This is topic Duh Debates in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/15763.html

Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Can't hurt to get ready. I do expect them to be very interesting, even illuminating. I read today a sage bit of expectation for Mitt:
quote:
There are three things Mitt Romney must do to win the first presidential debate on Wednesday. Unfortunately, nobody knows what they are.
OK, that could have been more specific, but nobody else has said anything I agree with more. I've been in the Venture Capital world for over 15 years and gone through several investments. One VC described their challenge in a way that echoes that above quip/quote and how I think of Romney's mental approach to politics, thanks to his Bain conditioning: You get about 100 proposals a week. 95 of them are crap, but which ones? You think about the 5 that remain, but 4 of them are crap. Usually you decide the 5th one is crap, too. Maybe you pick 3 or 4 a year. If you're a big firm with lots of Directors, Managers and MBA "staffers" you get more and pick more. For every 10 that you invest in, 8 of them turn out to be crap. The other two maybe you make money, maybe 10x your investment, but one of them goes bankrupt. That's ok, because the two that made money made a huge profit that far outweighs the 8 you lost money on.

Mitt still hasn't narrowed down his policy choices to the 3 or 4 good ones, so the first debate will tell us if he's ready to choose and whether he is choosing crap.

I predict the GOP will declare his performance a smashing success beyond all expectations and he'll get a bounce -- and also that his poll numbers will drop below where they are today within a week.

Obama will be his usual smooth self. People will miss the soaring rhetoric they remember from him last time around and be disappointed. The Party will declare his performance a smashing success, but there will be no bounce -- and after people have had a chance to think about what he said and Romney said, his poll numbers will begin to slowly rise.

And then will come the second debate, but that's in the future so it's a little harder to predict.

The only poll numbers that matter, of course, are the actual poll, but since those numbers aren't in yet, we have to work with what we have to work with.

Wax on, wax off. Will you watch? What do you expect?

[ October 02, 2012, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
I rarely watch these things. Not when I have the awesomely insightful analysis from the Council of Ornerond to sink my teeth into.

I honestly feel this election is in the bag. I've pretty much seen the writing on the wall since February. The President is Bruce Lee on the political stage, facing down Mitt Romney's overweight Sheriff Steven Segal. All Master Obama needs to do is sit back, keep calm, carry on, and do nothing outrageous.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
You mean nothing outrageous like spending 5 trillion dollars in his first 4 years and focusing on health care when he should have addressed the economy? Check!
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
I doubt the debates are going to move the poll numbers in either direction. Obama is too much of a known entity to generate excitement by saying something at a podium, and Romney is too cardboard-like up there to win new friends.

[ October 02, 2012, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
People said similar about Reagan. The debates changed their mind. Not saying it will be similar for Romney, as Reagan was a trained actor and quite capable of projecting image on the stage.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Romney also has a long track record, arguably much longer than Obama's. Digging into Obama's past to challenge his current credentials would be a losing proposition for Romney, given how many positions he has reversed, and even re-reversed, over the years.

I expect Romney to try to counter his image as a glib debater who would say anything by digging in really hard on one or two specifics. He desperately needs to be identified with something other than he's a "proven businessman". Obama will suggest a few specifics on his behalf, which I think will give Romney fits.

"People said similar about Reagan."

Big differences. Reagan was a trained actor with charisma and a winning personality, both of which Romney sorely lacks. "Cringe-worthy" is the characterization I've seen most often when Romney goes for the ad lib or the funny. Maybe Obama will try to force him into either of those...

[ October 02, 2012, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
Sorry, Al, but you're missing the whole point there. Once again, many thought Reagan was "cringe-worthy" too, but his performance at the debates made all the difference. Romney is no Reagan, he will have to stand on his own two feet and I think he's capable of that.

However, Reagan's charm is not what won the election. What did that was failed fiscal and foreign policy, much as we're seeing today. Reagan's charm simply turned his win into a landslide.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Nobody's right, nobody's wrong and nobody knows what's going to happen. I always make a big pot of popcorn for these things. I am aware of only two debates that could be said to have changed the outcome (I have watched all of them), and Reagan's wasn't one (or the other, either). Nixon died on stage against Kennedy, or at least looked like he had, and Gore looked like he wanted to grab Bush and shake sense into him, which made no sense in a debate. Otherwise, they haven't really mattered. Even Ford liberating Poland didn't do him in; his record of acting like he was an acting President did it for him.

Pass the salt, please.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
What Romney needs to do is what he politically cannot do: distinguish himself from Bush.

Ultimately, this (last? current?) recession began with the Bush Administration. They were the guys in charge of the ship when it went aground. If the Presidency is in charge of the economy (and if not, why blame the current President for it? [Wink] ), then they are responsible for the mess of the last four years.

Now the Republicans say they should be in charge again, to steer the ship to safe waters again. But before they can do that, they have to explain what went wrong the first time, and how they won't do it again.

And we all know that, politically, they can't. That would be admitting weakness, admitting they made mistakes. Politicians can't (won't?) do that.

So Romney's stuck. He can make all sorts of grandiose promises of how he'll do so much better than the present President if he were in office, but there is no proof, no actual evidence. There are policies he wants to enact, but they are not clearly distinguished from the policies of the Bush Administration, and not clearly shown to be better. Yeah, the economy might be better for a while, like they were for seven years with Bush. But then they might steer us right back to where we were in 2008. [Eek!]

Promises are easy to make. Any fool can make them. But how can we be confident that Romney's policies will deliver? I can't be, until he explains how we got into this mess in the first place and how his policies will prevent it in the future.

[ October 02, 2012, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
What Romney needs to do is what he politically cannot do: distinguish himself from Bush.

Ultimately, this (last? current?) recession began with the Bush Administration. They were the guys in charge of the ship when it went aground.

Nope. It started in the last 9 months of Clinton.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
The USA has not been in recession for 12 straight years... The last/most recent recession started in December 2007.

The previous recession started in March 2001.

[ October 02, 2012, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I've not been indoctrinated in any economic priesthood, so I don't know where the chicken dropped. http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e03-margaritaville

Whether we started another recession later in the Junior presidency, or whether it's the same recession that Junior started with ...
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
The 2001 recession lasted only 8 months and was fairly minor. There's no realistic way to characterize the following 6 years as a continuous state of recession without completely changing the definition of the word.

You can certainly blame repeal of the Glass-Steagall act for the activity that led to the 2007 recession and you can definitely lay some of that on Clinton's head, but that still doesn't put the USA in recession for 12 years.

[ October 02, 2012, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Can we at least admit that the so called 2001 recession started in 2000?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
No - but you can say that none of President Bush's policies had any effect on causing that recession.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
The issue isn't who kicked the ball. The issue is what the receiver did with it after he caught it...
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
You wish. The ball shouldn't have been kicked in the first place.

First explain the reason for the punt before criticizing the other team's return. Because if you can't, then you're just arm-chair quaterbacking. And we all know how well they do... [Wink]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
My personal opinion is that this "recession" is simply the way things are, after the final deflation of the 60 year post-WWII bubble.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"First explain the reason for the punt before criticizing the other team's return."

Because that team's offense was poorly coached, poorly staffed and poorly executed?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Exactly. Then just explain why it's a good idea to give the ball back to them. [Smile]

IOW, how would they do better this time.

Just saying the other team is screwing up doesn't mean your team will do any better, or even as well.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"My personal opinion is that this "recession" is simply the way things are, after the final deflation of the 60 year post-WWII bubble."

The premise of an endlessly growing standard of living and ever-increasing prosperity is a Ponzi scheme. When the savings rate went negative around 2000 we had to either cash out or watch it fall apart. Ever the pragmatists, we chose to stay the course instead.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
The 2008 crisis was multifaceted and was contributed to by many people, not just Georgie Boy.

But, yea... just you let Obama make that argument in the debates and see how well he does. _Romney WILL raise it_ and if Obama abdicates his responsibility for his tenure, as he has done so well these last four years, he will lose...
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
The 2008 crisis was multifaceted and was contributed to by many people, not just Georgie Boy.
Yep. And most of the negative trends have reversed since that point. The argument is going to be between "I turned it around." and "I would have turned it around better." I don't see a lot of high drama coming of that.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Ed, you don't seem to realize that any President is as much a passenger as pilot. Presidents don't cause house prices to go up and don't actually cause people to get hired or fired. It's extremely partisan that you want to find a point in time that seems to stick a President of the party you don't support with the blame. This has been about a 30 year trend that began when Reagan was in office, but he didn't cause it. He helped it along, as did every President who followed him. Obama is the unlucky sumbitch who inherited it after it all fell apart. But you want to blame him for it anyway.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
These days, when you elect a president, you aren't electing a leader so much as a scapegoat that you can blame the problems of the next 4 years on.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
I remember thinking right before the last election that whoever was elected and had to deal with this economy was going to be a one term president. It may turn out that I was wrong but it seems sad how close Pete's words come to the truth (and from a lawyer on less [Wink] ).
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Will you watch? What do you expect?

I will watch some of the Presidential, a few minutes at best. The highlights will suffice.

I will watch the VP debate. I think it's liable to be hilarious to watch Joe "Gaffe-tastic" Biden up against someone as intelligent and fully in command of the facts like Ryan is. I almost feel bad for Joe, it's like Ryan is mugging the handicapped (I often feel that way with some of you- [LOL] I kid because I love! ). I can't believe Barry is going along with it.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
The USA has not been in recession for 12 straight years... The last/most recent recession started in December 2007.

[QUOTE]... we’re seeing a spate of depressing numbers that could signal a recession on the horizon — or that one is already here. On Thursday the Commerce Department revised down its estimate of second-quarter GDP growth to 1.3% from an already sluggish 1.7%. If that weren’t bad enough, the Department also reported that orders of durable goods – long-lasting pieces of equipment like airplanes or heavy machinery – fell 13.2% in August.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
[QB]The previous recession started in March 2001.

It appears the next one is starting now despite the full faith and effort of Keynesian economics which should have gotten us to uber prosperity.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
" I think it's liable to be hilarious to watch Joe "Gaffe-tastic" Biden up against someone as intelligent and fully in command of the facts like Ryan is."

That would be true if it were reality. Ryan and his Russian-Jewish-atheist muse may have trouble convincing more than members of the cult that he really does have the goods. I'm expecting him to upstage Romney and have Romney have to "clarify" his remarks.

"I often feel that way with some of you- [LOL] I kid because I love!"

Well, some of us wish you would seek treatment -- tough love. Do you blame Obama for your high A/C bills this summer, too?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"It appears the next one is starting now despite the full faith and effort of Keynesian economics which should have gotten us to uber prosperity."

You remind me of the economist who predicted 7 out of the last 3 recessions and 5 out of the last 2 stock market crashes.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
If you listen to the Keynesian economists then we should have had a stimulus about double what we actually had. Several of our members who are quite knowledgeable about Keynesian economics predicted this type of sluggish recovery with the size and type of stimulus we had. With halfhearted stimulus we got half-ass results.

Please before you use a BIG number to talk about how BIG the stimulus was consider how large the reduction in demand/economic activity was at the time.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

"I often feel that way with some of you- [LOL] I kid because I love!"

Well, some of us wish you would seek treatment -- tough love.

Get a room, you two! [Wink]
 
Posted by TCB (Member # 1677) on :
 
From an NYT article on the debate preparations:
quote:
Mr. Romney’s team has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized and has been practicing on aides since August. His strategy includes luring the president into appearing smug or evasive about his responsibility for the economy.
It will be interesting to see how this works out. Trying to set yourself up for a canned zinger can come across as pretty awkward for people who aren't funny.

I also question this seemingly-ubiquitous analysis that debates are about creating moments. Sure, today no one remembers anything about the Carter-Reagan debate besides "there you go again," but voters at the time had fresher memories and probably evaluated the debate holistically, rather than as a single moment.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
If you listen to the Keynesian economists then we should have had a stimulus about double what we actually had. Several of our members who are quite knowledgeable about Keynesian economics predicted this type of sluggish recovery with the size and type of stimulus we had. With halfhearted stimulus we got half-ass results.

Yes and non-Keynesian economists predicted the stimulus wouldn't work either. So that's not really saying anything at all.

To be fair, non-Keynesian a bit of a misnomer. Most main stream economists agree with a lot of Keynes ideas, just not to the degree of advocacy some economists promote.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
What does "doesn't work" mean?
Does it mean we would have gotten sluggish recovery if government had buried its head in the sand? Does it mean we would have gotten strong recovery if the government buried its head in the sand?

I think the simplest measure of how undersized the stimulus was is to look at total government employment (federal+state+local) over the last four years.

quote:
To examine the direct consequences of lower government employment, consider the case in which employment had hewed to its historical level. Between 2001 and 2007, the average ratio of government employment to population was 9.7 percent. Had that share remained steady, government employment would have been more than 23.6 million in June 2012 as compared to its actual level of 21.9 million. That is, employment would be 1.7 million jobs higher today if the share had remained constant, and the unemployment rate would be 7.1 percent instead of the current rate of 8.2 percent (see graph below).
link

So if the stimulus had simply been big enough to prevent federal, state and local government layoffs we would have 1.7 million more jobs today without any multiplier effects.

[ October 02, 2012, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: yossarian22c ]
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Ed, you don't seem to realize that any President is as much a passenger as pilot. Presidents don't cause house prices to go up and don't actually cause people to get hired or fired. It's extremely partisan that you want to find a point in time that seems to stick a President of the party you don't support with the blame. This has been about a 30 year trend that began when Reagan was in office, but he didn't cause it. He helped it along, as did every President who followed him. Obama is the unlucky sumbitch who inherited it after it all fell apart. But you want to blame him for it anyway.

Right... no President has control of the Economy but Reagan pushed this along. Obama's not responsible for Bush's recession. It's not the receiver's fault, it's how the other guy kicked it... [Roll Eyes]

All of which misses the point. If Obama wants to win the debate, he needs to look presidential. Blamin' the other guy ain't gonna do it. But then, increasing the debt by 5 trillion and chasing health care while we were sinking deeper and deeper into debt doesn't actually look presidential either.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Obama proposes to at least do something about the economy. And trying to settle the national debt while a recession is raging, is kind of like the pusillanimity of a man who uses his cell phone to dispute credit card charges while his daughter is getting gang-raped before his eyes.

[ October 02, 2012, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
Reagon's bogus trickle down economic theory contributed to the mess. Clinton's signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall was another big contributing factor. Bush II's renewal of trickle down economic theories contributed. None of these actions on their own caused the 2008 collapse. In conjunction they all made the recession much worse. But even all together they did not make the recession inevitable. Wealthy people could have redistributed wealth through charity, investing more in companies producing things and paying wages instead of investing in debt, or simply buying lots of stuff made in the US. Wall street could have managed itself more responsibly.

Presidents can impact the economy, probably more than any other single person (except maybe the fed chairman). This impact is somewhat limited though. In our constitution the president shares power with congress. The government has a big impact on the economy, particularly over the long term. In the short term the government has only so many tools at its disposal and using them effectively requires the president and congress to get along.

Government hasn't used all these tools effectively. The clearest evidence of this is reducing public sector payrolls by over 1 million people during times of high unemployment. This is insanely bad economics.

[ October 02, 2012, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: yossarian22c ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I still think the ultimate answer to American bitchiness and discontent is human sacrifice. We have all the other elements of the Aztec scapegoat sacrifice in place. An election. Blame placed on the winner. All we need is to kill the winner and Americans will be happy.

[Wink]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
I don't have a prediction about the outcomes of the debates, but I recall the first debate of 2004, where there was overwhelming consensus that Kerry won, and won hard. By overwhelming, I mean, Sean Hannity conceded that Kerry won. And yet, it seemed to have almost no effect on the race. I know that the Kennedy/Nixon and Reagan/Carter races are said to have hinged on the debates, but I wonder if that's still true, even potentially. The debates are a whole heck of a lot less authentic than they used to be, though I'm not sure that impacts their weight with the public.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I don't have a prediction about the outcomes of the debates, but I recall the first debate of 2004, where there was overwhelming consensus that Kerry won, and won hard. By overwhelming, I mean, Sean Hannity conceded that Kerry won. And yet, it seemed to have almost no effect on the race. I know that the Kennedy/Nixon and Reagan/Carter races are said to have hinged on the debates, but I wonder if that's still true, even potentially. The debates are a whole heck of a lot less authentic than they used to be, though I'm not sure that impacts their weight with the public.

Well if Sean Hannity says it, it must be true.


LoL!

-----------

but seriously Adam, the problem you address is lefto shaming. Folks don't want to admit to polsters and others they perceive as part of the PC gestapo that they believe other than what the you know whats that be are telling them to believe.

[ October 02, 2012, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I don't have a prediction about the outcomes of the debates, but I recall the first debate of 2004, where there was overwhelming consensus that Kerry won, and won hard. By overwhelming, I mean, Sean Hannity conceded that Kerry won. And yet, it seemed to have almost no effect on the race.

No, the evidence says otherwise. Kerry's debate performance didn't win the election for him, but it did drastically narrow difference in the polls.

quote:
In 2004, Bush went from holding an 11-point lead over John Kerry among registered voters just prior to the first debate on Sept. 30 to a 2-point lead right after it -- a 9-point loss for Bush. (A post-debate Gallup Poll found Kerry the perceived winner by a wide margin, 53% to 37%.) The race remained close thereafter: it was tied at 48% after the second debate, and Bush was up by 3 points after the third debate. Bush won the election by a 3-point margin, but it might have been larger had he performed better in the debates.
A 9 point change in national polling is pretty significant.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
What does "doesn't work" mean?

Failure to result in a prompt recovery.

Really, what difference does it make. Both Keynesian and non-Keynesian economists said the stimulus was a good idea to counter the immediate fiscal shock. Most economists said it wouldn't 'fix' the economy. Keynesian's said it wasn't big enough, others said sticky wages were an issue, others said their were structural issues, most said their were multiple factors. But any way you slice it you can't claim the failure of the stimulus to cause a prompt recovery vindicates the hard core Keynesian economists. Since pretty much nobody said it would.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Failure to result in a prompt recovery.
A turnaround from freefall to recovery in less than 6 months is very prompt, especially for a financial crisis such as we had.

quote:
But any way you slice it you can't claim the failure of the stimulus to cause a prompt recovery vindicates the hard core Keynesian economists. Since pretty much nobody said it would.
They said that what was implemented would end the recession, but that it was inadequate to support a fast pace of recovery; how can they not be vindicated when the end result precisely matched their predictions?

It wasn't the fault of the doctor that prescribed the antibiotics that the illness lingers, but the patient who decided to try to try to be more conservative with the medicine by only taking a third of the prescribe dosage.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
There are two ways to get the economy going: create new foundational technologies, much as computers did in the eighties or as WWII did back in the 50's. Or free up the wealth resources of the job creators allowing more money to circulate through the system. Unfortunately, option one isn't something you can do with the snap of a finger. Option two is the one the government has more control over.


@ Pete
quote:
Obama proposes to at least do something about the economy.
No, Obama _promised_ to do something with the economy and then spent a trillion dollars with little to show for it.


quote:
And trying to settle the national debt while a recession is raging, is kind of like the pusillanimity of a man who uses his cell phone to dispute credit card charges while his daughter is getting gang-raped before his eyes.
So, if the boat is sinking, the right thing to do is to poor more water into it? Or to spend your time fishing while the boat continues to fill? Sorry if I don't buy into that one, Pete. Obama's number one priority should have been the Economy from the very beginning and increasing the debt should have been anathema. To me, the economy was your so-called gang-rape and health care a cell phone...

Once again, Romney doesn't need to be Reagan-style charming to win the debate. He just needs to bring these issues to the fore and explain how he's gonna fix 'em. Obama's gonna have to offer something more than just the failed policies of the last four years.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Just saying they failed doesn't make it so, and believing it wholeheartedly yourself won't convince others who disagree with you. You are also falling into the trap of believing that success or failure is a binary state, as well as believing that people in the USA do not understand that each party bears different amounts of responsibility for the policies that eventually got implemented.
quote:
So, if the boat is sinking, the right thing to do is to poor more water into it?
If the boat is on fire, and also has a slow leak? Absolutely.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Or free up the wealth resources of the job creators allowing more money to circulate through the system. Unfortunately, option one isn't something you can do with the snap of a finger. Option two is the one the government has more control over."

When has that worked without some underlying technical/industrial revolution? Just giving rich people free money to spend doesn't mean they'll invest it unless they expect a bigger return than Romney gets by just sticking the money in foreign banks and buying equities.

"Once again, Romney doesn't need to be Reagan-style charming to win the debate. He just needs to bring these issues to the fore and explain how he's gonna fix 'em."

He's had plenty of opportunities and hasn't yet, so I agree, it will be interesting to see. On FOX on Sunday Ryan said it would take too long to explain how Romney is going to cut taxes by 20% across the board and stay revenue neutral. I'm *really* looking forward to hearing him say that tonight.

[ October 03, 2012, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
The debates are inextricably linked to polling, so this quote** from a Wall Street Analyst is intriguing:
quote:
"I think the immigration issue is hurting Romney in Florida, I think his auto position is hurting him in Ohio," he said, citing recent survey data. "Obama leading in a FOX News poll can't be good for Romney."
Basically, he's admitting that FOX even biases their "independent" polls to skew them toward Republicans.

** UBB won't display the link because it contains a paren: You can find it here: 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10

[ October 03, 2012, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
quote:
And trying to settle the national debt while a recession is raging, is kind of like the pusillanimity of a man who uses his cell phone to dispute credit card charges while his daughter is getting gang-raped before his eyes.
So, if the boat is sinking, the right thing to do is to poor more water into it? Or to spend your time fishing while the boat continues to fill? Sorry if I don't buy into that one, Pete.

And he worked on that first- do you think it would have made any political sense at all to have followed the initial stimulus bill with pushing for another one right on its tail to fill the gaps? Since he bought a year or two with what did go through, he was left with a choice between the next two big economic stumbling block that needed to be addressed- bringing the banks back under a more healthy regulation system and the healthcare system. He went with the latter, and I'm sure that Sen. Kennedy's condition probably played into that decision. He probably could have gotten back around to more direct economic support within the year, but the Senate let itself be paralyzed with obstructionism and didn't get half of what it could have accomplished done. (I'd love to see a good clear list of what passed the House in the first two years and die waiting for the Senate to even have the time to get it to the floor, never mind chew its way through the filibuster process.)

quote:
Obama's number one priority should have been the Economy from the very beginning and increasing the debt should have been anathema.
Leaches are good for anemia, you think? The private sector was hemorraging money, and your solution would have been to help pull even more out of it. The only thing that should have been anathema was the phrase "Federal Debt" or any related ideas. It would be much more accurate and honest to term it "National Net Savings Potential", because that's what the debt actually is- the total possible level that private and foreign US dollar savings less US private US dollar debts can reach. (And, similarly "deficit" should be replaced with "Net Private Financial Profit Margin", because, again, that's what it really is.) But of course, it's much harder to stonewall needed programs by threatening that they'll risk increasing private profits margins and savings potential than it is to apply FUD terms like debt and deficit, despite how nonsensical they are in relationship to the entity that issues the currency in question at will. It's like saying that the NFL had better get its point deficit under control before it has too much point-debt to hold the Superbowl.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
EDanall, why do you think that healthcare is a separate issue from the economy? Illness and medical bills are responsible for over half of the bankruptcies in this country.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
. Or free up the wealth resources of the job creators allowing more money to circulate through the system
Close- creating financial resources and putting them in the hands of the lower in middle classes so that they can continue to spend enough to keep up their role as job creators is exactly what we need more, not less of. When they have the money to spend, the profit potential of capital investment will begin to overtake that of financial speculation moneylending and motivate resource brokers to actually put them to productive use. That movement can be encouraged more with regulations and taxes that limit the relative profit potential of speculation and selling private debt compared to production and payroll, which are tax-deductible.

But if they already have all the money, giving them more money isn't going to motivate them to use their resources productively; it's only consumer demand that employs them, and consumer demand eclipses all other concerns; if demand exists and it's possible to be met, markets will find a way to reach them, regardless of regulations or taxes; the simply influence the shape of the market. On the other hand, little to anything will be produced if no one can communicate demand for it, even if there are no regulations or taxes involved.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
That seems to me to capture the ultimate fallacy of the GOP philosophy. It assumes that the same amount of capital is available to the consumer, so that entrepreneurs giving them new ways to spend it will produce yet more wealth -- for the consumer as known by their other name, the middle class!

But with falling incomes and higher than historical unemployment, the consumer segment doesn't have the money. Pulling more money out of their pockets for health care costs and to make up for lost government credits and benefits compounds the problem. The GOP plan is really a wealth redistribution scheme that will continue to sap money from the middle class and concentrate it the hands of the most wealthy, who in turn will sock it away because capital investment opportunities will be less profitable than they previously had been. We won't be a society led by merchant princes, but a plutocracy led by people who have all the money.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
Reagonomics Analysis:
quote:
According to a 1996 study by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore:[32] On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
AND:
quote:
Stephen Moore stated, "No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever.
AND:
quote:
Milton Friedman stated, "Reaganomics had four simple principles: Lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy. Though Reagan did not achieve all of his goals, he made good progress."[49] Entrepreneurs flourished as a result of Reaganomics: Lower tax rates and inflation coupled with less regulation favored improved environments for market-based funding, risk-taking, access to labor (leading to greater employment), and a more level playing field between these entrepreneurs and large corporations.
AND:
quote:
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) reduced nominal rates on the wealthy and eliminated tax deductions, while raising tax rates on lower-income individuals.[49][50][51][52] The across the board tax system reduced marginal rates and further reduced bracket creep from inflation. The highest income earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) received a tax break, restoring a flatter the tax system.[53] In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report characterized the effective rise in the AMT for individuals as a problem with the tax code.[54] Through 2007, the revised AMT had brought in more tax revenue than the former tax code, which has made it difficult for Congress to reform.[53][55]

 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Failure to result in a prompt recovery.
A turnaround from freefall to recovery in less than 6 months is very prompt, especially for a financial crisis such as we had.

The recovery is still under way. The Stimulus didn't primarily address the recession (what you are calling a freefall). That was TARP and various Fed Monetary policies. The recession ended in June 2009 before much of the Stimulus had even kicked in.

The Stimulus was explicitly designed to encourage a rapid recovery. Hence the name: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The Recovery has not been prompt in any way. Both Labor Force Participation and Median household income are still heading downward & the latest GDP growth numbers were just adjusted substantially downward.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
But any way you slice it you can't claim the failure of the stimulus to cause a prompt recovery vindicates the hard core Keynesian economists. Since pretty much nobody said it would.
They said that what was implemented would end the recession, but that it was inadequate to support a fast pace of recovery; how can they not be vindicated when the end result precisely matched their predictions?

No, the recovery didn't precisely match their predictions. Here is the forecast of the effects of the Stimulus from the Obama administrations economic team. Link It's pretty obvious that they were completely wrong. That their assumptions were flawed, they were working from faulty data and the results weren't anything close to what they predicted.

To call that a precise prediction is absurd.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
FiveThirtyEight.com has some interesting historical observations about Presidential debates.

quote:
The first thing to notice is that the debates normally have a modest impact ... the average shift was 2.3 percentage points.
quote:
Fourth ... the first debate has normally helped the challenger. ... on average, the challenging-party candidate gained a net of one and a half percentage points on the incumbent-party candidate.

However, the challenger’s gains have come mainly from undecided voters rather than from the incumbent himself.

This is bad news for Romney, since there is a relatively small number of undecided voters in this election.

quote:
So a reasonable best guess, based on the historical precedent and without considering any factors specific to this race, is that Mr. Romney will gain a point or two in the polls by next week, while Mr. Obama’s number will hold steady.
quote:
But here’s the bad news for Mr. Romney: no candidate who trailed by as much he did heading into the first debate went on to win the election.
quote:
More bad news for Mr. Romney: although there has been a tendency for the challenging candidate to gain ground immediately after the first debate, there has not been any tendency for the challenger to gain over the remaining weeks of the election. On average during these years, the challenging candidate trailed by 1.5 percentage points in polls conducted just after the first debate — and the challenger eventually lost the election, on average, by 1.4 percentage points, a nearly identical margin.
(All emphasis from source.)

So it looks like we can expect Romney's polls to go up a couple of points after these debates but then hold steady until the election. The debates are important, but someone outside of the debates will have to occur for them to be a gamechanger.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
To call that a precise prediction is absurd.

Yet that's what he calls it. It's amazing isn't it?
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
EDannal,

quote:
There are two ways to get the economy going: create new foundational technologies, much as computers did in the eighties or as WWII did back in the 50's. Or free up the wealth resources of the job creators allowing more money to circulate through the system.
Only if the 'wealth resources' are likely to be invested in such a way as it creates jobs in the host country. If they are likely to be invested in foreign countries (out sourcing, foreign direct investment, or even if significant parts of the corporations manufacturing are foreign) it actually reduces jobs in the host country (unless the foreign country increases its purchase of labor intensive goods from the host country).

Unfortunately right now very little of the variable labor and labor intensive parts of corporations is in the US - so cuts in taxation lead to foreign growth and domestic reduction over the long term and short term, similarly stimulus spending has very little effect.

Thus federal spending, tax cuts and tax incentives need to be done in such a way that they result in labor intensive activity in the host country.

Since neither Romney nor Obama have structured their tax cuts, incentives, or federal spending to that effect both of them will result in harming the economy with their economic plans - although I think Romneys is likely to cause far greater harm.

A plan that would actually work would be

1) raise the general capital gains rate (this would cause individuals who have been holding off on recognizing gains to recognize them, giving a boost to the federal income tax, but also freeing up the capital to be reinvested in step 2)

2) lower the capital gains rate for investments into new small businesses and start up corporations particularly, and give even lower rates for those that are particularly US labor and US manufactured equipment intensive.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
But here’s the bad news for Mr. Romney: no candidate who trailed by as much he did heading into the first debate went on to win the election.

Yes, that's technically true, but it leaves out some important details.

For example:
1980 Reagan trailed Carter by 1.4 going into the debate

Final results of the Election:
Reagan 50.7 Carter 41.0 Mondale 6.6

Even if you were to assume that Carter won all of Mondale's votes, Reagan would have won by 3.1. Which is a gain of 4.5% and more than enough to push Romney over the top. This election has a noticeable resemblance to the 1980 election.

That being said, barring outside events, Romney needs to win 2 of the 3 debates including the last one to win the election. Obama has an incumbent advantage and a good chuck of the media will spin anything other than a clear Romney win into a pre-predictable path to an Obama victory.

On the other hand, if Romney does have a 3%+ bump in the polls after the first debate, then the election will be a complete toss up. Of course, the Left wing media is doing their best to spin a Romney victory in the first debate as not meaning much. Therefore, they can claim after the fact that a) if Romney wins, it doesn't mean anything or b) if Obama wins, Romney's so terrible that nothing can prevent an eventual Obama victory. It's always nice to set the narrative up in such a way that no matter what happens your side wins. And that's clearly what Mr. Silver is attempting to do here.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
JWatts,

or Mr. Silver could just be offering interesting analysis without much desire to 'set the narrative'. If you felt he was an 'honest' analyst or favored the republican candidate- how do you think it would change the analysis?
 
Posted by TCB (Member # 1677) on :
 
Based on browsing around the conservative blogosphere over the last 12 months, any political analysis that doesn't involve comparing Obama to Carter can safely be ignored. [Smile]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
This election has a noticeable resemblance to the 1980 election.
Personally, I don't see it, but that just may be me. We'll see soon enough.

quote:
On the other hand, if Romney does have a 3%+ bump in the polls after the first debate, then the election will be a complete toss up.
If Romney does have such a large bump after the debates, you can count on Nate to give a thorough analysis of it.

In fact, he will doubtlessly give a thorough analysis of how the debates influenced the polls regardless of the results. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Failure to result in a prompt recovery.
A turnaround from freefall to recovery in less than 6 months is very prompt, especially for a financial crisis such as we had.

The recovery is still under way. The Stimulus didn't primarily address the recession (what you are calling a freefall). That was TARP and various Fed Monetary policies. The recession ended in June 2009 before much of the Stimulus had even kicked in.

So you're claiming that it's a complete coincidence that the same month there was a sharp uptick in total spending was also the same moth that GDP stopped falling? The other policies failed to stop the fall. It wasn't till the stimulus spending started and directly pushed demand up that the recession stopped.

quote:
The Stimulus was explicitly designed to encourage a rapid recovery. Hence the name: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

No it wasn't. It was designed to be a compromise between the Obama administrations overly conservative estimate of what was needed and what they thought that Republicans would want to let it pass. It was designed to _pass_ quickly. And that even failed as the Republicans held it up even longer and whittled it down even further before letting it through.

quote:
The Recovery has not been prompt in any way. Both Labor Force Participation and Median household income are still heading downward & the latest GDP growth numbers were just adjusted substantially downward.
It has been long and slow, certainly, but "prompt" only makes in sense in terms of when it started. It started promptly, and has managed overall out outperform almost every other recovery from similar circumstances, despite being less well funded proportionally than they were.

quote:
[QBNo, the recovery didn't precisely match their predictions. Here is the forecast of the effects of the Stimulus from the Obama administrations economic team. Link It's pretty obvious that they were completely wrong. That their assumptions were flawed, they were working from faulty data and the results weren't anything close to what they predicted.

To call that a precise prediction is absurd. [/QB]

Your claim was that the ARRA didn't match the projections of what hardcore Keynesians predicted it would do, when it did exactly perform as they predicted.

The projections that Obama's advisers (not hardcore Keynesians) prior to him even taking office, when they still didn't have full data on how big the collapse would be, based on their estimates of how much spending was needed (much less than the hardcore Keynesians prescribed, and much more than actually managed to get through Congress) aren't really relevant to your claim.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
JWatts,

or Mr. Silver could just be offering interesting analysis without much desire to 'set the narrative'.

Perhaps. But there have been quite a few, 'the debates don't really matter' articles recently.

quote:
Why the debates probably won’t matter Oct. 3rd 2012
WP

quote:
Viewers Beware, Presidential Debates Rarely Matter Oct. 3rd
Business Week

quote:
Do Presidential Debates Really Matter? September/October 2012

Remember all the famous moments in past debates that changed the outcome of those elections? Well, they didn’t.

Washington Monthly

quote:
Why debates don't always make a difference - Donna Brazile September 29, 2012
Check the Google results for the phrase "the debates don't matter 9/1-10/15" 2004 vs 2008 vs 2012.

2004 1.0K results
2008 1.6K results
2012 103K results

It looks to me like someone is trying to establish a narrative.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
If you felt he was an 'honest' analyst..

I didn't claim he was dishonest. I was simply implying he wasn't impartial. (maybe should read 'was partial') He's a notable Obama supporter.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
or favored the republican candidate- how do you think it would change the analysis?

Well if he favored a Republican candidate I imagine he'd point out the same quite obvious fact that I did. It is pretty obvious that the Reagan/Carter debate was a distinct turning point. And it's the election that most resembles the current one.


1) Sitting President vs Challenger
2) Presidential approval below 50%
3) Weak Economy
3) Significant Middle East issues
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Interesting analysis. But Mitt is hardly as slick as Ronald Reagan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8YxFc_1b_0

It's funny hearing them talk, all the way back in 1980, about our "response in AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN"

[ October 03, 2012, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Interesting analysis. But Mitt is hardly as slick as Ronald Reagan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8YxFc_1b_0

True, but I didn't say that Romney was like Reagan or that Obama is like Carter. If that were the case, the election would already be over. [Wink]

Actually joking aside, that's not really true. Reagan was considered an underdog before the Presidential debate. And the media really despised Ronald Reagan.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Out of curiosity, does anyone remember what Jimmy Carter said that the "single most important issue" in the 1980 campaign was? It's 12-13 minutes into my link.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Out of curiosity, does anyone remember what Jimmy Carter said that the "single most important issue" in the 1980 campaign was? It's 12-13 minutes into my link.

That the Bad economy was all Ford's fault?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
No. That's not an issue.

He said that nuclear weapons were the most important thing.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I wonder, if, as a gag, we played the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debates in some public place today, how many people would stop and watch it?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Out of curiosity, does anyone remember what Jimmy Carter said that the "single most important issue" in the 1980 campaign was?"

Hmm, I don't remember. Not the "moral equivalent of war?"

"I wonder, if, as a gag, we played the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debates in some public place today, how many people would stop and watch it?"

No special effects other than the rod up Carter's ass, so not interesting enough.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
No. That's not an issue.

He said that nuclear weapons were the most important thing.

Really? He thought that was the most important issue in the middle of a fierce recovery period? Obviously, the correct answer was Healthcare reform. Carter was such a yokel. [LOL]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
JWatts, our lack of a socialized meds system is one of the major causes of our trade deficit, leading to wholesale exportation of jobs.

OTOH, Obamacare specifically does not address that problem; the only solution would be to put the weight onto a consumption tax.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
JWatts, our lack of a socialized meds system is one of the major causes of our trade deficit, leading to wholesale exportation of jobs.

Maybe. Do you have a good source to support that? A main stream economist ideally.

I'm going to point out that Germany uses a joint employer-employee contribution model and they don't seem to be suffering from economic competitiveness issues. Whereas, France has a public provider model and is clearly having such issues. So empirical evidence indicates your statement is incorrect.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
OTOH, Obamacare specifically does not address that problem; the only solution would be to put the weight onto a consumption tax.

Indeed, Obamacare makes the situation worse. Penalizing companies for not providing health care is probably going to hurt our international competitiveness.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
When a middleweight ties a heavyweight the middleweight won. So far Romney is holding his own with Obama. It's unfortunate for him that Republicans have refused to treat him as an underdog, because as an underdog he's looking pretty good IMO.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
JWatts, our lack of a socialized meds system is one of the major causes of our trade deficit, leading to wholesale exportation of jobs.

Maybe. Do you have a good source to support that? A main stream economist ideally.
I have my father's written report from Ford Motor Company to President Bush, stating that they spent 2.5 thousand dollars per car on employee health insurance that their international competitors were not paying, due to national health insurance in Japan, etc. I could look it up and scan it in, if you consider that a good source. But that was 1990; I reckon Ford's paying a good deal more per car on health insurance now.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Germany uses a joint employer-employee contribution model and they don't seem to be suffering from economic competitiveness issues. "

The german automobile model obviously is not imitable on a level that could sustain our economy. The relevant competition was US vs. Japan.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
No. That's not an issue.

He said that nuclear weapons were the most important thing.

Really? He thought that was the most important issue in the middle of a fierce recovery period? Obviously, the correct answer was Healthcare reform. Carter was such a yokel. [LOL]
I actually watched the entire debate this morning. Very boring day, since my phone got cut off. Funny to hear a debate where health care never comes up. I watched the debate carefully in 1980, and it's interesting to me, 32 years later, to be able to watch it with hindsight.
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
I just started watching the prez debate around 9:50. I agree that Romney is holding his own, but the whole thing is too damn boring, except for those moments when Romney and Jim Lehrer look like they're about to have a pillow fight.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
It's overly detailed without being very specific.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Boring = status quo = good for Obama, but I think more people are going to be swayed by the post-analysis of press and bloggers than by watching it themselves and from what I've seen Romney has done pretty well in their eyes.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I think Romney did do fairly well. If he was able to fire off more specifics without getting too lost in the details it would have helped more. He did make a few unambiguous denials to Obama's characterization of Romney's positions. I for one appreciate those types of solid answers but explaining how he would avoid doing so fell a little flat.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Romney acquitted himself well. He'll get the bump, and we'll have to wait a week to see if it dissipates.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
Romney did what he need to do. He argued substance. That's what the independents and undecideds needed to hear. That bump, I expect, is here to stay.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
I also think Romney handled this pretty well. I also thought it was a serious snoozefest. If I came into the debate not knowing anything, I would probably lean Romney - but the fact that a lot of his specifics are absent, coupled with what I know about politicians, drives me more to distrust promises. And I felt like Romney made more promises tonight.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I wonder if the inability of politicians to balance the budget is at all linked to their inability to gauge time. Nothing new but I would love to see a debate where the timers were visible to the audience and the mics just cut out after their time was up.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Romney clobbered Obama. The debate wasn't really that close. It was clearly a Romney win.

Granted Romney needed to beat Obama and he has to win another debate to have a good chance. Romney probably also has to win the last debate, but if the second debate were as big a win as tonight's was it probably won't matter that much.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I can't find an internet link to debates yet -- anyone have one?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Here's a YouTube link: Presidential Debate
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Wow.

Just watched Romney v Obama on the banking bill, dodd frank, or whatever. I've never seen Obama stomped before. Hell, this guy made a very persuasive argument with facts at his fingertips, while Obama seemed to be throwing around pre-written memorized spews.

Still, the big bird thing was chilling. [Frown]

[ October 04, 2012, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Yeah, no teleprompter tonight.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
As an independent, I was not very impressed by what Governor Romney had to say.

Romney is for public support of energy alternatives, except he doesn't agree with the president's allocations of funds (and how much would he allocate for one of his stated pillars of job creation? Unspecified; he'd just do better.).

Romney doesn't agree with an unelected board making decisions on a public health insurance plan--is he aware that a similar mechanism exists for private plans? Politicians are always happy with anecdotes, so: twice now my husband has had to wrangle with our insurance company (which we have through his work, and no, we can't just walk over to someone else and have it be cost-effective) over his medications. Once, they wanted him to do a 30-day trial of a cheaper medication before using the more expensive one--except he did try it and had a life-threatening allergic reaction to it. Once, they wanted him to first try a medication with potential liver damage complications, that was shown to be less effective and less direct. And you know what? They were right to require some wrangling, as long as they require it in smart places (anecdote #2 shows that they don't always require it in smart places, unfortunately). There has to be a mechanism to control costs. The important part is that there is an appeal process, first internal, then to an independent entity if the first appeal avails ye not.

Romney made a number of promises about medicare and social security. His suggestion of handling medicare at the state level seemed to present the danger of becoming yet another underfunded mandate, but he promised to fund it, so I don't know. Funding something without having control over how it's run sounds dubious to me, in a 'is this really going to work?' sort of way. I also would have liked to hear him address Obama's point about how a voucher system would work out, because in theory I prefer the idea of a voucher system (giving people choice sounds good to me), but I would like to know more about it in practicality. Could he set things up so the government 'plan' wouldn't collapse due to being full of only the fiscally undesirable?

Finally, Romney's tax plan: some specifics would have been nice. I heard on the radio today that his suggestion for boosting revenue was to curb itemized deductions to a maximum amount of $17,000 (the standard deduction for a married couple being around $12,000). I would have liked to hear him talk about that, instead of embarking on handwaving generalities. I imagine this plan could be problematic for people running small businesses with a large amount of business expenses to deduct (particularly people in the start-up phase), and helping small businesses seems to be a point of his--so I would have liked to hear how this would not disproportionately disadvantage them. It's an interesting idea, mind you, I just would have liked to hear more about it in a debate that focused disporportionately on tax policy.

I was also not impressed by how often he railroaded/ignored the moderator, and thought this did not speak well of his ability to work with other people.

The talking heads afterwards bemused me. Apparently the debate had too many "specifics," which might confuse viewers at home. Fagh. Not that you're listening, talking heads, but specifics are /good/. If I as a lay person do not understand everything, fine--that doesn't mean avoid giving me any information in the first place.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
The one place that I did find Romney more convincing was the one Pete mentioned. Here was a question of specifics, and Obama responded as if Romney had said something entirely different than what he actually had.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Finally, Romney's tax plan: some specifics would have been nice. I heard on the radio today that his suggestion for boosting revenue was to curb itemized deductions to a maximum amount of $17,000 (the standard deduction for a married couple being around $12,000). I would have liked to hear him talk about that, instead of embarking on handwaving generalities.

Yes, I agree with this. More detail would be better.

On the other hand I still know far more about Romney's tax plan than Obama's.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I'm glad that Romney's emphatically saying no tax cut at the top, and focus on tax cuts in the middle.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I was also not impressed by how often he railroaded/ignored the moderator, and thought this did not speak well of his ability to work with other people."

I can see that, but I think that setting aside the moderator;s rules ended up making this the most informative and to-the-point debate that I've ever seen. If they'd kept the rules, we'd have had half as much information.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I think Romney's focus on lowering the tax rate could have been disingenuous, because he kept hammering on eliminating or reducing exemptions, credits, and deductions to "keep the revenue". Well, if you eliminate the child tax credit, that hits the middle class a lot harder than rich people. If you haven't lowered the middle class tax rate by as much, it's an effective tax increase.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"I was also not impressed by how often he railroaded/ignored the moderator, and thought this did not speak well of his ability to work with other people."

I can see that, but I think that setting aside the moderator;s rules ended up making this the most informative and to-the-point debate that I've ever seen. If they'd kept the rules, we'd have had half as much information.

I partially disagree. Several times the moderator interjected to make sure they actually answered the question, instead of doing what politicians have done in previous debates (giving prepared speeches which have nothing to do with the question whatsoever).

Several of their continuations were instructive. However, there were several more which seemed particularly pointless. Sometimes it seemed that Romney just didn't want Obama to get the last word in. That doesn't win points with me; substantive answers do.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Sometimes it seemed that Romney just didn't want Obama to get the last word in."

It did seem like that once; I agree.

I like Obama's ownership of the phrase "Obamacare."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I think Romney's focus on lowering the tax rate could have been disingenuous, because he kept hammering on eliminating or reducing exemptions, credits, and deductions to "keep the revenue". Well, if you eliminate the child tax credit, that hits the middle class a lot harder than rich people. If you haven't lowered the middle class tax rate by as much, it's an effective tax increase.

Surely you aren't seriously proposing that Romney would knock off the Child Tax Credit.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Well, this is the problem with his approach. He's only SORT OF specific. He says he's going to lower the rate, but eliminate breaks. Which breaks? how much is he going to lower the rate? for whom? We can't do the math, and I'm sure it's easier for him that way, but if I take him at his word, and just fill in the specifics for myself, I'm going to have to consider scenarios where his lower rate doesn't amount to an effective cut.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
(Assuming, of course, that he does ANY of what he says, which is a big assumption. I don't think that's the norm for our elected officials, including President.)
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Just watched Romney v Obama on the banking bill, dodd frank, or whatever. I've never seen Obama stomped before. Hell, this guy made a very persuasive argument with facts at his fingertips, while Obama seemed to be throwing around pre-written memorized spews.

What's sad is that Obama could have called Romney on his misrepresentations there (pointing out, for example, that the large bank "bailout" fund is paid for entirely by the banks that it covers, and the point of the fund to to cover the costs of unwinding them when they eventually do fail.

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Yes, I agree with this. More detail would be better.

On the other hand I still know far more about Romney's tax plan than Obama's.

Aye. "I put it on a website; go look" may be more efficient in the long run, if there is actually sufficient information there (I haven't looked yet), but more specifics in the debate itself would have been nice.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
What's sad is that Obama could have called Romney on his misrepresentations there (pointing out, for example, that the large bank "bailout" fund is paid for entirely by the banks that it covers, and the point of the fund to to cover the costs of unwinding them when they eventually do fail.

