Obama v. Romney Debate Thread, Part III

[Uncle Ted]

It's turning into a negative with conservatives, perhaps, but not with people taking the debate at face value. Obama nailed Romney on that -- this isn't a game of Battleship. Romney is unprepared to lead the military because he doesn't have the basic understanding of modern warfare. He looked like a sweaty amateur up there trying to play with the big boys.

I thought liberals believe the ocean is getting bigger because of global warming climate change. The republicans are taking the democrats word for it and now believe that more ocean requires more ships.

[Moliere]

DJ @illinimarine7
Mr Obama. Im a US Marine. Im trained with a bayonet. It is a vital tool in close quarter combat. You sir, have no idea what we do. Nice CIC
Retweeted by Hugh Hewitt

...

[Eddie]

That doesn't make sense. Why would you do that?

I guess it was just in terms of thinking "undecided...right..." (in my best Bill Cosby).

People like who they like. They may attempt to be objective if they have told folks they are undecided. But what they focus on gives away their bias. And I see the same thing here. I'm not saying it is good or bad - and is probably more a reflection on the focus groups than on posters here.

In fact - that is probably more of what happened. In reading posts I was also thinking of the "undecided" focus group members. And some of the stuff posted here seemed similar, seemed to echo what many of them are saying.

It was just an interesting insight in my own mind.

[Uncle Ted]

Technology has partially negated the need for things like tanks and sheer manpower, but not ships at sea.

Yes, something has to launch all these drones to kill the citizens of the world (including Americans).

[SCcoug]

This look is priceless.

[YOUTUBE]6URuvgL2CKA[/YOUTUBE]

[Jeff Lebowski]

I guess it was just in terms of thinking "undecided...right..." (in my best Bill Cosby).

People like who they like. They may attempt to be objective if they have told folks they are undecided. But what they focus on gives away their bias. And I see the same thing here. I'm not saying it is good or bad - and is probably more a reflection on the focus groups than on posters here.

In fact - that is probably more of what happened. In reading posts I was also thinking of the "undecided" focus group members. And some of the stuff posted here seemed similar, seemed to echo what many of them are saying.

It was just an interesting insight in my own mind.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that we are a largely a group of undecided voters.

[SCcoug]

Interesting timing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=new-york

[Portland Ute]

[quote=kccougar;902627]

Kind of seems to me that ships might be very useful for that kind of thing.

Yes. Ships that go under the water! And ships that carry airplanes! Obama made allowances for these kinds of ships! Just not bayonets and horses.

Of course technology has changed modern warfare. I guess we could rely on our improved missle defense shields....assuming Russia doesn't take up Obama on his "flexibility" after the election.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Based on my limited sample of undecided voters, more than a few of them are naive about negativity in politics and like the attention that undecideds receive.

Left, right, and center, they seem politically immature.

[All-American]

Based on my limited sample of undecided voters, more than a few of them are naive about negativity in politics and like the attention that undecideds receive.

Left, right, and center, they seem politically immature.

It is a stinging indictment of mankind, I think, that the best system of government which we can conceive places all power in the hands of a few undecided voters in Ohio.

[Portland Ute]

It is a stinging indictment of mankind, I think, that the best system of government which we can conceive places all power in the hands of a few undecided voters in Ohio.

I know that's a popular view and I understand it, but it really not true.

The voters in Utah or California or Texas all have as much influence. Those states are firmly in one camp or the other. They have as much influence on the outcome of the election as Ohio. Without those votes in the electoral college, Ohio doesn't even matter.

[Flystripper]

It is a stinging indictment of mankind, I think, that the best system of government which we can conceive places all power in the hands of a few undecided voters in Ohio.

Mankind? Really?

This might deserve a Lebowski "Oh Brother"

[jay santos]

It is a stinging indictment of mankind, I think, that the best system of government which we can conceive places all power in the hands of a few undecided voters in Ohio.

False.

The nation has decided collectively that either of these guys will do just fine, and it doesn't matter much which of the two it is.

If it were Hitler vs Romney, it wouldn't go down to undecided voters in Ohio, right?

[Pelado]

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.

[Tim]

You're clueless and the polls and final results will reflect that. I look forward to Obama defending his decisiveness towards the navy. And when we're talking about the navy and its necessity and function, I'll take John McCain's word for it over Barack "The navy is just a bunch of horses and bayonets" Obama.

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?