Obama v. Romney Debate Thread, Part III

[byu71]

From this debate, what may help Romney in Ohio more than anything is the discussion of Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed. Obama claims Romney said something he didn't. I'd expect that to get more coverage in the Midwest in the next couple days than it got on CNN last night.

Romney's actual position will get a little more play, and some will realize that he did not actually advocate for the liquidation of the auto industry - that his recommendations were aimed at saving the industry.

Also, do people remember that Bush is the one that started the auto bailout? Obama merely doubled down on Bush's policy (who is more like Bush?) of sending good taxpayer money after bad corporate management. Oh and then it ended up in the bankruptcy process that Romney recommended from the start.

A good question to ask Obama would be as follows: We have heard many a time how Bush left you a terrible mess. Why haven't you been gracious enough to at least give Bush the credit for the GM bailout also. In addition how about giving him credit for putting things in motion so you could kill Bin Laden.

Seems Obama's biggest positive accomplishments were set up for him by Bush.

[ERCougar]

Wow, you sure did skew those words pretty conveniently! His comparison was incredible from a language perspective! Romney says we have fewer ships than we did in 1917. Obama counters that we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we did then, because the face of warfare has changed. It was fantastic debate language and it shut Romney down -- if he wanted to make a point he should've used a date more recent than 95 years ago. It would've been a good point if he had used 1980 or 1960 -- but then again the number of ships now is greater than it was in those years.

Aren't you an attorney? A good attorney should be able to parse language far more easily than you do -- it's like thread after thread you make the same comprehension mistakes. Maybe you're not one of the good attorneys... who knows?

Yes, pointing out that we have aircraft carriers and submarines really highlighted how we no longer need a navy like we used to.

[Tim]

Yes, pointing out that we have aircraft carriers was a fantastic counter to Romneys point that our navy is too small.

I know you're being sarcastic, but that whole segment was a debate win for Obama and a loss for Romney. Not sure how it'll affect the election, as I believe there aren't really any "undecideds" left in the country, but in the debate alone that segment was a point for Obama.

[Donuthole]

Yes, pointing out that we have aircraft carriers was a fantastic counter to Romneys point that our navy is too small.

That's terrible parsing of language. But you're lucky, buster, since nobody expects doctors to be competent at parsing language.

[Lost Student]

I know you're being sarcastic, but that whole segment was a debate win for Obama and a loss for Romney. Not sure how it'll affect the election, as I believe there aren't really any "undecideds" left in the country, but in the debate alone that segment was a point for Obama.

The president fumbling around while trying to name more than two types of vessels didn't come across as a real strong point to me. As a lawyer, I have considerable language-parsing skill, so I know I'm right.

[kccougar]

I'm happy for Tim that he thinks Obama won on that point. It was a clever parsing of words, and I guess you could applaud the guy for that. Meanwhile he lost Virginia and Ohio is trending the same direction.

But he had a clever line!

[old_gregg]

a large navy, particularly the aircraft carrier fleet, is not just a tool of warfare. it's a tool of diplomacy: how many times has a carrier group been deployed to the persian gulf during rising tensions? obviously a navy isn't as important today in the sense that we need a strategic location from which to fire artillery, but the bayonet comparison is stupid.

[ERCougar]

That's terrible parsing of language. But you're lucky, buster, since nobody expects doctors to be competent at parsing language.

Eh..I never claimed to be one of the good ones anyway.

[All-American]

From this debate, what may help Romney in Ohio more than anything is the discussion of Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed. Obama claims Romney said something he didn't. I'd expect that to get more coverage in the Midwest in the next couple days than it got on CNN last night.

Romney's actual position will get a little more play, and some will realize that he did not actually advocate for the liquidation of the auto industry - that his recommendations were aimed at saving the industry.

Also, do people remember that Bush is the one that started the auto bailout? Obama merely doubled down on Bush's policy (who is more like Bush?) of sending good taxpayer money after bad corporate management. Oh and then it ended up in the bankruptcy process that Romney recommended from the start.

The best way you can tell that this is what would help Romney is the fact that it isn't happening. It is the one thing that both candidates explicitly asked to submit to fact-checkers. Discussion is absent. Go figure.

