Debate 3: The Season of the Witch (AKA Last Stand; AKA The Final Conflict)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mannahnin**

AduroT wrote:
dogma wrote:
RiTides wrote:
I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama.
I've said this many times before, but I feel it bears repeating: there is no reason to consider bipartisanship good. In the past that was how our government functioned because the parties were less powerful, and geographic circumstances tended to have a greater impact on how any given representative would vote. Bipartisanship in that case wasn't a good thing so much as the natural result of political reality, which was itself largely shaped by limited media access.

If you want to end the present gridlock, then what you should be pushing for is the lifting of restrictions on legitimate third parties while also forming coalitions of like-minded individuals who can fund them.
I like the idea of bipartisanship. I would like to see the parties working together and more honest compromise. IMHO I think Obama tried to do that initially. He tried to reach across the isle, but with the responses he got, I'm surprised he didn't pull back a bloody stump. I wonder how much more might have gotten done if when the dems had both houses they just said screw it and did everything their way with no effort to compromise.

Agreed. They and we might have been much better off had they not wasted a year pandering to Republicans and trying to get bipartisan support on healthcare. If they just worked on their own party (which was difficult enough) and passed a bill in a couple of months, then went straight to jobs and stimulus. Instead of spending the summer with the Republicans making up paranoid fantasies about death panels and scaring panicky seniors into screaming at their representatives at town halls over the summer, just ram it right through and then on to jobs and economic stimulus. They had two years and if they were more aggressive using them, instead of wasting half the time just trying to get Republican cooperation on health care, they might have gotten more done and kept the respect of the electorate instead of getting punished in 2010.

I think Obama was too idealistic and too optimistic about bipartisanship. At least until after the ACA fun times.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Yup... we're the "gimmie dat" generation...

No, we're people. The poor have always wanted their lot improved. The rich have always wanted lower tax cuts. The military has always thought they needed more money because the enemy might just have something deadly.

This is just how people are.

Well, except Eisenhower. That dude straight out warned you all about building a military industrial complex. Y'all seemed to have ignored him, though, which is a bit of a shame.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:
Perhaps it's just the politics of not wanting to talk down an operation that you are, or maybe soon will be, commander in chief of?

Romney's FP narrative, via Ryan and other proxies, has focused strongly on the fact that Obama didn't secure a SOFA in Iraq and has, thereby, failed to secure our gains. If he pushes the blue on green issue and says we should pull out he looks like a hypocrite, which is charge many have leveled against him before. If he doubles down he runs into the issue of how unpopular Afghanistan is.

If Obama does the same he either looks like he's sacrificing American lives for his own purposes, or feeds the argument regarding the absence of a SOFA with Iraq.

This is a point which Romney could easily have won, bar the focus on the Iraq SOFA.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:
Well, except Eisenhower. That dude straight out warned you all about building a military industrial complex. Y'all seemed to have ignored him, though, which is a bit of a shame.

Seriously, every time I read one of his quotes on the topic I'm saddened.

**azazel the cat**

Bromsy wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
whembly wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\

You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?

Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Ouze wrote:
sebster wrote:
Well, except Eisenhower. That dude straight out warned you all about building a military industrial complex. Y'all seemed to have ignored him, though, which is a bit of a shame.

Seriously, every time I read one of his quotes on the topic I'm saddened.

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, MOH, had some pretty interesting things to say on the subject in his 1935 book "War is a Racket"

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
whembly wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\

You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?

Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.

We out produced them and out repaired them. The issue with having Mercedes technicians make your tanks is you need Mercedes technicians to fix them. The American Shermans, Pershings, etc were easy to repair under just about any circumstance short of being actively shot at and had a mild mobility advantage on heavier German armor. The Panzers had their weak point but yeah over all the Allies won the armor war in Europe via mass shell fire from an ever growing line of Sherman, Churchill and Matilda main gun barrels.

However ships aren't tanks so taking this argument, even by way of comparison is more then a little silly. Personally I see a significant benefit to having a large Navy and Airforce even in peace time in the modern day and age. Ships and modern 4.5/5th gen aircraft take a significant amount of time to build. You can't just draft up a new Arleigh Burke class ship or blink in one of the new Aircraft Carrier or DDX class hulls like it's I Dream of Jeanie.