Obama did touch on this, but insufficiently to actually make the point. His last reply on the topic entirely missed the mark.

quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Just looked up the polls and they confirmed the obvious. Romney substantially outperformed Obama in the eyes of most viewers:

CBS - Of those surveyed, 46 percent gave the win to Romney, 22 percent to the president, and 32 percent called the contest a draw.

Link

quote:

CNN said 67 percent of 430 registered voters surveyed gave the win to the former Massachusetts governor, while 25 percent said the Democratic incumbent did the better job in the debate held at the University of Denver.

The poll also found 35 percent said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney, while 18 percent said it made them more likely to cast their vote for Obama. Forty-seven percent said they were unswayed by either candidate, the CNN/ORC International Poll showed.

Fifty-three percent of the survey participants thought Romney spent more time attacking Obama, while 30 percent thought the president was the more aggressive debater.

When it came to who seemed to be the stronger leader, Romney held a 58-37 edge over Obama.

Sixty-one percent thought Obama did worse than expected, and 82 percent thought Romney did better than expected.

The poll, conducted by telephone, had a 4.5 percentage-point margin of error.

UPI

Romney looked confident, Obama mostly looked down.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
No, not at all. Under Obamacare, states can run their own Healthcare exchanges, they don't get to set their own healthcare policy. The policies are straight from Obamacare, a state can't opt out.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm glad that Romney's emphatically saying no tax cut at the top, and focus on tax cuts in the middle.

Except, of course that he kept handwaving around how he'd accomplish that, given that he kept actively avoiding addressing the issue when Obama called him on the fact that the math doesn't work by not addressing where he'd find the additional revenue from removing deductions to compensate for the loss from rates and increases to military spending. (Not to mention the huge opening he left by insisting that dumping money into the military was the key to protecting domestic freedom)

What's worse about Romney's plan is that it's actively antithetical to productive investment, because, by removing deductions, he makes it less profitable for businesses to invest in growth and more profitable for them to instead engage in financial speculation because the of the loss of tax advantage for productive investments. He was outright disingenuous in claiming that income taxes discourage hiring since salaries are directly deductible as expenses.

Obama should have hit him hard on the fact that, if a business is paying taxes in the top bracket, that directly means that it's sitting on nearly $400k of net profits that it has not reinvested into hiring or expansion, so the notion that maybe, if it just had an even bigger profit margin, it might suddenly decide that it would be more profitable to hire more workers. The degree of market failure that it takes to leave that much cash idle is precisely the kind of thing that high marginal rates help to address, putting additional pressure on the company to use it or lose it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
No, not at all. Under Obamacare, states can run their own Healthcare exchanges, they don't get to set their own healthcare policy. The policies are straight from Obamacare, a state can't opt out.
No, they can get a waiver to set their own policy. Vermont has already done so; once the wiver kicks in gets all of the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid funding it would otherwise be entitled to as a block grant to run the single payer system that it implemented. Every state is explicitly able to apply for the same waivers, so long as they can show how they reasonably expect to provide better coverage than the ACA baseline.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
No, they can get a waiver to set their own policy. Vermont has already done so; once the wiver kicks in gets all of the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid funding it would otherwise be entitled to as a block grant to run the single payer system that it implemented. Every state is explicitly able to apply for the same waivers, so long as they can show how they reasonably expect to provide better coverage than the ACA baseline.

Ok, Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Though obviously saying they have to provide better coverage is not the same as saying they can set their own healthcare policy.

[ October 04, 2012, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
No, not at all. Under Obamacare, states can run their own Healthcare exchanges, they don't get to set their own healthcare policy. The policies are straight from Obamacare, a state can't opt out.
No, they can get a waiver to set their own policy. Vermont has already done so; once the wiver kicks in gets all of the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid funding it would otherwise be entitled to as a block grant to run the single payer system that it implemented. Every state is explicitly able to apply for the same waivers, so long as they can show how they reasonably expect to provide better coverage than the ACA baseline.
This is not the same. The states have to convince someone to give them a waiver (and in order to do so, they will have to adopt policies in line with those in charge), rather than opting to take the funds and go make something good. If the point is federal versus local control, the decision is still being made first at the federal level. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just that it is different.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
No- a key difference is that Romney is issuing it as an unfunded suggestion rather than a funded mandate. Under the ACA, the states have to do something- either accept the baseline or come up with something better, but they get the funding they need to do it. Romney's suggestion that we return to the status quo meant no impetus and no funding, just like it was before the ACA. (Just like his nonsense about saying he'd cover preexisting condtions, by returning to the previous status quo where they were only covered if you have no extended breaks in coverage, and even then insurance companies could use adverse pricing to squeeze you out of the market instead of having to set prices consistently for everyone.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Romney's suggestion that we return to the status quo meant no impetus and no funding, just like it was before the ACA.

It didn't sound to me like Romney was suggesting a return to the status quo here. Rather, he seemed to be advocating a care act with a different approach. Perhaps I drew a faulty conclusion from his verbiage in the debate. One thing I know for certain: there were insufficient specifics presented for me to know whether he was advocating unfunded mandates or not for health care in general, and unfunded mandates are no one's friend.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
This is not the same. The states have to convince someone to give them a waiver (and in order to do so, they will have to adopt policies in line with those in charge), rather than opting to take the funds and go make something good. If the point is federal versus local control, the decision is still being made first at the federal level. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just that it is different.
If the states complaining were trying to get the waivers and failing, then that would be a reasonable distinction and a good complaint to make. But the fact is that they're not even trying- that directly exposes the complains as cover for just being allowed to continue to not do anything rather than being frustrated because of political shenanigans.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
This was a good line from Romney:
quote:
Jim, I had the great experience -- it didn't seem like it at the time -- of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. And that meant I figured out from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done.


 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
This is not the same. The states have to convince someone to give them a waiver (and in order to do so, they will have to adopt policies in line with those in charge), rather than opting to take the funds and go make something good. If the point is federal versus local control, the decision is still being made first at the federal level. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just that it is different.
If the states complaining were trying to get the waivers and failing, then that would be a reasonable distinction and a good complaint to make. But the fact is that they're not even trying- that directly exposes the complains as cover for just being allowed to continue to not do anything rather than being frustrated because of political shenanigans.
This is fair.


JWatts: Agreed, I also thought that was a good line, and a good thing to be able to say.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm glad that Romney's emphatically saying no tax cut at the top, and focus on tax cuts in the middle.

Except, of course that he kept handwaving around how he'd accomplish that, given that he kept actively avoiding addressing the issue when Obama called him on the fact that the math doesn't work by not addressing where he'd find the additional revenue from removing deductions to compensate for the loss from rates and increases to military spending. (Not to mention the huge opening he left by insisting that dumping money into the military was the key to protecting domestic freedom)
I thought it sounded clear that he was going to slash deductions on the upper class, which is basically a tax hike, and also cut social security payouts to the uber wealthy, an idea which he attributed to a Clinton cabinet member.

Where I think Obama nailed Romney was saying nice bipartisan record, but how you going to preserve that coming in here to dismantle Obamacare?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I thought it sounded clear that he was going to slash deductions on the upper class, which is basically a tax hike, and also cut social security payouts to the uber wealthy, an idea which he attributed to a Clinton cabinet member.
And Obama kept responding that all of those added up don't make up the gap. (Nevermind that SS is a completely separate budget and thus has nothing to do with income taxes in the first place)

That was Obama's point- that once you close all of the upper income deductions, you're still billions of dollars short, the only way end enough deductions to balance Romney's tax and defense proposals is to cut heavily into middle class deductions, well in excess of the benefit they might get from any rate drop.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"You mean nothing outrageous like spending 5 trillion dollars in his first 4 years and focusing on health care when he should have addressed the economy? Check!"

Psst, don't look now, but Health Care is a major part of the economy. Mitt would get rid of Obamacare and replace it with... something that has all the things he admits are good about it. He'd just replace the "bad" parts, which are secret.

Obummer did shockingly poorly in terms of the live performance. Anyone caring for my play-by-play and live analysis can check my twitter feed @abukedem. In Football terms, Obama had a 4 INT game in which he failed to connect with open receivers in the endzone 2-3 times.

Further in football analogies (tis the season) I score the game as Romney by 2-3 TD's. However, in this game the score can change after the whistle, and I expect most of Mitt's lead to evaporate once the fact checks are in. Easy to win when your winning arguments are riddled with lies, regardless of stage chops.

I have 3 theories:

1) He's dealing with something that's keeping him up and distracting him. Something big.

2) He's playing a long con.

3) This is is A game and IIWII.

I put it at 1-2 equal probability, and 3 the least.

The best evidence for the long con theory is that he never once said 47%, never once went for any of the 4-5 scores he had available. Mitt went for his early and often. Obummer took Romney's best shot and bleeding stopped at 67% (down from 74 before the debate, but it's been there for some hours now.)
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I'm glad that Romney's emphatically saying no tax cut at the top, and focus on tax cuts in the middle.
Well, see, this is the problem I had with Romney's speech. He's getting a lot of press about coming out "substantive," but as far as I can tell, he's either actively lying about the details of his actual economic plan as presented or handwaving the problems. Obama's criticisms of the presented plan remain valid; Romney's math continues to not add up, and it is frankly false that his plan somehow concentrates tax cuts and the like on the middle class. He simply cannot do what he is promising to do with the plan he has proposed, and Obama was right to point that out. The problem, of course, is that once Romney flatly denied that point, Obama should have followed up with actual policy discussion (beyond, again, a couple thrusts that Romney again shook his head and denied) based on quotes from Romney's materials. By attempting to deny Romney's denials without harder evidence, Obama just looked argumentative.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"One thing I know for certain: there were insufficient specifics presented for me to know whether he was advocating unfunded mandates or not for health care in general, and unfunded mandates are no one's friend."

That's why I said lots of details but not much specifics. We don't know much more today than yesterday, but we are reminded that they strongly disagree with each other.

I agree that Obama wasted an opportunity. Romney argued for lots of things he can't deliver, like a balanced budget, revenue neutrality, replacing programs in place with other programs that have lots of the same features, and most of all if he stays true to his base, a bi-partisan willingness to find common ground. Obama could have nailed him on almost everything, but instead understated the obvious (to wonks, anyway) that Romney won't be able to deliver...
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
This was a good line from Romney:

quote:Jim, I had the great experience -- it didn't seem like it at the time -- of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. And that meant I figured out from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done.

Why was that a good line? If the MA legislature was as closely divided as Congress will be he wouldn't have the same dynamic and wouldn't have needed to find so much "common ground". Both sides lie, but a key difference for me is that Romney stood up and made promises there is no way in the world he'll be able to keep, even if he isn't faced with a rolling crisis that Obama walked into on Day 1. I wonder how many filibusters the Democrats would throw at him?
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Psst, don't look now, but Health Care is a major part of the economy. Mitt would get rid of Obamacare and replace it with... something that has all the things he admits are good about it. He'd just replace the "bad" parts, which are secret.

And it doesn't take effect until years later! Even if I accepted that Obama care was good for the Economy - I don't - it didn't take effect right away. The house was burning down and Obama ran off to look for truffles...

You wanna know why he lost last night? Why he looked like he'd rather have been somewhere else? You wanna know why he stumbled over his words and repeated half-baked facts? Because he was forced to defend the indefensible. And he's the one the placed himself in that very nonstrategic spot when he failed to address the economy at the very beginning of his term.

Ed.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
Holy crap. I had thought this would be what the Ryan/Biden debate would look like. Talk about being shown as a total SCOAMF, Barry better hope ObamaCare covers the thorough ass kicking he just received. Such a debate hammering hasn't occurred since Reagan chewed up Carter and Mondale. I really didn't expect such a beat down.

Chris Matthews, ol' leg tingles himself:
quote:
“Where was Obama tonight? He should watch — well not just Hardball, Rachel, he should watch you, the Reverend Al, Lawrence. There’s a hot debate going on in this country, here on this network is where we’re having the debate. We have our knives out, we go after the people and the facts. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed.”

“Obama should watch MSNBC. He will learn something every night. This stuff we’re watching, this is like first grade to most of us. We know all of this stuff.”

Obama delivered a first grade like performance. Heh.
From the campaign itself:
quote:
After tonight’s debate, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter admitted that Mitt Romney did well in tonight’s debate.

“Yes, he absolutely wins the preparation and he wins the style points,” she said.

When even your own campaign staff is calling it a defeat, you know you lost - badly. Pundits are starting to refer to this debate as The Mile High Massacre. Heh.

The CNN flash poll - CNN:
quote:
Finally -- among independents (not all RV's), Romney decimated Obama, 75-17.
Holy crap. When an organization as deeply in the tank for Obama comes up with those numbers, you know it was a deep tissue ass whupping. 75-17. Heh.

James Carville:
quote:
“I had one overwhelming impression,” he said. “I did everything I could not to reach it, but it looked like Romney wanted to be there and President Obama didn’t want to be there.”
Andrew Sullivan, I'm going to break my personal moratorium on linking so you can all drink his sweet, sweet tears.Heh. Because I'm such a generous and caring person, here's a sampling for the vast majority of you who refuse to follow links:
quote:
Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president...

<snip>

And is it me, or does he even sound like Reagan?

<snip>

That he [Romney] is more persuasive on this than the president is a staggering personal failure on Obama's part. And now Obama is saying he is the candidate of "saying no". Just staggering incompetence on his part.

<snip>

I find myself bored silly by Obama. If I am bored silly by this wonkish lecture, and his refusal to rebut specific points, i.e. lies, Obama's in trouble.

<snip>

Romney is kicking the president's ass.

<snip>

A nervous but competent beginning by Obama, but I'm struck by the visuals. Romney just looks like a classic president and Obama a very different one. The visuals are with Romney. And his answer was a total re-boot on compassion. This first round goes solidly to Romney.

BWAHAHAHA. Staggering incompetence.

One of my favorite quotes, and I can't recall where it was so no idea who said it but it was something along the lines of "This is what you get when you use John Kerry to prepare". Love the tying of Barry to Kerry, all we need is a picture of Barry in a bunny suit now.

What you have here is a guy that is a total SCOAMF. Barry *needs* his teleprompter. He doesn't know what to say or how to say it unless he's told. Nearly 4 years of a sycophantic media and addresses with controlled crowds and pre-planned questions shows up in his performance. Barry tossed up strawman after strawman and seemed genuinely befuddled when they were so casually shot down and something of substance was delivered back. Watching the side by side split screen, I now know the look that must perpetually be on Al Wessex's face when he reads my posts. Heh.
 
Posted by TCB (Member # 1677) on :
 
I watched the debate and skipped the commentary after. I thought it was pretty boring (no one said anything we didn't know, there were no interesting "gotcha" moments), and more or less a tie. But the media take is remarkably monolithic, and it seems the polling agrees, so it seems my perception was highly atypical. [Smile]

It's true that Obama was a bit listless, but have all the pundits who were shocked by it watched a press conference in the last three years? Except at campaign rallies, he's always pretty calm and low-energy.

I have three basic problems with Romney's arguments:

1) Romney proposed a $5T tax cut a year ago in order to win the Republican nomination. It was highly implausible that he could cut deductions and loophoples such that it would be revenue-neutral. Now that he's won the nomination he says that anyone who holds him to the $5T number is misrepresenting him, and that we should only pay attention to the "revenue neutral" aspect. It reveals the tax cut proposal was mere pandering.

It's illustrative of the principles of the kind of man who sometimes runs to Ted Kennedy's left, sometimes to Rick Perry's right, and other times as a moderate alternative to Obama. If we shouldn't hold him to the tax cut, which current promises should we ignore?

Of course, I'm glad he'll abandon that ridiculous plan if he's president, and Republicans seem fine with him abandoning it, as well, so there's a silver lining.

2) Romney's supposedly going to keep tax revenues neutral, spend trillions more on defense, $700B more on Medicare, and eliminate the deficit by...cutting funding for renewable energy and PBS. Is this one of the "hard truths" he and Paul Ryan are always bragging about telling us?

3) Romney's claim that his plan will protect people with pre-existing conditions is more or less a lie. He only protects pre-existing conditions for people who are continuously insured, not for people with lapsed coverage. It's uninsured people who have to worry about pre-existing conditions not being covered, not the continuously insured.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"You wanna know why he lost last night? Why he looked like he'd rather have been somewhere else?"

Agreed. Not sure why he planned it that way, unless like at the Correspondents' Dinner last year he was working on the plan to go after the Libyan embassy attackers and was distracted.

"You wanna know why he stumbled over his words and repeated half-baked facts? Because he was forced to defend the indefensible."

Hmmm, then why was Romney so happy given that he's making happy promises that there's no chance he will keep?

"And he's the one the placed himself in that very nonstrategic spot when he failed to address the economy at the very beginning of his term."

[Edit] If he had had more cooperation things might have gone better. But keep in mind that we kept losing jobs for the 4-5 months while he was trying to get his recovery plan through Congress and even though it's taken a long time the economy has recovered all of the jobs that it lost.

[ October 04, 2012, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Good Sullivan link, G3. Gracias.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
[QB] I watched the debate and skipped the commentary after. I thought it was pretty boring (no one said anything we didn't know, there were no interesting "gotcha" moments), and more or less a tie. But the media take is remarkably monolithic, and it seems the polling agrees, so it seems my perception was highly atypical. [Smile]

That was about my take on it as well. Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to everyone talking about how great Romney was.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I think I was watching a different debate…
The president should have pressed Romney to share his plan that supported these denials. He also should have explained more what HE would do rather than vilify what he believed Romney would do. He did seem a little unprepared for the “Nuh uhh” rebuttals. [Roll Eyes]

Other than that I think the surprise that Obama didn’t knock the debate out of the park is being interpreted somehow that Romney did. I will concede that by this debate alone it appears Romney would be a better Performer in Chief which I had not expected to be the case.

I didn’t hear much of substance that was all that persuasive other than Romney giving a few concrete denials to the characterization of his plans. If he can back these up this will be a huge asset to his campaign. If Obama can punch holes in those claims it will be a serious problem for Romney.

(Sorry about the edit, got a bad recovery from my cut and paste after an explorer crash.) [Razz]

[ October 04, 2012, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
I watched about 10 minutes of the end, and thought Obama did poorly, so I can sort-of understand the "Romney won" meme. But the thing that was most frustrating about the president's performance is that he didn't call Romney on a bunch of really significant lies. Obama should have used language like "I don't for a second believe that he is going to find these loopholes. If Governor Romney plans to go in with a clearly defined cut, but only a vague and unspecified desire for closing loopholes, then what he'll get is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich, and a 5 trillion dollar reduction in revenue, one that either adds to the deficit, or cuts essential services. And as a former Governor, he knows this."

Hopefully these points will get made going forward, but it would have been nice to have a John Kerry performance here, calling a spade a spade with the whole country watching ("Sadaam Hussein did not attack us, Mr. President; Osama bin Laden attacked us"). There were plenty of opportunities, just in the ten minutes I watched.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
" Such a debate hammering hasn't occurred since Reagan chewed up Carter and Mondale. I really didn't expect such a beat down."

If Ornery had a "stopped clock" award I would nominate G3 for it. Romney was on his game, but Obama so underperformed against expectations that I have to wonder what was distracting him.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
I think a lot of that perception is because Obama failed to pound Romney on all his misrepresentations.

What I heard from Romney was this:
On taxes:
* I'll lower tax rates.
* Federal tax revenue will be be the same.
* Taxes on the rich won't increase.
* Taxes on the middle class won't increase.
* Taxes on the poor won't increase
* Taxes on small businesses will go down.

Not all of those statements can be true.

On government spending:
* More spending on defense, education, health care and seniors.
* I'll balance the budget by cutting spending alone.

I'm pretty sure both those statements can't be true as well.

Romney was more forceful in his delivery and more willing to lie. I think that drove the perception that he won among average viewers. I think Obama letting him get away with it meant the pundits decided Romney won because Obama missed so many opportunities to call him out on it.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
I think Obama letting him get away with it meant the pundits decided Romney won because Obama missed so many opportunities to call him out on it.
To be fair to the pundits if this was a high school debate existing in a bubble I would score it a Romney win because of this alone yossarian22c.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
FactCheck doesn't say so explicitly (actually they do, but mildly), but they document way more egregious and substantive lying from Romney:

FactCheck.org
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
But the thing that was most frustrating about the president's performance is that he didn't call Romney on a bunch of really significant lies.

I see you got the talking points memo. Is there a set number of times to repeat this or you just go with it anytime the debate is brought up? I understood that you should put it in all caps or something to indicate the shrill hysteria that is being evoked but maybe you're more mellow than that. I think you are also supposed to mention how the altitude affected Barry and caused him to lose, at least that's Al Gore's excuse (for reals, google it up, friggin hysterical).

I think the left is so comfortable screaming "LIES" that it's the go-to strategy they rely on for just about anything that does not fit the ideological framework - I don't think they understand what a lie is any more other than a appropriate, state approved chant. So that's why it's the first chain pulled by the rank and file when they receive their marching orders.

Other lame excuses you're supposed to say as the 'lies' chant fails:

 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
They both walked over poor Jim. Obama reclaiming his 5 seconds and then exceeding it by a fairly lengthy amount proves that.

I don't know if "Victim of high expectations" is a lame excuse or not but it's certainly true.

Obama didn’t live up to his rep as an excellent public speaker and Romney surprised a lot of people by showing he was no slouch.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"I see you got the talking points memo. Is there a set number of times to repeat this or you just go with it anytime the debate is brought up?"

oooooh, sorry. That disqualifies you from the stopped clock award. The principle of serendipity is that if you're there when the bus comes you get on the bus, but if you're not you don't. You missed the factcheck local and it looks like you will have to wait a long time before you get another chance.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
I seem to have touched a nerve...
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
What G3 fails to realize is that the memo simply reads, "Tell them the truth." [Big Grin]

[ October 04, 2012, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Obama didn’t live up to his rep as an excellent public speaker and Romney surprised a lot of people by showing he was no slouch."

I heard a report on the radio today about a focus group of independents in Denver that was monitoring the debate in real time and recording their positive/negative impressions every second. They responded positively whenever Obama was speaking and negatively every time that Romney attacked him. They "scored" it much more favorably towards Obama. They ultimately were asked their opinion about who won and they all said that Romney did.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

I heard a report on the radio today about a focus group of independents in Denver that was monitoring the debate in real time and recording their positive/negative impressions every second. They responded positively whenever Obama was speaking and negatively every time that Romney attacked him. They "scored" it much more favorably towards Obama. They ultimately were asked their opinion about who won and they all said that Romney did.

This agrees with my suspicion that we witnessed Romney stealing Obama's lunch money and thus was called the "winner", but not necessarily by being a stellar candidate that persuaded people with his argument. He made sure he was the one throwing punches - and you can't win a fight by defending. Obama isn't very good at debate-as-combat because he meanders too much.
With a little coaching, maybe next time he will come with some prepared "punches" to not let Romney take the position of aggressor again. He can't just sit there and defend. It would also be nice to see some fire outta him!

[ October 04, 2012, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
How'd you like the oh, btw, Jim, if I win, you're fired?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Obama didn’t live up to his rep as an excellent public speaker and Romney surprised a lot of people by showing he was no slouch."

I heard a report on the radio today about a focus group of independents in Denver that was monitoring the debate in real time and recording their positive/negative impressions every second. They responded positively whenever Obama was speaking and negatively every time that Romney attacked him. They "scored" it much more favorably towards Obama. They ultimately were asked their opinion about who won and they all said that Romney did.

Well, if you measured up who seemed to be wining second by second, then the US kicked Vietnam's butt, and the Brit's prevailed in the US revolution.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Obama didn’t live up to his rep as an excellent public speaker and Romney surprised a lot of people by showing he was no slouch."

I heard a report on the radio today about a focus group of independents in Denver that was monitoring the debate in real time and recording their positive/negative impressions every second. They responded positively whenever Obama was speaking and negatively every time that Romney attacked him. They "scored" it much more favorably towards Obama. They ultimately were asked their opinion about who won and they all said that Romney did.

It sounds to me like the "independants" were actually closet democrats.

I too respond negatively every time the Yankees hit a home run off a Red Sox pitcher. But I still know who has the most runs at the end of the game.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
" Such a debate hammering hasn't occurred since Reagan chewed up Carter and Mondale. I really didn't expect such a beat down."

If Ornery had a "stopped clock" award I would nominate G3 for it. Romney was on his game, but Obama so underperformed against expectations that I have to wonder what was distracting him.

I can guess that.

What surprised me was that Romney seemed to have changed his mind about wanting to lose.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

What surprised me was that Romney seemed to have changed his mind about wanting to lose.

When you shake the etch-a-sketch as hard as he did last night, everything gets wiped out.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Dream on, Pyr. Barry babbles on about "the real Romney," but Romney's record as an elected official is completely consistent with the sort of man we saw last night.

It's what I said all along: Romney spent a year bending over for the right-wing republican initiation, said their mumbo jumbo, and now he's back with us.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Obama mostly just sounded exhasperated and annoyed to me. The next debate is going to be about foriegn policy and Romney seems eager to go there. If Romney trots out a bunch of Neo-con utopian BS about being Democracy to the Middle East and implying that Obama gutted defense Obama's going to have to have a better defense than sounding exhasperated.

[ October 04, 2012, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Dream on, Pyr. Barry babbles on about "the real Romney," but Romney's record as an elected official is completely consistent with the sort of man we saw last night.

It's what I said all along: Romney spent a year bending over for the right-wing republican initiation, said their mumbo jumbo, and now he's back with us.

I like the Romney I saw last night, but I don't trust that that was the real man.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
It's what I said all along: Romney spent a year bending over for the right-wing republican initiation, said their mumbo jumbo, and now he's back with us.
He may be back with you, Pete, but who are his advisors and cabinet going to be? [Wink]
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ AI Wessex:

quote:
Agreed. Not sure why he planned it that way, unless like at the Correspondents' Dinner last year he was working on the plan to go after the Libyan embassy attackers and was distracted.
Or maybe... just maybe... he was distracted by the fact that he can't marshal a good argument about why he couldn't have dealt with the Economy at the beginning of his term?

quote:
Hmmm, then why was Romney so happy given that he's making happy promises that there's no chance he will keep?
And when Romney fails to keep his promises, only then you will have a good point.


quote:
If he had had more cooperation things might have gone better. But keep in mind that we kept losing jobs for the 4-5 months while he was trying to get his recovery plan through Congress and even though it's taken a long time the economy has recovered all of the jobs that it lost.
He had a Democratic congress for the first two years of his term. He chose to deal with Democratic priorities instead of National ones. This is why he can't defend himself. "Gosh... I got people standing around doing nothing... I'll go buy them ice cream! That'll get 'em jobs!"

Ed.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
I like the Romney I saw last night, but I don't trust that that was the real man.

Yesssssssss.

This is the real Romney. Bwua haha!
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Or maybe... just maybe... he was distracted by the fact that he can't marshal a good argument about why he couldn't have dealt with the Economy at the beginning of his term?"

Anything is possible, but some things are very unlikely. That is one.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Or maybe... just maybe... he was distracted by the fact that he can't marshal a good argument about why he couldn't have dealt with the Economy at the beginning of his term?
You keep repeating that nonsense despite the fact that the ARRA was one of the first major acts out of the gate. Are you suggesting that he would have had any luck passing a second stimulus bill before the first was even fully under way?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"And when Romney fails to keep his promises, only then you will have a good point."

Then please explain how he will implement a 20% tax cut across the board (and what taxes is he referring to) while remaining revenue neutral? He can't. Or don't you think that is necessary during an election campaign?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Dream on, Pyr. Barry babbles on about "the real Romney," but Romney's record as an elected official is completely consistent with the sort of man we saw last night.

It's what I said all along: Romney spent a year bending over for the right-wing republican initiation, said their mumbo jumbo, and now he's back with us.

Doesn't matter which one was the act, really; the magnitude of the change that he seems to be hoping that no one notices remains about the same.

And of course, he's still sticking to the worst of the mumbo jumbo- pushing for ideological economic nonsense and military escalation, while dodging the fact that his numbers don't add up.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
He's being pretty careful in his language to obfuscate what he's really saying. He will cut rates but also cut deductions. So the net result is no net tax reduction or increase. (That's the definition of revenue neutral, neh?)

Some people may pay more, some may pay less. Since he won't tell us which deductions he thinks he would get rid of (all of them?) we can't know who will be the winners and losers there or verify whether the math even works.

[ October 04, 2012, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
I like the Romney I saw last night, but I don't trust that that was the real man.

You like the Romney who proposed major military escalation as his only remotely credible growth measure?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Some people may pay more, some may pay less. Since he won't tell us which deductions he thinks he would get rid of (all of them?) we can't know who will be the winners and losers there or verify whether the math even works.

We know how much he plans to reduce taxes by- that means that we can add up the currently available deductions and see that there's no way he can even come close without cutting heavily into those going to the middle class in greater proportion than the tax reductions he's offering.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
One of Romney's claims was that Massachusetts had the top rated school system in the country when he was Governor. It sounded to me like he wanted to take credit for that, but they have traditionally had one of the highest teacher salary scales in the nation and are perennially ranked as having the best or near best school systems. It might be a more honest claim to say that he didn't weaken it.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Following last night’s nationally televised presidential debate, President Barack Obama’s 11-year-old daughter Sasha reportedly asked her father why he was “acting like such a goddamned pussy up there.” “Daddy, how come you were being such a little bitch?” asked the sixth-grader, who told the president she was “genuinely worried” that maybe somebody had “cut Daddy’s balls off” right before he took the stage.
The Onion. [LOL]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Man I haven't ben to the onion in ages. Time to change that I think. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Following last night’s nationally televised presidential debate, President Barack Obama’s 11-year-old daughter Sasha reportedly asked her father why he was “acting like such a goddamned pussy up there.” “Daddy, how come you were being such a little bitch?” asked the sixth-grader, who told the president she was “genuinely worried” that maybe somebody had “cut Daddy’s balls off” right before he took the stage.
The Onion. [LOL]
I'm generally a fan of the onion, but I'm not big on mixing children and sadism. [Frown]

[ October 04, 2012, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
My library computer seems to have been infected with something, as it keeps redirecting me to obscure sites and periodically wiping out my work. It would be nice to think a special place in hell is reserved for those who craft such programs.

Anyway Romney clearly won the first debate, and those who thought otherwise rank as delusional. But I agree with Nate Silver's football analogy: it was much like kicking a field goal in the 4th quarter when you need a touchdown. Certainly you can still win, but the odds remain against you.

[ October 04, 2012, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Anyway Romney clearly won the first debate, and those who thought otherwise rank as delusional.

Yes, there's no doubt Romney won, it wasn't really close. Delusional may be a tad harsh, but they are certainly suffering from rose-colored glasses.

quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
But I agree with Nate Silver's football analogy: it was much like kicking a field goal in the 4th quarter when you need a touchdown. Certainly you can still win, but the odds remain against you.

That's a valid point, but after last night Team Romney is a field goal closer to winning.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Many experts who watched the debates with the sound turned off were polled and gave Romney a win by a high margin, which is why debates aren't what they seem. Romney had the henna washed off from his Univision appearance and seems to have pinked himself up for this TV audience. He smiled even when Obama was hitting him between the eyes with a 2 by 4 and kept up a tap dancing regimen that would have tired out a younger man.

Obama by contrast didn't whiten his skin, looked down a lot and smiled only when something seemed genuinely funny. The debate played more like a dull TV sitcom where Obama was the nerdy neighbor brought in to be abused with knowing irony.

So the question wasn't who has the better policies and would be the better President, but who got the higher ratings. If you think Obama did, you clearly are delusional.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Still, the big bird thing was chilling. [Frown]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the biggest thing that really carries forward from this debate. Everything else was pretty forgettable or only visible to people that have already been following closely, but by going after Big Bird, he opened up a really easy to exploit weakness not only for himself, but for every congressional Republican who is in a tight race.

It doesn't speak well for his business sense that he suggested that he'd cut a trivial expense that produces such a huge ROI, nevermind that he did so by going after one of the most iconic elements of its benefit.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
The real question is did Romney win any votes with his debate performance? The polls over the next few days will answer that question.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Polls even now don't fully translate to votes. If they shift up one day and down the next they are reflecting the news cycle more than sentiment and intent. They only matter as long term trends in Sept/Oct after the convention noise settles down, and are only a good forward indicator in the last week before the election.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
If Mitt is elected his theme song should be "Hail to the Fuzzident". He told FOX last night:
quote:
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is disavowing his controversial remarks dismissing “the 47 percent” of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes, saying in an interview Thursday night that the comments were “just completely wrong.”

“My life has shown that I care about 100 percent, and that’s been demonstrated throughout my life,” Romney told conservative commentator Sean Hannity on Fox News. “And this whole campaign is about the 100 percent.”

That's just another example of a strong stand used for advantage at one point in time but not useful to him now, like "strict Conservative", the mandate is/is not a tax, climate change is a fact/theory, honoring deportation deferrals, and my favorite one about the $5T in tax cuts (Forbes):
quote:
Okay. Now we know that Gov. Romney’s tax plan does not call for a $5 trillion tax cut. Which means that we now officially know nothing at all about Mitt Romney’s tax plan.

Previously, Governor Romney has said that his tax plan would cut all individual income tax rates by 20%, eliminate the AMT, eliminate the estate tax, and eliminate taxes on investment income for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would also extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

Those tax cuts would reduce federal revenues by $480 billion in 2015 over and above the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts. Allow for some growth in income, and the total comes to over $5 trillion over ten years.

Get that, over and above the Bush tax cuts?

[ October 05, 2012, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Sorry, I have been busy, but I'd like to chime in here. It was pretty clear that Romney won the debate assuming that we are using the usual definition of what it means to "win". He looked and spoke with more confidence, and he had clear answers that addressed many concerns that emerged during the debate. When opposing arguments were raised, he confidently responded and moved on. That usually has a net positive effect on influencing voters.

Now, he achieved those objectives through a combination of excellent preparation and a blithe disregard for the truth (even in the context of intellectual integrity, that is, maintaining consistency between what he has said in the past and what he was saying at the moment). But Obama did not successfully challenge his incorrect statements and inconsistencies. So the night was clearly a positive for Romney.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Still, the big bird thing was chilling. [Frown]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the biggest thing that really carries forward from this debate. Everything else was pretty forgettable or only visible to people that have already been following closely, but by going after Big Bird, he opened up a really easy to exploit weakness not only for himself, but for every congressional Republican who is in a tight race.

It doesn't speak well for his business sense that he suggested that he'd cut a trivial expense that produces such a huge ROI, nevermind that he did so by going after one of the most iconic elements of its benefit.

Romney's a meany for going after big bird? I don't recall that one being on the talking points. I think it's better than the altitude sickness but, jesus, what isn't?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
You mean the fact that Romney pointedly mentioning that Big Bird will get the axe is somehow on a par with Gore offering a goofy post-game comment about altitude sickness? If you want to compare what the candidates say with pure nonsense, often maliciously distorted, you should stick with FOX.

[ October 05, 2012, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
Perhaps "rose-colored glasses" is indeed kinder than "delusional" for those on the fringe who think Obama won this debate.

But as an incumbent leading in the polls, Obama would have preferred not to debate Romney at all. Failing that, he should have preferred a debate as boring as possible, so fewer people would tune in to listen to Romney's arguments in the next two debates. And above all, he wanted to avoid making memorable blunders of the sort which can cost a candidate the election. I have seen no one suggest he made any of those.

And by failing to mention Romney's 47% remark, he avoided giving Romney a chance to explain. The result was, for example, that Bill O'Reilly opened his next show by speculating on why Obama had avoided attacking on that issue - thereby reminding his millions of viewers that Romney holds 47% of them in contempt - without Romney having any chance to counter that perception. As Prytolin suggests, the major blunder of the debate may have been Romney attacking Big Bird - suggesting cutting funding for such an American icon is hardly a way to win. By comparison Obama said nothing memorable at all, good or bad, which probably made his advisers very happy.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
You mean the fact that Romney pointedly mentioning that Big Bird will get the axe is somehow on a par with Gore offering a goofy post-game comment about altitude sickness? If you want to compare what the candidates say with pure nonsense, often maliciously distorted, you should stick with FOX.

Maybe Mitt is right to be wary of Big Bird (some naughty words).

[ October 05, 2012, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Hobsen may be right. If the polls rise this week for Romney and fall next week, I would think that gives more credence to that view. Especially because in the meantime Obama will hammer the **** out of him for all of his false statements.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
You mean the fact that Romney pointedly mentioning that Big Bird will get the axe is somehow on a par with Gore offering a goofy post-game comment about altitude sickness? If you want to compare what the candidates say with pure nonsense, often maliciously distorted, you should stick with FOX.

Maybe Mitt is right to be wary of Big Bird (some naughty words).

It's a funny bit but he's got Oscar all wrong. Oscar doesn't live in a trash can because he's poor. His trash can is like Dr Who's TARDIS, small in the outside vast on the inside, Oscar has a paid lacky named Bruno, a super-intelligent pet worm, and a horde of devices he's cobbled together. Oscar isn't the poorest guy on Seseme Street, he's one of the wealthiest.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Interesting. So if Oscar is a wealthy Republican who just lives in a garbage can in order to trick the IRS so he can continue to cheat on his taxes, then it stands to reason that Oscar will be the only member of Sesame Street to continue to receive public funding under Romney [Wink]

[ October 06, 2012, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
quote:
Rick Santorum got philosophical when asked about Mitt Romney's pledge to cut off PBS funding, the Washington Post reports.

Said Santorum: "I've voted to kill Big Bird in the past. I have a record there that I have to disclose. That doesn't mean I don't like Big Bird. You can kill things and still like them, maybe to eat them, I don't know.

Big Bird would certainly stand out as the main course at Romney's Thanksgiving feast. More like an ostrich than a turkey.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ Pyrtolin:
quote:
You keep repeating that nonsense despite the fact that the ARRA was one of the first major acts out of the gate. Are you suggesting that he would have had any luck passing a second stimulus bill before the first was even fully under way?
What? That's all he needed to do and he was done?

He promised to cut the deficit in half and instead enlarged government. He promised to reduce the debt and instead increased it by 6 trillion. The fire was burning. You could argue he put it out, but then he walked away, the remains still smoldering and went diving for pearls instead.


@ Al Wessex:
quote:
Then please explain how he will implement a 20% tax cut across the board (and what taxes is he referring to) while remaining revenue neutral? He can't. Or don't you think that is necessary during an election campaign?
He explained it. I suspect you either didn't want to hear it or accept it. By broadening the _tax base_ your create more tax payers and, therefore, more revenue. It's been tried before and worked. I have no reason to believe it won't work this time either.

Ed.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
quote:
Rick Santorum got philosophical when asked about Mitt Romney's pledge to cut off PBS funding, the Washington Post reports.

Said Santorum: "I've voted to kill Big Bird in the past. I have a record there that I have to disclose. That doesn't mean I don't like Big Bird. You can kill things and still like them, maybe to eat them, I don't know.

Big Bird would certainly stand out as the main course at Romney's Thanksgiving feast. More like an ostrich than a turkey.
Just figure out what he'd stuff it with, and we have a great political cartoon.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Just figure out what he'd stuff it with, and we have a great political cartoon.

Jim Lehrer.

Maybe Tom Glavin?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
How about Votes?

Does this topic require its own thread?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Cartoon: Big Bird & Romney: http://theweek.com/section/cartoon/0/234410/all-cartoons

Edited to add another: http://theweek.com/section/cartoon/0/234406/all-cartoons

Thanksgiving Big Bird : http://theweek.com/section/cartoon/0/234403/all-cartoons

http://theweek.com/section/cartoon/0/234400/all-cartoons

Please link me to any other Big Bird Romney cartoons you see.

[ October 06, 2012, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
He explained it. I suspect you either didn't want to hear it or accept it. By broadening the _tax base_ your create more tax payers and, therefore, more revenue. It's been tried before and worked. I have no reason to believe it won't work this time either.
This has been tried before - but it has a remarkable track record of failure. Please provide me the substantiation for your claim.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
m'It's Alive! http://theweek.com/section/cartoon/0/234404/all-cartoons
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Fact Checkers: http://theweek.com/section/cartoon/0/234328/all-cartoons
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ Greg Davidson

Just read the thread, Greg. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
@ Pyrtolin:
quote:
You keep repeating that nonsense despite the fact that the ARRA was one of the first major acts out of the gate. Are you suggesting that he would have had any luck passing a second stimulus bill before the first was even fully under way?
What? That's all he needed to do and he was done?

Try answering the question I asked- do you think it would have been politically feasible to try to pass another round of stimulus legislation right on the heels on the first? He should have started bigger, and held out harder against letting it get cut, certainly, but given what was enacted, there wasn't any good way, at the very least until Franken's election was worked out, to try go follow it up with the balance of what was needed, but it bought some time, at least. And were it not for the absurd level of procedural delays in the Senate and then losing the house, he would have been able to get more thorugh after hammering out the other important issues for long term economic health that were on his plate.

quote:
He promised to cut the deficit in half and instead enlarged government. He promised to reduce the debt and instead increased it by 6 trillion.

You realize that those are mutually contradictory? You can't reduce debt (net private savings) if you only cut a deficit (net increase in private profit potential) in half. He did promise the first, which would have been absurdly stupid to do, since we needed to push mor growth, not force even faster contraction, the second is pure nonsense.

With the trillion dollar public deficit he inherited, it's going to take 50 years to fill the current 50 trillion dollar private sector credit hole that needs to be filled (and that's falsely assuming that it holds stead over that time rather than continuing to grow) and he's reduced that and presided over an unprecedented number of public sector layoffs at any time, nevermind in a downturn.

You're right that he left the embers smoldering, but that's in large part because he was trying to satisfy people like you that keep complaining that he used too much water as it was; that he broke promises to cut water production in half and want him to solve the fire and underlying drought by finding ways to drain get rid of all the water, since, apparently, no fires would happen if there was no water around to encourage people to set them.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"He explained it. I suspect you either didn't want to hear it or accept it. By broadening the _tax base_ your create more tax payers and, therefore, more revenue. It's been tried before and worked. I have no reason to believe it won't work this time either."

Ed, his explanation is called kicking the can down the road. He proposes to cut taxes by $480B a year, and when will the government start to recoup the savings? Certainly not all of it in the first year, so entering the second year they are not revenue neutral from year 1. And then the next year it's another $480B in the red. Get real, it's not possible. Over 10 years it is $5T that he has cut. As Pete points out, without some massive bubble (that would eventually burst) where's all that money going to come from?
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Ed,

Here is why I get tired of bogus arguments being put forward and requiring my effort to show how silly they are. Here's a quote from the summary of the William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore study you cited:

quote:
In 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre-and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

How many people reading your quote would think that they were combining bad economic performance under Ford to Carter, and bad economic performance under Bush I to Clinton. You could play the same game, only with more validity, by saying that the policies pursued under Carter and Clinton resulted in higher growth than the policies of Republicans Ford, Reagan and Bush.


Real question: I am assuming that you raise these arguments sincerely, but don't you ever get embarrassed that they are riddled with ridiculous holes than can be spotted in 5 minutes of examination?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"He explained it. I suspect you either didn't want to hear it or accept it. By broadening the _tax base_ your create more tax payers and, therefore, more revenue. It's been tried before and worked."

YES, it's been tried and it's worked before, under Reagan, but do you think that the deficit went down under Reagan as promised? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
By broadening the _tax base_ your create more tax payers and, therefore, more revenue.
In other words, by broadening the base, you effectively raise taxes on some segment of the population. Now, if there isn't mathematically enough room to "broaden the base" on the upper class to match the cuts your giving them (and it's your explicitly stated intent to lower their tax rate because you think that lower taxes rather than better deduction for productive investments will encourage said investments) then if you want to balance out those cute, you have to "broaden the base" on the middle class to get there. In the mean time, you'll see overall tax collections fall, because the middle class now has less money to spend, so the upper class has less motivation to expand production to try to get that money. Instead, they save it (which is to say, they push the middle class further into debt (since debt and savings are two sides of the same coin) especially is the Federal Government is working to constrain the supply of public savings available and cutting net private income by reducing spending.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Heard on the radio this morning Romney himself say in a recent campaign stop in Ohio that the 20% tax cut for people with under $200,000 taxable income would be offset by elimination of deductions they receive. In other words, they themselves would be responsible for the revenue neutrality of the tax cuts he plans to give them.

Ed, couple of questions:
. Isn't that the small business population Republicans are dedicated to protect?
. Can you explain how that broadens the tax base?
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
Listen, Guys? "Broadening the tax base" simply means allowing more money to circulate through the system so that more goods and services and, yes, tax payers get taxed. It starts by allowing the creation of jobs. With more jobs, more people are actually spending and therefore buying those goods and services. It's actually no different than that Keynesian stimulus that Obama tried with one _very notable exception._ The problem with Obama's stimulus was that it only lasted as long as the money lasted and left us 1 trillion dollars deeper in the hole. Lowering taxes, creates more jobs, more jobs means more spenders and more spenders means more taxes collected and is more sustainable in the long-term than any Keynesian Stimulus.


@ Greg Davidson

Why, thank you sir, for intervening in this thread and explaining it all so clearly to me. I apologize for having made you descend from on high to save me from my foolishness. I promise most sincerely to never offend your Lordship again in such an ignorant and oafish manner.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Ed, that's certainly a hopeful expectation, but can you give some specifics for how it could happen that way? For instance, Romney will cut income taxes by 20% but raise deductions. Can you give examples of what they might be and how much of the $480B in rate reductions would they recoup?

One idea he floated is capping deductions and exemptions at $17,000 for a family. That's less than the real estate taxes and mortgage interest on a large number of homes owned by middle class people in several of the most populous states. Many of those people are small business owners. Does that seem right to you? How much of the $480B do you think that would get back?

The Romney/Ryan Medicare reduction of $716B would come as reduced benefits, which means that those costs would be passed on to consumers. We know that illness related medical expenses are the single greatest cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. How does that help the economy or help achieve revenue neutrality if those people are sick and/or not buying things?

These are examples. If you simply insist that Romney will "expand the tax base" without any concrete examples you're just spouting party talking points. You want more from people on the other side, so give more yourself.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
EDanall,

Your comment dodges responsibility with a distraction. Were you aware of the misleading methodology in the study you cited? If so, do you often knowingly cite studies with flawed methodologies? Or were you citing the study without even a simple check on its validity, and if so, do you do that often? Or are you asserting that this methodology was valid and no deceit was intended by the study authors?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
IIRC, creation of new small businesses has fallen 33%. If some change in taxes managed to reverse that, that could involve substantial broadening of the tax base and therefore increase in revenue.
 
