms of how it'll affect my day to day life.

I'm curious as to the types of people they're polling with these things.


Is this drop because of that 'Not optimal' sound-byte that was taken horrendously out of context?

 Mannahnin wrote:
If only. If Romney pulls it out my wife will use that as more leverage to get me to move to Europe.

Phrasing

 AustonT wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If only. If Romney pulls it out my wife will use that as more leverage to get me to move to Europe.

Phrasing

Wow, man.

Well played.

 Mannahnin wrote:
If only. If Romney pulls it out my wife will use that as more leverage to get me to move to Europe.

I'm working on a thesis that the, "If X wins the election, I'm leaving the country," statement has been made in every election since Washington took office.

I didn't see this thread until now.. It wasn't as good as the Biden Debate. Both of them restated the same drivel and made the sam, boring objections to each other.

I wish Phoenix Wright and Edgeworth were real.

Chongara wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If only. If Romney pulls it out my wife will use that as more leverage to get me to move to Europe.

Seriously. I'm a straight male who can pass for white pretty easily, lives well above the poverty line and is in a (comparatively), safe career. I am pretty well insulated from the damage that could be done with president Romney + republican congress. Tons of other people though, have their rights on the line. For those folks a Romney win could be something they're going to remember and feel the impact from for decades.

EDIT: Not that president Romney would be terribly beneficial to me either, it's really a wash with both candidates in terms of how it'll affect my day to day life.

If Romney wins (he won't), I would expect robbery-theft crime rates to soar.

 Chongara wrote:
I am pretty well insulated from the damage that could be done with president Romney + republican congress. .

The damage that a Romney + Republican congress is about the same as we saw from 2008 to 2010.

You would have democrats filibustering every crazy bill that came across the plate. Romney, like Obama, would need to have 60 votes to do anything. As we saw before, its hard to get a 6/10 majority to do anything.

 Mannahnin wrote:
If only. If Romney pulls it out my wife will use that as more leverage to get me to move to Europe.

It's actually much harder to 'pack up and move to another country' that one might think. Unless you already enjoy dual citizenship, you will need to worry about a job, work permits, etc..

It's much easier if your spouse holds citizenship in the country to which you want to move.

However it is fairly easy for a US citizen to get a visa to the UK as long as you have good job-worthy skills. For starters there is no language barrier.

I'd be naturally more inclined to stick it out; Chongara's echoing my thoughts (though I'm white). She's been wanting to move back to Europe for a while, though, and it'd be one more argument in support.

And yeah, people who talk trivially about leaving the country after an election are silly.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'd be naturally more inclined to stick it out; Chongara's echoing my thoughts (though I'm white). She's been wanting to move back to Europe for a while, though, and it'd be one more argument in support.

What, that her preferred candidate lost?

Or was she one of the many living in the camps during the Bush years? I mean, don't get me wrong, I believe people wake up every morning with an instinctive feel for which party is in power, and there are thousands upon thousands of indications when you walk through the streets whether it's an enlightened Democrat or a totalitarian Republican - you're actually allowed to walk through the streets of your city under a Democrat, for one, as opposed to being ferried to the Republican pepper mines - but...

Actually, come to think of it, I have noticed zero difference in my day-to-day between administrations.

It's not just about one candidate; the candidates we have are indicative of bigger problems with the country.

Or was she one of the many living in the camps during the Bush years?

No, she's not from Iraq.

This is why I think Obama will win...

People will believe what they want to believe...

It's "Wizard's First Rule"... (anyone knows where that came from?)

Ignorant people supporting their team without paying attention to policy aren't really a partisan issue. They're more of a univeral problem, exacerbated by the crappy way our news media covers politics.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Ignorant people supporting their team without paying attention to policy aren't really a partisan issue. They're more of a univeral problem, exacerbated by the crappy way our news media covers politics.

Yup...

And that's why Obama will win in my opinion.

If you think they're a bigger population on the Obama side than the Romney side, you're just exemplifying the problem.

I do it sometimes too.

 Mannahnin wrote:
If you think they're a bigger population on the Obama side than the Romney side, you're just exemplifying the problem.

