Obama/Romney final debate 2012 live blog
It should be unlimited now. Everyone should be able to get in. If anyone wants to help with comments, let me know and you’ll get an invitation to be a “producer”. Accept that and your comments will be unmoderated and you’ll be able to help approve comments.
Category: 2012 election
I deny that Obama’s behavior was in any way “churlish”. Far from it, given Romney’s previous debate antics, and the fact that Romney was reversing his positions on a dime, i’d say his behavior was kind. Plus he can’t win. If he’s aggressive he’s “churlish” if he’s not then he’s on drugs. But, again, your evading my points through semantics. Furthermore you’re pretending that semantics are substantive and that substance is semantics. But to address the semantics: 1. the statement was obviously a joke. The audience laughed. It was, to quote the Romney campaign, a zinger. In society we give more leeway to jokes when facts are concerned. No one really does sit around the house, and it just takes one polish person to screw in a light bulb. Even the article quoted above admits that the bayonets line is being a “stickler”. If he left it to just “horses” he’d be completely correct factually. But in any case, i’d say that not knowing the basic geography of the Mid-east- that Syria and Iran are not contiguous and that Iran has its own coast line- is a bit more of an oopsie then not knowing the number of bayonets now vs. the number of bayonets then. Yes, i did use the royal you rather than “some of you” to save typing. Sorry if it caused confusion. For obvious reasons i often find myself arguing with many people at once around here. Plus you’re missing my point (and this time i mean you in particular). That is that the fixed date for the Afghanistan pull-out was NOT a minor point up until Monday. I gave you that link and you can clearly see that Jonn, Hondo, and Sparky all castigated Obama for this policy. And Romney, up until Monday seemed to agree with them. Now he’s changed his mind, has given no notice as to why, and the focus of your ire is on a bayonets joke? Why isn’t Sparky angry over Romney leaving the troops “hamstrung” and “twisting in the wind”. Why isn’t Hondo outraged about Romney endorsing the foreign… Read more »
Since you are so concerned with geography, did you criticize Joe Biden for saying that Syria is 5 times larger than Libya?
I’m not sure of the context. In terms of population, Syria is quite a bit larger than Libya. But yes, that is a fair criticism to make of Biden if he was talking about land area.
The only reason i brought up Romney’s “path to the sea” gaffe is because folks here seem to be trying to make hay over the number of bayonets of today vs. yesterday. I’m actually trying, with no success thus far, to take the conversation AWAY from semantics and into substance. Namely getting an explanation as to why the folks that were pissed about Obama’s Afghanistan policy aren’t pissed now that Romney has adopted it.
I do believe that Romney was refering to the path to the Mediteranean.
Syria is not a path to anything for Iran. The two countries are NOT connected.
You are correct. Somewhere right now my old Geography teacher is silently weeping.
It’s ok. At least you knew that Syria borders the Meditaranean. That’s better than 99.99% of the folks out there.
And unlike me, you can spell Mediteranean correctly! 😉
Sippy: the term you were looking for is “geographically contiguous”, not “connected”. The former implies “side by side”; the latter doesn’t necessarily. Syria and Iran are indeed connected politically and militarily these days.
Twist: while Syria and Iran are not geographically contiguous, the Iraqi government is reputedly allowing Iran to supply Syria via ground transport. So long as that is allowed, Syria effectively becomes Iran’s outlet to the Mediterranean.
I used the term contiguous in post 51, Hondo. It didn’t catch so i changed terminology.
While you may be right that Iraq is allowing Iran to supply Syria 1. I doubt it was Romney’s intention to highlight another foreign policy disaster of the Bush administration 2. That’s still a far cry from the implication that Iran needs Syria as a port.
Out of 21 countries the only country that prefers Romney to Obama is Pakistan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/23/poll-finds-20-of-21-countries-strongly-prefer-obama-exception-pakistan/
Insipid, minor fact that escaped your black hole of a brain: under Bush, Iran wasn’t transitting Iraq to supply Iranian forces in Syria. They had to use a sea route and cover of international waters.