Posted by djquag1 (Member # 6553) on :
 
Rich people already get tax breaks for adding to payroll and putting money into a business, right? It seems to be a pretty simple concept. Could someone arguing for the Right explain why lower income and capital gains taxes for the wealthy are needed to create more production and employment? Because it seems to me that they can already, right this second, put their money into such things and get a break on their tax bill.

Economics isn't my strong suit, so I could be wrong. But that appears to be the case to me.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"IIRC, creation of new small businesses has fallen 33%."

From what level and from when? That's got to have more to do with credit restrictions and people's inability to use their houses as ATMs. If not, what do you think is the reason?

Same question to you, how does Romney expand the tax base to both remain revenue neutral and encourage small business creation and hiring.

Bear in mind that Bush's tax policies were directed in very similar sounding ways and he had much smaller job growth in the private sector than in the public sector and overall lower job growth than Obama has had, even including the jobs lost in the first 4 months of Obama's tenure in office. In fact, the Bush tax cuts were intended specifically to stimulate job growth, and they obviously failed. Also keep in mind that the federal deficit is smaller today than it was when Obama came into office, and that includes all of his stimulus expenditures.

If there are more people employed now than there were when Obama took office, how come we're not seeing that reflected in the expansion of the commercial market? If you think it's because people's income has fallen, then how do explain that as something Romney can solve and how would you reverse that?

I'm not seeing any way that Romney's unsupported claims will be feasible. Don't forget that on top of the $480B/yr reduction in income tax revenue, he will also continue the $400B/yr Bush tax cuts for the top 1%. That all adds up to $9T in revenue he isn't taking in over a 10 year period.

Isn't anybody able to explain why Romney isn't just proposing to fix the economy through magic and chicanery? So far all I see are people regurgitating talking points as matters of faith, not reason.

[ October 07, 2012, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
Listen, Guys? "Broadening the tax base" simply means allowing more money to circulate through the system so that more goods and services and, yes, tax payers get taxed.

No, "broadening the tax base" means increasing the number of payers. In *entails* certain outcomes, but what it actually means is more entities submitting taxes.

"Allowing more money to circulate" presumably means taking in less revenue, and you go on to make the Laffer curve assumption that this will lead to more revenue, despite the fact that even adherents to the Laffer curve ideology concede that you have to have rates near 70% for a cut to lead to more revenue. In any case, the only way I can think of to connect that to what "broadening the base" means in English is that you believe it will lift incomes enough that more people start paying federal income tax. That's wonderfully optimistic, but its not what Mitt is proposing:

"As president, Romney will hold the line on individual income tax rates and eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He will eliminate the estate tax. And he will pursue a conservative overhaul that applies lower and flatter rates to a broader tax base."

That's from his own website. He wants to change the structure so that more people pay federal income tax; i.e. raise the rates on working class Americans (he dodges admitting this by loudly declaring that he won't raise taxes on the *middle* class, knowing that many people mistakenly believe themselves to be part of that class when they are in fact working class).

quote:
It starts by allowing the creation of jobs. With more jobs, more people are actually spending and therefore buying those goods and services. It's actually no different than that Keynesian stimulus that Obama tried with one _very notable exception._ The problem with Obama's stimulus was that it only lasted as long as the money lasted and left us 1 trillion dollars deeper in the hole. Lowering taxes, creates more jobs, more jobs means more spenders and more spenders means more taxes collected and is more sustainable in the long-term than any Keynesian Stimulus.
Yeah, more Laffer curve. You should read up on the concept: Laffer Curve 101 Laffer only predicts that tax cuts will increase revenue if the current rate is to the right of the peak (higher than optimal). If the rate is to the left of the peak, then even he concludes that revenues will decrease with a rate cut. You seem to think its a simple inverse; lower rates mean more revenue, in all cases. This is absurd (though, in your defense, the GOP has been selling this nonsense for decades). You are correct that Mitt's plan does rely on this nonsense; part of how he avoids adding to the deficit is by "predicting" 3% growth, every year, due to his policies. Economists from both sides of the aisle have called b.s. on this, which is akin to promising good weather for four years, but without it, he does indeed add to the deficit and/or the tax burden on the middle class. Maybe you and he could brush up on Laffer together.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Again, the single best way to allow more money to circulate is to take it from the rich -- who are very bad at circulating money -- and give it to the poor (who are good at it.)
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Again, the single best way to allow more money to circulate is to take it from the rich -- who are very bad at circulating money -- and give it to the poor (who are good at it.)

Okay. I understand that step 1 is taking more money from the rich, taxing them more. Step 2 is giving that money to the poor. What new programs are being proposed to increase the amount of money that the poor are recieving from the Federal Government, and who is proposing them?
 
Posted by djquag1 (Member # 6553) on :
 
Nixon wanted to institute some sort of tax scheme so that there was effectively a minimum income for everyone. Can you imagine the screaming that would occur if someone were to suggest this today?

In a lot of ways, Nixon wasn't half bad.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Nixon wanted to institute some sort of tax scheme so that there was effectively a minimum income for everyone. Can you imagine the screaming that would occur if someone were to suggest this today?

I imagine the Democrats would be pretty pissed if a Republican proposed this. I guess they could propose that the Republican plan minimum income is not enough.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
What new programs are being proposed to increase the amount of money that the poor are recieving from the Federal Government, and who is proposing them?
Sadly, no one is proposing them, because the influence of the Tea Party is pernicious and unchallenged.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
the influence of the Tea Party is pernicious and unchallenged.

Ohhhhhhhh....

I likey. [Smile]

Sounds like Hydra, or the Illuminati.

Or a combination of the two! Allowing for a team-up for Captain America and Laura Croft! Awesome.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Republicans sometimes do such things, but they just don't talk about them.

Check the history for when past bumps to reverse tax bumps for low income citizens have happened.
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Again, the single best way to allow more money to circulate is to take it from the rich -- who are very bad at circulating money -- and give it to the poor (who are good at it.)

I spend most of my money every month. That bartender cash burns a deep hole in a man's pocket.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Again, the single best way to allow more money to circulate is to take it from the rich -- who are very bad at circulating money -- and give it to the poor (who are good at it.)

I wouldn't even put it that way- the best policy is to use taxes to shift the wealthy toward more efficient uses to evade the taxes while distributing new money to the poor to drive economic growth. Avoid the false notion of transfer.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Again, the single best way to allow more money to circulate is to take it from the rich -- who are very bad at circulating money -- and give it to the poor (who are good at it.)

I wouldn't even put it that way- the best policy is to use taxes to shift the wealthy toward more efficient uses to evade the taxes while distributing new money to the poor to drive economic growth. Avoid the false notion of transfer.
You know, considering the amount of "new money" that has been generated over the last few years, I think I agree that it probably would have been better spent by giving it directly to the poor. What exactly has been the total spent by QE 1,2, and now 3? What $ amount is that divided by everyone over 17 making less then $30K a year?

I'm not sure if housing would improve greatly, but some industries and companies would surely benefit. Any guesses?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Grant,

If the "stimulus" had been given to the "poor", then business growth would have been concentrated in those sectors that low-income buyers normally patronize, and the injected cash would have circulated at prevailing value only during the first few transfers... diluting in value as the market absorbed the fix.

More important than cash flow, per-se, is *how* the cash flows during its highest value while in circulation. The poor are notoriously bad at spending in ways that generate growth for the industries which Obama, or anyone else in their right mind, want to see benefit. Pepsico, Fritolay, and service industries are examples of businesses that would thrive under such an arrangement... not really the way to build a foundation for economic recovery.

As to the debate, we are judging leadership/personality more than anything else, and by that measure Obama has been exposed for the inexperienced lightweight that he always was. The next debates will simply solidify public realization of that fact. My concern is which Romney will ultimately emerge. Whatever he does will be done with efficiency, and competence. I doubt that conservatives will relish the outcome of that combination.
 
Posted by djquag1 (Member # 6553) on :
 
So redistribution is doomed to faiilure because poor people would just spend it all on potato chips and soda. Thank you for the nuanced and well thought out argument. Perhaps as a follow-up you can tell us how the malt liquor companies would also recieve a bump.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
That's why poor people should be ignored. Their lives are worthless and they add no value to society. Better to give the money to people who know how to invest it in companies that will create snacks and beer because there will always be poor people dumb enough to give them their money.

"As to the debate, we are judging leadership/personality more than anything else, and by that measure Obama has been exposed for the inexperienced lightweight that he always was."

Deep, deep thoughts! Romney strutted like a peacock in whiteface lying through his smile, but that is a demonstration of -- wait for it -- leadership!

"The next debates will simply solidify public realization of that fact."

No doubt about it. Romney is giving a speech today saying that we should arm the Syrian rebels, no matter that some of them are Al Qaeda. He's also on record saying we should get out of Israel's way so they can bomb Iran and that the Palestinians lack the cultural sophistication to run their own lives. There's no question that he has a different take on international affairs than Obama, or for that matter, all but the most diehard neocon militarists. But at least he will force another $2T into the Pentagon's hands, even though they haven't said what they could or would do with the money if they had it. Hey, no worries, it's all good! Romney is a stormin' mormon, a Con con, a businessman republican, a divestor investor, a mirage in dressage...everything anyone could ask for from a soundbite with a phony bark.

[ October 08, 2012, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Al,

Who says that snack foods are "worthless"? I would never buy them, but my wife does... and I find a way to adjust my preferences just enough to eat as much of that junk as anyone else in my family. [Wink]

Romney did strut like a peacock, and it worked. He made an accurate assessment of his audience. He also failed to be specific, and don't expect that to change. You will recall that candidate Hillary tried to pin Obama down on universal health care, and never did hear how he was going to implement a plan without a mandate, or tax increase. Now we do know... he lied. Welcome to American politics.

Foreign policy is not something that Romney will fail in.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
That's why poor people should be ignored. Their lives are worthless and they add no value to society.
You know, if what the opponent says is so bloody terrible, then their *own* words will condemn them. That you need to pretend that they said something else in order to attack them, is actually evidence that what they said by itself mustn't be that terrible.

Noel said that poor people are "notoriously bad at spending in ways that generate growth for the industries which Obama, or anyone else in their right mind, want to see benefit"

Well, are the poor notoriously bad at this or aren't they? Yes or no? If noel is wrong at this, then that's the worst thing you can say about it, you don't need to pretend it means "poor people should be ignored" or "Their lives are worthless and they add no value to society."

Consider for a moment the possibility that your opponent might not be Satan in disguise. And consider for a moment that you're yourself alienating those of us who don't confuse politics and exorcisms.

[ October 08, 2012, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Aris, you're an atheist like me, so you're not susceptible to the pitch like Republicans are. Romney has in fact said that 47% of the population can be characterized as leeches and moochers, didn't he? He has retracted that, but you know as well as I do that he has retracted almost everything he has said when the audience would welcome a different message. You can't get on a stage in front of all Americans and sound like Newt or Santorum and win any hearts and minds. Instead he changed his pitch one more time, no big deal, to sound more centrist.

Make no mistake, Mitt hasn't thrown poor people under the bus. He can't get their votes, so he has thrown them off the bus, instead. If they need health care, they can always find an emergency room somewhere that will take them. Cut back on food stamps and public assistance across the board.

Are the poor notoriously bad at spending their money? Well, are the middle class particularly good at it? How many poor people found themselves owing $100,000's on houses they couldn't afford? How many have decent jobs and spend more every month than they take in?

The rich are the only wise people, because they tuck their money away where it will make more money. If that means investing in companies that provide valuable services to people who need it, they can do that, too, as long as profit is higher than shifting it overseas or playing the stock market.

"Consider for a moment the possibility that your opponent might not be Satan in disguise. And consider for a moment that you're yourself alienating those of us who don't confuse politics and exorcisms."

Romney is not Satan in disguise. He's a politician with terrible ideas that would benefit a small and already advantaged segment of the society and cause generations of harm to everyone else.

If you think I'm coming on too strong, they argue against my arguments. Doesn't seem like too many people here are doing that. I'll give you a head start:

. Romney cannot balance the budget, which he claims is the most important item on his agenda.

. Romney's tax plan is a fraud. He can't lower income tax rates by 20% and remain revenue neutral without taxing those same people in other ways, and he'll still fall short.

. His business acumen does not translate to governance, because government makes money the old fashioned way, by printing it. Government doesn't change its "product" to ensure a profit. The goal should be the betterment of society, which is not what business strives for.

. He was not the success he claims to be at bi-partisan governorship in Massachusetts. He vetoed more line items than any governor in history, failed to even present most of his major proposals to the state legislature, and "rammed through" a health care plan that the Democrats had been trying to put in place for over a decade.

I can give you more, but argue substance against these as a starter to see if you're serious about it or not. Noel I don't take seriously, because he has historically taken opaque positions and never yielded to any contrary evidence.

The floor is yours, sir.
 
Posted by djquag1 (Member # 6553) on :
 
I for one am quite comfortable in continuing to call a spade a spade and wasting no more energy then that.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Romney did strut like a peacock, and it worked. He made an accurate assessment of his audience. He also failed to be specific, and don't expect that to change."

In other words, you know the magician is a fake, but you still think he can perform miracles, anyway.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"In a lot of ways, Nixon wasn't half bad."

djquag1, I voted for Humphrey and McGovern and grudgingly admit that Nixon would have been slightly to the left of Clinton in today's world of politics. I hated the war in Vietnam with a passion but he did put things in place that mainstream Republicans today decry as liberal socialist ideas. He would turn over in his grave if he knew that.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"You still think he can perform miracles."...

...Spoken in the words of a true believer.

Al, don't you find it interesting that your atheism defaults to a religious fervor echoing the great socialist theorists of the 20th century?

I have heard it said that a Jew can be for God, or against him, but not without him. You have some striking similarities to Marx.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Pepsico, Fritolay, and service industries are examples of businesses that would thrive under such an arrangement...
It occurs to me that Pepsico, Frito Lay, and service industries provide more jobs at all levels of the economy than, say, the banking industry. Or Green industries. Or natural gas companies. Or computer companies.

If our goal is to create jobs to get money into the economy, refusing to create jobs that aren't hoity-toity enough for us seems like a surprising way for the government to interfere in the economy.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
And
Hereeeee
Weeeee
Gooooooooooooo

I can understand pointing out the flaws in an individual's argumentation style. Or even ignoring the critique and deflecting. But I don't see how we've stumbled upon this rabbit hole.

I don't think atheism has a dang thing to do with economic plans, or argumentation styles/tools.

I certainly don't know Al's atheism became a comment point in the discussion, though I have to admit that he was the one to bring it up.

I was kind of enjoying the economic/social points of view being put forth, and Tom's theory about the political influence of Hy.. I mean the Tea Party. Now we're here. WTHeck??
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Tom,

I do prefer an economy weighted in the direction of "Hoity Toity", because that is where elevated standards of living derive from.

I am fully open to the argument that materialistic standards are a faulty measure of human achievement, and fulfillment, but that is not part of most political debate.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Pepsico, Fritolay, and service industries are examples of businesses that would thrive under such an arrangement...
It occurs to me that Pepsico, Frito Lay, and service industries provide more jobs at all levels of the economy than, say, the banking industry. Or Green industries. Or natural gas companies. Or computer companies.

If our goal is to create jobs to get money into the economy, refusing to create jobs that aren't hoity-toity enough for us seems like a surprising way for the government to interfere in the economy.

The down side being that Frito Lay and Pepsico are not exactly "positive health" industries. Of course, Phillip Morris isn't either and according to Dave Chappelle, they're going to benefit from poverty subsidies as well.

Hey, double your benefit. Helps the poor, and eventually helps the health industry down the line when everybody is obese and has lung cancer. Of course, the poor are probably going to be covered under a government health assistance program, soooooooo......
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Again, the single best way to allow more money to circulate is to take it from the rich -- who are very bad at circulating money -- and give it to the poor (who are good at it.)

I wouldn't even put it that way- the best policy is to use taxes to shift the wealthy toward more efficient uses to evade the taxes while distributing new money to the poor to drive economic growth. Avoid the false notion of transfer.
You know, considering the amount of "new money" that has been generated over the last few years, I think I agree that it probably would have been better spent by giving it directly to the poor.

That far, I pretty much agree with you. Iceland set a much better example, by bailing out the people who had their money deposited in banks and letting the banks themselves fail (because ones you insultae the people from the failures,, then there is no longer any such real thing as "too big to fail") But, really much of the spending of the past few years has gone to the poor- a huge driver of the $1 trillion+ deficit that Obama inherited was the automatic stabilization systems (unemployment, food stamps, etc...) that expand automatically during a downturn. And one of the elements that contributed to the freefall being worse than expected was that this was the first time the damage that Clinton and the Republicans did to the welfare system was really exposed, so the additional safety net that would otherwise have mitigated the damage fell through completely, rather than automatically preserving income and consumer power like we needed it to.


quote:
What exactly has been the total spent by QE 1,2, and now 3?

$0, as far as the consumer market is concerned. You may as well ask how much is spent by your bank when you move money from checking to savings, because QE is no different- it just exchanges one dollar denominated asset for another, slightly more liquid one. (Actaully net consumer spending declines a bit because of it, because fixed income retirees that depend on bonds as their baseline for security see a significant drop in income.)


quote:
I'm not sure if housing would improve greatly, but some industries and companies would surely benefit. Any guesses?
Just about every industry across the board would see a strong uptick in demand, leading directly to the need to ramp up produictino and hire or automate to fill out the need to keep up with orders. The risk to reward ration for investments in production to meet anticipated demand would also improve and pull money away from financials.

At the moment the US private credit market stands at $50 trillion- that is the total sum of all net private debt outstanding, money "created" by the private sector in the form of loans an the like. At the current rate of deficit, it will take more than 50 years to produce enough money to make it possible for the private sector to cancel that current level of debt out (while, on the other hand, inflation has already accommodated all of the output of those loans, since the money they produced is already circulating) If we try to cut the deficit further, that will force more debt to the private sector, digging the hole deeper and more quickly, putting even more net drag on private growth.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Grant,

If the "stimulus" had been given to the "poor", then business growth would have been concentrated in those sectors that low-income buyers normally patronize, and the injected cash would have circulated at prevailing value only during the first few transfers... diluting in value as the market absorbed the fix.

Each set of monetary velocity increases the value of the original spending rather than decreasing it. The additional demand would also force more existing money out of financials and into real capital, while the end point for most of it would be cancelling private debt, which is the biggest current drag on the economy. So the absolute worse case scenario is that you give the money to someone who uses it to pay off their debts, effectively transferring a real private debt to a nominal public debt and freeing the private sector to shift more to productive growth. The best case scenario is that it contributes income to several people and businesses on its way to it's ultimate death by cancelling a debt.

Your assertion that the poor are bad at spending their money is faulty on a couple of levels- first and foremost being that, in the economic context "good" means that they spend the money at all, rather than sitting on it. The wealthy are the ones, in that case, who are bad at spending money, because it takes a significantly higher promise of potential return or treat of taxation to move their money, while the poor, by definition have trouble finding enough money to capture the returns that are in easy reach of them.

your moral use of the term "good" there is in direct opposition to basic market principles as well- unless real external harm exists that needs to be mitigated, they are far more cognizant of what they need to be spending their money on that you are; even if their perception might be ill informed in the long run. There may be some justification for adjusting the market itself to make certain choices more attractive (improving the perceived price point of healthful foods vs those that have clear negative effect, but that's a somewhat tangential issue)

The most important shortcoming, though, is that it ascribes "poor" to them as if it were a caste, rather than an economic state. Done properly, such income supplements would promote them from being impoverished to middle class standing. They would no longer, in a more absolute sense, be poor. And with the improvement in standing would come a shift to the habits that greater security allows, rather than the ones that being poor requires of them to stay afloat.

Certainly there are people at every level that are less wise by your standards that you might want them to be, but they are, overall of little consequence, aside from the fact that they provide a steady stream of income to others that profit from their missteps.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The down side being that Frito Lay and Pepsico are not exactly "positive health" industries.
Oh, absolutely. And if we want to have a conversation, as a country, about whether we want to encourage the growth of companies that produce fewer, less-efficient jobs but promote a greater level of general welfare in other categories, that's fine with me. This illusion that you see our leaders promoting, though, that says that pouring money into investment banks (and investors) will magically produce jobs, is blatantly false. As long as we recognize that, I have no problem whatsoever with discussing whether we want to accept a slower rate of job creation in exchange for higher-quality jobs (for whatever definition of "quality" you choose).
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
So far nobody has responded to any of my requests to back up Romney's proposals with firm plans. I may rant sometimes but I will make clear why I think as I do about things. I'd like to see that from the other side. You can find my questions in this and other recent threads. I'd really like to know how Romney plans to do what he says he will do. Aris, Ed, Ron or others.

"Al, don't you find it interesting that your atheism defaults to a religious fervor echoing the great socialist theorists of the 20th century?

I have heard it said that a Jew can be for God, or against him, but not without him. You have some striking similarities to Marx."

I've said this before, Noel, you know nothing about me. You have an obsession with Marx that comes up in at least two threads so far where it has nothing to do with the topic.

Instead of attacking me, give some evidence for *why* Romney's policies will be effective. Or, you can continue to demean Obama without offering any real evidence. It's up to you.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"I certainly don't know Al's atheism became a comment point in the discussion, though I have to admit that he was the one to bring it up."

I brought it up because anyone who supports Romney's positions is doing it strictly on faith. He hasn't put forth any hard proposals for how he would achieve any of his objectives. That applies to positions he took before he reversed himself as well as those he took after. You have to be willing to accept his assertions on faith, which I am not inclined to do. I referenced being an atheist just for emphasis, but now that Noel is in the conversation I'm sure it will become a key element moving forward.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I brought it up because anyone who supports Romney's positions is doing it strictly on faith."

Gah. With that statement, you deserve anything that these guys dish out to you. [Pete turns away]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Trying to provoke a response, and I half expected that one. You're already going to vote for him on a single issue for which there is no pragmatic rationale and ignore all other issues for which he could provide a basis, but won't or can't.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

I brought it up because anyone who supports Romney's positions is doing it strictly on faith.

From what I've heard, Romney would not be the first candidate who gets up in the middle of the campaign and says "trust me, I gotta plan" then grins and winks.

Al, have you ever voted for a candidate for President who did not exactly lay out their "plans" in exquisite detail before you decided to vote for them?

I honestly don't think that your dislike of Romney does not stem from the fact that he hasn't laid out his economic plans in detail. But I'm just guessing.

PS: Pyr, Tom, Noel. I'm sorry I havn't responded to your more detailed, serious, non-sarcastic posts concerning economic policy. This is for two reasons.

First, I havn't had to make a clear, succinct, thoughtful, non-sarcastic post in about a year. I think I've forgotten how. It's so much easier to snipe at the hystronics involved in political discourse. I understand this makes me part of a problem rather then a solution.

Second, my grasp of economics pales in relation to Pyr's anyways. I find myself in no position to really make an argument against him. I can only say that of all the economic theories I've heard, Pyr's is the one that always impresses me as "magical" or "voodoo". But since I can't say I actually understand economics at the depth that he does, I can't say that he's wrong about it.

[ October 09, 2012, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Grant ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Trying to provoke a response, and I half expected that one.

Did you expect this one: that was a G3 provocation, dressed up in lefty clothes.

quote:
You're already going to vote for him on a single issue for which there is no pragmatic rationale
I've explained my rationale, and it's certainly more "pragmatic" than the dressed-up mysticism of your objection to proxy baptisms.

quote:
and ignore all other issues for which he could provide a basis, but won't or can't.
If you claim that I "ignore them", then you're ignoring the many posts where I sharply criticize his position. I'm not ignoring the down side. I'm weighing it in the balance, and protecting marriage is more important to me. But if he doesn't make a better stance of it, I will simply abstain at the presidential level.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
*pfft!*
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
*pfft!*

That's a more accurate answer than your previous one. [Smile] Fair enough.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
Second, my grasp of economics pales in relation to Pyr's anyways. I find myself in no position to really make an argument against him. I can only say that of all the economic theories I've heard, Pyr's is the one that always impresses me as "magical" or "voodoo". But since I can't say I actually understand economics at the depth that he does, I can't say that he's wrong about it.

I'd be interested to discuss, kind of at the meta level, where you think you see voodoo, since I try to take care, at the risk of being overly verbose, to explain the cause and effect relationships to try to show where the voodoo is in more popular constructions that don't really stand up to scrutiny (or are just outright wrong, such as how the popular conception of the "invisible hand" not only has nothing to do with Adam Smith, but actually contradicts what he did say).
 
Posted by TCB (Member # 1677) on :
 
I was also a bit mystified by Pyrtolin's point of view on economics until I spent a couple hours browsing around a Modern Monetary Theory website. You can find a few good ones with a simple google search. It's a fascinating perspective, and, for me at least, it changed how I think about money.

You might also want to read Paul Krugman's criticism, in which he argues that, in healthy economies, debt financed by money issue is inherently more inflationary than debt financed by bond issue.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
in which he argues that, in healthy economies, debt financed by money issue is inherently more inflationary than debt financed by bond issue.
I'd say, rather than he asserts that and hangs an argument on it, even though it is an active point of contention.

Bill Mitchell and Reandal Wary wrote some pretty good responses to that argument that both serve to point out how the example itself doesn't quite work (On the most basic level- It would be insanely impossible to fix gov't spending as a percent of GDP in the face of a growing economy because, if nothing else, the very nature of private sector growth would mean that ther respective percentages of the former, as well as the difference between them, would automatically shrink.) He also falls back on some bad assumptions about how commercial lending works (The real way it works does seem like voodoo if you try to think of money as a fixed resource, so I can get why this portion of it seems like magic. But it's the assumptions that money is a fixed resource and the banks lend from reserves that are wrong, not the actual way the system works.)

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=15722

http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2011/08/16/paul-krugman-still-gets-it-wrong-modern-money-theory/
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
TCB,

Krugman's point that issuing credit (introducing cash into the economy) is inflationary, whereas bond issues (removal of cash from the economy through taxation) is less inflationary over the term of the bond, is really pretty basic stuff.

I do not see that he is particularly sympathetic to MMT, except for the fact that it does accommodate expansion of liberal programs. He does note, with surprising candor, that people have to be willing to purchase government bonds under all conditions for MMP to be even theoretically viable.

Anyone in the market for bonds issued by Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, or Ireland?

I have a statistician friend that once told me "... the theory I employ is entirety valid, but if it gives me answers that run counter to your experience, ignore me... because I have used the wrong model."

If someone rattles on with six paragraphs of gibberish, and concludes with nonsense, ignore it.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
One day I plan to put economics and monetary theory into my curriculum. At this point I am swamped with job related training and career enhancing subjects to the point that I can't focus alot on the things I just WANT to learn.

Honestly, I've been focused more on philosophy this year, and if things continue at the present pace, I'll be deep into it for another 2 years of study, maybe even more. Then I look forward to be being able to study economics with the same dedication.

[ October 09, 2012, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
noel,

quote:
I have a statistician friend that once told me "... the theory I employ is entirety valid, but if it gives me answers that run counter to your experience, ignore me... because I have used the wrong model."
Or he used the right model and your experience is atypical/wrong/misinterpreted. Oftentimes that is the case - which is why annecdotes are not particularly useful for analysis - ie plenty of people know 'someone who smoked every day of their life and didn't get cancer' - therefore they wrongly conclude that smoking doesn't contribute to cancer risk.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
it changed how I think about money.
That's the most important step, I think. There's still room for just about any kind of actual economic possibility once you have that understanding, but knowing how the system, and money in particular, works helps keep those discussion to the actual merits of those policies rather than letting them being clouded by myths and misunderstandings.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Krugman's point that issuing credit (introducing cash into the economy) is inflationary, whereas bond issues (removal of cash from the economy through taxation) is less inflationary over the term of the bond, is really pretty basic stuff.
Bond issue has nothing to do with taxation. That part makes no sense. Bond issue helps to remove excess reserves from banks; giving them an option for disposing of them if no other bank is seeking to borrow reserves.

quote:
I do not see that he is particularly sympathetic to MMT, except for the fact that it does accommodate expansion of liberal programs. He does note, with surprising candor, that people have to be willing to purchase government bonds under all conditions for MMP to be even theoretically viable.
Indeed- and MMT points out that the demand for sovereign bonds is directly related to the total supply of excess reserves at banks, so long as those reserves pay a lower rate than the bonds. Banks can only do three things with their reserves- buy bonds, lend them to other banks that need additional reserves, or purchase case to honor withdrawals/cashed checks. Storing cash is expensive, and in his example all banks have excess reserves, so none are looking to borrow, so not buying bonds means that, for some reason the banks want to sit on low return reserves instead of moving them to an account with a better return until they have need of them.

Where Krugman goes wrong is in assuming that banks lend out of their reserves- a common misunderstanding of how commercial banking work (he's an economist with specialities that have nothing to do with banking, not a banker)

quote:
Anyone in the market for bonds issued by Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, or Ireland?
Those countries do not issue their own currency, and thus can't ensure payment as promised. The relevant discussion is about countries with fiscal sovereignty, not those that use someone else's money.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
[QUOTE]
Second, my grasp of economics pales in relation to Pyr's anyways. I find myself in no position to really make an argument against him. I can only say that of all the economic theories I've heard, Pyr's is the one that always impresses me as "magical" or "voodoo". But since I can't say I actually understand economics at the depth that he does, I can't say that he's wrong about it.

Pyr has his own take, like all of us, but his basic points are just textbook economics. The problem you are describing comes more from the fact that economics *in the political sphere* are as distorted as science is in politics. You wouldn't expect even a remotely accurate scientific concept to be explained by a legislator, and yet most Americans rely on politicians for their economic theory. Thus, something as simple as the fact that states with a sovereign currency should spend more in lean times, and less in prosperous times, is seen as counter-intuitive or even mystical. Its not at all; the issuer of currency has a very different economic role than individuals within that economy, often a nearly opposite role. But we've had decades of politicians telling us that the government is like a household, and needs to balance its budget in the same fashion, that we've arrived at a great number of expectations that are just false.

Keynesian economics is the place to start. Hard to summarize, but I'll try anyway: Keynes recognized that economies didn't perfectly meet the needs of the supply and demand chain at the macro level, and advocated a mixed economy; a predominantly private economy, but with a large role for government to play in stabilizing economic forces and fostering better outcomes for all individuals. The idea that a president even *should* do anything about the economy is a thoroughly Keynesian assumption; 100 years ago it would have been considered absurd.

What's also relevant is that we've had a purely fiat currency since 1971 (when Nixon officially divorced the currency value from any gold equivalent). Fiat currency operates VERY differently from other forms of money, and the implications of this shift are not fully understood. Pyr argues from the point of view of Chartalism (or MMT), which is a descriptive theory of how fiat currency works. While MMT isn't considered a majority or mainstream economic view, its really the strongest theory which *examines* fiat currency, instead of trying to accommodate it within an existing theory. I don't know it a tenth as well as Pyr does, but I can't imagine a serious consideration of the deficit without it. Most of what is argued by fiscal conservatives literally became irrelevant in 1971.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
I'm sure that after I finish my present studies and eventually conclude my self education on economics, I will be converted to fiscal liberalism and Keynesian economics, then move to Northern California. Should be in time for 2016.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
See this critique of MMT,

http://www.mercenarytrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Weekender-The-Trouble-With-Modern-Monetary-Theory.pdf

While MMT is 'right' in a technical sense, they ignore that only enough of the target currency needs to be held to pay taxes, and at the point of transaction. So any 'abuse' of the currency by the country can lead to holding of foreign currencies and foreign investments.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
See this critique of MMT,

http://www.mercenarytrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Weekender-The-Trouble-With-Modern-Monetary-Theory.pdf

While MMT is 'right' in a technical sense, they ignore that only enough of the target currency needs to be held to pay taxes, and at the point of transaction. So any 'abuse' of the currency by the country can lead to holding of foreign currencies and foreign investments.

Its interesting to hear a direct critique of MMT, but there is a lot of chaff in the wheat there, mostly of a straw-man variety. MMT doesn't assert that there are no negative consequences to unlimited spending; it asserts that "running out of money" is not one of those consequences.

If you look at his graphic near the end, he totally ignores the scenario that MMT has been most useful in identifying: when real wealth activity is stifled by a lack of liquidity. Instead, he gives a scenario of hyper-inflation driven by spending which outpaces productivity. In other words, he's presenting a hypothetical that is almost completely opposite from what is happening right now. MMT, as noted in this very article, does tend to treat taxing and spending as pressure valves to adjust the health of the economy (actually, any Keynesian approach does as well), but that works both ways. Surpluses are described, in MMT, as valid tools for creating sustainable growth and preventing speculative bubbles. He's projecting a "deficits are always good" onto MMT that isn't part of the actual theory.

That's what I noticed on a quick read through; Pyr will undoubtedly have a more informed reaction.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
What's also relevant is that we've had a purely fiat currency since 1971 (when Nixon officially divorced the currency value from any gold equivalent). Fiat currency operates VERY differently from other forms of money, and the implications of this shift are not fully understood. Pyr argues from the point of view of Chartalism (or MMT), which is a descriptive theory of how fiat currency works. While MMT isn't considered a majority or mainstream economic view, its really the strongest theory which *examines* fiat currency, instead of trying to accommodate it within an existing theory. I don't know it a tenth as well as Pyr does, but I can't imagine a serious consideration of the deficit without it. Most of what is argued by fiscal conservatives literally became irrelevant in 1971.
That's a very important thing to note- MMT is not an economic theory; it's a detailed framework for understanding money (most specifically our purely fiat system, but once you understand what money actually is and the history of non-fiat systems, you start to see that it actually applies just as well there, fiat systems are just more internally honest. For example: "gold standard" is a bit nonsensical, because that "standard" changed for a given country at least as often as new monarchs took over and declared old coins to be worthless, if not outright illegal, if they weren't immediately traded in for new ones. Actual, fixed currency standards never last long for the same reason that the Euro is cracking up right now; they serve as artificial limits on growth that eventually result in collapse)

[ October 09, 2012, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
I'll try just running down the bullet points at the end, rather than trying to do a details separation of arguments from ideological rambling.

quote:
MMT says it’s important to understand the government is self-funding and can’t run out
of money.

That's correct, as well as to understand what money actually is, because once you do that, many of the other complaints the writer has can become direct issues for discussion rather than being ignored in favor of nonsense like "we'll run out of money" or "we're bankrupt" while huge amounts of productive potential is idle.

quote:
MMT says (or strongly implies) deficits don't matter because the Monopoly banker can't
go broke.

This is, at best, a misrepresentation. Deficits do matter, it's just that MMT doesn't use "matter" as a moral codeword for "are always bad". Deficits drive growth where there is room for growth. A larger deficit encourages more growth, the portion of that growth that is real (productive) to nominal (inflation), however depends on the level of productive slack in the economy. Without a public deficit to make space, the economy becomes a zero sum game and cannot grow. Too much deficit would outstrip real growth potential and a healthy level of inflation; but the argument there should be made in terms of the real resources in play. Where is the shortage? How can the shortage be addressed? What spending, tax, or technological development strategy will take pressure of that resource? Specific questions about real resources rather than pretending it's spending in general that's the problem and picking on the most vulnerable or politically popular targets with the primary goal of reducing the deficit instead.

His suggestion that people will play other games is actually completely irrelevant, because he's treating money as if it's a commodity unto itself rather than simply an accounting unit. Sure people could shuffle their finances like he says, but so what? He just assumes that everyone will pretend that doing so is de facto bad, rather than being somewhat meaningless, if not economically useful. Rather- if people are constantly buying other currencies and commodities with the currency in question, that gives the currency a higher velocity and lowers the overall need for federal spending; in fact in their instant conversion back when they want to buy something or pay taxes, they've effectively managed to triple the total velocity and provide just as much demand for currency as they sell.

quote:
MMT verbally acknowledges that governments cannot "spend and spend"
unproductively, but fails to pursue the implications of this truth. T

The author uses a rather disingenuous bit of handwaving to reach this conclusion. He cites Mosler:
quote:
There is no <b>financial crisis</b> so deep that a sufficiently large tax cut or spending increase cannot deal with it?
But then proceeds to ignore the explicit qualification on the sentence to change its meaning. Mosler did not say that we can necessarily spend our way out of productive or inflationary crises; he specified financial crises- ones brought on by huge financial losses that destroy huge amounts of privately issued debt/money, thus destroying liquidity. With that context, the statement should be self evidently true- if the problem is a lack of money, cutting taxes and increasing spending will replace the lost money until liquidity is restored again.

quote:
MMT implies that U.S. government self-funding equals financial immortality
He begs he question here, asserting that the US government needs financial investors in the first place and then using that as proof that a potential lack of them is a problem. He also handwaves away the fact that the money has to go somewhere; it doesn't just disappear when people buy other assets; rather, it goes into the hands of the sellers of those assets, who in turn need to do something with it. If they're not buying real goods with it, they're not having an effect on inflation, it just becomes a matter of where they want it to sit while they wait to use it and bonds provide a better return than their matresses. The relationship he paints in backwards- the government doesn't depend on investors to buy its bonds, it issues bonds because investors depend on it to do so to give them somewhere to part their excess cash.

quote:
MMT suggests that governments are special economic entities worthy of their own 5
th-dimension-like rules

That's a nonsensical characterization. MMT says that government issue money and their citizens use that money. That's a very real and practical difference, not some mysterious made-up distinction like he tries to pretend it is. It's like saying that someone pointing out that farms are net creators of food and not net consumers is attributing magical "5th dimensional" qualities to them by asserting that they don't need to buy the food they produce from the grocery store.

Government's to very clearly and explicitly differ on financial terms from households, because households use money, they don't issue it, while it's the job of the government to produce and distribute money. That's a defined role, not a magical power.

quote:
MMT glosses over the importance of productivity and prudent investment — paying lip
service to such, but then promoting contradictory assertions.
MMT does not fully account for the role that bad spending, unproductive debt build-up,
and malinvestment surges have in fueling Austrian style boom-bust cycles, which have
been around for centuries (or even millennia).MMT fails to acknowledge, let alone give proper weight to, the fact that THE REAL
ECONOMY IS WHAT MATTERS
MMT ignores the lessons of history in its general smugness as to the U.S. financial
position.

These are all nonsense that try to cast MMT as a specific economic theory rather than a monetary analysis. Yes if gives a nod to those without delving deep into the weeds, but that's because it's only attempting to provide a more honest framework from which to discuss those issues. The entire point is not to say "this is how to spend money effectively" but rather to say "we should talk about what is or isn't effective spending without actively derailing the discussion by pretending that we can't make whatever productive investments we need to". Far from failing to acknowledge that it's the real economy that matters, MMT explicitly creates a space such that the real economy is the only thing that needs to be considered, so that policy can be set by real needs and not kneecapped by bogus fiscal concerns.
 
Posted by EDanaII (Member # 1062) on :
 
@ Greg Davidson:
quote:
Your comment dodges responsibility with a distraction. Were you aware of the misleading methodology in the study you cited? If so, do you often knowingly cite studies with flawed methodologies? Or were you citing the study without even a simple check on its validity, and if so, do you do that often? Or are you asserting that this methodology was valid and no deceit was intended by the study authors?
I'm asserting that until you change your tone, you're not worth debating this with. Lose the 'tude, dude.


@ Al Wessex:
quote:
Ed, that's certainly a hopeful expectation, but can you give some specifics for how it could happen that way? For instance, Romney will cut income taxes by 20% but raise deductions. Can you give examples of what they might be and how much of the $480B in rate reductions would they recoup?
I'm not interested in getting into the so-called "weeds," Al. The details of how this will be accomplished are Romney's and Romney's alone, and if he can't do it, then he won't get my vote next election. Much as Obama cetainly won't get it because of his failed policy's.


quote:
These are examples. If you simply insist that Romney will "expand the tax base" without any concrete examples you're just spouting party talking points. You want more from people on the other side, so give more yourself.
For the record, Al, I'm an independent. If I'm "spouting" any talking points, it's Economic ones.


@ Adam Masterman:
quote:
No, "broadening the tax base" means increasing the number of payers. In *entails* certain outcomes, but what it actually means is more entities submitting taxes.
Linky:
quote:
When economists speak of the tax base being broadened, they mean a wider range of goods, services, income, etc. has been made subject to a tax...
quote:
"Allowing more money to circulate" presumably means taking in less revenue, and you go on to make the Laffer curve assumption that this will lead to more revenue, despite the fact that even adherents to the Laffer curve ideology concede that you have to have rates near 70% for a cut to lead to more revenue. In any case, the only way I can think of to connect that to what "broadening the base" means in English is that you believe it will lift incomes enough that more people start paying federal income tax. That's wonderfully optimistic, but its not what Mitt is proposing:
No, it means exactly what it says: allowing more money to move through the Economy, and, therefore, be subject to taxes. The difference between this and a Keynesian stimulus is risk and reward. There's no risk or reward when the Government takes your money directly from you, but when you allow investors to invest, you tax them after they've got their reward. People are more willing to be taxed under these circumstances.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"I'm not interested in getting into the so-called "weeds," Al. The details of how this will be accomplished are Romney's and Romney's alone, and if he can't do it, then he won't get my vote next election."

In other words, you don't know what he'll really do, but you're going to vote for him anyway. It astonishes me that that is the core of Romney's support, yet it obviously is so. You're aware that his campaign has corrected him on abortion in the last day or so, and have corrected him on tax policy, international diplomacy, the Palestinian state, and a host of other issues recently. Do you have any idea what he actually will do if elected?
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:


@ Adam Masterman:
quote:
No, "broadening the tax base" means increasing the number of payers. In *entails* certain outcomes, but what it actually means is more entities submitting taxes.
Linky:
quote:
When economists speak of the tax base being broadened, they mean a wider range of goods, services, income, etc. has been made subject to a tax...

[Confused] Thanks for confirming that what I said was correct?

Perhaps you are thinking that the inclusion of "goods and services" provides an out for Mitt to "broaden the base" without raising rates on individuals. In which case, you would be forgetting that he's talking about the federal *income* tax. Making more income subject to taxation, by the definition you provided, means raising rates on some individuals (those near the bottom) from zero to something higher.

quote:
quote:
"Allowing more money to circulate" presumably means taking in less revenue, and you go on to make the Laffer curve assumption that this will lead to more revenue, despite the fact that even adherents to the Laffer curve ideology concede that you have to have rates near 70% for a cut to lead to more revenue. In any case, the only way I can think of to connect that to what "broadening the base" means in English is that you believe it will lift incomes enough that more people start paying federal income tax. That's wonderfully optimistic, but its not what Mitt is proposing:
No, it means exactly what it says: allowing more money to move through the Economy, and, therefore, be subject to taxes. The difference between this and a Keynesian stimulus is risk and reward. There's no risk or reward when the Government takes your money directly from you, but when you allow investors to invest, you tax them after they've got their reward. People are more willing to be taxed under these circumstances.
You speak in more euphemisms than the politicians themselves. [Smile] "Allowing" more money to move through the economy could mean any number of things: increased government spending, reduced revenue collection, expanding the total money supply, etc. From the context, I'm guessing you mean reduced revenue collection; less taken in taxes. But that immediately creates a double-speak in your post, because you imply that you want to eventually take in more revenue ("taxing them after they've gotten their reward"). Maybe you mean increasing taxes once the economy is strong again? On its face, your statement implies an increase in capital gains tax; that would literally be taxing people after they've gotten a reward from investing. However, you seem to be (trying to) defend Romney's plan, which explicitly *cuts* capital gains taxes significantly.

This is why Romney is being hammered on not providing specifics: his promises are contradictory on their face. You can't broaden the income tax base without raising rates on some people (specifically, on those who currently pay zero percent); but he's claiming that he won't raise rates on anyone. You can't reduce marginal rates by twenty percent without reducing effective rates; eliminating every tax exemption in the entire code wouldn't make up this difference. Absurd promises from politicians are sadly the norm, but its rather strange to see voters parroting the same contradictions, accepting them for themselves and advocating that others do the same. I'm willing to concede that the plan might make sense to you, but that possibility seems increasingly unlikely if you can't actually articulate it to others.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
Alright, where are all my "politics is a contact sport" people at? We got a vice presidential debate tonight, and usually you guys are drooling and making commentary the day of, or even the morning before.

It feels as if the air has been sucked out of the room, or at least knocked out of some of yous.

Cumon, I want predictions and all that usual BS that I usually get to listen to before the big game. It's as if everyone has stopped to think before speaking and silence has overtaken the earth. We know it can't last. Have at it!

G-Man! Say something crazy to incite the herd!
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I expect Biden to go after the Russian Jewish atheist loving anti-collectivist let-them-eat-forage moocher-dismissing Conservative with tooth and claw. Ryan will say that he stands by everything that Romney has said, all versions of every position included, because Romney cares for 100% of the people.

I also expect Obama will get the bounce this time.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
There he is! Welcome back, Al!
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Jump in, yourself. This topic naturally calls for alliteration (SP), assonance (G3), consonance (Adam), sobriety (Pyr), hints of religion (Pete), blind faith (Ron) and fealty (Ed), and whatever you can offer. And I'm still waiting for the Mormon Forumnacle Choir to sing their sweet harmonies. Perhaps Cherry can draw a nefarious connection showing that Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are the same person because of their names and both are Ron Paul and Ayn Rand's illegitimate offspring. If we're not outrageous enough so that Mod steps in to censor everything into the solitary confinement thread, then we haven't been thinking clearly enough.

I have a line for Biden to use tonight: Mitt Romney couldn't find his true position on any topic even if you have him a flashlight and a three day head start. Here's one you can start with:
quote:
This week, presidential candidate Mitt Romney further complicated his ever-evolving stance on women’s issues when he said he wasn’t aware of any abortion-related legislation that would be part of his agenda as president — despite the fact that he is on the record as supporting at least three anti-abortion pieces of legislation.


[ October 11, 2012, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
This week, presidential candidate Mitt Romney further complicated his ever-evolving stance on women’s issues when he said he wasn’t aware of any abortion-related legislation that would be part of his agenda as president — despite the fact that he is on the record as supporting at least three anti-abortion pieces of legislation.

I'm SHOCKED, Al. Simply Shocked! That a Presidential candidate might represent something to voters within his or her own party that they will more then likely not actually attempt or even believe.

Shocked!
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
I'm a little disappointed nobody has run with something like "World renowned Etch-a-Sketch artist, Mitt-chelangelo..."
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You speak in more euphemisms than the politicians themselves. "Allowing" more money to move through the economy could mean any number of things: increased government spending, reduced revenue collection, expanding the total money supply, etc. From the context, I'm guessing you mean reduced revenue collection; less taken in taxes. But that immediately creates a double-speak in your post, because you imply that you want to eventually take in more revenue ("taxing them after they've gotten their reward"). Maybe you mean increasing taxes once the economy is strong again? On its face, your statement implies an increase in capital gains tax; that would literally be taxing people after they've gotten a reward from investing. However, you seem to be (trying to) defend Romney's plan, which explicitly *cuts* capital gains taxes significantly.
He's trying to suggest that personal income and business revenue (basically GDP) will increase so much that the revenue generated from the lower rates will end up being greater than the cuts themselves were. Basically appealing to the Laffer curve as if it were a straight line. (And a global one, at that, rather than a relationship that has to be closely looked at every possible income segment)

But that's accounted for in the claims that his math doesn't add up here- the only remotely credible report that supports him, can only do so when it stipulates a very high rate of real GDP growth, one that we've seldom seen in a healthy economy, and never seen in the wake of similar cuts. (And the real mechanics of such cuts will be to direct investment away from productive growth and incomes because financials and hoarding will become even more comparatively rewarding instead)
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
Alright, where are all my "politics is a contCumon, I want predictions and all that usual BS that I usually get to listen to before the big game. It's as if everyone has stopped to think before speaking and silence has overtaken the earth. We know it can't last. Have at it!