**sebster**

azazel the cat wrote:
Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.

No, that's completely wrong.

You look at the significant German victories, you look at the Fall of France, you look at Barbarossa putting them within sight of Moscow, and they did that with MkII, MkIII and a fairly small number of Mk IV tanks. French tanks were for the most part better than the Mk II and Mk III tanks, and only the Mk IV was comparable to the Soviet Mk IV, and even then the Soviet tank was overall superior and vastly more numerous.

You don't see Tigers in action until Case Blue, which vastly under achieved compared to what it needed to, and you don't see Panthers until Kursk, which was, of course, pretty much the last roll of the dice for the Germans, before Soviet production overwhelmed them.

And note that Kursk was July 1943. That's the same time the Western Allies were landing in Italy, and months before lend lease to the Soviets was up to meaningful amounts. The Germans were outgunned by production capacity, but it was Soviet production that did it, not American.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
We out produced them and out repaired them. The issue with having Mercedes technicians make your tanks is you need Mercedes technicians to fix them. The American Shermans, Pershings, etc were easy to repair under just about any circumstance short of being actively shot at and had a mild mobility advantage on heavier German armor. The Panzers had their weak point but yeah over all the Allies won the armor war in Europe via mass shell fire from an ever growing line of Sherman, Churchill and Matilda main gun barrels.

The Matilda? Ever growing line of Matildas... uh, they were out of production in 1943 and pretty much rubbish for at least a year before then, and phased during the North Afican campaign and never deployed to Western Europe, are you sure you didn't mean something else? Firefly maybe?

And the Western Allies success in Western Europe was due to three things - overwhelming air superiority, crippling resource shortages for the Wehrmacht preventing them from launching properly supported offensives, and the fact that about 80% of Germany's forces were in the East, getting their heads kicked in by Operation Bagration.

And of those three, only the last one really counts.

However ships aren't tanks so taking this argument, even by way of comparison is more then a little silly. Personally I see a significant benefit to having a large Navy and Airforce even in peace time in the modern day and age. Ships and modern 4.5/5th gen aircraft take a significant amount of time to build. You can't just draft up a new Arleigh Burke class ship or blink in one of the new Aircraft Carrier or DDX class hulls like it's I Dream of Jeanie.

Yes, but when you're facing a real and pressing budget issue, how much more stuff do you need than everyone else combined?

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
Yes, but when you're facing a real and pressing budget issue, how much more stuff do you need than everyone else combined?

And then once you answer that question, answer it again with the knowledge that any war that could possibly require the use of such a large military would be almost guaranteed to go nuclear, at which point the only forces that matter are the ICBMs.

**RiTides**

Mannahnin wrote:
RiTides wrote:
Particularly his closing statement. Obama's chance to win back my vote was to say more of what HE would do, to continue to guide the economy without going further into debt, to handle the issues abroad (since this was a foreign policy debate), and to work with Republicans.

I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama. And that's what I'm voting for. I'm sick of this gridlock. Both side blames the other, but only one candidate was using language about working WITH the other side today... and that's the candidate that has won my vote over the last month of debates.

So, again, as someone who registered to vote for Obama 4 years ago... I'm voting for Romney based almost solely on these debates. I can't trust ads / news / talking points / etc. I was going to base my vote on what they said. And from what they said, I like Romney more for the economy, and he moderated his stance to be more of what it was when he was governor, and what I would be willing to vote for. I like Obama, and do not regret my vote from 4 years ago. But the time for "emergency measures" and insane levels of spending, starting with Bush and continuing with Obama, is over in my opinion. Give me a businessman who will project a strong stance of America abroad, yet take a moderate stance when actually governing (as he did in Massachusetts, afaik but I'm sure Mannahnin would know better).

Speaking as someone who lived next to Romney's state the whole time he was there, and for years before and after, he has substantially overblown his achievements in bipartisanship. His main ability to do that was because in Massachusetts he was willing to adopt more moderate views. He instituted the precursor to Obamacare, which was a Republican idea but served the Democratic aim of covering the uninsured. His party has since completely disowned the concept for purely political reasons.