[myboynoah]

How could that line possibly look bad for Obama? Romney looked like an uneducated fool in that whole topic. He kept talking about number of ships and planes as if any reasonable person would think that the way to win a modern war is to have more boats. Obama talked about providing the military staff with the budget that they asked for, not 2 trillion more than they asked for like Romney would prefer they be given. That will resonate with people. Finally, Romney's statement that Syria is Iran's access to the sea shows that he didn't really prepare very well for that segment. Obama looked presidential -- Romney looked like he was grasping at straws.

Obviously I see it differently. I think the bayonets and horses quip, along with this assholish response on aircraft carriers and submarines will hurt Obama. I'm sure it's making true Obamaniacs happy, but those folks are in his corner already.

Plus, noting aircraft carriers and submarines seems odd while claiming Rmoney is focused on the 80s. Those are strategic weapons that have been adapted to today's war on terrorism (can we call it that?), submarines in particular, originally aimed at countering a strategic threat (the old Soviet Union). It would seem the nature of the threat to our interests that we face today (disparate groups in disparate parts of the world like various Al Qaida groups and even Somali pirates) would require more assets to keep the sea lanes open, not fewer. Obama appears to be the one focused on the 80s.

Equating naval vessels with horses is kicking Obama in the butt.

[YOhio]

Where is USS Utah? He is big into naval history and strategy. I bet he would have some interesting and enlightening thoughts on the topic, which would be nice because there aren't many here who do. S, JBH.

[beefytee]

It would've been a good point if he had used 1980 or 1960 -- but then again the number of ships now is greater than it was in those years.

Ummm. NO

1916 (The last time we had less until 2007) - 245
1917 - 342
1960 - 812
1980 - 530
2011 - 285

And that seems to include those ships you land planes on and that go under water.


http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Wow, you sure did skew those words pretty conveniently! His comparison was incredible from a language perspective! Romney says we have fewer ships than we did in 1917. Obama counters that we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we did then, because the face of warfare has changed. It was fantastic debate language and it shut Romney down -- if he wanted to make a point he should've used a date more recent than 95 years ago. It would've been a good point if he had used 1980 or 1960 -- but then again the number of ships now is greater than it was in those years.

Aren't you an attorney? A good attorney should be able to parse language far more easily than you do -- it's like thread after thread you make the same comprehension mistakes. Maybe you're not one of the good attorneys... who knows?

Our soldiers also had guns in 1917 along with horses and bayonets. Does our military still need guns? I suppose if Romney also pointed out that people ate more vegetables in 1917 (I realize this is probably not true, I'm just making a point) than they do now and we need more vegetables and then Obama retorted that people in 1917 also ate more lard due to lack of nutritional knowledge then you would also think that was a grand slam for Obama.

We don't use horses because of mechanization. Bayonets are rarely used because there's little hand to hand combat now. What do the obsolescence of horses and bayonets have to do with the navy? Have we all of a sudden figured out a different way to ship massive amounts of fuel, supplies, machinery, etc. around the world and no one noticed? You've shown your willful ignorance once again.

Tim is the Julie Stoffer of CUF. He was just blinded by his faith growing up and he's now apparently seen the light at the dailykos.

[Tim]

We don't use horses because of mechanization. Bayonets are rarely used because there's little hand to hand combat now. What do the obsolescence of horses and bayonets have to do with the navy? Have we all of a sudden figured out a different way to ship massive amounts of fuel, supplies, machinery, etc. around the world and no one noticed? You've shown your willful ignorance once again.

Willful ignorance? How is that even possible? Struggling with words again? Ignorance can't exist willfully. Stop using terms that you don't understanding, friend.

Regarding your daily hissy-fit: You're so bitter that you're inventing alternate realities, CMBF. You'll stop at nothing to watch these people fail, even if it's meant a complete shaming of your reputation as an intelligent person who's capable of clarity. Talk about losing your way in life!

Regarding the topic at hand: Do you really think that the sheer NUMBER of ships, and not the role or task of each ship, is what is really important, then you're really fooling yourself. Who cares if we have fewer ships if the ones we do have are better than the ones we've ever had in the past? Who cares if we have fewer ships if the ones that have been made recently have specifically been built to replace multiple aging ones? Do you REALLY, honestly, truly think that the NUMBER of ships is the only thing that matters? Please tell me you're not that simple-minded.

[Tim]

Oh, NOW it makes sense why Romney is so dead-set on having more ships even if the Navy isn't asking for it: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...-romneys-navy/

I shouldn't be so surprised. What a corruption machine this guy is carrying with him, though!