It’s okay. Blaming Bush means Obama is either incompetent or a party to Iranian belligerence. Which is it today?
Go ahead and ask for further instructions. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is in fine form today.
Yeah, Insipid, we should all vote for Obama because 20 countries prefer him over Romney, because those countries care about what happens to Americans, they have our best interests at heart. And Pakistan is hoping, wrongly, that Romney won’t use drones in their country.
Insipid: having only Pakistan prefer Romney is not an indictment of Romney, nor an endorsement of Obama. It is an indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, so ably miscarried out by the terminally vengeful Madame Secretary.
You don’t think Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, Poland, Japan and South Korea have our interest at heart, Jonn?
#65, no, I don’t and only a fool would think so. Nations act in their own interests, and their citizens do as well. It’s terribly naive of you to suggest otherwise.
Sippy: So you knowingly used the wrong term. Pray tell, what else do you knowingly write here that is incorrect? Yes, Iran does have a coastline. It’s choked by the Straits of Hormuz. So it doesn’t provide a particularly good way for them to ship items – oh, say, military supplies – to their “friends” in Gaza or other locations in the Med. Syrian ports, in contrast, do provide a good way to do that. Especially with the cooperation of a grateful Syrian government. The political preferences of foreign citizens for one candidate over another are as relevant vis-a-vis a US election as a gynecologist would be in a monastery. In case you’ve forgotten, Sippy: until elected President, individuals don’t have foreign policy. Something called the Logan Act, as I recall. They have foreign policy proposals. And, as you doubtless know, foreign policy proposals often change when one enters office. Want an example? Talk to me about the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Now, about your allegations concerning Vietnam. Once again, you prove yourself either lacking in reading comprehension skills or mendacious. You’d be well-advised to recheck the link you cite above in comment 48 above where you claim I castigate Obama’s policy as being the same as Johnson’s in Vietnam. I did no such thing. In fact, Vietnam is only mentioned once in that entire article and comment string – in comment 13. And in that comment, I expressly indicated that our current policy and strategy in Afghanistan to date – e.g., direct intervention and forcible regime change – has been diametrically opposed to Johnson’s regarding North Vietnam. Here’s the text; the context is a discussion of what the US would do after we hypothetically left Afghanistan if al Qaeda moved back into Afghanistan and began using it as a base of operations. CI: you’re presuming we’d do more that lob a few standoff munitions if AQ moved back into Afghanistan. History says otherwise. Without a cooperative government that gives up permission to engage, we almost always respect the sovereignty of other nations when it comes… Read more »
@62- The last several months of the Bush administration had our forces locked up in the green zone. I’m not sure what Bush was doing that would prevent Iran from using the Syrian port, if they so desired. They wouldn’t need to, however since the sanctions now, are MUCH greater than the sanctions then.
Either way, we went from arguing semantics to arguing a fictitious even. There’s no reports i’m aware of of Iran using Syria as a port. And if that were the case, isn’t the fact that Iran has to go through such great and expensive lengths to evade the sanctions a testament to the sanctions succsss?
Palmerson said it best, Sippy: “Nations do not have permanent allies; nations have permanent interests.” Jonn’s right. None of the nations above have US interests at heart. All have supported us in the past – and all have opposed us. It depends on whether our interests and theirs coincide.
Of course France, who just voted in a Socialist President, would endorse Obama.
Oh and the first three years of the Obama administration had us “locked in the Green Zone”. I was there in 2008-2009 and we most certainly where conducting combat operations for the final months of Bush’s Presidency. I would also like to add that we didn’t shut down the COPs and move onto the FOBs until June/July 2009. I’m not sure if it was your intent, but the first sentence of your statement in #68 is false.
I was taking into account that the word “contiguous” is not used everyday and that there is a possibility that Twist didn’t understand what i meant. I just used a more every-day term to save time. Which of course didn’t happen since you’re a word-cop. By the way, i’m NOT insulting Twist here. He may of known what the word contiguous means and just didn’t read my whole post. Or missed it, or whatever. It’s not really a thing, unless you insist on making it one.