The one handy thing about Biden is that he's well inured to feeling like he might make a fool of himself by saying something. While that translates to the occasional gaffe, it also generally serves as an asset in debates, especially since most people will just take what's said on screen as the end of the story and not really follow up much afterwards.

This should be a fun fight to watch; I'll be rather disappointed if either of them tries to keep their gloves on.
 
Posted by TCB (Member # 1677) on :
 
quote:
I'm a little disappointed nobody has run with something like "World renowned Etch-a-Sketch artist, Mitt-chelangelo..."
I believe they're going with Turnaround Mitty from Comeback City.

My unsolicited predictions:

Biden will be successful if he sets Obama up for a better debate next time by disqualifying some of Romney's foreign policy positions or innoculating Obama against some expected criticism. He won't look like a clear winner if he succeeds, but that should be his goal.

But if Biden's objective is for pundits to declare him the winner, he should relentlessly attack the Ryan Roadmap. The more Ryan has to differentiate between his plan and the Romney/Ryan plan the worse he'll look. Doing so might (probably won't, but might) even eat into Romney's recent gains with women and independents, as well.

Ryan's goal is the same as Biden's - set Romney up for a marginal victory in his next debate (another route is too much to hope for). Ryan will be successful if he reinforces Romney's image from the last debate - a center-right alternative to Obama who won't rock the boat too much. Despite his reputation as a wonk, it will be better for him to avoid getting too far into policy detail.

And, most of all, Ryan can't fall back on his old, fast-talking mannerism - it makes him come across as a twerpy know-it-all (to older people) or an aggressive car salesman (to younger people).
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Anybody else watching? Biden is making up for lost time. I think Ryan is struggling.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Anybody else watching? Biden is making up for lost time. I think Ryan is struggling.

It's not a fair fight Biden brought his teeth along and made this a 2-1 fight.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
[Smile] , and he's using them well.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
Biden is definitely smacking down. Not sure if or how much it will matter, but its nice to see Romney's ticket have to defend their proposals, instead of just changing them for mass consumption.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Nobody else? I think Grant should 'splain to us what happened over the past 90 minutes...
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
I'm generally pretty bad at predicting how the media hive-mind will call a debate, but I think they'll give this one to Biden. He made the case for Romney/Ryan elitism effectively and repeatedly; Ryan had one good comeback about people not always being happy about what comes out of their mouths (while looking at Biden), but he totally failed to give those quotes any explanation that makes them sound less evil.

All that said, I can't imagine this will have any effect. There were 116,000 people watching with me on youtube, which strikes me as a pretty low number, even if most people watch on t.v.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
I saw Mr. Biden relentlessly interrupting and sneering, not making better points.

It will likely be called as a win for Mr. Biden. I was impressed with Mr. Ryan's demeanor and ability to keep cool with both the moderator and Mr. Biden interrupting like that. If I was in his place, I would've lost my **** after the fifth or sixth double team.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
To be clear: I thought they both did well substantively, but Mr. Biden was tactically stronger (if you'll call constant interruption good tactics; I know the media coverage will). I also think the moderator was clearly biased.

[ October 11, 2012, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Anybody else watching? Biden is making up for lost time. I think Ryan is struggling.

I didn't see Ryan struggling to do anything except to get time to finish a sentence. I was particularly impressed with Ryan because he kept so cool and calm despite the interruptions and occasional double-team.

What is the coverage saying? No TV here.

[ October 11, 2012, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
I thought Ryan got a complete drubbing. He came across as a tweezy, pathetic, nerdy little debate-team captain with dankly stained copies of Atlas Shrugged mouldering in a dark closed somewhere.

Complete opposite of Prez debate one, with the steroidal Rominator leaving our president to fight off a slow-burning attack of the vapors.

[ October 11, 2012, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
To be clear: I thought they both did well substantively, but Biden was tactically stronger (if you'll call constant interruption good tactics; I know the media coverage will). I also think the moderator was clearly biased.

Actually, I agree that the moderator was biased. I liked and agree with how she was hammer Ryan on his campaign's claims, but Biden didn't get hammered as often at all. The phrasing of the abortion question (strangely enough) favored Ryan, but otherwise her questions never really pressed Biden at all.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
It's saying Biden's worst moments were his interruptions and Ryan's was the delay before answering the question about women's rights.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
Ryan's problem is that his ideological bent goes right to the core. He believes in cutting people off from "government dependence" sincerely enough that he'll happily say so to your face if you are poor. You could see him trying to hedge it a bit, but he's a country mile to the right of the middle, and he doesn't really have the ability to come off otherwise.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
Actually, I agree that the moderator was biased. I liked and agree with how she was hammer Ryan on his campaign's claims, but Biden didn't get hammered as often at all.
Agreed. She also was very inclined to let Mr. Biden finish, but interrupted Mr. Ryan multiple times. I really was impressed with how calmly Mr. Ryan continued to give good answers to each question after getting cut off time and time again.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
The phrasing of the abortion question (strangely enough) favored Ryan, but otherwise her questions never really pressed Biden at all.
How so? I didn't see that, but I may have missed it.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
One of Biden's best points was that the small businesses which are the sole justification for Romney's upper class tax cut, make up only 3% of actual small businesses (and consist mainly of hedge-fund managers and the like). He put it right in Ryan's face, and Ryan didn't deny it, which kicks out the only leg that tax cut was standing on, at least for most people.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
quote:
The phrasing of the abortion question (strangely enough) favored Ryan, but otherwise her questions never really pressed Biden at all.
How so? I didn't see that, but I may have missed it.
She asked them to speak on it in the context of being religious Catholics. So Ryan basically gets an out, being able to fall back on religious conviction, while Biden has to explain why he goes counter to his church's doctrine.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
I was greatly amused by this scene from outside the debates.

Woman At VP Debate Calls Obama A Communist
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I really was impressed with how calmly Mr. Ryan continued to give good answers to each question...
By "good," do you actually mean "good" or simply "not flecked with rage-propelled spittle?" Because I can't really think of one good answer Ryan provided.
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
quote:
Because I can't really think of one good answer Ryan provided.
He answered something?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
We didn't learn anything from Ryan about what they would do, only that they were committed to do it.

The abortion and women's rights issues were strange. I think I heard that Ryan said that legislators should decide the abortion question, because it's a matter of principle, not one for voters or the SC to decide. Did I hear that right?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
One of Biden's best points was that the small businesses which are the sole justification for Romney's upper class tax cut, make up only 3% of actual small businesses (and consist mainly of hedge-fund managers and the like). He put it right in Ryan's face, and Ryan didn't deny it, which kicks out the only leg that tax cut was standing on, at least for most people.

It's a shame that he didn't point out that if the business is clearing enough net profit to be subject to the tax, then it's already failing to spend the money on hiring or expansion, and it could easily avoid having a net income high enough to put it in that bracket by hiring people instead of sitting on the profits.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
1) The interrupter-virus struck again. I need to come up with a name for it; it seems endemic in politicians. It wasn't polite when Romney did it, and it wasn't polite when Biden did it--and unless I'm misremembering the first debate, Biden did it more aggressively (probably to assuage the talking heads). I didn't appreciate how difficult Biden made it for Ryan to get a word in edgewise.

2) The moderator was better about not letting herself be talked over. Definitely more lively--and once again, there was more information presented in this debate than I recall in previous years. There was one question that I don't think either one of them actually listened to at all (the 'ashamed of your attack ads?' one)--seemed to me that both of them blanked out after she used the word 'military'--and at the beginning they had rhetoric-itis, but there was also some actual discussion of where they stand on various issues. I appreciated that.

3) I thought she asked some pointed questions of both sides (the pointed questions at the Biden side of the desk were mostly in foreign policy, not domestic policy), but it did seem to me that she agreed more often with Biden. And yes, she showed bias.

4) No specifics on the Romney tax plan again. I know this isn't news for politicians, but it would be nice to know what is and isn't on the table for them so I know what I'm getting when I vote.

5) No actual refutation from Biden that 'the administration' was pushing for watered-down sanctions on Iran (and if they were, why that would be good).

6) No substantive disagreement on Syria--so why were they arguing?

7) Social security. Something probably does have to change, and I know it's just pandering, but I do get annoyed when candidates say 'they paid into the system, and we'll keep our promise to them' of people 55 and older, ignoring those of us who are under 55 and have been paying into the system as well.
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
Al, I think he said it should be left to voters and legislators. Meaning, "the States." Meaning, repeal Roe v. Wade.
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
I liked Biden's rudeness and interrupting. I think it's proper to interrupt to correct a blatant inaccuracy. Then again, I'm just excited to see that one of the four candidates is a living human with a pulse. Everyone else -- Obama, Romney, Ryan -- is just a blank screen on which we project our little voter fantasy lives.

I don't even agree with half of what Biden said. He was just refreshingly non-pathetic.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:

2) The moderator was better about not letting herself be talked over. Definitely more lively--and once again, there was more information presented in this debate than I recall in previous years. There was one question that I don't think either one of them actually listened to at all (the 'ashamed of your attack ads?' one)--seemed to me that both of them blanked out after she used the word 'military'--and at the beginning they had rhetoric-itis, but there was also some actual discussion of where they stand on various issues. I appreciated that.

Why do people want an active moderator? I want the moderator to read the question, keep some basic time guidelines, and otherwise not talk. I don't see how or why people want a moderator to be getting in there swinging at the candidates.

[ October 11, 2012, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
4) No specifics on the Romney tax plan again. I know this isn't news for politicians, but it would be nice to know what is and isn't on the table for them so I know what I'm getting when I vote.
What is wrong with the answer that was given by Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan? Here is the goal, here is the basic structure of how we'll do it, we will work in a bi-partisan way, and it will be affordable because we'll grow the economy (thereby increasing revenue without increasing tax rates).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Actually, I agree that the moderator was biased. I liked and agree with how she was hammer Ryan on his campaign's claims, but Biden didn't get hammered as often at all.
Most of that seemed to stem from the fact that Biden answered her questions while Ryan tried to dodge them- especially the one about given any specifics of guarantees about what deductions they were planning to cut.

It was enlightening to hear Ryan point out that they're planning to do the tax cuts for rich folks first and then maybe eventually get around to cutting taxes for everyone else.
 
Posted by TCB (Member # 1677) on :
 
JoshuaD said:
quote:
It will likely be called as a win for Mr. Biden. I was impressed with Mr. Ryan's demeanor and ability to keep cool with both the moderator and Mr. Biden interrupting like that.
I was also more impressed with Ryan's comportment than Biden's (although I thought Biden walloped him on substance). But I also didn't think Obama's demeanor was so bad during the first debate, so I clearly prefer my politicians sedate. [Smile]

I don't expect this debate will move the poll numbers like the first one did, and I don't expect it will make any difference to the next debate. But it will buy Obama a respite from a week of bad headlines, helping to alleviate the Democratic enthusiasm problem.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
One of Biden's best points was that the small businesses which are the sole justification for Romney's upper class tax cut, make up only 3% of actual small businesses (and consist mainly of hedge-fund managers and the like). He put it right in Ryan's face, and Ryan didn't deny it, which kicks out the only leg that tax cut was standing on, at least for most people.

It's a shame that he didn't point out that if the business is clearing enough net profit to be subject to the tax, then it's already failing to spend the money on hiring or expansion, and it could easily avoid having a net income high enough to put it in that bracket by hiring people instead of sitting on the profits.
Another nice bit that Biden missed was pointing out that that 3% of "small businesses" that Ryan was referring is disproportionately hedge fund managers and real estate moguls that hire few, if any people, while the productive businesses that represent many more workers run much tighter margins. Not only the kind of people that were at the heart of the financial crisis, but ones that were following the exact path of perverse incentives that keeping the rates low on such high incomes creates.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
Yeah, I don't know. I would have liked to listen to what Ryan had to say, when it was his turn to speak. As it is, I don't know if he had very little substantive to say on a number of issues, or if he had very little to say because he couldn't get a word in edgewise, not being as loud as Biden.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
5) No actual refutation from Biden that 'the administration' was pushing for watered-down sanctions on Iran (and if they were, why that would be good).

He did try to get it in, but it got a bit drowned out- the administration was moving slowly on them because it was trying to build international commitment to the sanctions rather than just imposing them and hoping everyone else came along. US sanctions alone wouldn't have made much of a difference- it was getting India and Iran's other big customers and banking associates on board that actually made the sanctions effective, rather than just spitting in the wind.
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
CNN stop-watchers report that both men spoke a roughly equal amount of time -- within 1 minute for the whole night.

[ October 11, 2012, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
Why do people want an active moderator? I want the moderator to read the question, keep some basic time guidelines, and otherwise not talk. I don't see how or why people want a moderator to be getting in there swinging at the candidates.

I want a moderator who will say 'you aren't answering the question; please actually answer the question.' Otherwise, my experience has shown that politicians will spout rhetoric instead of actually addressing the issue that they were asked to address. This leads to less information and more noise.

I don't want a moderator saying who is wrong and who is right; I can figure out my own opinions on that. I just want a moderator who moderates.

quote:

What is wrong with the answer that was given by Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan? Here is the goal, here is the basic structure of how we'll do it, we will work in a bi-partisan way, and it will be affordable because we'll grow the economy (thereby increasing revenue without increasing tax rates).

Because there are a bunch of reasonably smart people saying that what Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are saying they will do can't be done, and the reason those reasonably smart people are saying this, as far as I can tell, is because they don't have any actual details to work with so they're plugging in guesses.

I wouldn't feel betrayed if they gave a very specific plan and then didn't follow it to the letter. Plans adapt to circumstances--that's fine. But it would be nice to know that they weren't just hoping things would work out the way they say they will. More details would also enable me to guess at how I personally would be affected by the legislation they would push. Will my net taxes increase? Decrease? Stay the same? I have no idea.

Mind you, I suspect that they are not unique in this. Obama's 'detailed plan, posted on his website' (from the last debate) isn't very detailed and doesn't give specifics. Ryan's refusal to address specifics in this debate still bothered me. If there's one thing an incumbent has on his side, it's that I've had four years of him and know more or less what to expect from another four.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
[QUOTE]Why do people want an active moderator? I want the moderator to read the question, keep some basic time guidelines, and otherwise not talk. I don't see how or why people want a moderator to be getting in there swinging at the candidates.

Because the moderator is responsible for keeping them on topic and preventing them from pivoting on questions and ignoring them in favor of reciting their preferred talking points. There's no point in having a moderator at all if the moderator can't call them on dodging the question.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
CNN stop-watchers report that both men spoke a roughly equal amount of time -- within 1 minute for the whole night.

Interesting.

Some kind of count on full sentences uttered would also be helpful as a metric. [Wink] But this is indeed a point against my previous statement.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
5) No actual refutation from Biden that 'the administration' was pushing for watered-down sanctions on Iran (and if they were, why that would be good).

He did try to get it in, but it got a bit drowned out- the administration was moving slowly on them because it was trying to build international commitment to the sanctions rather than just imposing them and hoping everyone else came along. US sanctions alone wouldn't have made much of a difference- it was getting India and Iran's other big customers and banking associates on board that actually made the sanctions effective, rather than just spitting in the wind.
I did hear him say that. Could you elaborate, please? It does not seem to me that what you just said applies to the nature of the sanctions, but rather to their timing--but I may be misunderstanding your point.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I did hear him say that. Could you elaborate, please? It does not seem to me that what you just said applies to the nature of the sanctions, but rather to their timing--but I may be misunderstanding your point.
The nature of the sanctions would directly affect what countries were willing to support them, so there would have likely been back and forth on both sides about what needed to be in them to have the greatest effect and get the most countries to sign on, while at the same time working out secondary deals that would help make certain terms more palatable for countries that would otherwise be hurt by losing a trading partner. As part of that process, the Dept of State would absolutely have spent some time going back to Congress with proposals to adjust terms, even if it was just to return to the international bargaining table with a clear no-go.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I did hear him say that. Could you elaborate, please? It does not seem to me that what you just said applies to the nature of the sanctions, but rather to their timing--but I may be misunderstanding your point.
The nature of the sanctions would directly affect what countries were willing to support them, so there would have likely been back and forth on both sides about what needed to be in them to have the greatest effect and get the most countries to sign on, while at the same time working out secondary deals that would help make certain terms more palatable for countries that would otherwise be hurt by losing a trading partner. As part of that process, the Dept of State would absolutely have spent some time going back to Congress with proposals to adjust terms, even if it was just to return to the international bargaining table with a clear no-go.
Thank you. This makes sense.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Chael,

I respect your sincere effort to assume the best of people's motives. It is clear to me that the details for a Romney economic recovery will not be delivered with the detail/clarity that you would like for a very simple reason; cutting taxes has not been useful to a liberal agenda since JFK. Ryan made passing reference to both him, and Reagan, and he was nearly Quailed. Pointing out that even Canada has successfully adopted the trickle-down approach was virtually ignored. It is politically dangerous to plainly state that individuals have more power over their economic welfare than a paternalistic national government. Apparently, Romney has tied his future to genuine conservative principles, and I am somewhat surprised at this development. The "details" can be inferred, much as the socialist aspects of the 2008 campaign were clear to read in Obama's "non-mandated, tax free" health care plan. Character, and ideology are much better indicators than specific details. Obama's character is now a known quantity... I am skeptical of Romney's.

The real gift issuing from this debate has not been recognized:

First- Biden blamed the first successful terrorist attack upon sovereign soil in eleven years on Ryan's non-vote for $3,000,000 in embassy security upgrades. Evidently, the ambassador's request for a detachment of Marines was fiscally excessive in the opinion of this Administration.

Second- Biden threw the intelligence community under the bus in explaining Obama's two week delay in acknowledging that this was, in fact, a 911 anniversary terrorist attack, and not a "spontaneous protest" against a Youtube critique of Mohammed. This is going to dog the Obama campaign right into retirement.

Third- The same intelligence community that Biden hung out to dry is the source for his *certainty* that Netanyahu is wrong on his timeline for an Iranian bomb.

Fourth- Biden appears to have forgotted that he voted for the authoriztion of force in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

These folks are going to be in full damage control mode through November, and if Barry had a hard time in the first debate, watch the sequel.

US intellegence services are not going to bend over for this one.

[ October 12, 2012, 04:05 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I'm generally pretty bad at predicting how the media hive-mind will call a debate, but I think they'll give this one to Biden. He made the case for Romney/Ryan elitism effectively and repeatedly; Ryan had one good comeback about people not always being happy about what comes out of their mouths (while looking at Biden), but he totally failed to give those quotes any explanation that makes them sound less evil.

Yeah, Romney's handlers really made sure he knew what to say and what not to say tonight.

Another important moment from the debate was when Ryan told us that him and his wife loved Enders Game and Enders Shadow.

[ October 12, 2012, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: TommySama ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Evidently, the ambassador's request for a detachment of Marines was fiscally excessive in the opinion of this Administration.
There was no such request. The Ambassador's request was to extend the term of the current security arrangement at the embassy.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Nobody else? I think Grant should 'splain to us what happened over the past 90 minutes...

LOL. I didn't watch, man. I was asleep.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
6) No substantive disagreement on Syria--so why were they arguing?
Because the Romney/Ryan campaign is implying otherwise.

The Republican narrative has been that the Obama foriegn policy is a failure due to the appearance of weakness Obama projects. If Romney/Ryan want to maintain the same policies as Obama then how will they not be projecting the same weakness?

Biden is correct to ask if Romney / Ryan want another ground war in the Middle East.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Yeah, I don't know. I would have liked to listen to what Ryan had to say, when it was his turn to speak. As it is, I don't know if he had very little substantive to say on a number of issues, or if he had very little to say because he couldn't get a word in edgewise, not being as loud as Biden.

Given that the times were about equal, there were times that Biden used his grin to let the world know that Ryan was lying, and Biden's "Don't take the whole four minutes" comment, I think it might actually be that many of Biden interruptions happened when Ryan ran over and it was technically supposed to be his turn anyway.

Purely speculation there without actually seeing how the timing worked out.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Biden is correct to ask if Romney / Ryan want another ground war in the Middle East.
That's about where the only nominal difference lies- Obama/Biden are trying to appear (if they don't actually believe themselves to be) reluctant and forced by events to escalate involvement, while Romney/Ryan appears like they're eager to get their hands bloody whenever the opportunity presents itself.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
Well, it's nice to see that the VP gave the Democrats their bawls back. [Smile]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
The moderator set an aggressive tone with the first question, in which she challenged Biden to explain why what happened in Libya was not an international disaster. I didn't hear her go easier on him than on Ryan.

Ryan is getting props from Republicans (mostly) for standing toe to toe with Biden, but I think that sets the bar too low, somewhere around Dan Quayle height. He needed to be more aggressive and specific, but instead was polished and polite. I think Biden beat up on him, some will say unfairly, but his full-throated defense of Obama's record was effective and made Ryan's attacks seem like sniping.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"I liked Biden's rudeness and interrupting. I think it's proper to interrupt to correct a blatant inaccuracy. Then again, I'm just excited to see that one of the four candidates is a living human with a pulse. Everyone else -- Obama, Romney, Ryan -- is just a blank screen on which we project our little voter fantasy lives."

Biden is what was once called a "kitchen table Democrat", a piece of him never having left hard-scrabble Scranton. He's the same on the job as he is at home, speaks his mind and is passionate about things. Agree or disagree, but if you want to get into the discussion, you have to speak up. He was one of the last truly popular Senators with all of his colleagues in that Chamber, showing the personality matters.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Pointing out that even Canada has successfully adopted the trickle-down approach was virtually ignored.
We did?

Canada's success in the nineties was based on restraining spending while global growth helped spur revenue.

Canada's success post-2008 was based on not letting banks run wild with speculative games and toxic assets.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"It is politically dangerous to plainly state that individuals have more power over their economic welfare than a paternalistic national government."

If that's the case, then how did the economy get into the mess it did? The Bush era saw deregulation and tax cuts. Isn't that how you give power to individuals?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"LOL. I didn't watch, man. I was asleep."

Don't let that stop you. Half of the comments here and on the web sound like they were made by people who didn't see it, either.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

Don't let that stop you. Half of the comments here and on the web sound like they were made by people who didn't see it, either.

That's why I rely soley on your razor keen insight and commentary, Al. [Wink]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

Biden is what was once called a "kitchen table Democrat", a piece of him never having left hard-scrabble Scranton. He's the same on the job as he is at home, speaks his mind and is passionate about things. Agree or disagree, but if you want to get into the discussion, you have to speak up. He was one of the last truly popular Senators with all of his colleagues in that Chamber, showing the personality matters.

There was a point in the debate where he tore into Ryan for criticizing the stimulus by pointing out that Ryan had sent him letters twice asking for stimulus money to create jobs in his home state. It was a pretty devastating attack, especially when the moderator turned and asked Ryan "is that true", and he had to sheepishly admit it. But right after, Biden made a quick remark that I bet a lot of people missed; he told Ryan to keep sending those letters, and that he would always consider them. And, for me, at least, there was a very strong impression that he was being totally genuine; he really did intend to continue working with Ryan in that area. It struck me as the kind of personality trait that would let you fiercely debate people, but still stay friendly and work with them (and I think that's admirable, within the context of our political climate). Did anyone else catch this, and if so, how did you read it?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Yes, I read the same nuance into it. Biden really is a holdover from the days when the Senate was a collegial place with adversarial but not aggressively hostile positioning. Reagan and Tip O'Neill argued vehemently against each other in the daytime and got together for cigars and poker in the evenings. Given the opportunity Biden would sit down with anyone who was willing to work in that same bi-partisan spirit, while never yielding his personal principles.

For me the most telling comment was about abortion, where he avowed his personal consent and commitment to his Church, but made it clear that he couldn't make that decision for anyone else. Ryan, on the other hand, said that denying abortion is a matter of fundamental principle that no one should be allowed to decide for themselves.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
According to polling data, Ryan pulled out a narrow "win" as Biden came off as the braying, drunk uncle who's primary response to anything is "I was there!". I'm not sure rude, arrogant, condescending and general jackassery was the goal for a national audience (Biden locked up the hyena vote) but it plays well to the liberal base so Biden seems to have stemmed the hemorrhaging from Obama's first debate debacle which would make this a success for Biden and Obama. Jesus, Biden is such a buffoon.

Speaking of Barry, he was the personification of the Dunning–Kruger effect wasn't he? Barry thought he won, took a full 24 hours for him to realize he stepped on his crank and lost in one of the worst debate performances evah! It's always amazing to see these things actually occur.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Ryan did OK in a hostile situation where he was apparently instructed to not give any specifics which may paint them into a corner.

The disrespect both Biden and the moderator showed to him made it unfair but there's no way Ryan overcame this and "won".
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
According to polling data, Ryan pulled out a narrow "win" as Biden came off as the braying, drunk uncle who's primary response to anything is "I was there!". I'm not sure rude, arrogant, condescending and general jackassery was the goal for a national audience (Biden locked up the hyena vote) but it plays well to the liberal base so Biden seems to have stemmed the hemorrhaging from Obama's first debate debacle which would make this a success for Biden and Obama. Jesus, Biden is such a buffoon.

Speaking of Barry, he was the personification of the Dunning–Kruger effect wasn't he? Barry thought he won, took a full 24 hours for him to realize he stepped on his crank and lost in one of the worst debate performances evah! It's always amazing to see these things actually occur.

Interesting, according to other polling data Biden wiped the floor with Ryan (70 to 30 at Wapo) and he came off like a teenager surprised and dismayed to be debating a grown man.

It seems that without Batman helping him Robin just couldn't beat the Joker.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Ryan did OK in a hostile situation where he was apparently instructed to not give any specifics which may paint them into a corner.

The disrespect both Biden and the moderator showed to him made it unfair but there's no way Ryan overcame this and "won".

I'm surprised this wasn't a bigger talking point for Republicans. I can't stand Paul Ryan but I still thought he was getting poor treatment from the moderator. (I noticed her try to call out Biden once, which he ignored. Ryan seemed to be getting called out a lot more.)
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Al,

Bush II was no Reagan/JFK. Banking "deregulation" that positions lenders to write junk mortgages with quasi-federal guarantees not only fails to empower individual initiative, it set up a mass default for homeowners that lacked a sense of their financial limits.

Regarding other extravagances that financial institutions engaged in during the pre-crash buildup, individual empowerment demanded that *individuals* bear the burden of their misjudgements. Intervention to prevent the collapse of some banks was justified. Saving the careers of individual managers was not. Uninsured investment houses that could not weather the collapse should (and a few big names did) go out of business. The freedom to fail is part of individual liberty.

Pyrtolin,

I would normally skip your comments, but the assertion that the ambassador requested status quo security is just plain false. Watch media coverage in the coming days.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Yes, I read the same nuance into it. Biden really is a holdover from the days when the Senate was a collegial place with adversarial but not aggressively hostile positioning. Reagan and Tip O'Neill argued vehemently against each other in the daytime and got together for cigars and poker in the evenings. Given the opportunity Biden would sit down with anyone who was willing to work in that same bi-partisan spirit, while never yielding his personal principles.

For me the most telling comment was about abortion, where he avowed his personal consent and commitment to his Church, but made it clear that he couldn't make that decision for anyone else.

We're all very relieved that Biden won't be personally having abortions. So long as he doesn't make the decision to force other people to sponsor abortions.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Where do you see the he or Obama have advocated that?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"According to polling data, Ryan pulled out a narrow "win""

Care to share with us exactly what polling data you're referring to? And is that a single poll or do you think that was a widespread finding?

C'mon, G3, you can talk to us like adults. Tell us where you get your information from, or is it secret...
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"I'm surprised this wasn't a bigger talking point for Republicans. I can't stand Paul Ryan but I still thought he was getting poor treatment from the moderator. (I noticed her try to call out Biden once, which he ignored. Ryan seemed to be getting called out a lot more.)"

If you watch it again, she was trying, but Biden was not going to be headed off. Ryan shut up instantly every time she even looked at him.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Noel, I won't clip any of what you wrote because I didn't understand a word of it. Try rephrasing?
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"According to polling data, Ryan pulled out a narrow "win""

Care to share with us exactly what polling data you're referring to? And is that a single poll or do you think that was a widespread finding?

I'm pretty sure he's referring to a CNN poll.

Yeah. It's the CNN poll. If I remember correctly, it was a poll of voters overall though, rather then undecided voters. Biden won the undecided voter poll.

Lies, durned lies, and powls

[ October 12, 2012, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
More data from CNN
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Grant, from the CNN site (not the Washington Times that you cited):
quote:
Forty-eight percent of voters who watched the vice presidential debate think that Rep. Paul Ryan won the showdown, according to a CNN/ORC International nationwide poll conducted right after Thursday night's faceoff. Forty-four percent say that Vice President Joe Biden was victorious. The Republican running mate's four point advantage among a debate audience that was more Republican than the country as a whole is within the survey's sampling error.
...
One-third of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans, with 31% identifying themselves as Democrats, and 34% identifying themselves as independents.

"That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is more Republican than an average of recent CNN polls of all Americans," adds Holland.

A CBS poll of undecided voters were decidedly the other way:
quote:
A CBS News poll of uncommitted voters using an online panel found that both candidates made solid impressions, but that more of those voters felt that the debate was a win for Biden. The survey found that 50 percent thought Biden won, 31 percent that Ryan won, and 19 percent that the debate was a tie.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter, since few people are influenced by the GOP candidate. An exception is the 2008 election, where Palin hurt McCain at the voting booth.

[ October 12, 2012, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Thanks for the link Grant. I wonder if the other 8% thought it was a tie...
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Thanks for the link Grant. I wonder if the other 8% thought it was a tie...

From what I remember this morning: yes.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
In the end, it probably doesn't matter, since few people are influenced by the GOP candidate. An exception is the 2008 election, where Palin hurt McCain at the voting booth.

So, you're saying that you believe that Ryan is not exactly the same type of "stone around the neck" that Palin was?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
I would normally skip your comments, but the assertion that the ambassador requested status quo security is just plain false. Watch media coverage in the coming days.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/173153311.html

quote:
The embassy request for an extension of the security team through August was in a February memo to department officials, obtained by the AP from a government official who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to release the document.

...

The State Department official said that after the team remained through August, it was replaced by an equal number of personnel with the same skill sets. Had the security support team still been in Tripoli at the time of the attack in Benghazi, it wouldn't have made any difference, the official said.

"They had nothing to do with Benghazi, zero," the official said. "They were based in Tripoli and they were not a quick reaction force jetting around the country."

The "additional security" requests for for an additional extension on the deployment of that SST team in Tripoli. Not a detachment of Marines or any additional forces. Not to mention that withdrawing that particular team didn't even result in a net loss of manpower because they were replaced with fresher, similarly skilled security personnel.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
Way too much noise to signal in the whole Libya thing. I don't know who to believe.


quote:
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

quote:
Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." It was unclear whether he was talking about Nordstrom.
More CNN
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Freudian slip! I meant "In the end, it probably doesn't matter, since few people are influenced by the VP candidates.

"So, you're saying that you believe that Ryan is not exactly the same type of "stone around the neck" that Palin was?"

Right.

[ October 12, 2012, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I think one of the biggest improvements for the democrats this time was they did not try to characterize their oponent's plan. Always better to use what they say right then against them. Not to argue against what you interpret to be their unstated position.

Better as far as "winning" a debate goes at least.
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
Looking at CNN's instant poll suggesting 48% of viewers thought Ryan won this debate, as opposed to 44% who thought Biden won, I concluded such a near tie made no difference. If 20% of viewers thought Obama won the first debate, it is safe to say most Democrats thought Biden won this one. That was Biden's mission: to convince Democrats their side was being put forth strongly, as they were disappointed by Obama's performance in the first debate. The CBS poll of uncommitted voters suggests Biden scored a win except among Republicans, which is what he needed.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"... few people are influenced by the VP candidates."...

Normally I would agree. There are two problems in applying this generalization to Biden. First, he was sent in to compensate for a weak showing by his boss. In other words, it was the intent of the Obama campaign to offer him up as the adult face of a novice executive.

Second, Biden wrote some checks that Barry is incapable of cashing. The embassy security debacle is just the beginning. Shifting blame for the deaths of a U.S. ambassador, and embasy staff to Ryan, and then excusing the mischaracterization of a *terrorist* attack to lapsed intelligence reports, is the ultimate Bart Simpson defense.

The buck stops at Barry, but Biden has created a situation that would be unmanageable even for the most proactive executive.

[ October 12, 2012, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
You do have a point noel but the "times are tough but my opponent’s plan is either delusional or a lie" narrative Biden and Obama are putting forth is to me an immensely effective tactic given how the opposition reacts (or fails to react) to it.

Ryan's line of "if you have no good option make the voters run FROM your opponent" is a good line. But even if I believed his assertion I would still want something to run TO.

When you are pushing up hill and unsatisfied with the speed you are moving you COULD turn around. You would certianly move a lot faster...

[ October 12, 2012, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
D.W.,

The tactic could be effective if the messenger was seen as credible. It would otherwise be interpreted as "malarkey".

If Biden failed to instantly blow himself up, he did succeed in pulling the pin on a political grenade.

[ October 12, 2012, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
As far as I could tell, Biden made only one mistake, but it was a big one. He should have dressed up like Big Bird so the 47% watching could have better identified with him.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
As far as I could tell, Biden made only one mistake, but it was a big one. He should have dressed up like Big Bird so the 47% watching could have better identified with him.

I was hoping that he would have ripped his shirt off and challenged Ryan to a wrestling match. The Bird Bird suit would have been good too.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I'll agree noel that he put himself in danger. I don't think the detonation is guaranteed however. What is a certainty however is that you must provide a plausible alternative to accompany criticism.

Ok, “must” is probably wishful thinking. I do think that Biden’s aggressiveness painted that picture better than Obama’s exasperation. The Romney campaign’s economic plan is either wishful thinking, self delusion or a lie until they present details which prove it is possible to achieve their goals without any of the negative side effects they have assured us it will avoid. The methods don’t even have to be likely to pass to appease me. But show me the math is at least possible.

It may be but the message from the Obama campaign that it’s not does not have the ring of “malarkey” given dodging of substance Romney and Ryan have done.

[ October 12, 2012, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
Noel, thank you for your response. Replies below:

quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
[QB] Chael,

I respect your sincere effort to assume the best of people's motives. It is clear to me that the details for a Romney economic recovery will not be delivered with the detail/clarity that you would like for a very simple reason; cutting taxes has not been useful to a liberal agenda since JFK.

Specifics will not be presented because they would be disagreed on or attacked by ideological opponents?

quote:

It is politically dangerous to plainly state that individuals have more power over their economic welfare than a paternalistic national government.

No, principles are in evidence--as you go on to state in your next paragraphs. They are plain enough. If espousing certain principles is politically dangerous, then Romney and Ryan are in political trouble.

quote:

The "details" can be inferred, much as the socialist aspects of the 2008 campaign were clear to read in Obama's "non-mandated, tax free" health care plan. Character, and ideology are much better indicators than specific details.

I would prefer not to infer when I can simply know instead. However, this is not an option available to me in this election year, like most other election years, so I will have to make myself content with wisps and whimsies instead.

Would you not feel more secure in your knowledge of Romney's character if he actually presented specifics? If nothing else, it would show that he had deeply considered the matter, and was not just saying what he thought others would like to hear!

quote:

First- Biden blamed the first successful terrorist attack upon sovereign soil in eleven years on Ryan's non-vote for $3,000,000 in embassy security upgrades. Evidently, the ambassador's request for a detachment of Marines was fiscally excessive in the opinion of this Administration.

I did not interpret their exchange in this way. Ryan claimed that not sending in a detachment was a signal of the administration's priorities or incompetence; Biden brought up Ryan's past votes as a counter, a 'you didn't put your money where your mouth is.' You may not find it an adequate counter, but it does not mean that Biden was blaming Ryan.

(Others have already addressed the attack in Libya--I am insufficiently informed to add more.)

quote:

Third- The same intelligence community that Biden hung out to dry is the source for his *certainty* that Netanyahu is wrong on his timeline for an Iranian bomb.

Ignoring the fact that there will be different people working in different areas of impact, this begs the question: so do you think they are competent or not? You seem to think they are; the tone of your previous paragraph implies that you believe Biden was wrong to "hang them out to dry." If they are competent, why should we not trust their assessment?

Furthermore, Netenyahu's timeline was constructed around the premise that we should be concerned about Iran having sufficient quantities of enriched uranium, not about them actually having a physical bomb ready. It's about earlier prevention. Biden is not arguing that Netenyahu is wrong in his summation of their readiness (and indeed, he seems to be partially depending on Israeli intelligence); he is arguing for a different metric of concern.

quote:

Fourth- Biden appears to have forgotted that he voted for the authoriztion of force in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Can you elaborate?

(Edited for grammar. [Wink] )

[ October 12, 2012, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"The Romney campaign's economic plan is either wishful thinking, self delusional or a lie."...

... Or something else.

While you may (reasonably) expect to see the math, we have recent evidence that hope, and change alone will suffice for the majority of the electorate. I do agree with you that some of the effects will be seen by a significant number of "moderates" as negative.

There were fewer sacred cows to gore when JFK did it.

[ October 12, 2012, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
6) No substantive disagreement on Syria--so why were they arguing?
Because the Romney/Ryan campaign is implying otherwise.

The Republican narrative has been that the Obama foriegn policy is a failure due to the appearance of weakness Obama projects. If Romney/Ryan want to maintain the same policies as Obama then how will they not be projecting the same weakness?

Biden is correct to ask if Romney / Ryan want another ground war in the Middle East.

I completely agree with everything you said, and in fact that was my point. The Romney/Ryan campaign is implying that the current stance is one of weakness, but when pressed Ryan says that of course he would not want to put soldiers on the ground there under the current circumstances.

If he is to be taken at his word, this is empty posturing; there is no substantive disagreement. So I wish they would stop.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
The "Or something else" Was my point noel. I want to hear what else that is! It is unlikely to change my vote so maybe it’s not worthwhile? The lack of another option is what is going to hurt the Romney campaign the most. This is what I’ve heard so far between the debates.

R: This performance is horrible; we will do a better job.
D: Listen we know things are tough but we’re moving in the right direction. Besides we’ve seen your policies before and they won’t help!
R: No you haven’t we’re going to do things different.
D: How?
R: We’ll reduce the deficit, create jobs and not raise taxes.
D: Those are objectives not methods…
R: It’s an outline, it’s how things are done <eye roll>
R: Bottom line, people aren’t happy with you, they should vote for us. Quit trying to scare them.
D: But you don’t have an alternative that is possible! That IS scary!
R: Of course we do. But you and the public just wouldn’t get it. Trust me! I mean not like we could do worse.

[ October 12, 2012, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
I completely agree with everything you said, and in fact that was my point. The Romney/Ryan campaign is implying that the current stance is one of weakness, but when pressed Ryan says that of course he would not want to put soldiers on the ground there under the current circumstances.

If he is to be taken at his word, this is empty posturing; there is no substantive disagreement. So I wish they would stop.

The Republicans have been running against a straw man version of Obama since 2008. All Obama's actions are interpreted in that light. The "weak leader who is not respected abroad and lacks the will to stand up to our enemies" is part of that meme. They are not going to drop it because, no matter how wrong it may be in fact, it sells.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Biden threw the intelligence community under the bus in explaining Obama's two week delay in acknowledging that this was, in fact, a 911 anniversary terrorist attack, and not a "spontaneous protest" against a Youtube critique of Mohammed.
What I heard Biden explain was that their response changed as the intelligence changed. The intelligence community are not mind readers and in the light of the attacks in Egypt the initial response was perfectly reasonable.

I suppose your interpretation might be salablle as certain people will cling to any interpretation of events that cast their opponent in a poor light. More likely, as in the "threw grandma under the bus" meme the idea will simply be embraced by people who dislike Obama no matter what he does and wouldn't have voted for him in the first place.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
He placed the blame, if any is warranted squarely on the intelligence community. If nothing else he should have been inclusive grouping them with the administration if not taken more of the burden. Something like this would have been much more appropriate.

We released the best information we had available at the time given the intelligence reports available to us. As contradictory information was brought to us we wanted to properly vet it to avoid the need for additional clarifications. As is obvious any change of information can be interpreted as nefarious by some.

That said I still don’t expect the blow up to be as grandiose as republicans are hoping for. Then again as VL pointed out they are eager to paint Obama as weak on foreign policy. This MAY be one drop in the water so the sharks begin to circle. Or is that lamprey?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Chael,

"Specifics will not be presented because they would be disagreed on or attacked by ideological opponents?"...

Yes.

Recall that Biden's parents are among the 47% (which I do not doubt for a moment). It shows in his politics, and makes for great theatre.

"No, principles are in evidence."...

... But not character, which is where the rubber meets the road.

"I would prefer not to infer when I can simply know."...

... As would we all. It just does not work that way, even in honest expression of intent.

"Would you feel more secure in your knowledge of Romney's character if he actually presented specifics?"...

... Yes, and I would also suspect him of political naivete. Our's is not a particularly thoughtful electorate. I guess you could argue that people get the government which they deserve. I would be forced to agree with you.

"Biden brought up Ryan's votes as a counter... it does not mean that Biden was blaming Ryan."...

... I viewed Biden's comment twice to verify his statement, and the underlying premise. Given that the three million dollar appropriation would have *zero* correlation to point defense requests from embassy security in Benghazi, I can only read Biden's retort as blame-shifting.

"Do you think they are compentent or not?"...

... When the stakes are high, I would error on the side of "not". They did, after all, miss the collapse of the USSR.

"Can you elaborate (on Biden's forgetfulness)?"...

Sure, he postured as an opponent of war with Iraq, and Afghanistan during the debate, but voted in the Senate to authorize the use of force by Bush II (in contrast to his boss).

[ October 12, 2012, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
According to polling data, Ryan pulled out a narrow "win" as Biden came off as the braying, drunk uncle who's primary response to anything is "I was there!". I'm not sure rude, arrogant, condescending and general jackassery was the goal for a national audience (Biden locked up the hyena vote) but it plays well to the liberal base so Biden seems to have stemmed the hemorrhaging from Obama's first debate debacle which would make this a success for Biden and Obama. Jesus, Biden is such a buffoon.

Speaking of Barry, he was the personification of the Dunning–Kruger effect wasn't he? Barry thought he won, took a full 24 hours for him to realize he stepped on his crank and lost in one of the worst debate performances evah! It's always amazing to see these things actually occur.

Interesting, according to other polling data Biden wiped the floor with Ryan (70 to 30 at Wapo) and he came off like a teenager surprised and dismayed to be debating a grown man.

It seems that without Batman helping him Robin just couldn't beat the Joker.

CNN-ORC post-debate poll of Registered Voters: 48% said Ryan won. 44% said Biden won. 70 to 30? really? You don't even remotely question such lopsidedness?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
This wasn't a poll for who you would vote for. That I would expect to be close. A pole for who won a debate can be totaly lopsided. I found this to be a Ryan loss at least as definitively as the Obama loss in the first debate.

I will say however that Obama bears full responsibility for his loss. Ryan is only partly responsible for his.

[ October 12, 2012, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Then again as VL pointed out they are eager to paint Obama as weak on foreign policy."

That's incredibly foolish of them. Obama was born and raised in that briar patch. There's never been a Republican president as tough on foreign policy as Obama.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Agreed. I'm pretty deep in the Obama camp but from where I sit Romney is in striking distance. The problem is his campaign's tactics are totaly wrong.

Err, their problem, not THE problem. [Big Grin]

[ October 12, 2012, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
This wasn't a poll for who you would vote for. That I would expect to be close. A pole for who won a debate can be totaly lopsided. I found this to be a Ryan loss at least as definitively as the Obama loss in the first debate.

Meh. If you believe Al's theory that vice presidents and their debates have little or no relation to how one votes (and some smart people agree with him on that) then the only thing that Ryan had to do last night was not come off as someone the press could label as idiotic or completely draconian, etc. So far the story on Sith Apprentice Ryan is that he is "wonkish" or "nerdy" or even "religious/crazy/hates women".

In this respect, I think that Ryan succeeded. He didn't sink the Romney ship.

Same thing goes for Biden. Dispite all the confidence going into the debate by the democrats, I think there was a little trepidation that suddenly, the fate of President Obama's reelection campaign seemed to fall on the sholders of.... Joe Biden. And last night and this morning, they all love the guy, cause he came through for them. But there have been times that the democrats have wanted to place Biden in a closet and throw away the key.

The VP had the bigger task last night. He had to stop the bleeding and rally the troops. He did that, if the reactions of our resident democrats are any proof. As far as I know, Chris Matthews did not become a flaggelant on national television last night, but apparently he did not appear to desire to disembowl himself as he did after the first debate.

Both guys just had to come out and NOT #^@& UP. They did that. But Biden's was the more critical role, so he wins.

From what I've gathered, the debate last night was basically a game of chicken. After the first debate, the VP had to do just one thing to do well. Show energy. Be combative. Be agressive. Be everything that the President was not.

The flip side to all that is that agressive and combative is an invisble cliff. It's great but if you go too far, it's going to backfire on you.

Ryan had to maintain the energy that Romney had brought. He did so, but he did not have as much to loose, so he didn't push as hard.

Biden did push hard. He dared, and he won, because from what I can tell, though he was aggressive, he was not too aggressive.

You want to know who won the debate? Find someone around you who doesn't know a lick of english. Make them watch the debate. They will tell you who won. Because what they have to say means almost nothing, it's how they say it. Otherwise we could have the debates in print.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
D.W.,

Individuals will measure "winning" differently.

Frankly, the Cheshire Cat grin that Biden wore throughout the debate conveyed 73 years of cumulative dementia more than sage experience.

The instant polling that I saw fell more along the lines that G-3 cited. Give it five days if you want a stable number. Better yet, watch Barry twisting in the wind at the next debate from the aftermath.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
The instant polling that I saw fell more along the lines that G-3 cited. Give it five days if you want a stable number. Better yet, watch Barry twisting in the wind at the next debate from the aftermath.
What are we talking about? I thought the 48/44 number G3 cited was who won the debate. Was the 48/44 number a poll on who people would vote for after seeing the debate? That's a much different poll.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Grant I think Ryan did a fine job given the tactical decisions of his campaign. You are right. He didn't have as much at stake. He played it safe. As a result he didn't "win". Playing it safe may not harm his campaign in the overall race. If he had been as aggressive as Biden it may have backfired. I don't know if trying harder to win the debate would have been good electoral tactics or not.