I don't see the spending of the last four years as in any way insane. The tax and spend policies of the Republicans and the Democrats during the Bush administration are what drove us into the hole we're in. Two unfunded wars and an unfunded mandate of Medicare expansion, done in a way which categorically refused to use the collective buying/bargaining power of the program to get cheap Rx prices and instead was a massive giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. Combine those with a massive housing bubble and financial markets collapse brought on by deregulation and insufficient oversight of suspect investment instruments. This has resulted in a massive loss of tax revenue as well, which is a big part of what's keeping the deficit big. The deficit will to a large extent repair itself as the economy recovers. The recovery would have been faster (as economists like Paul Krugman have pointed out) if we actually had MORE and smarter spending, but the nature of our gridlocked government has made that extremely difficult if not impossible.

Romney's continued pretense that the last four years have been anything other than a slow but stead climb out a ditch we drove into at high speed over the preceding eight years is simple denial of reality. Said pretense makes implicit the promise that he does not intend to continue the policies that are continuing our recovery, but instead wishes to go back to Bush-style tax and regulatory policies that will drive us right back into the ditch.

My only shadows of doubt about that are the ones engendered by his substantial inconsistencies and ambiguities in rhetoric and policy over the past twelve months. He won the first debate by completely changing his expressed opinions and plans and agreeing more with the President's policies, so the President wasn't sure quite how to respond. He kept this one close again by agreeing on the vast majority of specifics (especially in regards to foreign policy), and disagreeing in generalities and non-factual areas.

Mann, you'll note I mention Bush when I spoke of the deficit. I registered to vote for change and vote for Obama 4 years ago.

"More and smarter" spending of course would've helped, but I do not believe federal government to be capable of it. Nor do I think we need it now. We need to wean off spending.

I am a moderate. Pure economywise, Romney looks better. I drive past a closed solar company every day on the way to work. I work for a startup of 35 people. As an independent, moderate voter, Romney makes more sense for the economy.

Indeed, the fastest way to lose my vote would've been to suggest "more and smarter" spending. The federal government is simply incapable of such, imo. My personal finances might look good if I could just spend more... but enough is enough. I also blame Bush. But I want solutions, not finger pointing and More spending. 16 trillion IS insane when we were at 5 before Bush's 8 years, and 10 before Obama's.

I'm voting based on that and Obama failed to address my screaming concerns about it. I would've liked to vote for him again

but can't risk the idea he'll continue to spend, and fail to work with Republicans. How do you think "horses and bayonets" will play after the election? What happened to the positive man I voted for? The buck has to stop with him... he has done OK, even well, but he is complicit in the demonizing of the "other side", and gridlock, and I think moderate Romney (the only kind of rep I'd consider, same for dems) will get more done in the coming 4 years. Obama will only do so if he sweeps Congress. And that's been incredibly disappointing to me as an independent voter of his.

I know, blame the republicans- but the buck stops with the president. I will swing again if Romney wins but fails to work across the aisle, or deliver on smart trimming of the insane deficit path we're on.

**Ouze**

Peregrine wrote:
sebster wrote:
Yes, but when you're facing a real and pressing budget issue, how much more stuff do you need than everyone else combined?

And then once you answer that question, answer it again with the knowledge that any war that could possibly require the use of such a large military would be almost guaranteed to go nuclear, at which point the only forces that matter are the ICBMs.

Well put.

**RiTides**

Also, as an Obama voter, I do view his as being too idealistic at the beginning. But saying "screw them" and ramming through his own agenda, as some are suggesting above, regardless of opposition (which is not even possible with the filibuster) is not what I want my elected officials to do.

In fact, it is the fact that we're at that point (with him saying "I could say the sky is blue and they'd disagree with me") is a big part of the reason I have swung.

I understand the Republicans dug their heels in. It's just basic negotiating. You don't turn and complain to the voters "They won't work with me", you dig your heels in and you work out a compromise. He showed his hand too early, how far he was willing to bend, and the Republicans of course asked for more. If you've ever bought a car you'll know exactly what I'm talking about!!