I do it sometimes too.

heh... touche...

But, yeah... you're right. We all do it to certain degree.

Yeah we do. We all think we're better-informed than other people, and that if someone disagrees with us, there's a flaw in their reasoing or we possess facts of which they're ignorant.

I hope Obama win because I agree with more of his policies. I think the way he's handled foreign policy has been pretty dead-on, and his social policies are almost entirely in accord with my views. Domestic and economic is more debateable, but I still think he's more on the right track than not.

He disappoints me in a bunch of areas too, and IMO the Dems and Reps are still way too similar too each other on a lot of important stuff, like corporate welfare, civil rights, domestic spying and Patriot Act-style crap, drug policy...

After the consequences of the 2000 election, though, I can't write off the differences as unimportant. I know a lot of centrist liberals who supported McCain in 2000.

Kilkrazy wrote:For starters there is no language barrier.

Isn't there?

Mannahnin wrote:IChongara's echoing my thoughts (though I'm white).

Lacist

Mannahnin wrote: I know a lot of centrist liberals who supported McCain in 2000.

If I had to guess I'd say that's because McCain is more of a classic Republican than the strain of Religious Right we are becoming used to. All things considered he's probably more liberal than some Democrats, certainly more liberal than the party elites would like.

AustonT wrote:If I had to guess I'd say that's because McCain is more of a classic Republican than the strain of Religious Right we are becoming used to. All things considered he's probably more liberal than some Democrats, certainly more liberal than the party elites would like.

You've got your tenses all messed up there. McCain was more liberal. Not anymore. He wanted to be president so badly that he sold his own beliefs over to the Liars for Jesus camp; and now he's just an ultra-conservative, cranky old man that wants those gay kids to keep off his lawn.

 azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:If I had to guess I'd say that's because McCain is more of a classic Republican than the strain of Religious Right we are becoming used to. All things considered he's probably more liberal than some Democrats, certainly more liberal than the party elites would like.

You've got your tenses all messed up there. McCain was more liberal. Not anymore. He wanted to be president so badly that he sold his own beliefs over to the Liars for Jesus camp; and now he's just an ultra-conservative, cranky old man that wants those gay kids to keep off his lawn.

lolwut?

He's the embodiment of a RINO sometimes...

Sheesh...

 Seaward wrote:
There's only so many times I can tell you how wrong you are before it starts to become repetitive. Protection of US commercial assets and related targets is, in fact, among the Navy's many duties. It simply is. In a full-scale conventional war, you're absolutely wrong if you believe merchant shipping would not be targeted. You're absolutely wrong if you believe GOPLATS would not be targeted. You're absolutely wrong if you believe various navigable passages would not be targeted.

And the police will stop a highway man from robbing a stage coach, but pretending that it's a major part of the present mission of the police is just crazy pants.

Just stop doing this. Your absolute refusal to take a back step on anything results in you dragging out the stupidest arguments for page after page after page. And it's the same nonsense everytime, you deny some simple, common sense point that mildly contradicts one slight element of your overall argument, and you just will not back down.

Instead you just make up stupid nonsense about the other person's argument, in this case claiming that I believe that merchant shipping would not be targeted. We both know I never said such a thing, but between 'concede the common sense point that protection fo commercial shipping is not a present operational priority of the US navy, nor is its protection likely to be a critical point of success in a future war', and 'fight to the bitter end by making up stupid stuff' you pick the latter everytime.

Stop it, it's boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
U-boats sinking US ships got us dragged into one of the wars didn't it?

Yeah, the Lusitania. Years later it was revealed the vessel was carrying military supplies.

But it's not really relevant to this discussion, as WWI simply was a technological and military situation unlike today. You just won't get attritional war grinding away at supply convoys like you did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well one of the major incidents that got us into WW1 was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania with 135 American passengers on board by a German U-boat. Hitler's wolf packs during the Battle of the North Atlantic also found great combat success throughout the course of the war, 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships were sunk for the loss of 783 U-boats.