He certainly did not sink the Romney ship. That success does not translate into a win by any measure. Biden’s dementia or sage condescension aside noel. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Was it worth seeing?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
D.W.,

I am talking about debate polls which don't really settle in instantly.

In the larger context, Joe is the gift that just keeps on giving. What he offered in enthusiasm, he subtracted in the fact-check arena, and Barry will bear that burden.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:

He certainly did not sink the Romney ship. That success does not translate into a win by any measure. Biden’s dementia or sage condescension aside noel. [Smile]

Think of it like this:

George Washington won the Battle of Long Island.... because he did not allow the Continental Army to be destroyed.

Now, in reality, George Washington lost the Battle of Long Island. But because he was able to get away, his army was able to fight another day.

Same thing goes for Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator after being made Dictator the first time. He never beat Hannibal in a battle. But he beat him by now allowing Hannibal to destroy the Roman Army.....again....

If you accept that Ryan could not really effect the Romney campaign by doing anything other then screwing the pooch, then you must accept that he accomplished his mission. Maybe thats not a "win", but that is what victories are built upon.

Same thing goes for Biden. If he stopped the bleeding and rallied the democratic host, then he won. He didn't have to "beat" Ryan in any substantitive manner. He just had to show spirit.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Grant,

I have not been working from an assumption that Obama troops needed to be rallied, but that independents needed recruitment. In that scenario, Biden was absent from the battle, and compromised the strategic position of his commanding general.

We will not have to wait much longer to see which evaluation comes closest to actuality.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Grant,

I have not been working from an assumption that Obama troops needed to be rallied, but that independents needed recruitment. In that scenario, Biden was absent from the battle, and compromised the strategic position of his commanding general.

We will not have to wait much longer to see which evaluation comes closest to actuality.

I respectfully disagree, Noel. I think the democrats seriously needed to be rallied. Part of what draws the independant last minute deciding voter is the spirit and enthusiasm from the parties. The Democrats basically pooped all over themselves after the first debate, while the Republicans took a mouth full of viagra and 50ccs of vitamin B-12 to the jugular, and you've seen the poll numbers afterwards. The Obama campaign was bleeding bad, and they needed someone to rally them.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
You could be right about the discouragement on the left. I always assume that the faithful core remains intact. If they did break ranks, and if their unity has an effect upon independents, then a Biden draw might have the effect that you suggest.

I do not believe this debate was a draw, but your analysis does not require anything more than a perceived victory among the faithful. If Obama can not make the case to independents for a second term, then I don’t think that a partisan infusion of Geritol will make much difference. Like I mentioned, we will all know soon enough.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Chael,

"Specifics will not be presented because they would be disagreed on or attacked by ideological opponents?"...

Yes.

Fagh. If the details can stand up to scrutiny, they should be presented for scrutiny. If they cannot, that is telling.

You said later that people get the government they deserve (an old chestnut)--and added that Romney actually saying straight-out how he would accomplish what he wants to do would make you think him to be politically naive. Have you considered that it is such cynicism (and some of my best friends are cynics, so please do not think I am casting asparagus [Wink] ) which perpetuates a political system in which these debates are nothing better than political theater? In other words, that people might actually be more thoughtful than they are given credit for being, and that while they may not decide as you or as I might hope them to, they are nonetheless capable of taking in data and reaching conclusions?

Please forgive me for my rant. The tenor of your post reminded me of some of the comments given by various talking heads after the first presidential debate, which were along the lines of 'don't give people so much information; you'll just confuse them!' Tremendously insulting. We say we wish we had a more informed electorate, and then we do as much as we can to hide the information from them, and we blame them for making us do it. Fagh.

quote:

"No, principles are in evidence."...

... But not character, which is where the rubber meets the road.

Quite.

quote:

"Can you elaborate (on Biden's forgetfulness)?"...

Sure, he postured as an opponent of war with Iraq, and Afghanistan during the debate, but voted in the Senate to authorize the use of force by Bush II (in contrast to his boss).

When in the debate did he posture as an opponent of war with Iraq and Afghanistan? His posture seemed to be in favor of withdrawing from the theater, not saying we should not have been there in the first place. There is nothing contradictory there.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
You could be right about the discouragement on the left. I always assume that the faithful core remains intact. If they did break ranks, and if their unity has an effect upon independents, then a Biden draw might have the effect that you suggest.

I do not believe this debate was a draw, but your analysis does not require anything more than a perceived victory among the faithful. If Obama can not make the case to independents for a second term, then I don’t think that a partisan infusion of Geritol will make much difference. Like I mentioned, we will all know soon enough.

This campaign is still the President's to lose. I understand that Gov Romney has made awesome strides in the polls this past week and a half. But before the debate, his campaign was practically DOA.

Even now, after all the gains, the President still leads in the swing states. President Obama was so far ahead in those states that, quite honestly, I think he was phoning it in.

I still don't think that Romney is going to win. I have never thought that Romney was going to win since he started coming out as the winnner of the primaries, and the narrative of "yes, Romney is the least crazy candidate" was switched to "Romney is hitler's clone!".

The only thing I think that all this has done is make the odds better when I place a buttload of money on Obama to win. The real question is wether that day was yesterday and if I missed my chance.

The President has been so far ahead, and has played such awesome political moves, that I got the sense that the President was not even trying, and still beating Romney handily. That's really the sense that I got. That here was a Jedi Master just flinging a droid around with a finger while doing the Grey Hooker's crossword puzzle at the same time.

He really was phoning it in, and still winning, until that debate.

I even got that sense when I saw the video, or saw all the photos of the President during the debate. He was phoning it in. He was embarassed that he even had to waste his time debating this guy who had absolutely no chance in hell of winning. "Why am I here? I could be with my wife and daughters tonight. Or taking care of some real emergency. This is a waste of my time. This fool has no chance in hell of beating me."

And to me, the President was right. Until he actually did that, and his numbers went into free fall. Even then, even with all the damage, he was/is still ahead by a massive amount in the places that matter.

The master has been embarassed, not beaten, not by a long shot. All he has to do is show up to the rest of the debates and bring back some of that old 2008 magic, and he's won.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Fagh. If the details can stand up to scrutiny, they should be presented for scrutiny. If they cannot, that is telling.

Details are for lesser human beings, not politicans.

I've pointed out before that Governor Romney is not the first Presidential candidate who was vague on plans and promises. Should we start a list here of presidential candidates who had "plans", but did not give "details"?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
CNN-ORC post-debate poll of Registered Voters: 48% said Ryan won. 44% said Biden won. 70 to 30? really? You don't even remotely question such lopsidedness?
Do I question it? It was a voluntary poll, I am completely convinced it was unscientific.

Yet you attached to your poll a bunch of hyperbolic statements you know perfectly well noone was polled on.

As Mitt Romney said, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Fagh. If the details can stand up to scrutiny, they should be presented for scrutiny. If they cannot, that is telling.

Details are for lesser human beings, not politicans.

I've pointed out before that Governor Romney is not the first Presidential candidate who was vague on plans and promises. Should we start a list here of presidential candidates who had "plans", but did not give "details"?

I have also said this. It is not news to me. [Wink]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Then again as VL pointed out they are eager to paint Obama as weak on foreign policy."

That's incredibly foolish of them. Obama was born and raised in that briar patch. There's never been a Republican president as tough on foreign policy as Obama.

They've refused to deal with the real Obama since before he was elected and they aren't going to start now.

Mainstream Republican foriegn policy is written by people who've never been off the short leash of a pundit in foriegn land for people who don't have passports.

I think Romney and Ryan honestly believe that had Republicans been in charge the world of the pst 4 years would be different. They are wrong and that's because they know little of the reality that is Sunni Islam.

The reality of the middle east and north Africa is that the Islamists aren't cave men, but are savy organizers who have had decades of experience in community organizing in both their own countries and in western nations and when the the western oriented revolutionairies opened their societies to democratic elections they were ready and able to sell the people who can't afford Iphones on the idea that all their problems stemmed from their nations abondoning God and the traditional family unit.

I've seen this go down in the most agressively secular nation in the Muslim world, so I find it unsurprising. Most Americans were unhapily surprised by this. Republicans are by and large convinced that had they been in charge it wouldn't have happened, but barring a decades long headstart and tens of billions in foriegn aid (which we don't have), this was inevitable.

Americans are inheritors of a democratic tradition which goes back to England. (Ironically Noel argued this so well that despite my Scottish Anlophobia I concluded I was giving too much credit to France and too little to England) that tradition does not exist in much of the world and the love of liberty which we have (or claim to have) is hardly universal. If anything it's an exceptional aspect of the anglophone world and its close cultural neighbors in western Europe.

[ October 12, 2012, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Chael,

"Have you considered that it is such cynicism... which perpetuates a political system in which these debates are nothing better than political theater?"...

... No, and I am not likely to. We have as clear a choice, in ideological terms, as the country ever has. Still, the election outcome hinges upon the indecision of "independents" looking for policy distinctions at the margins.

This is the source, not the consequence, of the drama.

"... people might actually be more thoughtful than they are given credit for being... they are nonetheless capable of taking in data and reaching conclusions."...

... I agree completely with the second part, and disagree emphatically with the first. Those in the 47% are perfectly capable of reaching big picture conclusions, they simply do not. Some ignorance is elective, and predictable.

"When in the debate did he (Biden) posture as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan?"...

... 28 minutes, and 30 seconds into the debate.

Quote:

"They talk about this great recession as though it fell out of the sky, like; 'Oh my goodness, where did it come from?'. It came from this man (Ryan) voting to put two wars on a credit card... I was there. I voted against them. I said; 'No, we can't afford that.' "

[ October 12, 2012, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

"When in the debate did he (Biden) posture as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan?"...

... 28 minutes, and 30 seconds into the debate.

Quote:

"They talk about this great recession as though it fell out of the sky, like; 'Oh my goodness, where did it come from?'. It came from this man (Ryan) voting to put two wars on a credit card... I was there. I voted against them. I said; 'No, we can't afford that.' "

This is a lie; here is the actual quote:

" It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can't afford that."
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Adam,

You might choose your words more carefully.

What are you claiming that I "lied" about?
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
You, or your source, edited a quote to change its meaning, and then attributed the edited quote to Biden. That's a lie.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
That is not a "lie," Adam. Every educated person knows that elipses indicate missing words. You're not usually the first to jump to such wrongheaded and hotheaded use of terms. Bad day?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Adam,

You omitted the entire context, and then complain that I misrepresented what... his vote on the prescription drug entitlement?

You do realize that he voted *for* that also, correct?

I charitably attribute his mis-statements to an over taxed 73 year old brain. He did say that he *meant* his blunders during the debate. If I did not take him at face value, I would have to conclude that he lied twice in the same rant.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
That is not a "lie," Adam. Every educated person knows that elipses indicate missing words. You're not usually the first to jump to such wrongheaded and hotheaded use of terms. Bad day?

No, its been rather pleasant, but thanks for asking. [Smile]

When you make an omission that changes the meaning of the text, thats misleading. Noel was asked to show where Biden claims to have been against the war; so he took a quote where Biden talks about voting against tax cuts, and against deficit funding for the wars and the drug bill, and he omitted a big chunk *in the middle of the sentence* so that it seemed like he was saying "I voted against the wars." How is that not a lie?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
... This is an example of the elective ignorance that I was talking about.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
When you make an omission that changes the meaning of the text, thats misleading.
I think we need to ask G3, just to be sure.

----------

For my part, noel, I have always thought that you have done a stellar job of demonstrating elective ignorance, and think you deserve a little break from it.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
When you make an omission that changes the meaning of the text, thats misleading. Noel was asked to show where Biden claims to have been against the war; so he took a quote where Biden talks about voting against tax cuts, and against deficit funding for the wars and the drug bill, and he omitted a big chunk *in the middle of the sentence* so that it seemed like he was saying "I voted against the wars." How is that not a lie?

Noel's cut did not change the meaning of the text--it simply removed cases which were unimportant to his point. If you add them back in, the quote means the same thing.

Now, Noel can still be wrong about the meaning of what Biden said (were there appropriations bills that would involve deficit spending for the wars that Biden voted against, therefore making Biden's claim accurate?), but he was not misleading with his edits to the quote.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Noel's cut did not change the meaning of the text--it simply removed cases which were unimportant to his point.
Your characterization is generous to a fault - and a pretty large fault at that. Noel's edit absolutely changed the meaning of the quote, and what he removed was not just unimportant to his point, but actually clarified that what Biden was talking about was the irresponsibility of cutting taxes on the wealthy at the same time as implementing unfunded programs - including the two wars, but his words do not suggest opposition to the wars per se, but their unfunded nature.

Whether those policies actually contributed to the recession is debatable, but claiming that that particular statement was evidence of Biden opposing the wars themselves would be incorrect on its face, but the creative editing was absolutely misleading.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Given the way conversational English works, I think it's more charitable to assume that Biden's "them" is a grey area. The "them" in his sentence is, as implied by the rules of grammar, two or more of the following: "putting two wars on a credit card," whatever specific spending bills he might mean by that; Bush's prescription drug benefit; and "a trillion-dollar tax cut on the wealthy." Precision would demand that every single clause be included in his "them," but conversational English is rarely precise.

Broadly, noel's edits change the meaning of Biden's statement from "I opposed various reckless spending measures, such as the following" to "I opposed the wars." That's some valuable context lost, IMO.

[ October 12, 2012, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Noel's edit absolutely changed the meaning of the quote, and what he removed was not just unimportant to his point, but actually clarified that what Biden was talking about was the irresponsibility of cutting taxes on the wealthy at the same time as implementing unfunded programs - including the two wars, but his words do not suggest opposition to the wars per se, but their unfunded nature.

I found the meaning perfectly obvious from the edited quote. Perhaps it would be less obvious to one who had not seen the debate?

I agree that Biden's opposition is clearly framed as being to unfunded wars, not to the wars themselves.

If Noel were truly attempting to be misleading, why would he have included the 'No, we can't afford that' bit? Removing /that/ would have been misleading.

Edited to add: I can see one case in which the edit could have been misleading, that being that Biden's point was that it was the combination of those three factors, not any one of them alone, which was unaffordable. In that case, yes, removing the other cases does change the point. Is that the argument you are making? If not, please elaborate.

[ October 12, 2012, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB] Given the way conversational English works, I think it's more charitable to assume that Biden's "them" is a grey area. The "them" in his sentence is, as implied by the rules of grammar, two or more of the following: "putting two wars on a credit card," whatever specific spending bills he might mean by that; Bush's prescription drug benefit; and "a trillion-dollar tax cut on the wealthy." Precision would demand that every single clause be included in his "them," but conversational English is rarely precise.

I don't feel like being that charitable. Unless he followed the 'them' with specific examples ('I voted against them: the X and the Y,') the grammatical construction covers all of them. Conversational English can go jump in a lake. [Smile]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
I found the meaning perfectly obvious from the edited quote. Perhaps it would be less obvious to one who had not seen the debate?
That kinda goes without saying, doesn't it? If we already knew the complete statement and weren't dependent on Noel's misrepresentation, then yes, nobody would be fooled.
quote:
Conversational English can go jump in a lake. [Smile]
So now, the context of listening to the speech no longer matters to you?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Does anyone find it ironic that the same people who claim that showing restraint and respect for the rights of nations we dislike projects unacceptable weakness are the ones that claim that Ryan won the debate, or at least was unfairly treated in the debate, because he was (supposedly) polite and respectful of his opponent.

[ October 13, 2012, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB] Given the way conversational English works, I think it's more charitable to assume that Biden's "them" is a grey area. The "them" in his sentence is, as implied by the rules of grammar, two or more of the following: "putting two wars on a credit card," whatever specific spending bills he might mean by that; Bush's prescription drug benefit; and "a trillion-dollar tax cut on the wealthy." Precision would demand that every single clause be included in his "them," but conversational English is rarely precise.

I don't feel like being that charitable. Unless he followed the 'them' with specific examples ('I voted against them: the X and the Y,') the grammatical construction covers all of them. Conversational English can go jump in a lake. [Smile]
I often tell people that, just as an experiment, they should record five minutes of their own conversation with someone, and then transcribe it. Its actually quite appalling how poor, almost incomprehensible the grammar is. When we speak, we pause, and often restart clauses without finishing the previous one. Tone of voice makes it very clear to people who are listening, which is why we don't find it confusing. But written english has a very limited capacity to notate pauses, and no capacity to notate significant tone. There is a surprising amount lost in translation.

But this is mostly beside the point. Watch the clip (start at 27:30 or so) and tell me if Biden is posturing as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan. He's not; its not even close. Noel's claim is absurd; he doctored a quote to try and defend it, and got called on it.

quote:
Does anyone find it ironic that the same people who claim that showing restraint and respect for the rights of nations we dislike projects unacceptable weakness are the ones that claim that Ryan won the debate, or at least was unfairly treated in the debate, because he was (supposedly) polite and respectful of his opponent.
I do. But its such par-for-the-course irony that I barely notice it. If Biden had been the Republican, and Ryan the democrat, there isn't a single conservative commentator who wouldn't have been applauding his bold, confident style and clear dominance in the debate. That's just politics.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Don't tell me you've ever thought otherwise! Just listening to the rationalizations is to hear an opinion supporting a point of view. But the constant denials in the face of clear proof that they are parroting lies is a sign that they are beyond reach. It's scary to think what things Romney would do to them if elected that they would still continue to cheer for.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
You have to stretch to believe that Biden said we can't afford those wars. What he voted for regarding Iraq and Afghanistan was to authorize the President to take appropriate steps, up to and including military action. That is *not* the same thing as saying "go ahead and launch a war regardless of the cost or any budget considerations".
quote:
And, by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, "Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?" It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can't afford that.
What he objected to was all of the things he mentioned that are tax or spending issues that we could not afford. We've been here before (Jeremiah Wright, for example), and it's clear that people who oppose someone will hear exactly what they want to hear.

[ October 13, 2012, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
We've been here before (Jeremiah Wright, for example), and it's clear that people who oppose someone will hear exactly what they want to hear.

LoL! The Jeremiah Wright test doesn't quite cut the way you said ... what I remember from that is certain folks trying to turn "God Damn America" into something warm and fuzzy. [Big Grin] Arguments that would have worked nearly as well to rehabilitate the Westboros.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Yes, that's the way you remember it [Wink] .
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
LOL. Better stay out of the sietch orgy, Pete.

[ October 13, 2012, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:

quote:
Chael: Conversational English can go jump in a lake. [Smile]
DonaldD: So now, the context of listening to the speech no longer matters to you?
You just did what Noel did, Donald: you cherry-picked a portion of what I said which was relevant to your point, and cut out what you thought was extraneous.

I would argue that what you cut out was important to a full understanding of my meaning, but that the integral data was left--so in considering your point in isolation ('Chael thought the context of the speech might be important, but this quote belies that!'), it was a fair edit for you to make, especially if you truly do not understand where I'm coming from.

I did say that, and so you asserting that I said that is not a lie.

Now: the context in which something is uttered is important. Yes, spoken English is not as precise as written (this is one of the reasons why I love writing so), because people are imperfect. However, the grammatical clause was blatantly obviously covering all of the cases, to the point that were /I/ speaking and I only meant that I had voted against two of the three, I would certainly say something to that effect--and /I/ am not a politician in a debate presenting what certainly sounded like a prepared talking point, who knows that everything that comes out of his mouth is going to be parsed carefully for meaning.

Getting back to our original disagreement: if I'm wrong overall about Noel's edit, I'm happy to admit it, but you haven't made that case to my satisfaction. If you wish this to be just another area where you and I agree to disagree, I'm fine with that.

(Edited to fix the quotes bar)

[ October 13, 2012, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I often tell people that, just as an experiment, they should record five minutes of their own conversation with someone, and then transcribe it. Its actually quite appalling how poor, almost incomprehensible the grammar is.

Not me. /My/ spoken grammar is /perfect/.

[Smile]

quote:

But written english has a very limited capacity to notate pauses, and no capacity to notate significant tone. There is a surprising amount lost in translation.

Quite. There is a reason I watch the debates now; last time I just read the transcripts, and found them rather lacking. But as you say, this is mostly beside the point.

quote:

Watch the clip[/URL] (start at 27:30 or so) and tell me if Biden is posturing as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan. He's not; its not even close. Noel's claim is absurd; he doctored a quote to try and defend it, and got called on it.

My argument is that 1) Biden is not posturing as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) Noel's edited quote does not make it appear that Biden is an opponent of the war, but rather of unfunded wars; the important pieces about deficit spending were retained. The unfunded wars were only a piece of Biden's overall argument, but they /were/ a piece of Biden's overall argument, and if Noel wants to focus on them to make his point, I don't see why that is wrong. Out of context? Yes. Do they still exist as part of his argument? Yes.

I am arguing with your premise ('Noel was intentionally misleading,') not with your ultimate conclusion ('Noel is wrong.').
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
When you make an omission that changes the meaning of the text, thats misleading. Noel was asked to show where Biden claims to have been against the war; so he took a quote where Biden talks about voting against tax cuts, and against deficit funding for the wars and the drug bill, and he omitted a big chunk *in the middle of the sentence* so that it seemed like he was saying "I voted against the wars." How is that not a lie?

Noel's cut did not change the meaning of the text--it simply removed cases which were unimportant to his point. If you add them back in, the quote means the same thing.

Now, Noel can still be wrong about the meaning of what Biden said (were there appropriations bills that would involve deficit spending for the wars that Biden voted against, therefore making Biden's claim accurate?), but he was not misleading with his edits to the quote.

Furthermore, even if Noel's quotes had been misleading, it doesn't follow that the statement is a "lie" absent intent to deceive.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Yes, that's the way you remember it [Wink] .

The way I remember it, you even bought into Pyr's hillarious misconstruction of G*D*, America! [Crying]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Yes, spoken English is not as precise as written (this is one of the reasons why I love writing so), because people are imperfect."

Which is why spoken English is so much better to gain understanding than written English is. Put differently, the spoken word is more accurate and the written word is more precise. Hear Biden's words again and see if you think precision is more important.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Former vice president Dick Cheney said he found Vice President Joe Biden’s behavior at the debate Thursday night “very disturbing,” adding that it was “the most emotionally unstable debate performance in modern American politics,” reports Mediaite."

Here. Yes, factually precise with no nuance of a biased point of view. From a former VP of the US, no less.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Setting aside the fact that the source is Darth Vader, can you actually disagree with his analysis?:

quote:


The most important trait for a vice president is “the ability to step in a a moment’s notice and take over,” Cheney said. “And you want somebody calm, cool, and collected, who asks questions and seeks good information and makes life-or-death decisions that we pay a president to take for all of us.”

Biden, Cheney added, does not have “the kind of personality I would like to see in the Oval Office.”


 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Yes, spoken English is not as precise as written (this is one of the reasons why I love writing so), because people are imperfect."

Which is why spoken English is so much better to gain understanding than written English is. Put differently, the spoken word is more accurate and the written word is more precise. Hear Biden's words again and see if you think precision is more important.

*scratches her head* Al, what point did you think I was making, overall?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
can you actually disagree with his analysis?
Yes. And I can also point out the deep, deep hypocrisy of his "analysis," to boot! [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
can you actually disagree with his analysis?
Yes. And I can also point out the deep, deep hypocrisy of his "analysis," to boot! [Smile]
It's too bad no one ever taught you the difference between "pointing out" and making a conclusory declaration. [Crying]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Seriously? The kind of person you want in that situation has to have stamina and energy. Do you really want someone with a lifelong history of heart attacks in that position?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"*scratches her head* Al, what point did you think I was making, overall?"

*scratches his head*. I thought you were saying that you love writing because it is so precise and people are imperfect. I was commenting that I love the spoken word because the written word isn't nearly as good at conveying meaning and nuance. FWIW, I'm a writer and my background and biggest hobby is what would classically be called philology, but nowadays that term has lost some of the traditional meaning:
quote:
philology (n.) Look up philology at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "love of learning," from O.Fr. philologie, from L. philologia "love of learning, love of letters," from Gk. philologia "love of discussion, learning, and literature," from philo- "loving" (see philo-) + logos "word, speech" (see logos). Meaning "science of language" is first attested 1716; this confusing secondary sense has not been popular in the U.S., where linguistics is preferred.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, just offering my personal opinion on a subject that we both find fascinating.

[ October 13, 2012, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"*scratches her head* Al, what point did you think I was making, overall?"

*scratches his head*. I thought you were saying that you love writing because it is so precise and people are imperfect. I was commenting that I love the spoken word because the written word isn't nearly as good at conveying meaning and nuance. FWIW, I'm a writer and my background and biggest hobby is what would classically be called philology, but nowadays that term has lost some of the traditional meaning:
quote:
philology (n.) Look up philology at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "love of learning," from O.Fr. philologie, from L. philologia "love of learning, love of letters," from Gk. philologia "love of discussion, learning, and literature," from philo- "loving" (see philo-) + logos "word, speech" (see logos). Meaning "science of language" is first attested 1716; this confusing secondary sense has not been popular in the U.S., where linguistics is preferred.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, just offering my personal opinion on a subject that we both find fascinating.
*smiles* Lovely.

That makes sense to me, though I'm not sure I entirely agree. I communicated primarily by text for at least five years, probably more like six or seven (it is in fact how I met my husband, and most of my close friends); it served quite well for me, both in terms of clear and meaningful discourse and in terms of forming lasting bonds/emotional meaning/etc. One does have to be reasonably careful and clever to properly transmit emotion, of course! I have found that nuance is in this medium best communicated through careful word choice--which means that it does take a close reading (and perhaps some knowledge of one's conversational partners) to best parse.

On the other hand, I would be quite silly to argue that tone of voice and length of pauses do not communicate volumes--and as Adam rightly noted (assuming I haven't already forgotten who noted what--apologies if I have!), there aren't really in-built mechanisms for the easy transmission of this meaning through text (it being extra-linguistic and all). One must be a wee bit creative. [Smile] As a writer and philologist, I'm sure you have plenty of fun with this!

(Philologist is a lovely word, isn't it?)

[ October 14, 2012, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Chael ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Setting aside the fact that the source is Darth Vader, can you actually disagree with his analysis?:

quote:


The most important trait for a vice president is “the ability to step in a a moment’s notice and take over,” Cheney said. “And you want somebody calm, cool, and collected, who asks questions and seeks good information and makes life-or-death decisions that we pay a president to take for all of us.”

Biden, Cheney added, does not have “the kind of personality I would like to see in the Oval Office.”


Biden's too hot, Obama's too cold. You want us to think Romney's the porridge Goldilock wants to eat?

If Paul Ryan lets Joe Biden kick his butt you seriously think he stands a chance against Putin?

The one who demonstrated he was unfit for the oval office was Paul Ryan. That's why Biden was smiling. Paul Ryan has been performing to adoring fans at campaign rallies and was unprepared when someone was calling BS on what is obviously BS to anyone familliar with the facts.

What came out in the debate, and this is why Biden was smiling, is that, particularly in foriegn policy, Romney wants to pursue Bush/Obama policies he's claimed have failed, but they've only failed because Obama didn't say all the right things. Being more agressive than that essentially means putting out armed forces into action in Syria and/or Iran. That's not going to thrill the US public even if it impresses G2 and Bill Kristol.

[ October 14, 2012, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"(Philologist is a lovely word, isn't it?)"

The son of an old friend recently got his PHD in linguistics. His area of focus could crudely be characterized as "intonation as semantics". He would probably agree that that word philology is pleasing because it is breathy (no plosives) and even has a hushed ululation in it. His actual thesis is a bit too obscure for me as it's about verbal tics, pauses and fillers. They don't write so good, neither. In my mind the biggest statement made by Ryan the other night and the one that will cost Romney the most votes was the 1-2 second pause before he answered the question on abortion. Nothing will come of nothing, and perhaps a lot of it.

[ October 14, 2012, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
They don't write so good, neither. In my mind the biggest statement made by Ryan the other night and the one that will cost Romney the most votes was the 1-2 second pause before he answered the question on abortion. Nothing will come of nothing, and perhaps a lot of it.

Doesn't this contradict your "VP debates do not affect the campaign" theory, Al? Or did the pause activate the Palin exception?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
It may have done that, given the attention the Obama campaign has given it over the past few days. If FOX can complain about the Biden smirk, let's see who gets more mileage.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Al - would you have preferred he shot off a quick, per-memorized statement? I'd prefer a politician who took a second to gather his thoughts first.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
So, you really like Biden then?
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
LOL nice sidestep, you should be a politician.

At what point during the debate did Biden take a second to gather his thoughts?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
So, you really like Biden then?

Take it easy on edgmatt, Obama's taking his state no matter what edgmatt does in the voting booth.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Why did I fall into that trap?

Al - you said that Ryan's pause between the question and the answer was no good. I asked you if you would prefer a politician who just answered without thought, and stated that I prefer a politician who thinks first.

How in the heck did you get that to mean I like Biden?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Seriously? The kind of person you want in that situation has to have stamina and energy. Do you really want someone with a lifelong history of heart attacks in that position?

Sure you do, if you want the Speaker of the House to end up president.

So, you think that Nancy Pelosi is unfit for the job?

[Razz]

(Just doin' to you what you did to edgematt [Big Grin] )

[ October 14, 2012, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I always have to giggle at the 2-faced argument against Cheney. "His heart condition might not leave him enough time carry out his sinister plot to turn America into an evil empire." And that's a bad thing?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"How in the heck did you get that to mean I like Biden?"

Easy, 1) Biden clearly wasn't reciting scripted answers, and 2) at twice Ryan's age he's still so quick that he doesn't need a pause to collect his thoughts [Wink] . When it would come time to make the split-second decision to bomb or capitulate, Cheney would have a heart attack on the spot, Ryan would take 2 seconds less the split-second he had to make up his mind too long to respond, and Biden would come up with an alternate 3-step solution that would solve the problem for both sides and still have time to give a big smile. My God! the man's a genius.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Wow, you are all over the place. Stay focused. We were talking about Ryan's pause to the abortion question.

Let's start over. Do you think the pause was good or bad?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
It was a thoughtful pause, but it has been noted and commented on by a number of women's organizations who are characterizing it as signaling his (and Romney's) distance from the importance of their issues. It has also been noted (and didn't help him in the same people's eyes) that he doesn't think that the SC or pregnant women themselves should be allowed to make the decision whether to have an abortion:
quote:
All I'm saying is if you believe that life begins at conception, that therefore doesn't change the definition of life. That's a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. Now, I've got to take issue with the Catholic Church and religious liberty.
The key phrase in that that the importance of which is often overlooked by people who agree with him: "if you believe that life begins at conception". What if you don't?

Biden's answer was well-received by those same groups because he did recognize that question:
quote:
With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a — what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.

I — I do not believe that — that we have a right to tell other people that women, they — they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I'm not going to interfere with that.



[ October 14, 2012, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
SC, Al?

I did not know that the Supreme Court was pregnant.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Al - You said "In my mind the biggest statement made by Ryan the other night and the one that will cost Romney the most votes was the 1-2 second pause before he answered the question on abortion."

I take that to mean you think his pause was bad. Yes?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Yes. I know I can't convince you of anything, so I cited the other groups as having the same reaction. Question for you: If you are a person who does *not* believe that life begins at conception, do you believe that person should not have the freedom to choose to have an abortion for themselves? And a history follow-up: What was the accepted norm on abortion rights when the Constitution was written?

"I did not know that the Supreme Court was pregnant."

If you heard me say it rather than read my words, the meaning would have been obvious [Wink] .
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Hang on, one at a time.

Why do you think his pause is bad? Not why do those other groups who also think it was bad, think it was bad. Why do you, Al, think it was bad?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Edgmatt, for the same reason. He seemed to have to compose an answer instead of responding how he did to all the other issues in the debate with a ready answer. He both came across as delivering a difficult but firm resolution that was his final binding (on women everywhere) decision, and at the same time appeared to condescend by saying that the decision is too important for women throughout the country to make for themselves. That was a pregnant pause if ever there was one.

I'm answering you in all candor and honesty as you seem genuinely interested to know how I think about this. I'd appreciate it if you would also make the effort to answer my questions with similar thoughtfulness.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

Easy, 1) Biden clearly wasn't reciting scripted answers, and 2) at twice Ryan's age he's still so quick that he doesn't need a pause to collect his thoughts [Wink] . When it would come time to make the split-second decision to bomb or capitulate, Cheney would have a heart attack on the spot, Ryan would take 2 seconds less the split-second he had to make up his mind too long to respond, and Biden would come up with an alternate 3-step solution that would solve the problem for both sides and still have time to give a big smile. My God! the man's a genius.

I was gonna join in this discussion, but Al got highhhhh.
I was gonna type some poo up, but Al got highhhh.
Now I'm gonna have to wait until he eats some brownies and sobers up, cause he got high, cause he got high, cause he got hiiiiiiigghhhh.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
We are a mixed bag of philologists, punsters, semi-serious philosophers and, uh, you. Do jump in, the water's not too deep for a short comment, and not too shallow.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
quote:
He seemed to have to compose an answer instead of responding how he did to all the other issues in the debate with a ready answer. He both came across as delivering a difficult but firm resolution that was his final binding (on women everywhere) decision, and at the same time appeared to condescend by saying that the decision is too important for women throughout the country to make for themselves. That was a pregnant pause if ever there was one.
Those certainly are plausible reasons why he paused.

Is it also reasonable to think that he paused to gather his thoughts? Perhaps he feels very strongly on the issue and wanted to take a second to make sure he had his thoughts in the right order so as to answer concisely. Is this not also a plausible reason?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
It is, but that's a rhetorical response. Here are the questions again that I think are at the heart of the issue, and why his deliberate pause gives pause:
quote:
Question for you: If you are a person who does *not* believe that life begins at conception, do you believe that person should not have the freedom to choose to have an abortion for themselves? And a history follow-up: What was the accepted norm on abortion rights when the Constitution was written?
I'd really like to hear your answers (or anyone else's; Kid is not allowed to answer the 2nd one! [Wink] ).

[ October 14, 2012, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
We are a mixed bag of philologists, punsters, semi-serious philosophers and, uh, you. Do jump in, the water's not too deep for a short comment, and not too shallow.

I'm afraid I am farrrr too shallow. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Nope, I'm not getting sidetracked.

How is my response rhetorical? You think Ryan's 2 second pause before answering was bad, and you have reasonable answers why you thought it was bad. I thought the pause was good, and we agree that my reasons were also reasonable. At what point was I rhetorical?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Of course it could be plausible. That question needed no response. Care to tackle my questions?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"If you are a person who does *not* believe that life begins at conception"

What if you're a person who thinks that any one who uses the phrase "life begins at conception" needs rehabilitative English?

Live began billions of years ago. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. Conception has nothing to do with life. Period.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Live began billions of years ago. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. Conception has nothing to do with life."

I share that view, so distinguishing in law at an arbitrary point in time corresponding to your religious belief is a personal decision. It's not political, so Republicans should stop trying to create a law that encapsulates when religious people in their party say it does.

Edgmatt doesn't seem keen to answer my questions, so I'll answer the second one for him. The Founders didn't say one way or another if abortion was illegal, and they sure didn't try to define when life begins. In the late 18th C abortion wasn't all that common, but it was wasn't illegal anywhere AFAIK until quickening in the 2nd trimester, and even after that it was illegal in some places, but seldom prosecuted when it occurred. In other words, it was the province of the family to make that decision. It would have seemed bizarre if the Founders had tried to put formal restrictions and definitions on such family matters.

[ October 14, 2012, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
I just wanted to clear up one issue at a time, Al.

Paul Ryan believes, as I do, that abortion has nothing to do with rights or choosing. He believes that abortion is murder. Since we as society do not accept murder, we also should not accept abortion.

I'm sure he understands that there is debate over whether or not abortion IS murder. I do too. But isn't his view (and mine) at least consistent? I know you don't agree with this belief, but do you understand it?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Live began billions of years ago. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. Conception has nothing to do with life."

I share that view, so distinguishing in law at an arbitrary point in time corresponding to your religious belief is a personal decision.

Not sure what you think you know about my religious beliefs. I think we should treat someone as human to the extent that they manifest human brainwave patterns. I call that position pro-brain, and call those that disagree with me "anti-brain." Seems to me I'm perfectly capable of being a monomaniacal ass without deriving or opposing religious authority.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
I believe Al used "your" to denote "one's" in that sentence, Pete.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
[Edgmatt:] "I'm sure he understands that there is debate over whether or not abortion IS murder. I do too. But isn't his view (and mine) at least consistent? I know you don't agree with this belief, but do you understand it?"

Of course I understand it. Do you think that it's appropriate for people who believe as you do to make it murder for people who don't believe as you do?

[DonaldD:] "I believe Al used "your" to denote "one's" in that sentence, Pete."

Right, I wasn't singling out Pete or anyone else.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Yes! Certainly! Some people don't believe shooting strangers is wrong. Don't we force our views onto them? Is it wrong to force these people to comply to our line of thinking when they don't want to?

(Let me be clear: I am NOT putting pro-choicers in the same category as psychopaths.)

Do you think it's right for people who thinks it's appropriate to tax others to enforce that belief on others?
I can keep naming examples where beliefs are forced on others in laws, so let's agree that this is not your best argument.

I don't know what the best argument is for abortion, but "you can't force me to comply to your beliefs" isn't it.

Also, let's not try to convince each other on this topic. It's not the right thread. [Smile]

[ October 14, 2012, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: edgmatt ]
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
Looking toward the debate tomorrow, I think this is one time G3's skepticism about the impartiality of the news media will be justified. Most newspeople do want Obama to win and Romney to lost this election. Having made a show of impartiality by trumpeting that Romney won the first debate, they have little need to be impartial in the coming one, and an Obama win would be more interesting to readers and viewers. So if the debate is anywhere near even, expect to hear that Obama vastly improved his performance and has the momentum going into the last weeks of this campaign. Such an assessment would in fact help Obama win, and such an outcome would please most commentators. So I shall be surprised if strict objectivity prevails on this occasion.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Obama: Listen guys, I wana be the underdog. Underdog wins are always cooler.
Staff: Umm you can't be the underdog if you are the front runner Mr. President.
Obama: Figure it out!
Staff: Well you could tank the first debate that might do it...
Obama: Brilliant! I love it. Great work guys!
Staff: Wait what?

See? No nefarious media conspiracy needed!
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
Analysis:
quote:
Romney did not win his debate because he contradicted Obama a lot. Obama contradicted Romney just as much, of course. Romney won the debate because he was in command, fluent with facts, clear and persuasive in explaining his underlying understanding of the economy, friendly, warm, intelligent, and... extremely presidential.

Was Biden any of those things?

Or was he a confused old man riding a broken-down horse into the Alzheimer's sunset of fading intellect (and his never burned that brightly to begin with)?

Everything That Guy Just Said Is Bull****. A funny and effective gambit from My Cousin Vinnie. Does it work for Biden?

I would say not. For one thing, Vinnie is a fictional character in a comedy.

For another thing, charismatic people can get away with this sort of thing. They can even win on it. Because charisma is more persuasive than any argument.

Does Biden have that kind of charisma? He does, I think, appeal to people who frankly are not all that intelligent and, more importantly, whose lives are not exactly what they'd like them to be. To such people, government is a Rich Uncle Who Loans You Money When You Need It (which is constantly).

Yeah, pretty much sums it up.

If you think Biden won, you missed SNL this week. The meme of the braying jackass is coalescing. If this continues to metastasize for the SCOMAF, then he's really gonna need to have a big night on the next debate. Can he do it without coming off a whiny and petulant? So far, Barry's been unable to do so, consequently I suspect another failure may just be in the offing.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
No surprise that G3 gets that trenchant analysis from an article on the Daily Caller that starts off with:
quote:
If you’re a normal person and you watched Thursday night’s debate, you probably said one of two things:

“How the hell did this wackjob get to within a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States?”
...[2nd sophomoric quote removed for duncelike redundant wit]

That about sums up G3's sophistication on such consequential matters.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
The SNL skit did have me laughing.

quote:
Everything That Guy Just Said Is Bull****. A funny and effective gambit from My Cousin Vinnie. Does it work for Biden?
It depends an awful lot on if it's meant to be funny or if he believes it is fact. Then whether or not anyone is convinced it's fact.

It was dirty fighting IMO but Ryan got out staged. I dislike using meme in any context but in the above analysis the author is relying on the Biden is a confused old man meme. Just as much as the disheartened supporters of Obama were relying on the Obama can't possibly loose any public speaking engagement meme.

You can decide whether someone won or lost a debate or you can discuss how their performance in a debate is likely to affect the overall campaign. I wish people would stop trying to make them interchangeable.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
FOX had a psychologist on yesterday who did say that Biden exhibited symptoms of dementia as characterized by inappropriate facial expressions and frequent laughter unrelated to context. So I guess it's true <sniff>!
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I had no idea they could treat being a jackass! Will miracles of science never cease?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I'm curious where they thought Biden laughed out of context.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm curious where they thought Biden laughed out of context.

Did you even watch the debate? You wouldn't be wondering if you had.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I did watch, I'm not sure. I thought the outbursts were rude, but why he laughed was no mystery. <Hint, because he thought what was being said was B.S.>

[ October 15, 2012, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
If you're a FOX psychologist (or G#) you know that everything Ryan said was dead nuts true. Any negative reaction from Biden (or you - and we will review tapes of you watching) is a sign of democradementia, a precursor of pathopatriotisis and ultimately aljazeimers. Make no mistake, we *do* know who you are.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Did you even watch the debate? You wouldn't be wondering if you had.
I did watch the debate. Biden laughed, to my recollection, when Ryan made an egregious error or doubled down on a lie. None of his exclamations struck me as particularly out of context.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm curious where they thought Biden laughed out of context.

Did you even watch the debate? You wouldn't be wondering if you had.
You're right, he apparently the poor guy thought Ryan was only pretending to have the intellectual chops of a 17 year old debate team second stringer. Alas the old man didn't realize Ryan was just being himself.

Biden smiled everytime Ryan said anything misleading and Paul Ryan said a lot that was misleading.

[ October 16, 2012, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Tonight's will be interesting. The Obama campaign is signalling that he will be more aggressive, but being a closet liberal Obama will try to hide it. Gack, I'm getting sick of popcorn already!

In the 2008 Democratic debates Biden criticized Giuliani because every sentence he uttered had the same three things: a noun, verb and 9/11. With Romney the template is noun, verb and failure.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Yes! Certainly! Some people don't believe shooting strangers is wrong. Don't we force our views onto them? Is it wrong to force these people to comply to our line of thinking when they don't want to?

And some people think that eating a hamburger is murder. Don't we let them force their views unto us?
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Did you even watch the debate? You wouldn't be wondering if you had.
I did watch the debate. Biden laughed, to my recollection, when Ryan made an egregious error or doubled down on a lie. None of his exclamations struck me as particularly out of context.
That's the party line you're supposed to go with. Most reasonable people saw that and knew better.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Did you even watch the debate? You wouldn't be wondering if you had.
I did watch the debate. Biden laughed, to my recollection, when Ryan made an egregious error or doubled down on a lie. None of his exclamations struck me as particularly out of context.
That's the party line you're supposed to go with. Most reasonable people saw that and knew better.
Which is the party line you're supposed to go with, isn't it?
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Did you even watch the debate? You wouldn't be wondering if you had.
I did watch the debate. Biden laughed, to my recollection, when Ryan made an egregious error or doubled down on a lie. None of his exclamations struck me as particularly out of context.
That's the party line you're supposed to go with. Most reasonable people saw that and knew better.
Which is the party line you're supposed to go with, isn't it?
Well, we can just go with the polls where Ryan was the overwhelming winner. We can go with the pop culture references like SNL where they hammered Biden's performance.

BTW, I'm a card carrying member of the "Cocktail Party". The only line there is "I'll have another".
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
Interesting take:
quote:
It’s worth noting, as I do in my column, the different approaches the candidates took to preparation for this debate. Obama holed himself up in a resort hotel for intense practice, probably with more seriousness than he did before the Denver collapse. Romney, on the other hand, began doing townhall forums while campaigning in Ohio. That may make a difference in tonight’s debate, as Romney has field-tested his responses, while Obama has only tested his in the theoretical construct of debate simulations.
Given that Barry won't have a teleprompter either, that was a risky prep strategy. May pay off in the end, who knows.

What I do know is if Barry comes out swinging and looks like a totally different person, people will thing "poser".
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Well, we can just go with the polls where Ryan was the overwhelming winner.
Yeah, if we limit ourselves to just those polls, as opposed to most polls, I suppose that'd make sense. [Wink]
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Well, we can just go with the polls where Ryan was the overwhelming winner.
Yeah, if we limit ourselves to just those polls, as opposed to most polls, I suppose that'd make sense. [Wink]
quote:
CNN and CNBC both conducted post debate instapolls and declared Paul Ryan the winner of the vice presidential debate, and Politico has a nice roundup of journalists and media pundits all criticizing Biden's constant smirks, smiles and laughter during the whole debate.

CNBC: Paul Ryan: 56%, Joe Biden: 36%, Neither: 8%

CNN: Ryan 48%, Biden 44%

CNN- Likability: Ryan 53%, Biden 43%
CNN- More in Touch: Ryan 51%, Biden 44%

[Update] AP Ryan 51%- Biden 43%
CBS seems to be the only network that gave Biden a win, with 50%-31%

But you can have whatever reality makes you feel better. [Wink]

Yeah, nobody noticed any inappropriate laughing.
quote:
Via Politico:

TIME’s Michael Scherer: “Not sure debate cameras have been light tested for Biden’s teeth. Best to watch with sunglasses."

Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein: “Biden’s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?”

NBC’s David Gregory: “Biden’s smile is out of control.”

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith: “So did Biden practice laughing at Ryan???”

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Biden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.”

Former Eric Cantor staffer Brad Dayspring: “Joe Biden needs to realize this isn’t a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing. His laughter and condescending attitude is a disaster.”

Radio host Neal Boortz: “Looking like Biden’s gameplan is to laugh his way through this.”

Townhall.com’s Guy Benson: “Will Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?”

MSNBC’s S.E. Cupp: “Biden needs to laugh a little less through the Libya, Middle East, nuclear Iran segment.”

Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Ok. I have decided. I find the Biden smile slightly unsettling.”

PBS’ Jeff Greenfield: “Biden has always had a smile that at times is really, really inappropriate.”

Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard: “Can’t tell yet if Biden’s smirking, laughs, eye-rolling, head shaking, works for him or not against the oh-so-young looking eager Ryan.”

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: “Biden is at risk of having his laugh come across like Gore’s sighs. He should knock it off.”

The New York Times’ Ashley Parker: “Biden’s grin is Cheshire Cat caliber.”

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean: “Biden laughing does not come off with the intended effect. It is actually hurting him. Looks very condescending.”