It really bothers me that Democrats blame the Republicans, then use language like "horses and bayonets" and act innocent. I HATE the moral high ground, on both sides. Democrats saying they're more compassionate, Republicans more mindful of god, whatever. I want solutions, and solutions involve working ACROSS the aisle. Obama simply hasn't done it. He's the freaking president. If anyone can do it, it's the president.

Note how much more he got done in the spring when he started characterizing Congress as a "do nothing" congress. That's just being smart, and forced them to pass a few things that there was absolutely no hubbub over because he played it well. I don't want to hear excuses from my PRESIDENT. Get. It. Done.

If they had rammed through more democratic agenda items without working with Republicans, I would've swung my vote sooner. As it is, I'll be holding Romney to the same standard. With any luck, there will be a democratic Senate, and he'll HAVE to work with them. And how well he does that will primarily determine whether he has my support again in 4 years, or not.

Demonizing the other side never got anything done, imo. Smart negotiating does... and imo Obama was simply too idealistic and not smart about the way he approached Congress at the beginning, and then began demonizing the other side (as they were to him) and it all went downhill. I want compromise, I want moderation... comments like "horses and bayonets" are NOT winning my independent vote.

**AustonT**

Mannahnin wrote:I'm absolutely in favor of updating stuff. When I've read up on it, I've usually see a ton of waste in procurement and development of new weapons systems. We've got to keep those costs under control and not waste billions at a whack on wonder planes and gimmicks which don't fulfill real needs or perform as needed.

And seriously, how many carrier groups do we have, again? How many does every other nation have, put together? By just how MUCH do we need to outgun everyone else put together, including our allies?

Is sent a PM to Whembly about some navy facts and summed t up with "Naval procurement is pandemic." We don't need wonder planes or ships, just real world combat units that suitably replace their predecessors without diminishing capabilities at a similar cost. Instead we get neutered, one size fits all, extremely expensive units that diminish our capabilities as they replace systems designed 40 years ago.
If we have a battle group for every carrier then there would be 11 CBG, organizationally I'm sure there are 11 but much like boomers it takes 3 carrirs to maintain one CBG on station. One on its way out or completing refit to go, one on station, and one on it's way back or in refit. A carrier group is a lot more than just a tit for tat number it's an all encompassing package that can make war on our behalf anywhere in the world so a real question would be "how many countries can be effected by a carrier group?" but the answer to your question is 8, without the Brits in the game there are 8 non-US carrier groups.

Mannahnin wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
whembly wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?

Nope. More like the argument for why Marine Recon troops are worth their cost and are a more effective fighting force, even in fewer numbers, than folks like Iraqi Republican Guard.

The Navy really is a numbers game. It's all well and good to say we have more carriers than the world combined, I'm more concerned about Cruiser, Destoyers, Frigates, and Corvettes. The backbone (and the numbers) of the fleet. Less numerous but more technical ships can't covr the numbers gap in those units, and because they aren't terribly glamorous no one is fighting for them beyond saying a number.

Digression: I found out today that "Fruity" Rudy Reyes, from Generation Kill, actually played himself in the miniseries! That's the real dude playing himself; the prettiest marine. Mind = blown.

I thought everyone knew that...the gunny is from the unit too I think. But on that I am not sure. Those guy's actual involvement probably made the show what it is.

Ouze wrote:
sebster wrote:
Well, except Eisenhower. That dude straight out warned you all about building a military industrial complex. Y'all seemed to have ignored him, though, which is a bit of a shame.

Seriously, every time I read one of his quotes on the topic I'm saddened.

He was almost prophetic.

**Alfndrate**

Piston Honda wrote:
Obama won big time, however, I am not so sure if it will stop the rise of Romney in the polls or turn it around as this campaign is more about economy and majority of voters believe Romney is better suited.

will probably come down to Ohio.

hope there is no foul play.