Obama never changed his stance on Gitmo and, as recently as an interview last month, still states that he wants to close it. The problem was that he couldn’t get Congress to fund it.
If i misunderstood your reference to Vietnam, i apologize. It was a long thread, you wrote a lot in your battle with CI and I’ll admit to skimming. However it does seem pretty clear that you were against Obama’s- and now Romney’s- policy of setting a definate date for withdrawal. Here’s what you wrote:
“IMO, if we leave the Taliban will view this latest 10+ years worth of warfare exactly as they did all these previous conflicts: just another temporary foreign invasion successfully reversed by largely Pashtun efforts. AQAM will play on that theme, and will stress the fact that they helped the Taliban evict us. Back to the Future, circa 1996.”
Sorry, i don’t know how to use fancy-pants italics or bold like you can.
Sippy: BULLSHIT. The US was heavily involved in operations in Iraq throughout 2008, to include northern Iraq. Once the height of the Iraq “surge” passed in late 2007 and things began to cool down in Baghdad proper, the Mosul area got VERY hot for a while.
Where in the hell do you think Mosul and Kirkuk are? I’ll give you a hint: they’re not in Central, Southern, or Western Iraq.
Further: US forces were not “bottled up” in the International Zone (AKA “Green Zone”) until well after major withdrawal started in mid-2009. The last US combat brigades didn’t depart Iraq until Aug 2010.
And before you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, Sippy: just how much time did you spend in Iraq in 2007 and 2008? If the answer’s zero – you might want to quit while you’re ahead.
Sippy: and where do you get that as a comparison to Vietnam? Let me give you a hint, fella – it wasn’t LBJ that pulled US forces from Vietnam. Up until March 1968, he steadily increased the level of US troops in-country. US force levels peaked that month at somewhere around 536,000. They were still close to 475,000 when Nixon took office. Nixon’s the one who pulled the US out of Vietnam. My objections to Johnson’s Vietnam policies are numerous, but they’re not what you obviously and erroneously think they are. For starters, my problems with LBJ’s Vietnam policy begin with the fact that he (1) lied to the US to get us involved in the first place prior to the 1964 election, (2) continued to lie about how deeply we were becoming involved in 1965; (3) committed US combat forces without consulting Congress in mid-1965; (4) had subordinates lie repeatedly to Congress about the cost of the involvement; (5) refused to level with the US public about the projected costs (human and financial) of the war because he was afraid it would have likely cost him his “Great Society” programs, and (6) refused to attempt to get the US public behind the war effort. Once the US was committed, LBJ also micromanaged both the conduct and strategy of the Vietnam war, famously boasting that “they can’t bomb an outhouse in North Vietnam without my permission”. His acquiescence to Westmoreland’s strategy of attrition in South was IMO also particularly asinine – the Vietnamese had proved throughout history that they were willing to suffer great losses when fighting outsiders. And, finally, while LBJ inherited a true mess from Kennedy (particularly after the Kennedy-administration engineered coup that ousted Diem) in Vietnam, the decision to commit US forces to Vietnam was LBJ’s. I still have yet to figure out precisely what US national interests, other than prestige, were at stake in Vietnam and why it mattered. LBJ never asked two basic questions: (1) “Does Vietnam matter, and why?” and (2) “Is it worth the costs we’ll have to pay?” For that most of… Read more »
I thought i already admitted that I skimmed the blog post and that I got your views on Vietnam wrong, Hondo. In fact i apologized. Do you want me to rend garments or something? I’ll also stipulate that I was relying on memory as to when the actual fighting stopped in Iraq. The agreement that eventually led to the draw-down was done by the Bush administration and I will agree that Obama is kind of unfairly taking credit for that.
But all of that is not my main point. It’s incredible to me the difficulty I’ve had getting anyone to address it. Namely: why aren’t you upset about Romney embracing Obama’s foreign policy?
