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.

How are we liking it?

I think Obama's more credible and cogent, but then, I agree with him on most things. I don't think he's curb-stomping Romney as well as I'd like.

I do think the tone has been more respectful and constructive than the last one. I suspect that the comedy speeches at the dinner helped defuse some of the unpleasantness.

At work, so will likely pull it up on YouTube later. Judging by Facebook Obama is still destroying this county, didn't kill bin Laden, and will kill Israel.

That's all I got to work with.

Obama is stomping him a bit on Detroit. Just got a lovely troll face again as Romney made himself look like a tool.

That "game of Battleship" comment cracked me up. "There are the boats that go under the water ..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"I think we all love teachers." Hmm, not all of us I suspect ...

Yeah, he smacked him around a bit on the Navy, but I still think he could have done more.

..........

It blows that Romney's getting the last word again.

I only heard a little bit this morning.

It was really interesting to hear both candidates talk about Afghanistan, both using fairly positive terms for the training programs of Afghani local forces.

Having had a few highly publicised Australian casualties killed in green on blue incidents, that kind of thinking simply doesn't exist here. I'm not saying the American position is wrong (I suspect it's probably a lot more right than our position)... just that it's interesting how much it can differ between allies over a few incidents.

It was interesting to see them both avoid the subject of green on blue attacks.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It was interesting to see them both avoid the subject of green on blue attacks.

It's a thorny subject for both.

Obama talking about it can open attacks for "why leave if they are not ready for peace".
Romney talking about it can open attacks for "why stay if they are killing us."

Yup. No profit there for either.

"Horses and bayonets" was pretty good.

Green on Blue?

Afghani troops who are nominal allies killing our people.

It was interesting to see them both avoid the subject of green on blue attacks.

Thats not a question either candidates can fully answer. Should have been asked to someone like Gen Allen or Patreus to get a clarified answer.

But it's a legit question to ask in relation to policy on Afghanistan and whether our works have been fruitful and the country is better off. Afghanistan is a big, hard question, and it justifies hard questions like that one.

Republican friends on Facebook are saying Romney screwed this one up and lost.

I do think he did. He got told on Israel, too. I loved the bit where Obama contrasted their visits to Israel. Romney did it for fundraising; Obama visited the Holocaust museum and familes who've been victims of missile attacks. Romney had no response to it.

Horses and bayonets and binders, oh my!

Debate Hard: With a Vengeance was interesting.

Ah! That's the one I was originally going to use, but I blanked. Decided to go with the Halloween theme (and throw in X-Men).

Somebody is already jumping on the fun saying and posted this:



I asked him if that meanst Romney will lead the attack against fellow Americans and kill them to have his way since he is leading the Confederates....

People keep on unfriending me...

The "green on blue" question though covers too much

1. Did you know we were not allowed to play 40K or explain 40K to them if Afghani were near by? Something to do with Chaos Gods and the Emperor being veiwed as a God

2. We've a hard date of withdraw

3. Slang

4. Personnel space issue

5. Pay

6. Easily influence still

To name a few.

 Mannahnin wrote:
How are we liking it?

I think Obama's more credible and cogent, but then, I agree with him on most things. I don't think he's curb-stomping Romney as well as I'd like.

I do think the tone has been more respectful and constructive than the last one. I suspect that the comedy speeches at the dinner helped defuse some of the unpleasantness.

I agree that the tone was more respectful.

However, as someone who first registered to vote for Obama 4 years ago, and has swung towards Romney after the debates (was still leaning to vote to re-elect Obama before the first debate) I was again disappointed by Obama's tone.

What happened to the man I voted for, who was going to work across the aisle? Horses and bayonets... are you serious?

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).

I will say I was disappointed with Romney for the far right rhetoric used to get the Republican nomination. But as a moderate, independent voter, I am glad he has moved to a more central position. I wish he would be more consistent on his stances. But honestly, this race has been as much about Obama losing my vote as it has been Romney winning it... and Romney has taken the strides he needed to for me to feel confident enough to vote for him, and Obama has not addressed the huge, screaming issues in my mind (16 TRILLION in debt................) enough for me to want another 4 years of his term (although again, I am happy that I voted for him in 2008).

Sorry for the book, had been waiting to give my stance until all 3 debates had concluded, but my mind is now made up... and I'll be early voting this weekend.

I think Manny live further up north....New Hampshire?

I wanna say first and foremost... nothing in this debate changed the dynamics of the race, Having said that, here's what I got...

Mitt Romney: Attacking me is not an answer.

Woah...

Barack Obama: Here’s what I’ve learned since being the Commander in Chief – You gotta be clear

I think I heard this at least twice... uh...Benghazi anyone? Failed Hounduran coup? Iranian Green Revolution?

The only thing clear about Obama foreign policy is that the perception is he treats our friends like enemies and our enemies like friends.

Obama says our alliance with Israel is stronger than ever…

Really? Does Bibi know this?

Obama talks down to Mitt Romney – “We got ships that go underwater called submarines.”

They’re called boats.. Prez dude.... Submarines are called boats.

And the Horses / Bayonet comment... uh, as far as I know, the Marines still use Bayonet... don't they that Jihadin? (irrelevent tho, but funny)

Mitt Romney: On day one, I will call China a currency manipulator. It will allow us to put tariffs on goods where they’re stealing jobs.

I think this was Mitt's strongest part of this debate.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
What's interesting I thought is that Romney had ample opportunity to engage the Libyan/Bengahzi snafu... I wonder if he chose not to in order to be more moderate or un-Bush like...?

Mitt's bits on currency manipulation are silly. Obama should probably have pointed out that we did that several times in the 90s and it had no useful effect. That's why we stopped doing it.

Personally, I thought the movie was really good. I can get into Nick Cage's performance - always a wild card in situations like this - while also enjoying the continued brilliance of veterans such as Ron Perlman. I felt that the scenery was brilliantly portrayed, no doubt due to the fact that it was mostly filmed in eastern europe - far superior to a studio for a film such as this. The only part of this epic journey that I had an issue with was the ending, which upon further investigation was changed and tacked on at in post. Overall, I give it a B+.




Wait, what the gak are you guys talking about?

 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.

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.

Obama's got the uphill fight of the economy. When people are hurting they don't necessarily look back too far for causes. This is why Romney is able to use "we can't take another four years like this" as a slogan and argument. Because he can rely on a large number of voters disregarding the fact that the last four years have been a difficult climb upward out of a ditch Obama didn't drive us into, but that took years of tax policy, spending, and housing bubble to dig.

In our divisive political climate people also have (to some extent) the ability to choose their own facts. Both Obama and Romney quoted factual numbers about the economy is the debates. They each talk about the numbers which favor their argument and spin events to favor their view. The average viewer already has his mind made up, and rather than researching them, just chooses to believe the guy he already agrees with. Most folks don't want to read a ton of websites, papers, articles and so forth to fact-check them both. Not to say that doing so will necessarily result in agreeing with me, of course.

I thought the exchange wherein Obama schooled Romney about naval power vs number of ships was extremely telling about just how out of touch and unqualified Mitt Romney is for the job, and even hints that he has no understanding whatsoever of global power struggles.

I honestly think Romney came off looking like the say-anything-to-win-but-don't-understand-it-myself stereotype he has been played up as.

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?