Awww, thanks man. We're finally important... again... once every four years... *sigh*

I made a comment in the voting machine thread... 88 counties in Ohio, 3, maybe 4 counties consistently vote democrat. They're basically Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Hamilton County (Cincinnati), and Franklin County (Columbus). Occasionally you see Dayton and Youngstown crop up on the dems side of things, but for the most part, 84 counties vote Republican... Here is a little image form the New York Times from 2008:

Barack beat McCain by 3.5%... Yet look at how many counties voted for Barack, yes, those are your major metropolitan areas, and yes they have a larger population, but its CRAZY to think that Ohio voted for Bush in 2004, and this was the difference in counties:

It's not that big of a difference, which goes to show how important Ohio is... Sadly, it's ONLY during the election season, otherwise no one likes our state lol.

**AustonT**

Don't worry you guys will slip back into obscurity shortly with Drew Carey Show and Hot in Cleveland reruns.

**mattyrm**

azazel the cat wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
whembly wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\

You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?

Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.

Yeah I dont want to piss on anyones chips like, but this isn't even debatable. Tech is everything.

When we invaded Iraq, one British Challenger rocked up in the desert, blasted 8 T55s to gak, and then happily drove off, took less than a couple minutes.

If you turn up with 10 ancient tanks/jets/ships against one top of the line one, your getting fethed 6 ways from Sunday no matter how you slice it.

Its probably the same with guys too.. I bet I could take out 30 Pygmies armed with Guava Halves if I had an MP5 and a few magazines.

**Alfndrate**

AustonT wrote:
Don't worry you guys will slip back into obscurity shortly with Drew Carey Show and Hot in Cleveland reruns.

if only I could find reruns of the Drew Carey Show...

**KalashnikovMarine**

mattyrm wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
whembly wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\

You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?

Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.

Yeah I dont want to piss on anyones chips like, but this isn't even debatable. Tech is everything.

When we invaded Iraq, one British Challenger rocked up in the desert, blasted 8 T55s to gak, and then happily drove off, took less than a couple minutes.

If you turn up with 10 ancient tanks/jets/ships against one top of the line one, your getting fethed 6 ways from Sunday no matter how you slice it.

Its probably the same with guys too.. I bet I could take out 30 Pygmies armed with Guava Halves if I had an MP5 and a few magazines.

That was a particularly vicious slice of mango wasn't it sir?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Link relevant: http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/10/navy-deploys-uss-constitution-to-strait-of-hormuz/

Apparently the squids are taking the U.S.S Constitution back under arms they're so short of hulls in the water to meet operational needs.

**AustonT**

Arg, Biden is on CBS just falling all over himself, they really just should hide Joe somewhere until 2016.
Edit I guess it's from last night.

**KalashnikovMarine**

AustonT wrote:
Arg, Biden is on CBS just falling all over himself, they really just should hide Joe somewhere until 2016.
Edit I guess it's from last night.

Oh Uncle Joe, always thinking of the American people and providing comic relief to Barry's straight man.

**Alfndrate**

Quite the comedic duo those two. All we need now is like 1980s music and we can have a buddy cop movie

He's a straight shooting cop from the streets of Chicago trying to make his way to Captain. He's the department veteran, content where he's at. Together they're, Obama/Biden in Buddy Cop Movie 5: A Black guy and a White guy...

Ya know, not to be confused with Buddy Cop Movie 1: Two White guys, Buddy Cop Movie 2: Electric Boogaloo, Buddy Cop Movie 3: A Guy and Gal, and Buddy Cop Movie 4: A White guy and a Black Guy

**Manchu**

azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Holy crap, I want to print this out and frame it.

I know, this is like performance art.

Meanwhile, how does anyone think Mitt Romney will really be able to work with Democrats? I mean, the onus has been on Democrats to work with Republicans for the last four years, with Republicans constantly moving the goal posts on what they're willing to talk about. Now Romney says he will reach out to Democrats because he was able to do so in Massachusetts? I don't think so, Mitt. This whole election has been a complete repudiation of those days. Choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate is a very clear signal that Romney has zero plans to work with Democrats in anything but the our-war-or-the-highway approach of Ryan and the rest of the Tea Party.

**AustonT**

They really are like The Good Guys, but Obama is Colin Hanks.

**Manchu**

RiTides wrote:
What happened to the positive man I voted for?

He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.

**AustonT**

Manchu wrote:
RiTides wrote:
What happened to the positive man I voted for?
There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.

Yeah not voting for the same guy from the same party is treacherous partisan hackery.