While i was wrong about your opinion on Vietnam, i think I did get your views right concerning announcing the withdrawal date. What has changed for you since April that NOW makes that strategy palitable now that Romney holds it?
Plus he didn’t just endorse Obama’s future foreign policy, he endorsed his past foreign policy as well. He seemed to be with Obama’s handling of the Arab spring, his handling of Iran, and his handling of Syria. Before he was talking about being a LOT tougher, even going so far as to bring the navy into the gulf, now he seems to think that’s a crazy idea.
And none of that has ME upset. If he does happen to become President I’d much rather have him follow Obama’s foreign policy than Bush. But at least as far as Afghanistan goes you seemed to be more in line with Mitt 1.0 than 2.0. At least you were before.
Now, this issue seems to be subverted by the overwhelming importance of determining just how many debates were there in 1917? And the question i ask AGAIN is, why aren’t you upset about Obama’s foreign policy when Mitt Romney has it?
I met bayonets in 1917…. Sorry, nouns are HARD!
SIPPY … where the hell have you been?
@ Sippy …. You wrote ….
@47- Sparky, as much as you may want to deny reality, Obama is winning. Barring some major happening in the next two weeks, President Obama will still be POTUS on January 21st, 2013.
I laughed so hard my right eyeball popped out, I blew an ear drum, and pissed myself … Thanks Sippy!
I believe that I will be the one laughing on November 7th, MCPO. Time will tell.
@77. I’ve been volunteering for the Obama campaign in what little spare-time i have. I live in Ohio.
That is not the real Insipid. The real Insipid is with Zool in the Gulag. Do not be misled by false inspidness.
Master Chief, who are you talking to?
@ Ex-PH2 …Sippy … I think!
I believe that I will be the one laughing on November 7th, MCPO.
You keep believing that, sippy. Of course, that laughter might be of the straitjacket/rubber room variety, but YMMV.
Barring some major happening in the next two weeks, President Obama will still be POTUS on January 21st, 2013.
Yeah, like an actual election where the New BPP thugs aren’t trying to club little old ladies trying to vote.
Sparky!! I thought Zooool had you down for the count!
Who the fuck is Zool? And… i guess no one will ever answer my question.
Back to our mutual tauntings concerning the election:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/time-poll-obama-by-5-points-in-ohio?ref=fpb
Obama up by 5 in Ohio. Kindly explain to me how Romney can win without Ohio?
Ignore the peasant.
I am Zoooool. I am the Destructor, minion of Gozer.
I have banished and implanted the real Insipid to gulag, mostly for misspelling my name.
How did I misspell “shit for brains”?
False Insipid, you need a dictionary?
In the words of Denzel (sort of):
Zool ain’t got SHIT on ME!!!
And sippy, I can point to polls which had Obama up by 16 in NH, only problem is, they’re mostly horseshit put together by a bunch of college kids who are then taught how fucked up their methodology was.
Problem is, they still keep making the same stupid mistakes.
Look at early voting data in swing states. Hate to tell ya, but it ain’t looking good for ya.
The ONLY way Obama has a chance is if turnout is at the same level and party breakdown as 2008, which is where a lot of these polls are trying to use for their internals.
Sadly, 2008 was an outlier, and the actual turnout is closer to 2004 breakdown, which if that holds, Romney is going to win, and win BIG.
See ya November 7th. I’ll be here either way, to let you gloat (not likely) or accept your humble apologies (again, not likely, but I can hopey/changey with the best of them.)
I’m sorry, but i can tell you that both statistically and from first hand viewing that Obama is FAR ahead of Romney in terms of early voting. People walk in holding ballots and I can scarcely ever see a Republican. Right now Democrats are leading Republicans two to one in early voting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20047369
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/obama-campaign-sees-edge-in-early-vote/
And, Nate Silver who’s usually pretty accurat has Obama at a 71% chance:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
I said it to you before, and i’ll say it again, i’d rather be us than you all.
ABC, BBC, and the 538. Yeah, real balanced viewpoints there.
Thanks, but I’ll stick with Rasmussen and Gallup.