Movie critic Roger Ebert: “Joe! Stop smiling and laughing!”

Washington Times’ Emily Miller: “Biden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.”
Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin: “Biden’s laughing is losing the debate- obnoxious”

Other media pundits call Biden "weird" and a "jerk."

Nobody noticed any inappropriate laughing. Nobody noticed any inappropriate laughing. Nobody noticed any inappropriate laughing. Repeat until it's true. [LOL]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Inappropriate, yes. Out of context, no. [Wink] Don't paste our answers onto a different question.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Yes! Certainly! Some people don't believe shooting strangers is wrong. Don't we force our views onto them? Is it wrong to force these people to comply to our line of thinking when they don't want to?

And some people think that eating a hamburger is murder. Don't we let them force their views unto us?
If they became a majority, they very well could.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Yeah, nobody noticed any inappropriate laughing.
Is the question whether the laughter was inappropriate, or whether it was out of context? I was speaking of the latter.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Romney seems very afraid of the audience. "uh uh uh , I'll increase your Pell grants. I turned down qualified male applicants to get some women in my adminsitration in Massachusates, really I'm a liberal...just don't steal my wallet...please?"
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Anybody sense that Obama is hitting his stride? No teleprompter, oh my!

Romney comes across as sympathetic as an ad for acne cream.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
ooooh, Libya, Romney is nasty............
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
The rose garden smack-down was pretty fun; Mitt gets fact-checked in the moment, by the moderator. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Romney sure is eager to support the Christian killing Syrian rebels. I wonder if he isn't motivated by a resentment of gentiles. [Razz]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
No I don't really believe that.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
Well, Obama certainly shook off the Ambien. [Smile] I expect that the reviews will be pretty split, but Obama definitely held his own, and he clearly won the last 20 minutes, which will color a lot of people's reactions.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Just in: Obama wins debate 60-40%. You'll have to wait for the polls for the confirmation of that, of course [Smile] .
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Link:

quote:
Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Here’s the line with some additional context:
His actual words:

quote:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

It's close. He says the word terrorism, but it's vague as to exactly what he was talking about, as the writer points out.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
The day after it wasn't clear exactly what happened, but what could you call it except terrorism?

[ October 16, 2012, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Nothing, it was terrorism.

But the Pres claimed that he called the attack in Benghazi "am attack of terrorism." And when questioned by Romney he said to get the transcripts, and then the moderator said that he did in fact call it an act of terrorism.

But he did not. He did not actually say that Benghazi was an act of terrorism.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Not sure how you can agree that it was an act of terror and that he said an act of terror in reference to what had just happened, and yet not think he was actually calling it an act of terrorism.

I think he waited the additional time for the fact finding to take place. Seems prudent not to overstep.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:

But he did not. He did not actually say that Benghazi was an act of terrorism.

Please elaborate on the difference between an "act of terror" and an "act of terrorism" for us.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
Small aside: the moderator was excellent this debate.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Let's see who attacks her. The winner's side never attacks the moderator.

More than that I really want to hear what G# thought [Smile] [Big Grin] .

[ October 16, 2012, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
No difference in the words at all.

He did not say "this was an act of terror". He alluded to it, a bit, but that's it. He referenced 9/11 2001 also, so it's not straightforward that he was talking about Benghazi. This is important, because he claimed that he did in fact call it an act of terror, and to check the transcript, and the moderator said that he called it an act of terror, which he did not clearly do.

And did not do so for weeks after that as well.

Like I originally said, it's close. I think the President made a mistake when he claimed that

"I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror..."

Romney said: "I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror..."

Then Obama said : "That's what I said."

But that's not what he said. He made a vague reference to it but he did NOT call the event in Benghazi an act of terror directly. That's his mistake.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Josh - I'm flabbergasted that you thought the moderator was excellent. The president was able to speak last on nearly every issue, she interrupted Romney (as she should) anytime he was over time, but did not do so for the President, and she bailed out the President on this remark about an act of terror.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
The president was better at playing it off when she cut him off. Romney did poorly with that in this debate and in the last. When Mr. Obama saw she was not going to budge, he acted like it was his idea. She was pretty strictly enforcing the time limits for both candidates (I estimate that they both got about equal time, but I'll wait for the time keepers to weigh in on that), and she was pretty good about staying out of the way otherwise.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
web page

quote:
According to CNN's timekeeping, Obama got 44:04 minutes of speaking time, while Romney got 40:50.
3 minutes of extra time is a lot in these sorts of things. Particularly if those 3 minutes are the last word in nearly every topic.

And this is after she claimed that the time keepers are working, when Romney voiced a complaint about being unable to respond (again).
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
Although, I do agree with your criticism regarding the rose garden statement. She over-represented the President's side initially, and her clarification was a little too weak.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
Did anyone else feel like the first fifteen or twenty minutes were coming to us courtesy of bizarro-land? Seriously, it was like neither of them could /understand/ the questions, nevermind answer them. If I hadn't been watching with my husband, I would have turned off the television.

I was impressed with Romney's answer to the immigration question. I sincerely doubt he was telling the asker what she wanted to hear. I want to stand up and applaud every time a politician gives an answer which may be unpopular, but which he believes.

Some maybe-specifics on his tax plan, different from the maybe-specifics I last heard presented but at least /mentioned/ in the debate, which Obama ignored (and we didn't hear about them for very long.)

A decisive answer from Obama on Libya (taking responsibility for what happened there). Also, some honesty on low-income manufacturing jobs.

Lots of repeating the same material from both of them.

Meh.

[ October 16, 2012, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
If that's the case, then I'm disappointed in that regard. 4 minutes is a ton. I do like the tone she carried with both candidates. I would like to see moderators find that happy balance between being strict with time constraints but otherwise being respectful.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
quote:
Lots of repeating the same material from both of them.
Agreed.

quote:
I would like to see moderators find that happy balance between being strict with time constraints but otherwise being respectful.
Agreed.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
[Edgmatt:] "Josh - I'm flabbergasted that you thought the moderator was excellent. The president was able to speak last on nearly every issue, she interrupted Romney (as she should) anytime he was over time, but did not do so for the President, and she bailed out the President on this remark about an act of terror."

Oooh, that means you think Romney lost.

[Chael:] "Did anyone else feel like the first fifteen or twenty minutes were coming to us courtesy of bizarro-land? Seriously, it was like neither of them could /understand/ the questions, nevermind answer them. If I hadn't been watching with my husband, I would have turned off the television."

Definitely. My wife looked like she was going to throw the cat at the tv. But it did settle down after that and Obama became more and more comfortable. Romney had a few rough patches but overall did ok.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
Al: Please. Don't speculate. I thought the moderator in the VP debate was really biased, and I thought the debate was a tie.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Al - What I said means exactly what I said, no more no less.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
Don't speculate. I thought the moderator in the VP debate was really biased, and I thought the debate was a tie.

I'm not sure that the debater was clearly biased, but she did allow Obama to run over time much more than Romney. Obama consistently got 10 to 15 seconds in extra time throughout the debate. the moderator should have insisted the time remain at least close to equal. Instead, by the end of the debate Obama had accumulated substantially more time to talk.

That being said, the debate was pretty much a tie. Obama scored a few more rhetorical points, but it's hard to believe that either candidate swayed many independent voters. Scoring points for your based doesn't really help at this point. I'm not sure this debate changes much and leaves the election very much a toss up.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Romney:
- I wanted to hear more specifics on his tax plan. He started to with an early question (the lady who couldn't remember "the other exemption") but he needs to keep that ball rolling.
- His answers on immigration were honest which was good to see.
- I think the entire conversation (both his and the Presidents) about who's been better to women was a complete waste of time. It came across as "look what I did, I'M nicer to women." Bleh.
-
Obama:
- Seemed to make a lot of accusations and say Romney's points weren't true, but didn't back it up. Seemed like he was doing it just to make up for last debate. I think this hurt him.
- Made a very strong statement when he told Romney that accusing him and anyone on his team of turning the Benghazi disaster into politics was very offensive. Romney will have to be careful in future statements.
- Was too...arrogant is the best word I can come up with. It was as if he and the moderator were buddies. When Romney complained to the moderator that he was supposed to get the last bit, and the Pres said "time checkers are workin" and several times when he interrupted Romney and talked to Candy as if they were best friends. Too much.
- He did not answer the one man's question about Benghazi. He completely avoided it.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
- He did not answer the one man's question about Benghazi. He completely avoided it.

There was no good answer to that question. So he avoided the unpleasantness by ignoring the specifics.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
The question was: "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

We're on the same page, JWatts?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
The question was: "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

We're on the same page, JWatts?

Actually, that's not what I was thinking of.

But still that's a question that Obama is just probably going to avoid answering. He really can't afford to throw Hillary under the bus at this point and what else could he say? It's pretty clear that there were requests for extra security and a clear threat, but they denied the extra security. His administration already took the approach that it was a spontaneous attack caused by a riot, which turned out to be completely false. He certainly doesn't want to be caught in a further lie. So his best approach is to attack Romney for daring to even bring the subject up. His base will eat it up and some independents won't think about it too deeply.

After looking it up, that is the question I was thinking of, there was just more of a prelude.

quote:

We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?



[ October 17, 2012, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Romney:
- I wanted to hear more specifics on his tax plan. He started to with an early question (the lady who couldn't remember "the other exemption") but he needs to keep that ball rolling.
- His answers on immigration were honest which was good to see.
- I think the entire conversation (both his and the Presidents) about who's been better to women was a complete waste of time. It came across as "look what I did, I'M nicer to women." Bleh.

1) Yes, me too.
2) Yes.
3) The question was very specific (pay inequality), so I agree. I did appreciate Obama giving a relevant answer here. And frankly, Romney sounded a little out of touch. My husband commented that out of his co-workers who use some variant of flex-time to go take care of the kids, about half of them are men. Women aren't the only ones who benefit from a little work/life balance.

quote:

Obama:
- Seemed to make a lot of accusations and say Romney's points weren't true, but didn't back it up. Seemed like he was doing it just to make up for last debate. I think this hurt him.
- Made a very strong statement when he told Romney that accusing him and anyone on his team of turning the Benghazi disaster into politics was very offensive. Romney will have to be careful in future statements.
- Was too...arrogant is the best word I can come up with. It was as if he and the moderator were buddies. When Romney complained to the moderator that he was supposed to get the last bit, and the Pres said "time checkers are workin" and several times when he interrupted Romney and talked to Candy as if they were best friends. Too much.
- He did not answer the one man's question about Benghazi. He completely avoided it.

1) He made similar accusations in the first debate. I do agree that he seemed to be striving for a more.. combative performance. I was wondering if they were going to have a wrestling match or somesuch.

2) Yup. And frankly, I thought it was about time.

3) Obama was spinning his way. Can't say I'm surprised.

4) Yes, agreed--sorry; I was unclear earlier (if this had anything to do with my comment earlier--sorry for 'world revolves around me' syndrome if it didn't). I would have been happier with a "we're looking into the matter, as previously mentioned; when we are absolutely certain, the public will know, because at that point the person's reputation will be ashes and we want to be sure" answer. I really doubt this was a decision made on his level, even though he is ultimately responsible.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Anyone have whole debate links for the VP debate or for the whole debate?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
On energy, Obama seemed to win 70-30 in my judgment.

Would like links to the larger scale debates.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Chael - yes, that sort of response would have both answered the man's question and dodged it at the same time. But he chose to just avoid it completely.

BTW I went back and found the vid from the rose garden after the Benghazi attack. I wanted to see the Pres actually say all the words that were in the transcript. After watching the video, I think he certainly came closer to calling the Benghazi incident an act of terror than I originally thought. I still think he made a big mistake in the debate by being so over-confident about it, because he certainly didn't say it directly, but it's not quite as bad as I first thought.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Pete - I can't find links yet.

I'm surprised you thought the Pres was strong on Energy. He and Romney were contradicting each other with the numbers, and Romney put him to the question and the Pres was weak (IMO). What did you like about what the Pres said?

*edited to be clear which of Pete's comments I am talking about.

[ October 17, 2012, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: edgmatt ]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Crowley has clarified her comments. She should have avoided saying anything.


quote:

After the debate, debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

Crowley interrupted Romney during the debate, insisting that President Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror.”

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

Link
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

quote:
What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

Romney’s Tough Immigration View Is at Odds With His Church

quote:
While Mitt Romney is taking a hard line on immigration even as the Republican primaries head toward the heavily Hispanic states of Nevada, Colorado and Arizona, the Mormon Church to which he belongs has become a decisive player in promoting policies that are decidedly more friendly toward immigrants.

The church was instrumental last year in passing controversial legislation in Utah that would provide “guest worker” permits to allow illegal immigrants with jobs to remain in the United States. The church also threw its weight behind the Utah Compact, a declaration calling for humane treatment of immigrants and condemning deportation policies that separate families, which has been adopted by several other states.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known for its reluctance to be seen as meddling in politics. But on immigration, the church actively lobbied legislators, sent Presiding Bishop H. David Burton to attend the bill signing and issued a series of increasingly explicit statements in favor of allowing some illegal immigrants to stay in the country and work.

The church’s endorsement helped shift the debate on immigration in a Republican state where more than 80 percent of legislators are Mormons. It was the church’s most overt involvement in politics since 2008, when it joined other conservative churches in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

“They were the defining factor in passing that immigration legislation,” said Ronald Mortensen, a Mormon who is co-founder of the Utah Coalition on Illegal Immigration, which opposed it. “It was probably the most obvious intervention by the Mormon Church on any piece of legislation up here for years. They’re usually a lot more subtle.”

Mormons in Utah who back an accommodating approach to immigrants say they have been disturbed to see Mr. Romney align himself with his party’s anti-immigration flank and with Tea Party members. Mr. Romney has dismissed as “amnesty” any proposal to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He at first said he would veto the “Dream Act,” which would offer legal status to young illegal immigrants in the United States if they earned a college degree or serve in the military. He later revised his position to say he favored legal status for those who serve in the military.

In contrast, the Mormon Church has said that any immigration reform must balance the principles of loving one’s neighbor and keeping families intact with the imperative to secure the nation’s borders and enforce its laws.


 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

And Romney should have bitch-slapped Crowley for chumming it up with Obama and letting him have an extra 4 minutes of time. But we live in an imperfect world. [Wink]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Chael - yes, that sort of response would have both answered the man's question and dodged it at the same time. But he chose to just avoid it completely.

I think it's fair to say 'I'm not secure in my answer to this question yet'. I wouldn't characterize that as a dodge.

Of course, as you said, what he actually did is to completely avoid the question that was asked.

As far as energy goes, a quick note: I don't know how gas prices were where they were debating, but /my/ gas went over $4.00 a gallon well before Obama took office, and I'm in Texas for goodness' sake.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

quote:
What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

Romney’s Tough Immigration View Is at Odds With His Church

quote:
While Mitt Romney is taking a hard line on immigration even as the Republican primaries head toward the heavily Hispanic states of Nevada, Colorado and Arizona, the Mormon Church to which he belongs has become a decisive player in promoting policies that are decidedly more friendly toward immigrants.

The church was instrumental last year in passing controversial legislation in Utah that would provide “guest worker” permits to allow illegal immigrants with jobs to remain in the United States. The church also threw its weight behind the Utah Compact, a declaration calling for humane treatment of immigrants and condemning deportation policies that separate families, which has been adopted by several other states.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known for its reluctance to be seen as meddling in politics. But on immigration, the church actively lobbied legislators, sent Presiding Bishop H. David Burton to attend the bill signing and issued a series of increasingly explicit statements in favor of allowing some illegal immigrants to stay in the country and work.

The church’s endorsement helped shift the debate on immigration in a Republican state where more than 80 percent of legislators are Mormons. It was the church’s most overt involvement in politics since 2008, when it joined other conservative churches in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

“They were the defining factor in passing that immigration legislation,” said Ronald Mortensen, a Mormon who is co-founder of the Utah Coalition on Illegal Immigration, which opposed it. “It was probably the most obvious intervention by the Mormon Church on any piece of legislation up here for years. They’re usually a lot more subtle.”

Mormons in Utah who back an accommodating approach to immigrants say they have been disturbed to see Mr. Romney align himself with his party’s anti-immigration flank and with Tea Party members. Mr. Romney has dismissed as “amnesty” any proposal to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He at first said he would veto the “Dream Act,” which would offer legal status to young illegal immigrants in the United States if they earned a college degree or serve in the military. He later revised his position to say he favored legal status for those who serve in the military.

In contrast, the Mormon Church has said that any immigration reform must balance the principles of loving one’s neighbor and keeping families intact with the imperative to secure the nation’s borders and enforce its laws.


Tony Yapias on LDS statement on Immigration reform

More comment from Tony Yapias on LDS statement RE Immigration reform compassion.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

You think "his views aren't LDS enough" really would have been a good argument for Obama to make to the general electorate?

Edited to add: I'm sorry, that sounds kind of offensive. I don't mean it that way. [Frown] Not sure how to rephrase it though. It does seem like there is some anti-LDS sentiment in Romney's party.

[ October 17, 2012, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Chael ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

And Romney should have bitch-slapped Crowley for chumming it up with Obama and letting him have an extra 4 minutes of time. But we live in an imperfect world. [Wink]
There's politics, and then there's principles. I had nothing but praise for Romney when he took extra time in Debate One when he added content and specifics at the expense of form. I would be an hypocrite if I criticized Obama for doing the same in Debate Two. (that's an articulation of MY position; I ain't calling you an hypocrite since I don't recall what you said about Romney taking extra time in Debate One.)
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
As far as energy goes, a quick note: I don't know how gas prices were where they were debating, but /my/ gas went over $4.00 a gallon well before Obama took office, and I'm in Texas for goodness' sake.
Gas prices hit about $4/gallon toward the end of Bush's last term, but plummeted to about $2 right before Obama was elected, allowing for the technically correct but disingenuous statement that gas prices went from $2 to $4 while Obama was in office.

Gas prices don't really tend to correlate well with any particular US policy moves other than sabre rattling and invasion of middle-eastern countries. It certainly hasn't correlated with shifts in domestic drilling policies.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
As far as energy goes, a quick note: I don't know how gas prices were where they were debating, but /my/ gas went over $4.00 a gallon well before Obama took office, and I'm in Texas for goodness' sake.

Yes and then they dropped like a rock and were almost certainly a lot less than $4 when Obama took office. US average prices were under $2 per gallon in the spring of 2009.

quote:
We began 2009 with gasoline prices averaging $1.625 across the United States- January 1, 2009 was actually the beginning of the uptrend, the first day that prices began to rise. Prices didn't rise above $2 until March 26, 2009, when they were $2.011.

The peak in 2009 for gasoline prices occurred on Halloween, when prices were $2.688. The largest jump between days occurred between October 22 and 23, when average prices jumped from $2.628 to $2.660 just overnight.

Source

But on substance Obama has a point. The President isn't directly responsible for the price of gas. It's volatile and no President can directly control it. However, Romney's certainly correct that more US drilling and, more importantly, additional US refineries will result in cheaper gas.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

You think "his views aren't LDS enough" really would have been a good argument for Obama to make to the general electorate?
Gosh, no. But a good statement is a good statement, regardless of its source. And if Obama agrees precisely with the LDS church directive (and as far as I can tell, he DOES!) then why not press Romney on the matter?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Gas prices have no relation to domestic output.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/23/fact-check-net-oil-exporter-drilling-drop-gas-prices-103271/

[ October 17, 2012, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
Re. gas: *nod* Okay. I didn't remember it getting under $2/gallon, but that says more about the state of my memory than anything else. [Wink]

Pete: Ah, I see (I think). I don't think this calls for a bitch-slap, but rather a moral argument on policy, which (if made for something other than effect) would be better made in less heated circumstances.
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
Pete, I don't know if you've had a chance to listen to the debate yet, but they did have an interchange on immigration. I'd be interested to know what you thought about it, if you have had a chance to see it.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I had nothing but praise for Romney when he took extra time in Debate One when he added content and specifics at the expense of form. I would be an hypocrite if I criticized Obama for doing the same in Debate Two. (that's an articulation of MY position; I ain't calling you an hypocrite since I don't recall what you said about Romney taking extra time in Debate One.)

Actually, I believe Obama got more time to speak than Romney did in the first debate, also. He just didn't say anything particularly well, so no one really cared.

To clarify, I wasn't criticizing Crowley for letting Obama take a little extra time occasionally, to clarify a position. It was letting him take extra time on almost every question that was ridiculous. And in many cases Obama wasn't even answering the actual question as he carried on. Furthermore, Obama kept jumping in with the last word, even when it was Romney's turn to speak. However, I think the overall effect was positive for Obama, since he ended up with substantially more time to pontificate.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Gas prices have no relation to domestic output.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/23/fact-check-net-oil-exporter-drilling-drop-gas-prices-103271/

Correlation is not causation. And a link that only looks at the correlation since after the US became a large importer of oil isn't telling us the whole story. That's classic cherry picking of the data.

And regardless, every extra million barrels of domestic oil produced a day, drops the US trade imbalance by $35 billion per year. An extra $35 billion in our economy per year is a significant benefit.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
A lack of correlation is a fair argument *against* causation, however. Economic growth is all well and good, but there's not much evidence to support the notion that US gas prices will fall dramatically if we only ramp up domestic production. Oil is priced by a global market and the US' ability to affect it through increases in domestic production is limited.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Pete, I don't know if you've had a chance to listen to the debate yet, but they did have an interchange on immigration. I'd be interested to know what you thought about it, if you have had a chance to see it.

I did see that part. That's what I'm referencing. Although am still hunting for a complete debate link.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
I just finished watching the debate video, and see Romney's attack upon Obama's fuel price doubling as a reference to the broader complaint of an increased cost of living generally. Domestic development of federal petroleum reserves has been abysmal over the last four years, but I don't think Romney was linking that directly to $4.00 gas. The inflationary effects of Federal borrowing are responsible, and that can be laid directly at Obama's feet. It was entertaining to see Barry's analysis of high fuel prices. In his mind, we should all be happy, because it is symptomatic of the economic recovery that began four years ago (?). He must be relieved that the next debate will not afford an oppourtunity to expand upon that theory.

Unlike the rest of you, I do not believe the Benghazi tragedy was addressed in a way that terminated it as a debate issue. If anything, Barry is playing hot-potato with the hand-off from smiling Joe. There is only one thing that will merit more "offense" than suggesting derilection of an Obama "team" member, and that is verified cover-up of derilection by the Obama team. When I watched Hillary's assumption of "complete responsibility" her expression did not reflect positively upon her boss, and if I was a family member of one of the victims... I would have slapped that smirk off of her face. Instead of firing her, he praised her.

Watch for this to reappear in the upcoming debate on Monday. The moderator effectively re-heated the potato.

Pete, for the sake of the country, I hope Obama makes an issue of Romney's parting with Church policy on illegal immigrants. It would afford a perfect juxtaposition of National vs. International ecclesiastical interests. That contrast worked very well for JFK.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Obama's fuel price doubling as a reference to the broader complaint of an increased cost of living generally.
Except that the overall cost of living is increasing at the slowest pace that it has in decades.

quote:
The inflationary effects of Federal borrowing are responsible, and that can be laid directly at Obama's feet.
That's double nonsense. First of all in that we've not mustered enough inflation to promote normal levels of growth, nevermind an increase in real prices (and heck, real wages have decreased- indicating that we're fighting against deflation) Second in the sense that "federal borrowing" is as much nonsense as it is to call the sum of a bank's deposits that bank's borrowing. Our Federal Government doesn't borrow- it generates its own currency. The bonds that it issues represent excess money that is deposited with it as a form of secure savings and are actively anti-inflationary, since they're actively not being spent, and thus not contributing to overall demand levels. (And, in fact, the demand for such savings is currently so high that people are even willing to take effectively negative returns just to have somewhere to park the money)
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Pyrtolin,

I was already aware that you live in an alternate reality.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
I was already aware that you live in an alternate reality.

Indeed- we call it the real world over here, as opposed to the complete fantasy world that you're making up.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"As far as energy goes, a quick note: I don't know how gas prices were where they were debating, but /my/ gas went over $4.00 a gallon well before Obama took office, and I'm in Texas for goodness' sake."

Gas prices nationally in Jan/08 were about $3 and in Dec/08 were under $2. Obama is right that the reason for the drop was the economic downturn as there was no particular change in the supply to justify it.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
CPI annual increases averaged 1.9% over Obama's tenure, whereas they increased on average by 2.8% during Bush's terms. CPI has been higher of late, however, but if one is going to lay recent increases at the president's feet, then one should also accept that he was responsible for lower increases earlier in his term (both claims being silly, but it is the silly season)

Or we're you simply disputing the basic concepts of MMT, noel? In which case, being dismissive of Pyrtolin for accepting a different yet established monetary theory than you, rather than pointing out your disagreement with the theory, actually makes you look, well, silly.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Pete, I found the transcript by googling "Biden Ryan debate transcript" several days ago. I'm on my cell now and can't mix links with typing.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Pyrtolin,

I was already aware that you live in an alternate reality.

But were you aware that he lived in an alternate reality of the alternate reality? An (alternate reality)^2. [Razz]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Economic growth is all well and good, but there's not much evidence to support the notion that US gas prices will fall dramatically if we only ramp up domestic production. Oil is priced by a global market and the US' ability to affect it through increases in domestic production is limited.

Sure, I agree with that. However, that's a far cry from saying that increased production won't have any relation to domestic gas prices. Furthermore, the economic effects of the domestic oil production are significant in their own rights, in addition to any beneficial lowering of gas prices.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Or we're you simply disputing the basic concepts of MMT, noel? In which case, being dismissive of Pyrtolin for accepting a different yet established monetary theory than you, rather than pointing out your disagreement with the theory, actually makes you look, well, silly.

Plenty of economists (probably most) think neo-Chartalism is completely unrealistic, if not silly. It's a fringe theory, though it's certainly not a completely crackpot idea. However, Pyrtolin often takes stances that are on the fringe, even for neo-Chartalists.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Pete, for the sake of the country, I hope Obama makes an issue of Romney's parting with Church policy on illegal immigrants. It would afford a perfect juxtaposition of National vs. International ecclesiastical interests. That contrast worked very well for JFK.
The last thing Mitt Romney needs to be doing right now is drawing attention to his religous beliefs beyond bland generic statements along the "people of faith" line.

[ October 17, 2012, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Let's see who attacks her. The winner's side never attacks the moderator.

More than that I really want to hear what G# thought [Smile] [Big Grin] .

I don't recall a lot of "Jim Leher was useless" comments from Republicans after the first debate.

[ October 17, 2012, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Donald D,

The price of gold has risen from -$800/ounce to almost $1,900/ounce during the same four-year period that fuel doubled in price.

Would you attribute this to supply reduction, demand increase, or something more obvious?
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Gas prices hit about $4/gallon toward the end of Bush's last term, but plummeted to about $2 right before Obama was elected, allowing for the technically correct but disingenuous statement that gas prices went from $2 to $4 while Obama was in office.

The gist of what Obama was going for here is that gas prices then were low because the economy was in the dumper - and they're high now because the economy is so great! Yeah, good point there Barry. Idiot.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Lewis Grizzard once described political debates as being like a rat shoot. The rats claim victory "look how many of us lived!" and the shooters claim victory "of course we let SOME of them live, we want to have another rat shoot!".
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"The gist of what Obama was going for here is that gas prices then were low because the economy was in the dumper - and they're high now because the economy is so great! Yeah, good point there Barry. Idiot."

It's clear that the opposite of any point is that Obama is an idiot. Reminds me of Gingrich complaining about how Obama handled Libya 18 months ago. When he was taking too long to get engaged he was showing weakness, and when he then made his moves he was acting rashly.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

You're probably right. If Romney avvoids the illegal immigration problem, nobody will notice that he is Mormon.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
So who "won"? We all like the polls, let's go to them. CBS and CNN's post-debate polls give the edge to Barry:
quote:
In a CBS News poll, 37 percent of 525 uncommitted voters who watched the debate declared Obama the winner, compared to 30 percent who said the same of Romney; 33 percent said it was a tie. A CNN ORC International poll of 457 registered voters gave the debate to the president by a 7 percentage point margin, 46 percent to 39 percent.

The CBS News poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points; the CNN poll's margin is 4.5 points.

So that's your headline and that's all you need to know right? But, let's check the specifics, shall we?

quote:
Romney was seen as better able to handle most issues. he had an 18-point edge among registered voters on the economy (58 percent to Obama's 40 percent ); a 3-point edge on health care (49 percent to 46 percent); a 7-point edge on taxes (51 percent to 44 percent); and, largest of all, a 23-point edge on the deficit (59 percent to 36 percent).
And finally, it's Romney at 49-46 on Leadership.

If you dig into it, you see that Romney comes out ahead on almost all issues. The headline of "Obama Wins" is kind of like saying the Patriots won Super Bowl XLVI. Yeah, Giant's scored more points, sure, but lets give the Patriots the win. Similarly, Romney scored more points, sure, but lets give the Barry the win.

Most telling:
quote:
MSNBC's panel of undecided voters swayed toward Mitt Romney after tonight's presidential debate.
MSNBC, the home of Leg Tingles hisself can't go in the bag deep enough to cover it up. That tells you more about actual winners and losers in the debate than anything else.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
" That tells you more about actual winners and losers in the debate than anything else."

Whatever you say, boss, whatever you say. You should go here if you need an endorphin booster.

[ October 17, 2012, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It's actually kind of funny how G3 gets all interested in drilling down into issues and looking for nuance when he needs to confirm his existing biases. [Smile]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
G3,

I think that the left is encouraged because Barry appears to have recovered his testicles, at least stylistically.

Where he is headed for trouble is what most already suspect intuitively... that fact-checking is his downfall.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It's actually kind of funny how G3 gets all interested in drilling down into issues and looking for nuance when he needs to confirm his existing biases. [Smile]

Even funnier, how you don't. Here, just for you: [FootInMouth]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Where he is headed for trouble is what most already suspect intuitively... that fact-checking is his downfall."

Noel, do you think Romney made any fact-checking errors? If so, might he suffer from them, too?
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
G3,

I think that the left is encouraged because Barry appears to have recovered his testicles, at least stylistically.

I think you're right. The re-emergence of "Angry Barry" is what the left has been craving. They love the hate, fo sheezy.

quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Where he is headed for trouble is what most already suspect intuitively... that fact-checking is his downfall.

I disagree. Fact checking has never really been done on Barry's utterances - at least not by the media. I don't see them starting now.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

You're probably right. If Romney avvoids the illegal immigration problem, nobody will notice that he is Mormon.

Hey I'm all for Romney making his religion an issue a few weeks before the election.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
G3 you going to provide a link to that MSNBC story or do we just have to take it on faith?

Undecided Walmart Moms say Obama won

Story on CNN and CBS pol

Romney was visably nervous through much of the debate, his voice was pitched higher and he kept stuttering. In the second part of the debate he seemed angry ehough to get past his fear.

Why is he so hot to give guns to Syrian rebels who we know are working with Al Queda and have been deliberatly starving unarmed Christian villages?

[ October 17, 2012, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Or we're you simply disputing the basic concepts of MMT, noel? In which case, being dismissive of Pyrtolin for accepting a different yet established monetary theory than you, rather than pointing out your disagreement with the theory, actually makes you look, well, silly.

Plenty of economists (probably most) think neo-Chartalism is completely unrealistic, if not silly. It's a fringe theory, though it's certainly not a completely crackpot idea. However, Pyrtolin often takes stances that are on the fringe, even for neo-Chartalists.
You could say the same thing about the Austrian school theory as well, but that wouldn't excuse someone of being dismissive of an Austrian school proponent.

Actually, I take some of that back - I doubt most economists think either is "completely unrealistic" but rather that some of the assumptions and therefore the conclusions are misplaced. Regardless of proclivity, there are valid ideas within both.

[ October 17, 2012, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Al,

Where Romney is vunerable to fact-checking is on the consistency of positions over his political career, and that does concern me a great deal. During this presidential run, he has simply avoided specifics that would sour the entitlement consumers within the electorate. Actual misrepresentation he has done a pretty good job of avoiding, and on economic issues he served Barry his head.

VL,

Odd as it may seem, Romney did make his faith a point of emphasis during the debate. It remains to be seen what the effect will be.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
VL,

Odd as it may seem, Romney did make his faith a point of emphasis during the debate. It remains to be seen what the effect will be.

Maybe I missed that, when?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Anyone have whole debate links for the VP debate or for the whole debate?

Complete VP debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3roG09O6T4
Transcript:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/vice-presidential-debate-transcript-danvilel-ky-oct-11/story?id=17457175#.UH7Gg8XWzTo


Complete 2nd President Debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpCrcMF5Ps

Transcript:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-at-hofstra-university-on-oct-16-running-transcript/2012/10/16/ be8bfb9a-17dd-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story.html

Note from that transcript:
quote:
Each candidate has as much as two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a two-minute follow-up. The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive -- no cheering or booing or outbursts of any sort.
So when Romney kept claiming that he should get the last word on any given issue, he was wrong- the rules as presented there defined who got to got first and who got to go second, and nothing about order after that when the moderator allowed them more open discussion for additional follow ups.

[ October 17, 2012, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

It was early in the exchange, are you interested enough to have me review the video?
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

Where he is headed for trouble is what most already suspect intuitively... that fact-checking is his downfall.

The most brutal fact-check of the campaign thus far.

What I find most telling about this part actually came after this clip ends: Romney's response gets drowned out by applause for Crowley. Mitt getting called on a lie went over really well with the crowd; too bad it was on such an irrelevant topic.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
No I'll check the transcript pyr provided later. ( You've got kids, you know what watching TV is like with a baby, I seriously might have missed it while my daughter was fussing.)
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

Odd as it may seem, Romney did make his faith a point of emphasis during the debate. It remains to be seen what the effect will be.

Actually, he rather skillfully managed to remind people he was a Christian, while avoiding the fact that he was LDS; he called himself a "pastor in my church", which was the first time I've heard that term used in place of Bishop in an LDS context. Pete, drewmie, is pastor a common LDS term, or was Mitt playing down his denomination?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Adam,

"There you go again." The particular "lie" you are referring to was not a lie at all.

Romney should have pursued Obama's use of the word "terror" where his subsequent narrative was "spontaneous intolerance". The next debate will tear this scab open for a re-examination, just watch.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The particular "lie" you are referring to was not a lie at all.
I believe you're right. I believe it was a mistake.

Romney's "I asked for a binder full of women" line, though, was an actual lie.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
... Adam, he has used "pastor" before to describe the role of an LDS bishop, which is perfectly accurate.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
... Adam, he has used "pastor" before to describe the role of an LDS bishop, which is perfectly accurate.

I didn't ask if it was "accurate"; I asked if Mormons ever, or typically, call their Bishops "pastors". I can guess the answer from your response, but Pete or drewmie would just tell me directly, so I'll wait for that.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The particular "lie" you are referring to was not a lie at all.
I believe you're right. I believe it was a mistake.

Romney had a very aggressive pre-planned attack, centered on the idea that Obama never referred to the attack as terror until two weeks after it happened. Even a mistake, in that context, is a lie; if you want to claim something about what the president said, then you need to actually check what the president said.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
- He did not answer the one man's question about Benghazi. He completely avoided it.

That's not true at all:

quote:
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable. And I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say.
That's a very direct answer to the question, even if it's somewhat unsatisfying because they're still in the process of determining where the breakdown occurred.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
... Not only can you guess the answer, but guess correctly. Honestly Adam, are you always this anal retentive? If Romney had said that he served as a Bishop, and Stake President for a total of ten years, are you implying that the flames of anti-mormonism would have been ignited?... or that listeners would have just wondered what that meant?

[ October 17, 2012, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Lewis Grizzard once described political debates as being like a rat shoot. The rats claim victory "look how many of us lived!" and the shooters claim victory "of course we let SOME of them live, we want to have another rat shoot!".

I think Grizzard is wrong about that. Politicians aren't generally that humane nor do they tend to think that far ahead. [Wink]
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

Odd as it may seem, Romney did make his faith a point of emphasis during the debate. It remains to be seen what the effect will be.

Actually, he rather skillfully managed to remind people he was a Christian, while avoiding the fact that he was LDS; he called himself a "pastor in my church", which was the first time I've heard that term used in place of Bishop in an LDS context. Pete, drewmie, is pastor a common LDS term, or was Mitt playing down his denomination?
It wasn't used in an LDS context. It was an LDS person talking to a bunch of nonmembers.

When talking with nonmember friends I always say minister when I mean Bishop.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable. And I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say.
That's a very direct answer to the question, even if it's somewhat unsatisfying because they're still in the process of determining where the breakdown occurred.
The question was:
quote:
We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
Obama did not answer the question.
 
Posted by D Pace (Member # 1493) on :
 
"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth." LDS article of faith 6

When referring to this article of faith, mormons will usually note that the calling of Bishop is matches the role of pastor. (as designated in the Bible).

As common practice, unless potentially talking to an outside audience to not confuse the role of a catholic bishop with a mormon bishop, mormons don't refer to their bishops as pastors.

(it would be an aside - ~ "He's a bishop, which is like a pastor . . .)
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Re: the Benghazi thing:

I would be astonished if Obama could answer the question prior to the completion of the review that's underway. The question of whether a given embassy gets some extra money is usually so far down the chain of command that I'm sure the first time he was aware of the question was when people started telling him that he was going to have to start answering it.

It's for the same reason that I cut Bush's administration enormous amounts of slack on the 9/11 thing. Yeah, balls were dropped, but no one expects middle managers to be psychic or presidents to be aware of all the funding decisions of their middle managers. 9/11 was no more Bush's fault than Benghazi was Obama's.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
... Not only can you guess the answer, but guess correctly. Honestly Adam, are you always this anal retentive? If Romney had said that he served as a Bishop, and Stake President for a total of ten years, are you implying that the flames of anti-mormonism would have been ignited?... or that listeners would have just wondered what that meant?

*laughs* You're the one who said that he explicitly called attention to his faith; I'm just pointing out that he wasn't calling attention to the LDS part, only the Christian part. The whole thing *should be* irrelevant, but obviously it isn't, and poor Mitt has a very tight rope to walk. He wants the fundamentalist Christian vote without losing the anti-mormon vote, despite the fact that these two groups overlap almost perfectly. Luckily, his opponent is a Muslim as far as this voting block is concerned. [Smile]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
I disagree Tom. If the WTC, and Pentagon, had asked for air traffic control to be on the alert for attacks by large passenger aircraft due to similar attacks upon other nations, and the Air National Guard had not been informed and authorized to respond... then you would have a parallel.

To carry the analogy further; if having been so warned, the President denied the warning after the fact, and accused the airline pilots of flying while intoxicated for two weeks following the tragedy... then you would have a parallel.

Adam,

You are probably right. The "anti-mormon" vote does not know that Romney is Mormon. [Wink]

[ October 17, 2012, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Wasn't the request for additional security for the embassy in Libya for the embassy in Tripoli rather than Benghazi? How would extending the tours of the extra guards in Tripoli have changed the outcome in Benghazi?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Kmbboots,

Our Ambassador was the target, not our real estate.

[ October 17, 2012, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
If the WTC, and Pentagon, had asked for air traffic control to be on the alert for attacks by large passenger aircraft due to similar attacks upon other nations, and the Air National Guard had not been informed and authorized to respond... then you would have a parallel.
IIRC, based on the 9/11 Commission's report, the FBI and CIA both asked for more resources to investigate the specific domestic terrorist cells that produced the attack, but were denied those requests based on funding and on civil rights concerns. Which was at the time the right decision, I believe, even though it had painful consequences.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Kmbboots,

Our Ambassador was the target, not our real estate.

I don't see how that answers the question. The extra security still would have been 400 miles away.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/curl-crowley-skews-hard-obama-disastrous-debate/
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Our Ambassador was the target, not our real estate.

On what do you base that assertion? He was an incidental casualty of smoke inhalation and not actually directly targeted in the attack.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Wasn't the request for additional security for the embassy in Libya for the embassy in Tripoli rather than Benghazi? How would extending the tours of the extra guards in Tripoli have changed the outcome in Benghazi?

Especially in light of the fact that they were all replaced with other equivalent security personnel when they were recalled.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Tom,

Do you believe that any NATO member will fail to send a fighter intercept against a rogue airliner following 911?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable. And I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say.
That's a very direct answer to the question, even if it's somewhat unsatisfying because they're still in the process of determining where the breakdown occurred.
The question was:
quote:
We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
Obama did not answer the question.

Yes he did-

quote:
And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable.

Is as direct a reply as is possible to the question, unless you are asserting that he's outright lying about not having identified exactly who denied the requests and why they did it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Following 9/11? Probably not. Heck, even if they shoot that airliner down and it turns out it was full of innocents, being able to say that 9/11 made them acceptably paranoid about rogue airliners gives them plausible cover for the mistake.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Kmboots,

Unlike buildings, security is mobile.

Pyrtolin,

OK, the attackers used assault rifles (technicallly defined as a fully automatic rifle firing a medium sized cartridge from a locking breech... Obama appears not to know this), mortars, and rocket propelled grenades to kill four people through "smoke inhailation".

I hope Obama argues this at the next debate.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Tom,

Attacks upon other embassies in Libya preceded the deadly attack on ours. In other words, the pattern had been established.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Kmboots,

Unlike buildings, security is mobile.


But that isn't what they requested. And not how the security was set up.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Kmbboots,

If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
My -- my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I -- I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years.
Serving as a missionary might bring to mind the boys in the black pants on the bikes for some people. Other than that this really isn't making an issue of his faith.

I should be more clear. The issue that could cause him trouble is his religion, not his faith.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

I think that is a fair evaluation.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Kmbboots,

If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?

I think that the President is less willing to play armchair quarterback when the political football concerns the deaths of his staff than Gov. Romney is.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
He has proved more than willing to armchair quarterback thus far... he just got his facts wrong.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?"

Noel, we have dozens of consulates throughout the region, which is volatile. Are you aware of how many potential attacks have been thwarted since the beginning of the Arab spring?

I'm reminded of Condoleeza Rice's comment that we can prevent 99% of the attacks people try to launch, but if only one gets through our security will be viewed by some as a failure.

Let's remember that Bush had carte blanche with the Congress on security matters. Here's a list of embassy attacks over a 4 year span of his Presidency:
quote:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.



[ October 17, 2012, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Al,

Implicit in my statement is that there is such a thing as a viable excuse. It is the subsequent incompetence, and/or deceit that I am having problems with.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
OK, the attackers used assault rifles (technicallly defined as a fully automatic rifle firing a medium sized cartridge from a locking breech... Obama appears not to know this),
Glad I'm not the only one annoyed by that. Automatic weapons like the AK-47 ARE STILL BANNED! "Assault weapons" that make it through the cracks are semi-automatic. One trigger pull, one round fired. No different than any* hunting rifle.

* sorry pump shotguns or bolt action rifles are obviously different. "any" semi-automatic hunting rifle.

I wouldn’t lose any sleep on a ban of assault weapons. I think they exist primarily for people to "play" soldier. The deer, or other game, certainly aren't intimidated by the appearance of the fire arm. You could argue that the intimidation factor of a fancy military looking appearance could be an asset for self defense in your home I suppose. They look scary to people already intimidated by guns. There’s no reason to ban them and not ban your typical hunting rifle. Ammo capacity in magazines / drums of a weapon MAY, MAY be a legitimate concern. Most “assault weapons” have a higher capacity than a typical hunting rifle (I think, could be wrong on this). Then again I think a lot of pistols have a higher capacity than hunting rifles as well.

[ October 17, 2012, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
What I find interesting, now that Gov. Romney has decided to run on his record as governor, is how disinclined the people of Massachusetts are to vote for him now.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?"

Noel, we have dozens of consulates throughout the region, which is volatile. Are you aware of how many potential attacks have been thwarted since the beginning of the Arab spring?

I'm reminded of Condoleeza Rice's comment that we can prevent 99% of the attacks people try to launch, but if only one gets through our security will be viewed by some as a failure.

Let's remember that Bush had carte blanche with the Congress on security matters. Here's a list of embassy attacks over a 4 year span of his Presidency:
quote:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.


But none of those happened on 9/11, so they don't count?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Kmbboots,

On that we can agree.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Philnotfil,

If you uncover deceit, or failure to respond to specific security enhancement requests, then they "count" in a way that 911 does not.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"But none of those happened on 9/11, so they don't count?"

We're talking about security, which is a daily durable concern. Does it matter on what day those things happened? What if some of those dates have significance to the people who made the attacks?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

OK, the attackers used assault rifles (technicallly defined as a fully automatic rifle firing a medium sized cartridge from a locking breech... Obama appears not to know this), mortars, and rocket propelled grenades to kill four people through "smoke inhailation".

The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation; he was still alive, if barely, when he exited the embassy and was rushed to the hospital by Libyan citizens. I'm not sure of the cause of death of the other person that died at the embassy, nor of the cause of death of the other two that were killed hours later in a separate attack, and I'm not sure why you're trying to lump them all into one category here.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
Sorry, forgot my sarcasm tag.

That was one of the big complaints by the GOP, that we should have been prepared on the terrorists holy day of 9/11 when all of their attacks occur.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Ah, sorry, I didn't have my sarcasm-dar turned on. You're a sneaky one, Mr. Phil.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"What I find interesting, now that Gov. Romney has decided to run on his record as governor, is how disinclined the people of Massachusetts are to vote for him now."

I hadn't thought of that before now. As of yesterday Obama is up by 15% in Mitt's Gubernatorial state and by 7% as of last Friday in his birth state of Michigan. I would think one of those two would be his "native son" state. A good question for Mitt in the next debate would be "What is your home state and how's that working for you?" Edgmatt, G#, Noel, can you give us the spin?

[ October 17, 2012, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Sorry, forgot my sarcasm tag.

That was one of the big complaints by the GOP, that we should have been prepared on the terrorists holy day of 9/11 when all of their attacks occur.

No, that's not what they're saying.

They're saying after multiple specific and credible threats, multiple requests for additional security, multiple warnings from reliable sources, that maybe we should have been, you know, maybe thinking it could happen.

I know, some of the left think that's crazy. With all that warning, who could have guessed it would happen? On 9/11 of all days?

Yeah.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
OK, the attackers used assault rifles (technicallly defined as a fully automatic rifle firing a medium sized cartridge from a locking breech... Obama appears not to know this), mortars, and rocket propelled grenades to kill four people through "smoke inhailation".

The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation; he was still alive, if barely, when he exited the embassy and was rushed to the hospital by Libyan citizens.
[DOH] Yes, the ambassador died of smoke inhalation. The attackers couldn't reach him in the secure room so they set the building on fire with diesel fuel. And then he died of smoke inhalation. The attackers killed him. It wasn't some incidental event.