**daedalus-templarius**

RiTides wrote:
Also, as an Obama voter, I do view his as being too idealistic at the beginning. But saying "screw them" and ramming through his own agenda, as some are suggesting above, regardless of opposition (which is not even possible with the filibuster) is not what I want my elected officials to do.

In fact, it is the fact that we're at that point (with him saying "I could say the sky is blue and they'd disagree with me") is a big part of the reason I have swung.

I understand the Republicans dug their heels in. It's just basic negotiating. You don't turn and complain to the voters "They won't work with me", you dig your heels in and you work out a compromise. He showed his hand too early, how far he was willing to bend, and the Republicans of course asked for more. If you've ever bought a car you'll know exactly what I'm talking about!!

It really bothers me that Democrats blame the Republicans, then use language like "horses and bayonets" and act innocent. I HATE the moral high ground, on both sides. Democrats saying they're more compassionate, Republicans more mindful of god, whatever. I want solutions, and solutions involve working ACROSS the aisle. Obama simply hasn't done it. He's the freaking president. If anyone can do it, it's the president.

Note how much more he got done in the spring when he started characterizing Congress as a "do nothing" congress. That's just being smart, and forced them to pass a few things that there was absolutely no hubbub over because he played it well. I don't want to hear excuses from my PRESIDENT. Get. It. Done.

If they had rammed through more democratic agenda items without working with Republicans, I would've swung my vote sooner. As it is, I'll be holding Romney to the same standard. With any luck, there will be a democratic Senate, and he'll HAVE to work with them. And how well he does that will primarily determine whether he has my support again in 4 years, or not.

Demonizing the other side never got anything done, imo. Smart negotiating does... and imo Obama was simply too idealistic and not smart about the way he approached Congress at the beginning, and then began demonizing the other side (as they were to him) and it all went downhill. I want compromise, I want moderation... comments like "horses and bayonets" are NOT winning my independent vote.

This totally makes sense. (sarcasm)

"Just keep working out a compromise guys, even if the other side continually moves the goal posts regardless of how close you come to their side!"

Smart negotiations, lol. Have you met the Tea Party?

I want moderation, and more moderates as well, but there is a limited amount of things you can get done when the other side vehemently disagrees with everything you do, regardless of what it is. Your argument seems to hinge on people being better at agreeing, but both sides have to move for that to happen.

Manchu wrote:
Neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan will do anything to make the Republican Party more moderate.

They most assuredly will not. Paul Ryan is a tea party hero, what with turning medicare into a voucher system.

**Manchu**

Neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan will do anything to make the Republican Party more moderate.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Did Mitt really say that Syria is Iran's path to the sea? I'm sure he mentioned that. It would be worrying if he did.

**daedalus-templarius**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Did Mitt really say that Syria is Iran's path to the sea? I'm sure he mentioned that. It would be worrying if he did.

He said it a few times actually. It doesn't really make sense.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

That, and that alone is reason enough to vote against Mitt. If he becomes commander in chief, US marines will be pitching up in Wales, not Iran!!

To be fair, these are high pressure debates, but his blunders are coming think and fast. Reagan blundered as well, but those were funny blunders.

**gorgon**

Y'know, I've gone on record here saying that while I'm voting for Obama, I'm not worried about a Romney administration. But I'm growing less fond of Romney the more I see him, just because -- as Madeline Albright offered -- there just doesn't seem to be a lot of substance to the guy.

I know, I know -- Obama hasn't exactly laid out his plan for the future either. But I'm familiar with Obama and feel like I have a sense of what another four years will feel like. And besides, I'm talking about Romney.

I've been comparing this election to 2004 for a while now, but Romney's strategies down the stretch seem a lot like Bush's in 2000. Namely, just "get skinny" and avoid creating sharp policy distinctions, spout some general platitudes, and then hope to get lucky on election day. More and more, Romney reminds me of Dubya, and that's troubling because I kinda had an impression Romney was a man of much more ability. I'm less convinced of that now.

**Jihadin**

Do believe Romney meant the Med when he mention Syria being Iran its access to the sea. So both end of the Seuz Canal can be influence by Iran.