Yes. As I explained already the UK is a different situation entirely, being a small island with noted acute shortages in many major resources. That is not the US. You can't stop US industry by stopping shipping.

So instead you'd have to look at attritional attacks on US shipping. Impacting the overall impact on shipping over months or even years. Ramping the cost in lives and dollars up. But that doesn't make any sense given the destructive power and speed of modern militaries.

Anyone with ports and other conventional assets is going to be looking for the same win condition as the US - rapid and complete destruction of their major military assets before they do the same to yours. Sending out subs or surface raiders to plink a couple of freighters makes as much sense in that environment as a cavalry charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
In other semi-debate-related news, Romney hit 50% for the first time in the newly-released Washington Post/ABC News poll. Obama's at 47 percent.

Other national polls showing Romney with the lead:

Rasmussen: 50/47
AP: 47/45
Gallup: 50/47
Politico: 49/47
Monmouth: 48/45

There's a lot of polls. In any somewhat close election you can pick out the best results for one person and declare them winning. But it's useless. Even with no cherry picking it's useless, as New York picking up another point for Obama moves the national polls but means gak in terms of him winning, because New York is going Obama no matter what.

Here's the list of polls from the last couple of days for Ohio;
PPP 10/28 51.0 47.0 Obama +4.0
Gravis Marketing 10/27 50.0 49.0 Obama +1.0
CNN/Opinion Research * 10/25 48.0 44.0 Obama +4.0
Purple Strategies 10/25 46.0 44.0 Obama +2.0
American Research Group 10/25 49.0 47.0 Obama +2.0

That's giving Obama a 2.6 lead in Ohio. It's not insurmountable, but it means a lot more than there being some national level polls giving the race to Romney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If only. If Romney pulls it out my wife will use that as more leverage to get me to move to Europe.

Seriously. I'm a straight male who can pass for white pretty easily, lives well above the poverty line and is in a (comparatively), safe career. I am pretty well insulated from the damage that could be done with president Romney + republican congress. Tons of other people though, have their rights on the line. For those folks a Romney win could be something they're going to remember and feel the impact from for decades.

Admittedly the Senate is a bugger to predict, but it's looking more and more like the Democrats will keep the Senate.

Which means they'll be fillibustering and everyone gets to argue the opposite of what they were arguing in 2009. Fun times ahead.

Vote for Obama, or else:

 d-usa wrote:
Vote for Obama, or else:

While I love Joss; I'm really more interested in the post war Deco styling of his house than his message. Something something parkour.
I really want to know if he has an original Roos or Lane waterfall chest in his den.

That was funny.

Win.

Tuesday can't come soon enough.

Because time passes slower in election season.

Interesting / good that they both stopped campaigning during the hurricane.

I think that could help Obama, if he shows strength in handling anything that needs doing after.

Oh, and for what it's worth... I have likely swung back to Obama. Honestly, if Romney had been saying what he said the last month all along, he would've had my vote for sure. But I just can't believe it, even though I do think this is closer to his actual views than the far right rhetoric used to get the nomination.

What bothers me is people in the middle-left arguing against what he's been saying recently, just because he said it (in some cases). It was dead-on for me as a moderate. But, he just hasn't said it long enough... and obviously, the fact that it is pretty much indisputably different from what he was saying recently during the primaries bothers me quite a bit.

I know that's our system (the more conservative for Republicans, more liberal for Democrats, candidate will win the primary) but it sucks :-/

Sandy didn't have the same effect as Katrina. So there's not much of a role for the gov't to throw their full weight behind. Obama already declared one disaster area but I can't remember where....anyone know off hand how many he declared and where already?

 Jihadin wrote:
Sandy didn't have the same effect as Katrina. So there's not much of a role for the gov't to throw their full weight behind. Obama already declared one disaster area but I can't remember where....anyone know off hand how many he declared and where already?

I thought he covered most the states before it actually hit.

I expect that he declared pretty much wherever the Governors asked him to. Lynch asked up here, and he complied. NH was hit relatively lightly; I think about a third of folks whose power went out are back on, and they're hoping to have all the power back by the end of the week, and all the roads passable in the next 24-48hrs.