It was a planned attack that succeeded in killing the ambassador. The administration spent weeks claiming that the attack was not planned, but was a spontaneous riot. Ambassador Rice went on the Sunday talk shows to do damage control and try and shift blame away from the administration. It was all a snow job. And anyone defending it at this point is denying the clear facts.


quote:
A dramatic new account by the State Department reveals that Stevens was locked inside a 'safe room' choking to death from diesel-heavy smoke as the building around him burned to the ground.

Alongside him was a security guard, tasked with the impossible choice between staying in the deadly room - or facing the rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns outside.

Eventually the guard slipped through the window - and was cut down by the grenades.

The State Department's insistence it never bought the story - expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations - that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.

State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill's administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.

In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said 'others' in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department's conclusion, reporters were told.

Link

The frigging US State Department has said that it never believe the whole 'spontaneous' attack story. It's pretty obvious that the administration was making the story up for political cover.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
Sorry, forgot my sarcasm tag.

That was one of the big complaints by the GOP, that we should have been prepared on the terrorists holy day of 9/11 when all of their attacks occur.

No, that's not what they're saying.

They're saying after multiple specific and credible threats, multiple requests for additional security, multiple warnings from reliable sources, that maybe we should have been, you know, maybe thinking it could happen.

I know, some of the left think that's crazy. With all that warning, who could have guessed it would happen? On 9/11 of all days?

Yeah.

I agree that there were multiple credible threats. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates there was enough specificity to do anything about. The requests for security were in Tripoli, not Benghazi. The multiple warnings from reliable sources also lacked enough specificity to take action on. Unless you know of something more specific than has been reported?
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
In the latest debate, Obama knew what he had to do and did it. His supporters were ecstatic.

Actually he won only by a small margin, and far from all viewers came to support him. But his performance helped to erase the memory of the first debate, and the heated atmosphere should serve to stoke interest in the election and increase voter turnout. If three million more people vote, Obama will get several hundred thousand more new votes than Romney, and some of those will be in crucial swing states.

As an afterthought, Republican efforts to decrease voter turnout in this election were probably a bad mistake. The courts have rarely allowed measures which would really reduce turnout, and hordes of outraged voters are likely to turn out who would not have done so otherwise. But Romney had no control over these efforts so far as I know, as I have seen nothing to indicate he suggested or approved them personally. So as with some ads and comments, Machiavellian supporters took measures which really hurt his candidacy, and about which he could do nothing. But his "binders full of women" remark was his own mistake, and I just found 20,000 references to that on the news. And for every reference I found, there were probably a hundred I missed, so most Americans will hear it repeatedly.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I'm wondering why the issue of LDS paternalism hasn't been brought up. Maybe Pete or someone else can correct me, but it's my understanding that women can not have leadership positions in LDS. Is that true? Romney handled the question of women's equal pay poorly, and not just with his reference to "binders of women". How does that translate to Romney's appointment of women to leadership roles in his Massachusetts Administration?

First of all, Romney was given several binders of profiles of qualified women on the day he took office, so he didn't send out for them. Second, if he *did* do that, isn't asking for such binders equivalent to affirmative action? Third, he didn't address the question of equal pay at all. Then there's the role of women in his Administration and the progress of women's roles throughout his tenure:
quote:
An Obama campaign spokesperson cited a 2007 study (PDF) by MassGAP and the Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts-Boston Wednesday, criticizing Romney’s administration for contributing to “the lack of overall growth in women’s representation in top positions” between September 2002 and July 2004.

According to the study, women replaced other women in 24 percent of Romney’s appointments during that time period, while men replaced men 37 percent of the time. And during the same period, women appointees replaced men 18 percent of the time, while men replaced women in 21 percent of similar cases.

In an email to The Raw Story, a MassGAP spokesperson said both Romney and Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien agreed before the 2002 gubernatorial election to “make best efforts” to appoint a “proportionate” amount of women to state positions, as well as to meet with the group during the appointments process.

“Following the election, MassGAP formed committees for each cabinet post in the administration and began the process of recruiting, interviewing, and vetting women applicants,” the statement said. “Those committees selected top applicants for each position and presented this information to the administration for follow-up interviews and consideration for appointment.”


 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
As an afterthought, Republican efforts to decrease voter turnout in this election were probably a bad mistake. The courts have rarely allowed measures which would really reduce turnout, and hordes of outraged voters are likely to turn out who would not have done so otherwise. But Romney had no control over these efforts so far as I know, as I have seen nothing to indicate he suggested or approved them personally. So as with some ads and comments, Machiavellian supporters took measures which really hurt his candidacy, and about which he could do nothing. But his "binders full of women" remark was his own mistake, and I just found 20,000 references to that on the news. And for every reference I found, there were probably a hundred I missed, so most Americans will hear it repeatedly.

Voter suppression is something that both candidates should be actively and unconditionally criticizing, especially if people are trying to do it on their behalf. (One of the latest tricks appears to be minorities and the elderly getting phone calls offering to take their votes over the phone so they don't need to worry about getting to the polls) Otherwise they begin to drift into the realm of "plausible" deniability.

Here's something a little more direct from Romney along those lines:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/romney-told-employers-tell-employees-whom-vote/58076/#

quote:
"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections," said Romney in a recording obtained by In These Times. "Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well."

Okay, Mitt. You're right. It's not technically illegal for employers to tell their employees how to vote. That doesn't mean that it's ethical or understandable or even acceptable to connect people's livelihoods with their political beliefs. There's a fine line between an employer telling an employee, "Vote Romney!" and a boss telling a subordinate, "Vote Romney, or else!" At least, in the eyes of the inevitably subordinate employees there's not.


 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
[DOH] Yes, the ambassador died of smoke inhalation. The attackers couldn't reach him in the secure room so they set the building on fire with diesel fuel. And then he died of smoke inhalation. The attackers killed him. It wasn't some incidental event.

Did the attackers even know that he, specifically was in the building? Were they sure that he would just happen to be there on Sept 11? I didn't say that they didn't kill him, but the claim was that they were actively targeting him for assassination. His death was incidental to the attack, not the point of it.

quote:
It was a planned attack that succeeded in killing the ambassador. The administration spent weeks claiming that the attack was not planned, but was a spontaneous riot. Ambassador Rice went on the Sunday talk shows to do damage control and try and shift blame away from the administration. It was all a snow job. And anyone defending it at this point is denying the clear facts.
Do you have any proof that intelligence was not initially reporting it to be unplanned. The only way that accusation can stand is if the initial reports did not, in fact suggest that it was a protest that evolved into an attack.

quote:
The frigging US State Department has said that it never believe the whole 'spontaneous' attack story. It's pretty obvious that the administration was making the story up for political cover.
It's pretty obvious that, because they didn't buy the story, they kept up the investigation until they had evidence that told a more plausible story, not that the initial reports, that were all the administration had to work with until all the facts were it, didn't indicate something different from what they eventually put together.

[ October 18, 2012, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I'm wondering why the issue of LDS paternalism hasn't been brought up. Maybe Pete or someone else can correct me, but it's my understanding that women can not have leadership positions in LDS. Is that true? Romney handled the question of women's equal pay poorly, and not just with his reference to "binders of women". How does that translate to Romney's appointment of women to leadership roles in his Massachusetts Administration?

First of all, Romney was given several binders of profiles of qualified women on the day he took office, so he didn't send out for them. Second, if he *did* do that, isn't asking for such binders equivalent to affirmative action? Third, he didn't address the question of equal pay at all. Then there's the role of women in his Administration and the progress of women's roles throughout his tenure:
quote:
An Obama campaign spokesperson cited a 2007 study (PDF) by MassGAP and the Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts-Boston Wednesday, criticizing Romney’s administration for contributing to “the lack of overall growth in women’s representation in top positions” between September 2002 and July 2004.

According to the study, women replaced other women in 24 percent of Romney’s appointments during that time period, while men replaced men 37 percent of the time. And during the same period, women appointees replaced men 18 percent of the time, while men replaced women in 21 percent of similar cases.

In an email to The Raw Story, a MassGAP spokesperson said both Romney and Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien agreed before the 2002 gubernatorial election to “make best efforts” to appoint a “proportionate” amount of women to state positions, as well as to meet with the group during the appointments process.

“Following the election, MassGAP formed committees for each cabinet post in the administration and began the process of recruiting, interviewing, and vetting women applicants,” the statement said. “Those committees selected top applicants for each position and presented this information to the administration for follow-up interviews and consideration for appointment.”


I am not sure how relevant the role of women in LDS leadership would be. You could, for example, say pretty much the same thing about Catholics but, Catholics in general (if not necessarily the Church "leadership") are not less supportive of women in the secular workplace than other people.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"I am not sure how relevant the role of women in LDS leadership would be."

That's the question, is it significant for him? He has a history of not giving real power to women in executive positions. Bain had 7 women in Director roles or higher out of 87 positions during his tenure there. As Governor the article I cited above and other news stories suggest that women in the Mass. Executive were relegated to minor roles, were more likely to be replaced by men and their ranks dropped by 50% by the time he left office.

Chance?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Possibly not but I am not sure that motive is as important as his record and his record is sufficiently poor to stand on its own. Public speculation about whether his record is so bad because of his religious beliefs opens a can of worms we probably don't want to open.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Kmbboots,

If you turn out to be right, Obama is unprepared to utilize a viable excuse. Do you really believe that is the case more than a month later?

I think that the President is less willing to play armchair quarterback when the political football concerns the deaths of his staff than Gov. Romney is.
And in case we were unconvinced of Governor Romney's willingness to make hay out of American tragedy, take a look at this:


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mother-jones-posts-full-video-of-romney-fundraiser

It's about 4 minutes into the first video. A partial transcript:

quote:
Questioner: When Carter was president, we had hostages. Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement even before he became, he was actually sworn in, and the hostages were released…

Mitt Romney: On the day of his inauguration.

Questioner: Right. So my question is really how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?

Romney: I could ask you, I could ask you how you do I duplicate that scenario?

Questioner: I think it had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan… That’s why I’m suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would prevent. And I think that’s something that could possibly resonate very well with the American public.

Romney: I appreciate the idea. One of the things that’s frustrating to me is that in a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This President’s failure to put in place a status of forces agreement allowing ten to twenty thousand troops to stay in Iraq- unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they’d go, “Now hold on. It’s really a-” I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.

(Bolding mine)

Seriously. Between that and the 47% remark, he had better have raked in the big bucks at the fundraiser.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"I am not sure how relevant the role of women in LDS leadership would be."

That's the question, is it significant for him? He has a history of not giving real power to women in executive positions. Bain had 7 women in Director roles or higher out of 87 positions during his tenure there. As Governor the article I cited above and other news stories suggest that women in the Mass. Executive were relegated to minor roles, were more likely to be replaced by men and their ranks dropped by 50% by the time he left office.

Chance?

Cough. Screaming bloody ignorance. Cough. You might as well be talking about black people and fried chicken.

While priesthood leadership is male in the church, Mormons have a better history of placing women in SECULAR leadership than most other groups. My ancestresses were voting before yours were. Brigham Young used church funds to send women back east to med school and law school. What were your ancestresses doing at that time? Do you even know their names? Remember anything about their lives? I know mine.

Please be careful how you extrapolate from the microscopic amount of information that you have about the LDS church to generalizations.

[ October 18, 2012, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Pete, I really was asking for information and made mention of my ignorance, but thanks for reminding me, anyway.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
"I am not sure how relevant the role of women in LDS leadership would be."

That's the question, is it significant for him? He has a history of not giving real power to women in executive positions. Bain had 7 women in Director roles or higher out of 87 positions during his tenure there. As Governor the article I cited above and other news stories suggest that women in the Mass. Executive were relegated to minor roles, were more likely to be replaced by men and their ranks dropped by 50% by the time he left office.

Chance?

"Jesse Jackson has a history of making babies while not publically acknowledging his own offspring. He's also black. Coincidence?" Could you see how that could lead to offense?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Kmbboots,

Personally, I am angered by the circumstances leading to, and equivocation following, the murder of our Libyan ambassador. "Making Hay" of the tragedy is one possible characterization of my response to Obama's handling of the entire affair.

Competent, honest, leadership upon the world stage is more than a campaign talking point... at least to me as an individual.

Perhaps that is the reason that I am less inclined than you are to impugn Romney's motives in holding Barry's feet to the fire. The issue will follow him into the next debate, and beyond, because it is a substantive indicator of charactered leadership.

[ October 19, 2012, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
As long as you agree that Romney's constant attempts to misrepresent what happened for political advantage are also inappropriate, perhaps a discussion is possible.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Even if I agreed with your premise Al, which I do not, Obama's failure is unmitigated by the quid pro quo of another's leadership deficiencies. Compound this with the self-satisfied expression on the Secretary of State's face as she assumed "complete responsibility", and it is enough to make me hurl.

This is the same fat, highly painted, woman that fabricated stories of being under fire at a secure Middle Eastern airport to bolster her credentials as a front-line foreign policy veteran. The closest Hillary ever came to combat was when her motorcade killed a police escort.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
This is the same fat, highly painted, woman...
Yeah, noel, you're a real class act.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
... Should I add that she was sweating like a pig.

Sorry for offending your highly refined sense of decorum Tom, but these juveniles just got four individuals killed.

I will work on a better balancing of my priorities.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Yeah, that's right. The president and the secretary of state are personally responsible for the deaths of some embassy staffers. And, of course, George Bush is responsible for the death of those two FEMA personnel in Louisiana.

Look, this kind of shameful blame-tossing is just pathetic and sad. I didn't do it with 9/11 or Katrina or Kabul or Kandahar, and I think it's a shame people are trying to do it now. It's one thing to argue that people are dying as a consequence of policy or systematic deficiency, and then acting to fix that deficiency -- like, say, grafting more armor onto the underside of troop transports, or deciding that we're actually going to listen to prioritize critical requests from environmental safety experts in the future -- but it's quite another to say, "Yeah, you should have somehow known that this specific possible threat was the most serious threat, and your failure to throw resources at it represents gross negligence."

I prefer to cut our leaders some slack when it comes to the fortune-telling parts of their jobs. Part of that is that it's way too easy to let our natural predisposition to prioritize bad news throw our perspective out of whack; if we're going to blame them for every wrong call or bit of bad luck, we should technically give them credit for every luck break, as well -- but we don't, obviously, and it's not human nature for us to do so. So I'd rather resist the tendency to pretend that everything that has ever happened could have been perfectly predicted by competent people, as tempting as that is.

Also: do you believe that calling someone fat -- or "painted," or "sweaty" -- is justified if you believe your anger at them is justified? And, of course, if the person in question is female?

[ October 19, 2012, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"... this kind of shameful blame tossing..."...

You must be talking about the administration's finger-pointing at the intelligence community.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Even if I agreed with your premise Al, which I do not..."

You don't agree that Romney jumped in before we even knew that the Ambassador had been killed to blame Obama for apologizing for something he never apologized for was inappropriate? How can we even have a civil conversation when you are so completely blinded by your own prejudices?

"This is the same fat, highly painted, woman..."

That is about the most revealing and disgustingly misogynistic characterization of a female Secretary of State I can possibly imagine. You are *worse* than I had already thought. I have absolutely no respect for you or your opinions from this point on.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
I am not talking about "a" female Secretary of State, I am talking about *this* female Secretary of State... she is not our first, and certainly not our best qualified.

I am an equal opportunity critic of incompetence.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
You must be talking about the administration's finger-pointing at the intelligence community.
The intelligence community is part of the administration, you realize.

quote:
I am an equal opportunity critic of incompetence.
And, apparently, makeup.

[ October 19, 2012, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Last night, David Letterman reran the show from September 18 where he interviewed President Obama. It was clear from what the President said then that he considered the attack in Benghazi to be an attack by terrorists.

"You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who is an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offense in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."

Which circumstances leading up to the attack are you talking about? If we should have known about the attack, isn't that an intelligence failure?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"The intelligence community is part of the administration..."...

Are you serious Tom? That is like saying that the military is "part" of the administration. You were making an attempt at humor, right?

"And, apparently, make up."...

If a hillbilly in the White House colored his hair gray to present himself as an elder statesman, I would have the identical criticism... and according to Jim McDougal, he sweat like an over fed pig all over an expensive office chair... now that I think about it, we are talking about the same team.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"I am an equal opportunity critic of incompetence."

Trust me, Noel, I'm probably twice your age and have dealt with a *lot* of people and their prejudices and opinions in my lifetime. You are *far* from the high minded analytical thinker that you imagine yourself to be. Consider that you transfer your disapproval of Clinton's job performance into a direct attack on her physical appearance and that you attempt to justify it as a criticism of her incompetence.

Would a reasonable person ever do such a thing? Ever? Really?

[ October 19, 2012, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
You might want to take an early nap Al.
 
Posted by TCB (Member # 1677) on :
 
quote:
If a hillbilly in the White House colored his hair gray to present himself as an elder statesman, I would have the identical criticism... and according to Jim McDougal, he sweat like an over fed pig all over an expensive office chair... now that I think about it, we are talking about the same team.
He's got you there, guys. It's pretty well known that Democrats are sweatier than Republicans.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
... Which particular Democrats would you be thinking of TCB?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
I am an equal opportunity critic of incompetence.

No more so than I am, noel.

I hope this helps: the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
You have veered into the truth Donald, possibly without even knowing it.

Behind all the pretentious inexperience, the first step to recovery is what this election is about.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
That is like saying that the military is "part" of the administration.
I feel perfectly comfortable that saying that, yes, the military is indeed a function of the Department of Defense, itself a part of the executive branch, and furthermore commanded by the Commander-in-Chief. Certainly military failures reflect upon the president and his chosen subordinates. As do intelligence failures. As do diplomatic failures. In fact, arguably the military is more directly an arm of any president's administration than almost any other major federal department.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Tom,

You were serious.

I am hard pressed to construct a more effective rebuttal than the one that you have offered of your own free will.

[ October 19, 2012, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"The intelligence community is part of the administration..."...

Are you serious Tom? That is like saying that the military is "part" of the administration. You were making an attempt at humor, right?

"And, apparently, make up."...

If a hillbilly in the White House colored his hair gray to present himself as an elder statesman, I would have the identical criticism... and according to Jim McDougal, he sweat like an over fed pig all over an expensive office chair... now that I think about it, we are talking about the same team.

This was disgusting. Do you want to be taken seriously here or are you just playing a game to see how angry you can make the liberals?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Disgusting is a bit strong, VL. But if noel doesn't already understand how badly his recent posts reflect on his reputation (for whatever an internet/BBS reputation is worth) I don't think your post will help him realize it.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
See the tone of the responses, Noel? Nobody is disagreeing with the content you think you were expressing. Everyone is pointing out that you yourself have some personal issues that allow you to make such uncontrolled statements. You respond to us by doubling-down and accusing everyone else of having blinders on that prevent them from seeing themselves clearly.

Get it, Noel? You should consider Donald's [first] response as the most constructive one and read it slowly and repeatedly until it begins to make sense to you.

[ October 19, 2012, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

I think that is a fair evaluation.

Romney has gone to greath lengths to present himself as a person of great faith while downplaying his religion. He has been aided and abetted in this since his nomination by pastors on the religous right who have essentially told their flocks that Obama is so bad we shouldn't think about Romney's religion, simply remember that Obama is a socialist and must be removed no matter the cost.

What most evangellicals think the LDS teaches is that Jesus came to the Americas and preached to native tribes, that they used to be polygamists and that they baptize the dead. Weird but acceptable.

Were they to do a little research online they would be informed that Mormons believe that God lives on the planet Kolob, is six feet tall, that Jesus and Satan are brothers, and that a vast cicilization for which there is no archeological record existed in North America. Now you can tell me I have some or all of that wrong, but that's irrelevent. It's what they would learn.

That's not something Mitt Romney needs to happen a few weeks before the election.

[ October 19, 2012, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Disgusting is a bit strong, VL. But if noel doesn't already understand how badly his recent posts reflect on his reputation (for whatever an internet/BBS reputation is worth) I don't think your post will help him realize it.

It was gross, and where I'm from "hillbilly" is considered the equivelent to the N word.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"This was disgusting."...

This reminds me of the "salacious" epithet that attached to anyone that had a problem with a Commander in Chief getting serviced by teenage interns during conference calls with field commanders.

I am unapologetically critical of public employees who bring a bundle of unrestrained personal appetites to work with them. Granted, stealing White House furnishings has no direct connection to ignoring security requests, but the general pattern of avarice/gluttony that the Clintons exemplify is in perfect conformity with the Devil may care attitude that *this* Secretary of State displayed in accepting "full responsibility"... and it is disgusting.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"This was disgusting."...

This reminds me of the "salacious" epithet that attached to anyone that had a problem with a Commander in Chief getting serviced by teenage interns during conference calls with field commanders.

I am unapologetically critical of public employees who bring a bundle of unrestrained personal appetites to work with them. Granted, stealing White House furnishings has no direct connection to ignoring security requests, but the general pattern of avarice/gluttony that the Clintons exemplify is in perfect conformity with the Devil may care attitude that *this* Secretary of State displayed in accepting "full responsibility"... and it is disgusting.

Attacking people's personal appearance is not criticizing their work. If you want to be taken seriously here act like a grown up.

You can act like an adult and be respected here. You can act like a child and be regarded as an object of condescension even by other conservatives, like G3 is.

The crimes of the Clintons (and I'm no fan of the Clintons, now or then) aren't a blank check for you to go after them like an 11 year old.

"Hillary Clinton is an incompetant" is criticism "Hillary Clinton is a sweaty old witch, who sucks at her job and has cooties!" is name calling even if you insert a critical point in along the way. This is not the 6th grade.

[ October 19, 2012, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

Where I am from, "hillbilly" identifies the backwoods inhabitants of Oklahoma/Arkansas/Tennessee mountains, and they do not self-identify as "sophisticated", which is not inherently damming... unless you think it should be. Do you think WJC is comfortable with his roots?

Regarding Romney's religion; You are right. As a Christian, he would for example probably not relish the prospect of explaining the consumption of God's flesh, and blood, even symbolically within the context of a presidential bid. I don’t think people expect him to.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
P.S.

Is gluttony/avarice detectable in more than behavior?

To my knowledge, Cooties would not be symptomatic.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
This is the same fat, highly painted, woman...
Yeah, noel, you're a real class act.
He just went on my list of people I would never take my eyes off, if they were in the same room as my wife or one of my daughters. Fortunately, that's unlikely to ever happen.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

Where I am from, "hillbilly" identifies the backwoods inhabitants of Oklahoma/Arkansas/Tennessee mountains, and they do not self-identify as "sophisticated", which is not inherently damming... unless you think it should be. Do you think WJC is comfortable with his roots?

Regarding Romney's religion; You are right. As a Christian, he would for example probably not relish the prospect of explaining the consumption of God's flesh, and blood, even symbolically within the context of a presidential bid. I don’t think people expect him to.

When country music was first recorded it was sold as "Hillbilly Music". When they tried marketing it in Appalachia our shopkeepers told them that there was no way they could sell albums with the word "hillbilly" on them. Thus it was repackaged as "Country Music". It's a slur.


You're not from Appalachia or the Ozarks, you've got no businness calling Clinton a "hillbilly", it's the same as calling Obama a darkie or calling Joe Lieberman a yid, and that's me being charitable.

If you are going to persist I am going to take it up with the mod. Do you understand? I'm not going to toy with you.

Oh and the difference between explaining communion and Mormon doctrine is that Romney has to have the vote of Christians who would find LDS doctrine extremely blashpemous. He doesn't have to have the votes of ancient Romans who thought Christians were cannibals.

[ October 19, 2012, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

We do not need to look to "ancient" Romans for the comparison to hold with complete fidelity. "Modern" atheists, and religious non-Christians for that matter, are in precisely the same boat. I have seen those misgivings expressed on this site, and your comments about Mormonisn are a mere sub-group refinement on the theme. If you think that after two presidential runs the evangelicals are unaware of doctrinal distinctions, then you are totally out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. As Jerry Falwell stated in expressing support for Romney back in 2007; "We are voting for a Commander in Chief, not a Sunday School teacher." .

... And speaking of 11 year old behavior, since when have you folks developed such an intolerance for personal attacks (so-called). Virtually everyone of you has directed the label "liar" not to a political figure, but members of this board.

... Just an observation.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Mainstream religions get at least grudging acceptance from minority religions and atheists because their ideas are not, according to subjective evaluation, "weird". The stuff that evangelicals tell each other about Mormons when they aren't trying to put one in office is pretty darn weird so it's prudent to not put a spotlight on it. That's why Billy Graham scrubbed his site of all the anti-mormon "cult" stuff on the same day that he endorsed Romney.

quote:
Virtually everyone of you has directed the label "liar" not to a political figure, but members of this board.
I haven't done this, but "liar", though rude, is still addressing content.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Noel

Modern atheists are a tiny sliver of the population. There are more Mormons in this country than atheists accourding the Pew poll on religious belief.

Evangellicals right now are uncomfortably holding their reservations in check about Romney's religion, and as far as he as an individual is concerned I believe they are right to do so. However since presidential elections often blow even minor controversy out of the water(i.e. Romney's dog) a discussion of Mormon doctrine right now could be enough to cost Romney Ohio and Iowa and thus the election.

First of all calling someone a liar is a criticism of their actions, not their person. Particularly if done here, the person called a liar can argue that they weren't lying and attempt to prove it. Fat and sweaty is an attack on their appearance and "hillbilly" was an attack on Clinton's socioeconomic background.

If you can't understand the difference between the two this is probably not the best place for you.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"... liar... is still addressing content."...

Wrong Matt, and this is probably where you people get confused. "Liar" addresses *intent*.

I am surprised that liberals get this wrong, since the best thing that can be said of your utterances is that you mean well.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

I am happy to have this discussion if you don’t tell the teacher on me... please
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Wrong Matt, and this is probably where you people get confused. "Liar" addresses *intent*.
Yes, which has a relationship to content. You can't be a liar without saying something. It's a way of saying "you are wrong and you know it." Like I said it's rude, but it's not ad hom.

There's not even a tenuous relationship between the amount of makeup someone has on and the validity of any opinion they share other than some opinions they may hold on makeup.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Matt,

Do you want to reconsider your statement before you are placed in jeapordy of calling yourself a "liar".
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
Meh. Liar is uncivil, but relevant. Fat is neither civil nor relevant. Since I prefer civil I don't even have to get far enough into the calculus to care about whether its relevant, but you asked how it was different and I and VL have both answered the question.
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
Many publications of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association still identify Mormonism as a cult. But that description has been removed from the web site after a gay rights group questioned whether the attitude expressed conflicted with Billy Graham's endorsement of Mitt Romney.
quote:
Ken Barun, chief of staff for the Charlotte-based Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, confirmed the removal on Tuesday. “Our primary focus at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has always been promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” Barun said in a statement. “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.”
The question as to whether Mormonism is a cult, and whether Mormons are Christian, is a matter of fact which depends entirely on what definitions are chosen for the words "cult" and "Christian." But the conclusion one way or another is indeed political ammunition which can be used for or against Romney in the current election. If Ken Barun thinks such statements will only confuse voters who do not understand the distinctions involved, he is certainly right, so removing them from the website seems reasonable enough for those who believe Romney's Mormon faith has little to do with whether he should be elected.

Personally I should have a few reservations about any Mormon who is a candidate for President. But Romney strikes me as so weak an alternative to Obama that the fact he comes from a Mormon family makes no difference. And most Republicans seem to have felt the same, which is why he took such a long time to clinch the nomination. The poor economy in fact made Obama vulnerable this year, but Republicans could find no credible alternative to him. Or at least I believe anyone who thinks Romney is as strong a contender as McCain was is seriously misguided, and if Obama was now facing someone as qualified as McCain he would probably lose this time around.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
And then there are those pastors who are more direct about it. Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress says that even though Mormonism is "a heresey from the pit of Hell" and that "God always judges a nation that has a ruler who introduces false gods into that national life," he's still much preferable to Obama.

Go figure. [LOL]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
OK Matt, you have said something that is untrue, but this is my take on why you are unlikely to be "a liar".

An ad hominem (literally : to the man) is what an individual *is*. A false statement can be sarcasm, error, or plain stupidity. It can also be an intent to deceive, and this goes to character... who you *are*. When you call someone a liar, you have clearly launched an ad hominem attack, which if unjustified reflects negatively upon the attacker, and is a formal error from a logical standpoint.

I assume false communication to be a "lie" only when the other three options are eliminated, and stupidity covers a plethora of sins. I refuse to believe that you are a liar because you have not made it necessary.

Now regarding obesity, or socio-economic status; these are quantifiable judgements. I weigh precisely 200 pounds, and have gained 25 lbs. more than I should weigh over the last 5 years when I tore the cartilage in my right knee. I can no longer ski, run, or wrestle. Gymnastics are definitely out. This prevents me from use of my large muscle groups in ways that I had previously. I can not even swim without some problems. My daughter tells me I am fat... and she is right. It motivated me to find something that I could do, and guess what?... It turns out that I can ride a bike for as long as I desire, and I do. Further, the muscle tone has allowed me to return to old activities... partially.

Bill and Hillary are fat, and they are fat through personal habits that manifest in their work product. You can argue that coloring hair gray, or plastering mineral powders into facial crevices is not a form of pretense, but I will disagree, and see that characteristic in their work product also. I will concede that profuse perspiration is a secondary effect of gluttony if it makes you feel better.

I have learned today that VL rates "hillbilly" on par with "nigger". Fair enough, Bill is an buffoon. James Carville called it "trailer trash", but that is too severe for my taste.

[ October 19, 2012, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"... liar... is still addressing content."...

Wrong Matt, and this is probably where you people get confused. "Liar" addresses *intent*.

I am surprised that liberals get this wrong, since the best thing that can be said of your utterances is that you mean well.

Liar addresses past actions. Someone may be known to lie enough that it is presumed that any statement from them should regarded as a lie, but a pattern of lying has to be established first.

What you do is resort to playground tactics like pointing out someone's physical features or name calling. This is indeed no different than people who called Bush "the Chimp" or "Dubya". Regardless of the target it cheapens the argument of the person who used it.

Repect will get you a lot further here than going for maximum impact. There are other forums for that all over the web, but I suspect that's where you learned to debate in the first place.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"... liar... is still addressing content."...

Wrong Matt, and this is probably where you people get confused. "Liar" addresses *intent*.

I am surprised that liberals get this wrong, since the best thing that can be said of your utterances is that you mean well.

You say "wrong", which suggests that a charge of 'liar' does not address content.

But an accusation of lying necessarily speaks to both content as well as intent. Matt referred to this earlier, but you seem to still be 'confused'. [Wink] An intent to deceive without content would be at best a thought. As such, your description ('wrong') is clearly wrong.

[ October 19, 2012, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]
 
Posted by djquag1 (Member # 6553) on :
 
Adam -

You wouldn't leave your wife and child in a room with him?

The guy is just some hyper-religious, overly conservative, older white male. A blast to read and fun to laugh at.

But his name is Ronald, not Pennywise. Seems a little extreme.

I never knew how hard white people have had it in this country. I shall forevermore strike from my vocabulary the dreadful epithet "hillbilly."
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Noel I am hardly alone in my opinion of the word hillbilly. Feel free to come to Eastern Kentucky and ask a crowd of people "Hey how are you hillbillies doing today?" and see how well it goes over. (Ditto with Redneck)

As to the word "buffoon" it's also action based and I'd say might be fairly applied to Clinton. I think to call Carville a buffon would be to flatter him extravagently.

I can't tell Hillary is particularly overweight for her age. Clinton isn't now at all (he was overweight as president. He was an unhealthy eater, but in America that's hardly unusual."
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Donald,

If I make a statement to you that I believe to be false in order to deceive you, but am so stupid that the information happens to be true, am I a liar?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
An ad hominem (literally : to the man) is what an individual *is*. A false statement can be sarcasm, error, or plain stupidity. It can also be an intent to deceive, and this goes to character... who you *are*. When you call someone a liar, you have clearly launched an ad hominem attack, which if unjustified reflects negatively upon the attacker, and is a formal error from a logical standpoint.

This shows a pretty basic misunderstanding of what constitutes the logical fallacy of 'ad hominem'. You are conflating different meanings of the term 'ad hominem', throwing them into a word processor and then pressing the 'grate' button.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

My best beta-tester is an Oklahoma hillbilly State Trooper, and he does not mind me calling him a hillbilly. Is he just unusually secure in his personal worth?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Donald,

If I make a statement to you that I believe to be false in order to deceive you, but am so stupid that the information happens to be true, am I a liar?

When you say "make a statement", does the statement have content?
 
Posted by djquag1 (Member # 6553) on :
 
Yes Noel. Feel free to go to Eastern Kentucky. Any time you feel like it. LOL
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Donald, if I get any more complex the point will be totally lost.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Yes Donald, the statememt has content that the conveyor believes to be false.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Donald, if I get any more complex the point will be totally lost.

If you can't keep track of your own argument, by all means, simplify it.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Donald,

Can you answer the question.

Do you need it restated?
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Adam -

You wouldn't leave your wife and child in a room with him?

The guy is just some hyper-religious, overly conservative, older white male. A blast to read and fun to laugh at.

I don't ever imagine encountering Noel in the flesh; my point was more rhetorical. But its pretty accurate; when I hear that kind of casual misogyny, it triggers my internal alarm. If I heard someone in a room say what Noel said, and my wife or daughters were present, I would indeed keep my eye on him until we or he left.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Adam,

Your point was not merely rhetorical, it was stupid... see how easy it is to avoid lying?
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
I can't tell Hillary is particularly overweight for her age. Clinton isn't now at all (he was overweight as president.

The last few times I saw Bill, he looked a little unhealthy to me. Maybe it's age creeping up on him but he's only 66. That's not that old; his ticker ain't the best though and that can give you a unhealthy glow sometimes. I hear he's on some kind of vegan diet, that'll thin you up alright- even make you look rather wasted. Perhaps that's it.

Hillary, now, she's got something interesting going on with her appearance. She's not really a unattractive woman, especially for one in her 60's, but over the last couple of years she seems to be going out of her way to appear so - with a few notable exceptions here and there. She's a player, very calculating, nothing is an accident with her. Maybe it's just some kind of play to the ME guys will take her seriously?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
But its pretty accurate; when I hear that kind of casual misogyny.
It's unlikely you'd actually hear it in person. People are more aware of (and concerned about) socially unacceptable behavior when they are actually in proximity to other people.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
That is absolutely correct Matt, although I am fairly blunt in person also.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
G3,

There might be something to that, but have you seen her mother?
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
No, you know, I can't believe I haven't. To the Google!
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

My best beta-tester is an Oklahoma hillbilly State Trooper, and he does not mind me calling him a hillbilly. Is he just unusually secure in his personal worth?

My best friend in Vegas is a hillbilly, and she's proud of it too.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
<sticks head in>

Just confirming that hillbilly is indeed an epithet to persons of Appalachian extract specifically, though you'll put yourself more at risk addressing someone in the geographical diaspora that way than you will in eastern KY, since it's the folks in Cincinnati and the like who get treated as an inferior minority. Most of us don't find out how we're regarded till we leave.

Carry on.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Hmm. My best friend in Vegas is a wiccan hillbilly lesbian lawyer, and the only one of those names that irks her is "lawyer." But maybe the term is more loaded in other parts of Appalachia than it is in Ashville, North Carolina.

OTOH, the only two classes of person I've ever called a hillbilly were (1) persons who had identified themselves to me as "hillbilly," and (2) a biker who had knocked me down in a bar ...

[ October 19, 2012, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Donald,

Can you answer the question.

Do you need it restated?

I'm sure that, given some time, you'll be able to make your point without our assistance. And if you put a bit more effort into it, you might put together something coherent.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
(edit: @ Pete,, and yes, you're getting the idea per your edit)

Yeah. It's more loaded in places *close to* Appalachia, like western KY or Indiana, than it is in places like Vegas, where it's a curiosity similar to being an Eskimo, or in actual Appalachia (e.g., western NC) where you're allowed to use it because it's what you are.

If someone calls me a hillbilly here in Philadelphia, it's usually either a joke or a hamfisted way of attempting a connection based on knowledge they have about me, and it's fine. If someone calls me a hillbilly in western PA or OH, they're almost always trying to put me in my place, either overtly or in that "I'm being hipster ironic so you can't call me on it, neener neener" way.

[ October 19, 2012, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Funean ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Well as long as you don't knock me down in a bar, or tell me explicitly that you don't mind if I call you that (as my friend did) then I'd never consider calling you that word.

[edit to remove a misunderstanding that Funean just corrected]

According to my friend, Ashville even has a population of "wannabe hillbillies" (her term, not mine), folks who move in from the outside, and attempt (painfully) to blend in.

[ October 19, 2012, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"(edit: @ Pete,, and yes, you're getting the idea per your edit)"

Damn. Now I can't remember what I edited. Did I say something dumb and then take it out?


Edited to add: Ah, now I get it. [deletes out of date question from previous post]. Thank you.

[ October 19, 2012, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Ok. So it might be OK for me to use it with friends in Vegas or if visiting friends in actual Appalachia, who know I'm not being malicious, but not in areas where Appalachians are subject to actual prejudice, or on the Internet, where my term would be interpreted as malice. Is that right?

Thank you.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
This reminds me of an hilarious conversation I had as the only honky in the Las Vegas city drunk tank where I was questioned as to whether I'd ever used the N-word ... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Well it does remain one of those words that's safest not to use unless you are one. But yes, there are definitely uses that are clearly less innocent/unknowing/benign than others. I'd hate for you to get knocked down without having aggressively sought it. [Smile]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Donald,

The question was perfectly coherent, as would be your answer if you chose to share it. The necessary conclusion is that intent is a sufficient condition for lying. Incidently, silence can constitute intent


Funean,

I am so happy to see you here. I actually thought about you last week wondering how you were
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
I am fine! Just busy, and rarely in the mood for wading through the kind of unpleasantness that has unfortunately become more common here. I am concentrating my efforts on young impressionable family members on Facebook now. They are easier to bend to my will and ineffable rightness. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
Well it does remain one of those words that's safest not to use unless you are one.

I'm about to go live in a trailer on a hill in Georgia with chickens and goats and no telephone or internet, where I'll hunt rabbits. And I do currently make my own hootch, although I'm planning to give that up when I go to Georgia. Is it bad to say that I'm going to "live like a hillbilly?" (that's not a hypo, btw; it's actually true).

quote:
I'd hate for you to get knocked down without having aggressively sought it. [Smile]
Well I called him a "hillbilly" *after* I got knocked down ... he actually knocked me down because he thought I was gay (I was wearing a pink shirt).
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Ineffable? Are you kidding?

You are clearly right, and I just eff'ed it!

Seriously, I do miss your participation here. I am somewhat scarce on this board for similar reasons. A little bit goes a very long way.

You still owe me an e-mail, but I do understand that your time is better spent with more pliable minds. [Smile]
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
I bet I can find it and answer it, darn it! It's not like I ever clean out my inbox. Also, I'm really not sure whether you've said something naughty to me there.

Pete--is this going to put you closer to the Things? And will you be living in anything named "Hollow" or "Run?"
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
rarely in the mood for wading through the kind of unpleasantness that has unfortunately become more common here.

I know, what happened to us?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Funean,

I would not remember the questions even if you answered them, but I do know there was nothing (intentionally) distressing. Don't worry about it, I was just messing with you. The AOL account is no longer active anyway.

Its just good to hear from you.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Pete--is this going to put you closer to the Things?"

Yes! That's 2/3 of the idea, to keep Thing Two from being institutionalized. The other part is to get me out of Vegas and dry me out.


"And will you be living in anything named "Hollow" or "Run?""

No. Going to live in the middle of a wooded hilly area, over a mile from any other house or structure other than a radio tower, on a property that used to be owned by the family of a voo-doo witch doctor. (Seriously!)


--------
@Noel: I sympathize. Last Funean emailed me a year ago, she said she was going to have a cup of coffee and then email me right away. [Big Grin] I take it that she sips very slowly. [Wink]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"rarely in the mood for wading through the kind of unpleasantness that has unfortunately become more common here."

I don't remember when it wasn't with us. From my first week on Ornery in 2001, there's been nastiness coupled with nostalgia for the days when things were better. But you can find that also in the earliest human writings.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"rarely in the mood for wading through the kind of unpleasantness that has unfortunately become more common here."

I don't remember when it wasn't with us. From my first week on Ornery in 2001, there's been nastiness coupled with nostalgia for the days when things were better. But you can find that also in the earliest human writings.

Yes, I have always found that in threads you have participated in [Smile]

But there is a lot more of that and a lot less of anything worth spending time on over the last year or two. You can also look back and see that we used to have several new threads on current events being added every day. It used to be that I could come here first and then know everything that was worth paying attention to when the evening news came on. Now I know that when I log in, I will get several new threads with no links and attempts at poisoning the well on that subject, and a few threads on esoteric bits of stuff that only matter to a very few people, and a whole bunch of people trying to be clever with words instead of saying something useful about the subject of whatever thread they happen to be in.

I used to get my news from Ornery, and I used to be able to get informative commentary from Ornery, now I find myself coming here less and less often, it just isn't worth the time. I don't enjoy the word games, I enjoy getting new ideas and new perspectives on things, those have been lacking lately.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

My best beta-tester is an Oklahoma hillbilly State Trooper, and he does not mind me calling him a hillbilly. Is he just unusually secure in his personal worth?

It means he's friends with you. I do not advise you to try it on a stranger.

You know its an insult, that's why you used it. It's an imature tactic of yours and then you try and talk your way out of it. I told you Noel, I am not going to toy with you.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"rarely in the mood for wading through the kind of unpleasantness that has unfortunately become more common here."

I don't remember when it wasn't with us. From my first week on Ornery in 2001, there's been nastiness coupled with nostalgia for the days when things were better. But you can find that also in the earliest human writings.

Yes, I have always found that in threads you have participated in [Smile]
Yes, and passive-aggressive backhands with an innocent smily are also a longstanding Ornery tradition. [Smile]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
I can't tell Hillary is particularly overweight for her age. Clinton isn't now at all (he was overweight as president.

The last few times I saw Bill, he looked a little unhealthy to me. Maybe it's age creeping up on him but he's only 66. That's not that old; his ticker ain't the best though and that can give you a unhealthy glow sometimes. I hear he's on some kind of vegan diet, that'll thin you up alright- even make you look rather wasted. Perhaps that's it.

Hillary, now, she's got something interesting going on with her appearance. She's not really a unattractive woman, especially for one in her 60's, but over the last couple of years she seems to be going out of her way to appear so - with a few notable exceptions here and there. She's a player, very calculating, nothing is an accident with her. Maybe it's just some kind of play to the ME guys will take her seriously?

I agree Bill Clinton doesn't look good. I suppose you could blame it on the heart surgery but that was a while ago.

As to Hillary, I agree with you that she seems to be trying to look dowdy. Maybe you're right that she's doing it for effect.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

You are sounding a little shrill. Am I really supposed to be worried if you decide "not to toy" with me?

Its getting late. Go tuck your kids in.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I used to get my news from Ornery, and I used to be able to get informative commentary from Ornery, now I find myself coming here less and less often"

I agree that there's less information.

Redskull was one of our great providers and has been beaten away by a host of insults ... sadly by someone else whose presence I greatly enjoy when he's not chomping at someone else. I also miss Richard Dey. Redskull and Dey certainly didn't like each other, and they were often as pyrogenic as me, but they and others like them brought a strikingly interesting perspective to Ornery. And Red is a wonderful source of facts.

There's nothing new about the nastiness, or the whining about the nastiness, or the endless search for a scapegoat to blame the nastiness on. That's been around in spades since 2001. The problem is a lack of substance.

But substance has always been in short supply during election season.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

You are sounding a little shrill. Am I really supposed to be worried if you decide "not to toy" with me?

Its getting late. Go tuck your kids in.

It means I am reporting you to the mod.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
For heavens sake, you have been threatening that all day. Get it out of your system if you must
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Fat and sweaty is an attack on their appearance and "hillbilly" was an attack on Clinton's socioeconomic background.

Wasn't this the prez whose PR hit man spoke of Paula Jones' accusations as what happens when you drag $20 through a trailer park?

With that said, calling a flatlands Southerner a "hillbilly" seems more of an insult to Appalachians than to Bill Clinton.

Since our only self-declared Appalachian has said that the term offends her, I propose we strike it from our vocabularies on Ornery.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
I'm about to go live in a trailer on a hill in Georgia with chickens and goats and no telephone or internet, where I'll hunt rabbits. And I do currently make my own hootch, although I'm planning to give that up when I go to Georgia. Is it bad to say that I'm going to "live like a hillbilly?" (that's not a hypo, btw; it's actually true).
Now, no. If you stick it out in the future you can, but, with your Nevada accent, only amongst people that know you.

Of course a lot depends on context. Some mountain people use it amongst themselves in a self depricating way, like black people use the N word and gay people use "queer". That's not an invitation to use it yourself.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Fat and sweaty is an attack on their appearance and "hillbilly" was an attack on Clinton's socioeconomic background.

Wasn't this the prez whose PR hit man spoke of Paula Jones' accusations as what happens when you drag $20 through a trailer park?

With that said, calling a flatlands Southerner a "hillbilly" seems more of an insult to Appalachians than to Bill Clinton.

Since our only self-declared Appalachian has said that the term offends her, I propose we strike it from our vocabularies on Ornery.

I am also Appalachian and the term (obviously)offends me as well.

Clinton's treatment of Paula Jones was shameful. That doesn't justify using regional slurs on him anymore than Jesse Jackson's record with women justifies using racial slurs on him.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

My daughter was curious about what I had just read, and made some interesting comments based upon that. The Beverly Hillbillies are one of her favorite classic TV series. Her impressions of the characters are as follows:

- Uncle Jed- wise in an innocent sort of way.
- Jethro- stupid.
- Ellie Mae- caring.
- Granny- sees five-foot tall jack rabbits.

With a 50% negative rating, I have determined that you are entirety justified in taking "regional" offense. My ten year old will be advised that she is not to laugh... this is serious business.

Thankyou for raising our consciousness

[ October 20, 2012, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
Duh Debates

[LOL]

[ October 20, 2012, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

My daughter was curious about what I had just read, and made some interesting comments based upon that. The Beverly Hillbillies are one of her favorite classic TV series. Her impressions of the characters are as follows:

- Uncle Jed- wise in an innocent sort of way.
- Jethro- stupid.
- Ellie Mae- caring.
- Granny- sees five-foot tall jack rabbits.

With a 50% negative rating, I have determined that you are entirety justified in taking "regional" offense. My ten year old will be advised that she is not to laugh... this is serious business.

Thankyou for raising our consciousness

The Beverly Hillbillies was as much a parody of Southern California as it was the Ozarks. It's got as much to do with real mountain people as Bewitched has to do with the occult.

A couple hundred years of theft and murder generally being disregarded by most of America because it was being done to subhumans has nothing to do with Jed Clappet.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Deliverence on the other hand we could have done without.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"... as much a parody of Southern California." ... And I grew up in Huntington Beach. All this time, and only now I realize that I have been parodied!

Do you think that it is too late for me to work up some therapeutic indignation?

[ October 20, 2012, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"That is absolutely correct Matt, although I am fairly blunt in person also."

If you say things like you've said here you're either in the company of like-minded doofuses, or you are so lacking in social skills that you aren't aware that those around you are in shocked disbelief. I imagine that both are true in your world since you seem to think that what you said is appropriate social behavior.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Hmm. My best friend in Vegas is a wiccan hillbilly lesbian lawyer, and the only one of those names that irks her is "lawyer." But maybe the term is more loaded in other parts of Appalachia than it is in Ashville, North Carolina.

The fact that some individuals choose to own an particular epithet that could be applied to them negatively doesn't change the general negative sense of the word, particularly when used by an outsider to whatever culture it described.

If a person invites you to use it in reference to them, that's one thing, but as way pointed out, you'll still be in a lot of trouble if you go to appalachia and just start tossing it around. (Especially if you manage to really prove yourself to be out of place by missing the right zone by a bit and try to apply it to people that identify as rednecks instead, or vice versa.)
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm about to go live in a trailer on a hill in Georgia with chickens and goats and no telephone or internet, where I'll hunt rabbits. And I do currently make my own hootch, although I'm planning to give that up when I go to Georgia. Is it bad to say that I'm going to "live like a hillbilly?" (that's not a hypo, btw; it's actually true).

Unless you're in the most northwestern GA, "redneck" (southern small farmer) mich be a little closer- most of GA is out of the mountains and in the South proper. It would probably be best to wait till you integrate with the local culture first and see what they consider themselves to be.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by noel c.:
"... as much a parody of Southern California." ... And I grew up in Huntington Beach. All this time, and only now I realize that I have been parodied!

Do you think that it is too late for me to work up some therapeutic indignation?
[/QUOTE


I'm not playing this game with you.

Even if I could make you understand my point you want to win any argument you're in so badly you'll never acknowledge you did anything wrong.

It's not worth the frustration.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Noel on a previous subject, do you hold Chris Christie's weight against him?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Al,

Generally, when I find it useful to be candid, I am in the company of un-like-minded doofuses in positions of authority... and yes, they are shocked into disbelief judging by facial expression. Social skills are more effectively employed where there is a prevailing assumption of good-will. I will concede that even there, some bleed-over takes place... life is like that.

Thanks for your concern.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

... Is it worth the frustration to you?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Noel

I doubt we have much to argue about in regards of Chris Christie. (I've lived in NJ for over a year, I like him, but I have no emotional investment in him.)

Just curious if his weight colors your view of him as well.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
[VL:] "Noel on a previous subject, do you hold Chris Christie's weight against him?"

On a previous point in this thread he pointed out that Jerry Falwell said we're electing a CiC, not a pulpit preacher, as a reason why we shouldn't hold Romney's religion against him. OTOH, we had a whole thread where he attacked Obama repeatedly for what he imagined were there beliefs held by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It's dissonance, but not cognitive, more like naked bias and bigotry.

[Noel:] "Generally, when I find it useful to be candid, I am in the company of un-like-minded doofuses in positions of authority... and yes, they are shocked into disbelief judging by facial expression."

Ah, just as I thought. And these people are in positions of authority and you're not. Would I be right to assume that the reason they are doofuses is that they don't know how to do their jobs as well as you do?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Yes VL, it does. I like him also, but he is undisciplined, and barely acknowledges it to himself. I had a mentor in my late teens/early twenties that brought this into relief for me with the statement "If you are trying to do something, it is because you are failing to do that something."

Christie will tell you that he is "trying" to do things that would cause weight loss, and then turn around and say; "You don't have to drink, you don’t have to take drugs, but you have to eat.".

See the problem?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Actually Al, I am in the position of authority.

By the way, I consider Falwell to be a good Christian.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Oh, right, you can tell the difference between a good Christian and a bad one. But the quote from Falwell was about Romney being a good Christian. Are you saying that because Falwell is a good Christian and he says that Romney's religion shouldn't matter, therefore it shouldn't matter? Would it have affected your belief in how good a Christian Wright is if Romney had said that Obama was elected to be a CiC, not to preach from a pulpit?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
This is simpler than you are making it Al.

I doubt that Falwell considered Mormons Christian. That is not objectional to me as long as his values are substantially Mormon, and yes, I also consider him a good Christian because he meets the criteria by which I measure in theological terms.

Wright does not measure up on either count, and neither does his protege.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Yes VL, it does. I like him also, but he is undisciplined, and barely acknowledges it to himself. I had a mentor in my late teens/early twenties that brought this into relief for me with the statement "If you are trying to do something, it is because you are failing to do that something."

Christie will tell you that he is "trying" to do things that would cause weight loss, and then turn around and say; "You don't have to drink, you don’t have to take drugs, but you have to eat.".

See the problem?

You think he's on drugs?

In the first few months I was under his governorship he had to deal with an earthquake, a hurricaine, a freak snowstorm and a flood. (I was starting to expect locusts.)

I thought he did an excellent job again and again.

Not bad for someone so undisciplined.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
This is simpler than you are making it Al.

I doubt that Falwell considered Mormons Christian. That is not objectional to me as long as his values are substantially Mormon, and yes, I also consider him a good Christian because he meets the criteria by which I measure in theological terms.

Wright does not measure up on either count, and neither does his protege.

Ok so what's your standard?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

No, I don’t think Christi is a drug addict, his addiction is gluttony. The dynamics are indistinguishable however, and he excuses himself. It is typical of addictive behavior.

Addiction does not make people non-functional, it makes them dis-functional.

I am glad he reacted to your disasters well. I would not trust my life to his judgement in a proactive, or reactive modality.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It seems to me that Christie is entirely correct: unlike other sorts of addict, food addicts cannot avoid the object of their temptation. Not only is it legal and heavily advertised, as with alcohol, it is actually required for life.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Tom I think Al Roker made that point first.

Noel I can understand your reluctance to elect an unreformed addict of any kind, which Christie apparently is.

[ October 20, 2012, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I'm not sure I understand that reluctance; surely not all addictions are as predictive of poor governance as others?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm not sure I understand that reluctance; surely not all addictions are as predictive of poor governance as others?

It might indicate a lack of self-control and prudence.

I don't endorse this idea, I just understand it.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"I'm not sure I understand that reluctance, surely not all addictions are as predictive of poor governance as others."...

I agree entirely. This is not an all, or nothing, choice. The political landscape would be largely unpopulated if that standard was applied at every level. For a Secretary of State, and certainly for a Chief Executive, I would insist on it if the choice was within my power to make.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
I'm about to go live in a trailer on a hill in Georgia with chickens and goats and no telephone or internet, where I'll hunt rabbits. And I do currently make my own hootch, although I'm planning to give that up when I go to Georgia. Is it bad to say that I'm going to "live like a hillbilly?" (that's not a hypo, btw; it's actually true).
Now, no. If you stick it out in the future you can, but, with your Nevada accent, only amongst people that know you.

Of course a lot depends on context. Some mountain people use it amongst themselves in a self depricating way, like black people use the N word and gay people use "queer". That's not an invitation to use it yourself.

Well with my friend, it actually was (explicitly) an invitation to use it myself. But like I said, since it offends you and Funean, I won't do it here.

"Queer" is a rather different case for two reasons:

1. "Queer" has a meaning that has nothing to do with homosexualities. Unless you think that Tolkien's nine dark riders were gay.

2. Gays have essentially opened up the word "queer" (as referring to gays) to non-gay usage by creating fields of study entitled "Queer history," "Queer studies," etc.

3. Some gay fellow-drinkers, will say "cheers queers" and it seems like bad form not to repeat a toast.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Hmm. My best friend in Vegas is a wiccan hillbilly lesbian lawyer, and the only one of those names that irks her is "lawyer." But maybe the term is more loaded in other parts of Appalachia than it is in Ashville, North Carolina.

The fact that some individuals choose to own an particular epithet that could be applied to them negatively doesn't change the general negative sense of the word, particularly when used by an outsider to whatever culture it described.

If a person invites you to use it in reference to them, that's one thing, but as way pointed out, you'll still be in a lot of trouble if you go to appalachia and just start tossing it around.

Agreed!

quote:
(Especially if you manage to really prove yourself to be out of place by missing the right zone by a bit and try to apply it to people that identify as rednecks instead, or vice versa.)
Yes. If one's going to toss ethnic slurs at Clinton, the correct term would be "redneck." A word which unlike "hillbilly" seems to have no affectionate undertones or usages.

Funny thing is, the term "Cajun" itself is laden with almost as many stereotypes as "hillbilly," but there's no other word for them.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm about to go live in a trailer on a hill in Georgia with chickens and goats and no telephone or internet, where I'll hunt rabbits. And I do currently make my own hootch, although I'm planning to give that up when I go to Georgia. Is it bad to say that I'm going to "live like a hillbilly?" (that's not a hypo, btw; it's actually true).

Unless you're in the most northwestern GA, "redneck" (southern small farmer) mich be a little closer- most of GA is out of the mountains and in the South proper. It would probably be best to wait till you integrate with the local culture first and see what they consider themselves to be.
Oh, the general region that I'm in is DEFINITELY not Appalachian. I meant simply "live like" since the specific area I'm in looks like Appalachia, and if you come visit me I'm liable to climb a hill and shoot us something for dinner.

There are too many big trees and shade to make me a redneck. Red neck comes from flat land and bright sun on honky neck, and I'm going to be living in rolling shade.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Cracker.

Of course you're probably too privileged for that (educated and all).
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Cracker, like you said, denotes lack of education and has nothing to do with living in rolling hills alone and eating rabbits. There are urban crackers.

[ October 20, 2012, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
That leaves only peckerwood, and that's not right either (I forget who said this, but it was said that the distinction between rednecks and peckerwoods was that rednecks aspire. )

Nope, there's no word for what you are, Pete. [Wink]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Now that the GOP talking point that Obama misrepresented the attack on the Benghazi embassy has been emasculated, the argument will pivot to the question of inadequate security. That is a particularly insidious attack, since it's impossible for us to provide enough security everywhere to eliminate all possible threats. I have never seen such a concerted effort to delegitimize a President's foreign policy and CiC powers as this. Consulates and embassies were attacked far more often under Bush, but the same people whining about this event never said a word back then.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
That leaves only peckerwood, and that's not right either (I forget who said this, but it was said that the distinction between rednecks and peckerwoods was that rednecks aspire. )

Nope, there's no word for what you are, Pete. [Wink]

I wasn't fishing for a label, but to describe my soon-to-be lifestyle.

In other news ... when crackers attack!
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Playbook says attack on foreign affairs and security.

If opponents record does not make generalized attack seem sensible then focus attack on specific items.

Apparently the economy and family values isn't enough. The opposition feels they need weakness on foreign affairs and security to win.

[ October 22, 2012, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
You can attack anything and get away with it if you have a willing audience. As of July the number of conservative Republicans who believe Obama is a Muslim was 34%, up from 16% in 2008. If you tell a lie often enough it crowds out the truth, which supposedly doesn't have to defend itself. That's what I expect from tonight's debate. Lies, damn lies and Republican talking points.

[ October 22, 2012, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Chael (Member # 2436) on :
 
So, is anyone watching the "third party" debate tomorrow? [Smile]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
No, but I was thinking about having a third debate party.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
I'm watching. Its a lot more civil than the last one, which is nice. Obama owns Romney on foreign policy, mainly because Mitt doesn't have a foreign policy. He snipes at Obama, but in substance he can't really point to anything he'll do differently. But *both* of them really want to be talking about the economy.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
Obama dodged the Israel question, lets see what Mitt does.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
Mitt dodged it too. The question was: would we declare that an attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the United States? Both candidates said they would "have Israel's back" without going as far as the question asked. Which is good, actually; the last thing Bibi needs is a guarantee of force so he can goad the Iranians.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
Mitt just told the "apology tour" lie. Who's still counting?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Syria is Iran's route to the sea?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Just as with his budget plan, Gov. Romney's foreign policy is naive and lacking in specifics.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
We do *not* want the candidates making public declarations of what they'd do re Israel and Iran. I harbor very little hope that the ayatollatalitarians are negotiating in good faith 1 on 1, but hell, man, give it a chance, so this is not the time for public posturing.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Who is the jackass that cut same sex marriage off the debate list? Obama ads are pushing ssm. Why isn't Romney answering?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
SSM is foreign policy? Besides, to the vast majority of the electorate, my guess is SSM is not on their radar as particularly important.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Who is the jackass that cut same sex marriage off the debate list? Obama ads are pushing ssm. Why isn't Romney answering?

quote:
A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.[10]

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[11]

A May 17–20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low point for opposition in any national poll so far.[12][13]

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement, while 45% disagreed.[15] A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[16]

wiki

SSM only "helps" Romney in the states he is already going to win. You are a rare voter. You live in a swing state and hold this issue as your top priority.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It is so weird to hear about Obama ads pushing SSM elsewhere in the country. Here in Wisconsin, every single Obama ad is about the economy, with a special focus on Romney's "47%" comment.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Our Commander in Chief has these things called aircraft carriers (that planes land on), and newfangled underwater ships called (get this) "submarines". What a relief, now we can shrink the military by $3,000,000,000,000.

I am glad that we can get rid of the horses, but I know the Marines will fight to keep their bayonets.

It amazes me that someone that has done such an effective job in utilizing the military assets which he inherited is so intent in hamstringing future presidents.

The foreign policy debate was effectively reduced to a healthy domestic economy pitch. Say good-bye to Obamacare.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Yeah, talking to the Joint Chiefs and working out a plan to provide them with what they want to make the military more effective is "hamstringing". Instead we should swap them with two trillion of dollars of spending on crap they don't want when even they're saying that less military spending and more domestic investment would be better for our overall security.

When schools beg for more funding because they're being forced to cut critical programs due to tight budgets, they're told that throwing money at them would solve the problems. Yet when the military complains that it's overfunded and being bogged down by excessive spending on equipment that doesn't reflect its current needs, the answer is to try to trow even more money at it while suggesting that we could try to start another war or two incase it needs even more money.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Pyrtolin,

It is usually your economic prognostications that cause me to cringe.

You do not believe that the Joint Chiefs went along with a three trillion sequestration do you? For crap sake, even Obama tried to blame that on Congress when he said "it wouldn't happen". The problem is that it already "happened".

Currently we have 12 carrier battle groups, and to my knowledge that number has held steady (with minor fluctuations in retirement, and newly commissioned replacements) since Reagan. If their existence was a justification for this size of a cut in 2012, then it was justified 35 years ago. Obama bluffed successfully, but fact-checking will make for some darn effective political ads
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You do not believe that the Joint Chiefs went along with a three trillion sequestration do you?
Who said anything about that? Obama's budget where he requests the amount the military wants would replace sequestration, not include it. As he pointed out, and you roughly confirm, sequestration is no one's plan and not even remotely relevant to either policy position put forth, except inasmuch as it's the axe hanging over everyone's head to get something more coherent in place.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"Obama's budget... would replace sequestration."...

No, the Constitution does not work that way. Why do you think he blamed Congress?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It is so weird to hear about Obama ads pushing SSM elsewhere in the country.

And yet you said you were familiar with Samuel Jackson's "wake the f up" ad, which mentions it. I don't watch much TV or listen to much radio but I get the "Romney gonna ban gay marriage" drivel at least 3 times a week.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"Obama's budget... would replace sequestration."...

No, the Constitution does not work that way. Why do you think he blamed Congress?

He blamed Congress because it was congress- specifically Congressional Republicans that required the sequestration law to be passed in the first place.

And yes, the constitution does work that way. If congress passes a new explicit budget that replaces the sequestration, then the sequestration is displaced by the new law. Congress cannot tie its own hands and can always pass a new law/budget that eliminates old ones that it has passed.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It is so weird to hear about Obama ads pushing SSM elsewhere in the country.

And yet you said you were familiar with Samuel Jackson's "wake the f up" ad, which mentions it. I don't watch much TV or listen to much radio but I get the "Romney gonna ban gay marriage" drivel at least 3 times a week.
Hmmm... But aren't you voting for Romney exactly for that reason, because you expect/hope that he's "gonna ban gay marriage" in common (very common) parlance?
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
But aren't you voting for Romney exactly for that reason, because you expect/hope that he's "gonna ban gay marriage" in common (very common) parlance?
I think Pete differentiates between "banning gay marriage" in the sense that this was implemented in Nigeria (gay couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison, while those who assist them could be sentenced to 10 years. ), vs "banning gay marriage" in the sense of the government simply not recognizing such marriages, but not otherwise penalizing the participants.

I think Pete believes that the word 'ban' is only properly applicable for the former situation, not the latter.

But I think that in the West it's generally well understood that "banning gay marriage" is generally meant in the latter sense though (the state not recognizing them), not in the former.

[ October 23, 2012, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
And yet you said you were familiar with Samuel Jackson's "wake the f up" ad, which mentions it.
Sure. But that ad isn't actually AIRING anywhere around me, for obvious reasons (i.e. not that it's a bad ad, but that the tone isn't right for TV.) It's not possible to see it unless you seek it out. Whereas the ads that are actually airing around here, and being shoved at me whenever I watch YouTube, are economy-only.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
Debates are over, thank God. Who won round 3? We can go with the headlines provided my the MSM which predictably declare for Obama - the guy just can't suck as bad as he did the first one, right? But, let's check world opinion:
quote:
Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?

Yep, pretty much nails it.

Back stateside, what's the takeaway?
quote:
CNN poll of debate watchers: Who did debate make you more likely to vote for? Obama 24%, Romney 25%, Neither 50%. #CNNDebate
Essentially a tie is the best lipstick the DNC media can put on this pig.

But the real telling piece:
quote:
PPP post-debate INDYs only key stat: "More/less likely to vote after debate" - Obama 32 more/48 less. Romney 47 more/35 less.
Whatever you think of the debate, independents broke for Romney.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I'm always fascinated by your damage control attempts, G3.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"Congress cannot tie its own hands..."...

... Now that is better, the problem for democratic congressmen will be deciding which social programs to cut in order to re-allocate $3,000,000,000,000 to maintain Obama's foreign policy. The economy coming out of the last four years does not have the strength to buy both guns, and butter, which is why sequestration kicked in.

Romney's point in this debate was that a healthy economy *is* necessary to a strong foreign policy, and the military that Barry was assuming to be at his disposal (should he be elected), cannot co-exist with the BFD.

He was right, and Obama was wrong.

[ October 23, 2012, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
"Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.
quote:
For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets
More or fewer than it used in 1916?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
... Now that is better, the problem for democratic congressmen will be deciding which social programs to cut in order to re-allocate $3,000,000,000,000 to maintain Obama's foreign policy. The economy coming out of the last four years does not have the strength to buy both guns, and butter, which is why sequestration kicked in.


That's pure nonsense. Sequestration is scheduled to kick in because congress declared that it would kick in if no other compromise was reached as a condition on lifting the debt ceiling (which is an absurd political theatre artifact of the 1920's in and of itself and, after the last tussle, should be declared outright unconstitutional since it has proven that it only serves as a direct violation of the 14th amendment). Congress created it, congress can nullify it simply by passing a budget that overrides it.

Congress has no need to re-allocate anything to work around sequestration, it simple has to override it with legislation that removes it from the budget.

quote:
Romney's point in this debate was that a healthy economy *is* necessary to a strong foreign policy, and the military that Barry was assuming to be at his disposal (should he be elected), cannot co-exist with the BFD.
Which is irrelevant, because the point of comparison was between Obama's proposed military budget, based on the actual stated needs of the military and Romney's budget, based entirely on political posturing and with pretty much no input from the current top brass (in fact, going directly against their wishes to trim down and improve efficiency and effectiveness).

Either policy assumes that it would boot out the inane sequestration compromise and instead replace it with a more coherent budget.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
G#, I'm in London and didn't see the debate. I read the transcript and 3 different UK newspapers who gave multiple opinions/assessments of who "won". It's pretty unanimous that Obama beat out "Obama lite". He was crisp, forceful and sensible. Whenever Romney agreed with Obama they felt he might be an acceptable substitute. If you give the UK a vote and a handful of electors, there's no doubt that they'd ring them up for Obama.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
I knew it.

All the economy needs is a sprinkle of Pyrtolin's magic fairy dust, and this "absurd" sequestration act that was passed in a bi-partisan vote, then signed into law by Barry, can go away. Everything will be sunshine, and roses.

As an aside, Obama, congressional democrats, and even Paul Ryan wanted defense to be a part of the sequestration compact. Guess who openly, and aggressively opposed it? You guessed... Mitt Romney.

[ October 23, 2012, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Isn't it a little disturbing how many things Romney disagrees with his own VP choice on? Of course, Romney wasn't there so his opinions didn't carry much weight at the time and he had no skin in the game. He can say anything, and come to think of it, he does.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
No "skin" in the game? Ya, Romney had no idea that his public statements could be used against him in the campaign.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Is the Navy Shrinking?

ROMNEY: Our Navy is old - excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.

The Washington Post gave this claim three Pinocchios.

ABC News' Luis Martinez has the facts:

There are currently 285 ships in the Navy's fleet.

A report by Naval History and Heritage Command provides a look at the decrease in the number of Navy ships over the past 50 years since the peak during World War II.

According to this study in 1917 the U.S. Navy had 245 ships. From that date on until 2003 the Navy maintained more than 300 ships in the fleet. The number of ships in the fleet fell to its lowest point in 2006 when there were 278 ships in the fleet. Since then the number of ships has increased to the current 285.

Beginning in 2011 the U.S. Navy began adding two new submarines a year instead of the one a year it had been buying. The Navy is expected to add two Virginia Class attack submarines a year through fiscal year 2016. Romney aides have said he would like to see three new Virginia attack submarines added per year.

Obama replied:

"But I think Gov. Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

"And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities. And so when I sit down with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home."

"And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you're putting forward because it just doesn't work."

And ABC News' Luis Martinez adds that yes, the U.S. military - both the Army and Marines still use bayonets.

ABC Debate 3 fact check

I would note Obama's use of the word "fewer" as regards the horses and bayonettes.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
From the Budget Control Act of 2011 Wiki:
quote:
The agreement also specified an incentive for Congress to act. If Congress failed to produce a deficit reduction bill with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, then Congress could grant a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling but this would trigger across-the-board cuts ("sequestrations"[note 1]).[3] These cuts would apply to mandatory and discretionary spending in the years 2013 to 2021 and be in an amount equal to the difference between $1.2 trillion and the amount of deficit reduction enacted from the joint committee.
Hmmm... no reference to fairy dust. Do both Obama and Romney have budget proposals to address the required $1.2 trillion in cuts?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
He changes his mind so often that nothing he said in the past matters, so why believe him on this? Etch-a-sketch, right? The man was 100% behind a woman's right to choose for 20 years before he was, you know, really really against it.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
SCHIEFFER: What if -- what if the prime minister of Israel called you on the phone and said, "Our bombers are on the way. We're going to bomb Iran."

What do you --

ROMNEY: Bob, let's not go into hypotheticals of that nature. Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way, or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of --

Because after all Bibi was elected for life... I can't believe he got to dodge this.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
All the economy needs is a sprinkle of Pyrtolin's magic fairy dust, and this "absurd" sequestration act that was passed in a bi-partisan vote, then signed into law by Barry, can go away. Everything will be sunshine, and roses.

Glad to see that you're resorting to invective and giving up on pretending to have a substantial argument, nevermind even a remote command of the facts at hand.

quote:
As an aside, Obama, congressional democrats, and even Paul Ryan wanted defense to be a part of the sequestration compact. Guess who openly, and aggressively opposed it? You guessed... Mitt Romney.
Indeed- because if defense had not been in the sequestration, the Republicans would have no motive to overturn it. The entire point of the sequestration agreement was to present an eventuality that was so reprehensible to both parties that they'd be forced to negotiate a better solution. While that failed in the short term, that's why both parties are still reasonably sure that some kind of compromise to replace or simply repeal it will be worked out either after the election or retroactively immediately after the next Congressional session begins.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

During the Reagan years, do you know that we had a 500 ship navy, which included the 12 carrier battle groups that Barry just discovered?

DD,

Obama doesn't believe in Pyrtolin's fairy dust either, which is why he wanted defense on the chopping block.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Everything is on the chopping block, except for some very basic programs. Otherwise, it wouldn't work as an incentive.

You do follow that, right? Of course Romney wouldn't want his favoured expenditures on the block; I'm surprised you don't understand this.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Some people believe that defense is a "very basic program", and judging by the look on Barry's face when Romney confronted him on this point... the president is among those believers.

Why do you think he said "It won't happen"? Forget the fact that he participated in setting up the scenario that he now has no constitutional power to avoid.

[ October 23, 2012, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
VL,

During the Reagan years, do you know that we had a 500 ship navy, which included the 12 carrier battle groups that Barry just discovered?


And we also had a Soviet Union to fight. That is no longer the case.

How many carrier groups does Russia have?

How many carrier groups does China have?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Some people believe that defense is a "very basic program", and judging by the look on Barry's face when Romney confronted him on this point... the president is among those believers.

The cuts to defense are explicitly listed as a line item for sequestration. Money can't be shuffled out of anything else to prevent them as long as the sequestration law is in place, because the law states that defense must directly be cut, not that a given quantity must be cut overall.

quote:
Why do you think he said "It won't happen"? Forget the fact that he participated in setting up the scenario that he now has no constitutional power to avoid.
Because he's confident that congress will reach a deal that stops it even if it's just repealing the sequestration.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Note I did not say "all very basic programs". noel: It should be noted that the very basic programs that were included were agreed to by both side; whereas some other very basic programs that could not be agreed to were not exempt.

As to your second point, the president has as much constitutional power to avoid sequestration as he had constitutional power to create the situation. I'm surprised you don't understand this either.

As to why do I think he said "it won't happen" - maybe you should try answering that question yourself; you have so many such questions, and in many cases the answers are quite obvious. In this particular case others have already spoon fed you the answer. Try just a bit harder, noel.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

I think that you realize that the United States sits between two oceans, right?

We are dependent upon our navy in a way that the continental powers simply are not. Romney appears to understand this, as does Obama. Where they differ, as shown in striking relief last night, is in the perceived relationship that we have with Russia.

Obama thinks that he is on a whispered secrets basis with Putin. He is an idiot.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
DD,

Money bills originate in the House. I think Obama knows that.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
I think that you realize that the United States sits between two oceans, right?

3 oceans, actually. And those 3 oceans haven't really changed as much in the past 30 years as has the nature of naval military risks and requirements.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
DD,

Money bills originate in the House. I think Obama knows that.

Yes, but it seemed like you did not in your previous post, so I wanted to make sure that was clear to you [Smile]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
So... you understand that the House can not be compelled to dance to a president's tune, correct?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Money bills originate in the House. I think Obama knows that.

And sufficient representatives in the House do not want sequestration to happen that it's safe to be confident that, outside of the shadow of the election, or at the worst, after the new term begins, they'll scramble pretty quickly to find a compromise that resolves the situation.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
So, you are agreeing that Obama has surrendered power over this issue to the House, and that last night's categorical statement was pulled from his backside, correct?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
So... you understand that the House can not be compelled to dance to a president's tune, correct?

No, but the majority it can be counted on to want to make a deal to avoid sequestration, particularly once they no longer have to worry about playing to the extremes and can count on having two years (or being a lame duck) to give them time to spin away from any compromises they make.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
So, you are agreeing that Obama has surrendered power over this issue to the House, and that last night's categorical statement was pulled from his backside, correct?

Surrendered? The "power" here has always lain with the House and Senate working out a mutually agreeable solution. And if one is not reached, then that reflects poorly on them and not the President for assuming that they'll do their job properly here.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
So... you understand that the House can not be compelled to dance to a president's tune, correct?

So, you really don't understand what Obama's statement meant? Try harder. It's even been explained to you again.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Alright, the House comes back, and says; our national security trumps Obamacare. Sign here...

Obama will comply, correct?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

I think that you realize that the United States sits between two oceans, right?

We are dependent upon our navy in a way that the continental powers simply are not. Romney appears to understand this, as does Obama. Where they differ, as shown in striking relief last night, is in the perceived relationship that we have with Russia.

Obama thinks that he is on a whispered secrets basis with Putin. He is an idiot.

You understand that Russia sits between two oceans and its European side has two sea borders?
You understand that Russia only has three major cities and the second largest of these could be taken out by a handful of ships in the gulf of Finland? We are NOT more dependant on our navy than Russia.

Don't try BS arguments.Our 12 carrier groups exist to allow us to project our power globally, they are far in excess of what we need to to protect our nation.

[ October 23, 2012, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Obama: "There have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did but you'd say them louder and somehow that would make a difference."
He had Williard's number here.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"We are not more dependent on our navy...?

No, you are wrong.

Our international trade is much more dependent upon free navigation of the Atlantic, and Pacific, and a look at the composition of the respective force structuring will tell you as much.

As you have pointed out, they have only one carrier, but alot of attack subs that shadow our carrier groups. The Kursk was a carrier killer. Do you know what the function of carriers has been since world war two?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"We are not more dependent on our navy...?

No, you are wrong.

Our international trade is much more dependent upon free navigation of the Atlantic, and Pacific, and a look at the composition of the respective force structuring will tell you as much.


Well now that's a better argument.

If you are talking about protecting our economic concerns yes, we are more dependant.

If you are talking about existential threats, the US could lose all of its major coastal cities and survive, as could China. Russia couldn't.

We really shouldn't be talking about defense cuts until we discuss what the purpose of our military is, and we have as a nation allowed ourselves to be dependent on global trade.

[ October 23, 2012, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
I think that you are missing the point VL.

In time of conflict "international trade" means unobstructed transport of war material. The sole purpose of Russia's blue water navy, which is of recent vintage, is to prevent us from doing that.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Alright, the House comes back, and says; our national security trumps Obamacare. Sign here...


You seem to forget that the Senate is involved here as well.

quote:

Obama will comply, correct?

You don't seem to understand how negotiation and compromise work; especially since the House has already effectively tried a few variations on that and the Senate has rejected it. The House will need to stop posturing and actually put some work into a mutually agreeable solution to get its job done here.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
You do not seem to understand that defense should have never been used ad a bargaining chip.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
I think that you are missing the point VL.

In time of conflict "international trade" means unobstructed transport of war material. The sole purpose of Russia's blue water navy, which is of recent vintage, is to prevent us from doing that.

What does that have to do with our national defense?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
You do not seem to understand that defense should have never been used ad a bargaining chip.

Nor should have the debt ceiling. , but that's neither here nor there. If the GOP representatives actually want to prevent the cuts, then they'll actually have to offer something reasonable in exchange. Or at least simply agree to throw out the idea of sequestration completely and give up just a little on trying to sandbag the economy for their own political gain.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

Are we dependent on foreign oil in a way that life-threatening consequences follow from a prolonged interruption of that flow?

Your response to that question will answer the other one.

[ October 23, 2012, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Alright, the House comes back, and says; our national security trumps Obamacare. Sign here...

Obama will comply, correct?

Why don't they go directly to the chase?

The House comes back and says: our national security trumps your Administration. No funding until you resign. Sign here...

It's blackmail either way, right?

As stated before, the sequestration was a compromise to make sure "balancing the budget" was not simply a way to force Democrats to cut programs the Republicans didn't like (while leaving the ones they did like alone). If Congress can't reach a compromise that is acceptable to all parties, including the President, then it is still Congress' fault.

They are the ones responsible for coming up with an acceptable bill, not Obama.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

Are we dependent on foreign oil in a way that life-threatening consequences follow from a prolonged interruption of that flow?

Your response to that question will answer the other one.

Not really, certainly not to the degree that we can look at having 12 carrier groups as being more than very distantly related to our national defense.

The reason we have those carrier groups is so we can project US power quickly to places like Somalia or Taiwan. I can't believe this is something we're arguing about.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
PolitiFact labels Gov. Romney's statement on the Navy "pants on fire".

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

quote:
Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney’s comparison "doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’ " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

As for the Air Force, many U.S. planes may be old, but they "have been modernized with amazing sensors and munitions even when the airframes themselves haven’t been," said Michael O’Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. Human factors matter, too. "The vast superiority of the U.S. Air Force has little to do with number of planes, but with vastly superior training, in-flight coordination and control, as well as precision targeting and superior missiles," said Charles Knight, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Massachusetts-based Commonwealth Institute.

Ruehrmund and Bowie write in their report that "although the overall force level is lower, the capabilities of the current force in almost all respects far exceed that of the huge Air Force of the 1950s. Today’s Air Force can maintain surveillance of the planet with space and air-breathing systems; strike with precision any point on the globe within hours; deploy air power and joint forces with unprecedented speed and agility; and provide high-bandwidth secure communications and navigation assistance to the entire joint force."

Increasingly crucial today are pilotless aerial vehicles, some of which are more commonly known as drones.

Obama Was Right On Navy, Says Former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/obama-navy-richard-danzig_n_2005201.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009


quote:
"The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one."

"The Navy is stronger than it's ever been," he added.


 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
As stated before, the sequestration was a compromise to make sure "balancing the budget" was not simply a way to force Democrats to cut programs the Republicans didn't like (while leaving the ones they did like alone). If Congress can't reach a compromise that is acceptable to all parties, including the President, then it is still Congress' fault.
Lol, no. That's not how it works. If someone's being unreasonable, then the person who's being unreasonable is to blame. I'm not saying this is the case in your hypothetical, but it's not congress's fault if a hypothetical president acts ridiculous.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
JoshuaD is it the lack of a hypothetical presidential veto which is ridiculous in this hypothetical situation? Or something else?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
No, Josh is right, the unreasonable party is the one to blame.

The problem is that, today, we all can't agree on what is unreasonable. [Frown]

Which is why my alternative to noel's hypothetical is not so far fetched. [Frown] [Frown]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

We have found carrier attack groups to be very useful in projecting political power, but that is not how they were originally conceived, nor is that how they would be deployed in a national crisis. They are purpose built to keep sea lanes open.


Kmbboots,

Your fact checkers are only measuring half of the equation. Carrier groups have kept a slower pace in advancements than countermeasures.

As an example; there is good reason to believe that the Kursk was killed bu a U.S. attack sub defending a second attack sub from a hyper-velocity torpedo launch by the Russian sub. We still have no defense against that weapon other than preemption.

As an aside; the Russians were demonstrating this torpedo for a sales contract to the Chinese.

[ October 23, 2012, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Did you note the part about ships going up during President Obama's administration?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:

As an example; there is good reason to believe that the Kursk was killed bu a U.S. attack sub defending a second attack sub from a hyper-velocity torpedo launch by the Russian sub. We still have no defense against that weapon other than preemption.

As an aside; the Russians were demonstrating this torpedo for a sales contract to the Chinese.

Do you have a cite? Wikipedia indicates it was an accident, though the language suggests there are competing "theories."
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Do you know that ship count goes up on a time delayed construction cycle?
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Noel

I think we're talking around eachother about the carriers. Anyway I'm not arguing they go into dry dock. As long as we're carrying the global burden for defense of democracy, liberty ect we have to maintian them at current levels.

Now second point...
You're saying the Kursk was sunk by a US sub defending another US sub that the Kursk had fired on? Do you have a source you can talk about on that?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Noble hunter,

The best evidence that I have seen is the perfect hole punched through the outer hull of the Kursk... roughly the diameter of our type 54, and the chronology of sonic signatures recorded as far away as Norway.

The accidental explosion of a peroxide torpedo propulsion system just does not fit the sequence of events.

[ October 23, 2012, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
As an example; there is good reason to believe that the Kursk was killed bu a U.S. attack sub defending a second attack sub from a hyper-velocity torpedo launch by the Russian sub. We still have no defense against that weapon other than preemption.

As an aside; the Russians were demonstrating this torpedo for a sales contract to the Chinese.

I'm curious why you believe this, as opposed to the (IMO far more likely) original claim that the Kursk collided with the Memphis and ripped off a portion of the latter's conning tower, which is what necessitated the Memphis' later emergency dry-dock repairs. This narrative would also explain why Soviet surveillance craft followed the Memphis to the edges of Norwegian airspace, and why the U.S. paid to fly the wives of some Memphis crewmen to Norway following its arrival in Bergen (which took five days, a remarkably slow pace that would be understandable from a heavily-damaged submarine but is difficult to explain otherwise.)

The Russians are almost certainly selling rocket torpedoes to the Chinese, but I think it's fairly ridiculous to say that they were shooting at an American sub to demonstrate this ability; rather, I think one of the handful of American subs that were in the area to witness the exercise simply got too close and rammed the Kursk from below with its conning tower, ripping a hole in the underside of its bow (which might help explain why the bow was cut away from the salvage and left on the seafloor, then destroyed with explosives.)

[ October 23, 2012, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Do you know that ship count goes up on a time delayed construction cycle?

Certainly. Especially as it is mentioned in the link I posted:

quote:
"Ships are so expensive that they have to be built over long periods of time, and at a pace that accounts for the retirement from service of other ships as well," Janda said. "We also have to space the building out over long periods of time to keep our major shipyards working at a rate that’s sustainable over several decades, because you can’t let them go under and then try to reform them in time of war. So Congress and the president make decisions each year regarding the needs of the Navy that do not come to fruition for decades, making it ridiculous to give blame or praise to the president for the current situation."
Bolding mine.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Tom,

It is virtually certain that the Memphis did collide with the Kursk, but that is not what caused the fatal explosion.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Interesting.

I might look into it more when I have the time. Might be the elusive quarry of the true "conspiracy theory".
 
Posted by TCB (Member # 1677) on :
 
Wayward Son said
quote:
No, Josh is right, the unreasonable party is the one to blame.

The problem is that, today, we all can't agree on what is unreasonable.

Romney's newfound moderation is obviously an implicit repudiation of the unreasonableness and radicalism of the entire Tea Party era of conservatism. Remember when the House wanted a balanced budget amendment - a change to the fundamental law of the land - as a condition to raising the debt ceiling? It's crazy in retrospect, and based on the last few weeks, a theoretical President Romney would never demand such a drastic measure.

If the Republican party continues to follow Romney's recent center-right direction - modest cuts to discretionary spending, minor tweaks to the welfare state, and so on - the 112th Congress will go down as one of the most radical in US history.

And I hope Republicans do follow Romney's direction. But it's exasperating to see conservatives abruptly stop acting unreasonably, pretending they've been acting reasonably all along.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Except for the teeny fact that the "newfound" moderation matches Romney's actual political record as governor ...
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Bingo!
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Except for the teeny fact that the "newfound" moderation matches Romney's actual political record as governor ...

When he was beholden to a democratic congress that repeatedly proved that it was able to override his veto.

If both houses of the US Congress were similarly 80-90% democratic, you can be certain that he'd have an equally moderate recorde by the time he was done.

And, really, if we want a center-right president, why vote for the one that may possibly be sliding back toward that position over the one that's already firmly established himself to be sitting there that we already have?

[ October 23, 2012, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
But it's exasperating to see conservatives abruptly stop acting unreasonably, pretending they've been acting reasonably all along.

This precisely sums up how I feel. When it comes down to it, winning is more important to them than principles, and the ends justify the means, particularly if that end is beating Obama. They'll hush up until after the election, at which point if they lose you'll see a circular firing squad, and if they win... well, let's just say I think the Tea Party will mysteriously call in sick for 4 years.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Again, it is telling that the good folks of Massachusetts are really dead set against putting such a paragon as their former governor in the White House.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"... if we want a center-right president..."...


... Then you want someone who is not waiting for the completion of this election cycle to behave with more "flexibility" for Vladimir.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"... if we want a center-right president..."...


... Then you want someone who is not waiting for the completion of this election cycle to behave with more "flexibility" for Vladimir.

Putin is a center-right figure as well.

(And no being an ex-commie doesn't preclude being a center-right figure now. The GOP is run by movement founded by ex communists who turned to center-right figures.)
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
I really hope Obama tries to package his KGB buddy that way.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
Putin's a social conservative who supports traditional religion, particularly Christianity, commerce, the military, and is tough on crime. He's as much center right as his son of the CIA buddy George W Bush.

THe guilt by association with Putin tactic was lame when Clinton was trying to use it to smear Bush and it's lame when you try and use to smear Obama.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Again, it is telling that the good folks of Massachusetts are really dead set against putting such a paragon as their former governor in the White House.

Telling of what, exactly? If you are trying to say that fact excuses us from looking at what he precisely did in MA, his public record, that sounds like an awful cop-out. On a "don't confuse me with the facts" level.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
VL,

... And he willingly relinquishes, and shares, power with political opponents in the long-standing democratic tradition of Mother Russia. [Wink]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Telling of how responsible Gov. Romney was for any successes in Massachusetts. What he was responsible for doing or initiating and where he was just passive and let the democratic legislature do things and where he was unsuccessful at stopping the democratic legislature from doing things that he is now taking credit for doing. I think that the people in Massachusetts would know these things better than we do and they are not terribly enthusiastic about him.
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Actually Kmbboots, that is some cause for hope.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Hope that we can't really trust the record that Gov. Romney is now trumpeting?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
No, hope that liberals from MA are giving an accurate read on his political compass.

I really hope they are correct as it relates to social issues.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Which would mean that Gov. Romney will say just about anything, yes?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
There is some concern that he goes through timely conversions... much like Barry's disavowal of Reverend Wright.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Do you understand the difference between a change of heart due to a change of circumstance or new information and rewriting history?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Oh boy do I... have you read Barry's autobiographies?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"I think that the people in Massachusetts would know these things better than we do and they are not terribly enthusiastic about him."

He's still down 15 points. Not very favorite for a son. In Michigan where Romney was born Obama is still up 6 points. He must have made a hell of an impression.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
PolitiFact labels Gov. Romney's statement on the Navy "pants on fire".

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

PolitiFact, yeah. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney’s comparison "doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’ " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Counting the number of ships doesn't pass the giggle test and the Politifact goes on to count the ships. Think through that one a bit, it's what really doesn't pass the giggle test.


quote:
Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

As for the Air Force, many U.S. planes may be old, but they "have been modernized with amazing sensors and munitions even when the airframes themselves haven’t been," said Michael O’Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. Human factors matter, too. "The vast superiority of the U.S. Air Force has little to do with number of planes, but with vastly superior training, in-flight coordination and control, as well as precision targeting and superior missiles," said Charles Knight, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Massachusetts-based Commonwealth Institute.

So as we make the count after all and talk about how advanced these all are, what are we missing in our little count? Carriers, amphibs, subs. We got them all? Not hardly and what this, and Obama, demonstrate with their little count is a basic misunderstanding of the military. They're talking about the power of the Navy from a tactical perspective. Here's a phrase that's relevant, "Amateurs Talk Tactics, Professionals Talk Logistics". When we talk about the numbers of ships, we're talking about a lot more than our tactical abilities.


quote:

Increasingly crucial today are pilotless aerial vehicles, some of which are more commonly known as drones.

This demonstrates another significant misunderstanding of military power and its ability. Drones are great and all but they're no replacement for ships and men, at least not yet.


quote:
"The basic point that didn't get mentioned, that I would add, is the number of ships actually went down during the years of George W. Bush and have gone up in the Obama years," Danzig said. "So the notion that Republicans are more effective in building the Navy is not a correct one."

"The Navy is stronger than it's ever been," he added.

Still counting something that doesn't
pass the giggle test". You know why? To keep you distracted, so you don't focus on just how poorly they understand military power.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Give it up, kmbboots. If Obama walked on water Noel would fault him for not wiping the bottoms of his feet first.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
There are not enough ships for the War on Facts.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
"Drones are great and all but they're no replacement for ships and men, at least not yet."

Not until they can produce them using your 3D printer. Speaking of which, how many Glocks have you made since you unveiled this great invention to us?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
"If Obama walked on water..."...

Did Barry write, yet another,autobiography?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Have you ever taken the time to actually think about a response before posting? You don't seem to be very sharp these days.
 
Posted by Viking_Longship (Member # 3358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
VL,

... And he willingly relinquishes, and shares, power with political opponents in the long-standing democratic tradition of Mother Russia. [Wink]

Atheist humanism and radical wahabbism are grateful for your uncritical support.

[ October 23, 2012, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
NobleHunter,

I did a little research on the Mark 54 torpedo, and there are two problems with its use by the Toledo. First, it is 12" in diameter. Second, it is surface launched. U.S. submarine launched torpedos are 21" in diameter, and none currently in service utilize a shaped charge warhead capable of punching a hole through the 8mm outer-hull, and then the 50 mm pressure-hull of Kursk.

Interestingly, the primary heavy British torpedo, the Spearfish, is 21" in diameter with a very large shaped charge warhead, and there was a British attack sub on station during the Russian exercises.

... Just one possible explaination for that nice round hole.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
You know why the Kursk was equipped with screen doors?
 
Posted by noel c. (Member # 6699) on :
 
Why Pete?
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
There are not enough ships for the War on Facts.

There are not enough ships to meet current demand:

quote:
Vice Admiral William Burke, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Warfare Systems.
[QUOTE]Last year, the Navy met 53% of Combatant Commander demands, down 6% from 2010.

<snip>

“It would take a Navy of over 500 ships (Current fleet is 285) to meet the combatant commander requests. Of course it would take a similar increase in aircraft.”

Barry and his wonks want you to believe it's 100%, the guys that deliver tell you it's barely over 50% and dropping. So we can go with what the politicians say or we can go with the word of the people that have to actually fulfill the missions.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
There are not enough ships to meet current demand
To be fair, I cannot remember a time in living memory when all the branches of our military service were perfectly contented with what was being supplied to them.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
When it's your job and duty to protect people, "probably enough" is never enough.

They do the best they can with what is provided. I think most of them understand basic economics enough to be content more often than not with what they have.

Lets face it though. When something goes wrong one of the first questions is going to be, "Why didn't you ask for more if that's what we needed to prevent this?"
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Why Pete?

To keep out the fish.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
http://amultiverse.com/2012/10/24/reality-denialism/

Who is to blame for the four-year kitten gap?
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
When it's your job and duty to protect people, "probably enough" is never enough.

The US armed forces are much bigger than necessary to protect the United States.

If we are talking about simultaneously protecting Taiwan, South Korea, commercial shipping, etc then maybe our force size is too small.

But in terms of defeating any force that wanted to invade the United States the rest of the world's armed forces combined probably would have a hard time making any headway.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
And if it came to that, that's actually why we have a nuclear deterrent.
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
There are not enough ships to meet current demand
To be fair, I cannot remember a time in living memory when all the branches of our military service were perfectly contented with what was being supplied to them.
True, but this kind of dismissive opinion only works when facts are not available. When you start slipping below 50% on your ability to meet mission demand, maybe it's more than just wanting more. Ya think?
 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
And if it came to that, that's actually why we have a nuclear deterrent.

Personally, I would prefer to avoid relying on a nuclear deterrent. Unlike Biden, I find nothing remotely funny in the prospect of a nuclear exchange.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Seriously, you think Biden finds the prospect of a nuclear exchange funny? How much does what you're smoking cost?
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1