All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Debate 3 = Foreign Policy
10/23/2012 12:52 AM
CBS  53 Obama  23 Romney  24 Tied
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/23/2012 6:51 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/22/2012 11:11:00 PM (view original):
plus "fewer horses and bayonets, too..."

If this Obama had showed up for the first debate it would not even be close. But I doubt that many people are paying attention to this one.

Funny as i thought it was that line will cost Obama the naval state of Virginia. Watch the republicans spin that line in Virginia ads this week as 'Obama hates the navy'. Won't be hard to do.
10/23/2012 7:35 AM
Posted by moy23 on 10/23/2012 6:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/22/2012 11:11:00 PM (view original):
plus "fewer horses and bayonets, too..."

If this Obama had showed up for the first debate it would not even be close. But I doubt that many people are paying attention to this one.

Funny as i thought it was that line will cost Obama the naval state of Virginia. Watch the republicans spin that line in Virginia ads this week as 'Obama hates the navy'. Won't be hard to do.
But he followed it up with carriers and subs as part of a modern navy. The R's can only spin it if they lie....

Romney's metric of counting ships and ignoring the capabilities of a modern navy is laughable. Imagine the firepower of one carrier group today compared to the fleets of WW II.

Either Romney has terrible advisers and writers, or he trusts too much in his own abilities to think on the fly. He made the 1916 reference earlier in the week and was foolish to bring it back up in this debate. And again, Romney is asking for money that the Pentagon is not even requesting. That would suggest that the Industrial part of Ike's warning about the I-M Complex is even stronger.

10/23/2012 7:53 AM
The CNN Breaking News email:

The final CNN/ORC post-debate poll shows 48% of respondents who watched the third presidential debate thought President Barack Obama won the event, compared to 40% who thought Mitt Romney won.

The president's eight-point advantage came among a debate audience that was slightly more Republican than the country as a whole. The survey had a sampling error of +/- 4.5%. The poll was conducted Monday night at the conclusion of the debate, held at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida.

However, the survey also indicates that the debate may have little impact on the choice of registered voters on Election Day. Of watchers, 24% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Obama; 25% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney; and 50% said the debate didn’t make a difference.

When asked whether Obama or Romney could handle the responsibilities of commander in chief, 63% said Obama could handle the duties and 60 % said Romney could handle the duties.

Nearly six in 10 debate watchers said that Obama did a better job than expected; 44% said that that Romney had done better than expected.

When asked which candidate was more likeable, respondents were split, with 48% saying Obama and 47% saying Romney.

Bottom line, early poll analysys indicates that last night's debate has little to no impact on the election.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/23/2012 8:13 AM
Obama's act is good on Letterman.   Not so much on the world stage. 
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/23/2012 8:28 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2012 11:13:00 PM (view original):
I liked when Bob Schieffer referred to "Obama Bin Laden".

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me go to Governor Romney because you talked about Pakistan and what needs to be done there.

General Allen, our commander in Afghanistan, says that Americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are supported by Pakistan. We know that Pakistan has arrested the doctor who helped us catch Obama (sic) bin Laden. It still provides safe haven for terrorists, yet we continue to give Pakistan billions of dollars.

Is it time for us to divorce Pakistan?

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/23/2012 9:08 AM
He's attempting to do that.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/23/2012 6:07 PM
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/23/2012 7:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 10/23/2012 6:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/22/2012 11:11:00 PM (view original):
plus "fewer horses and bayonets, too..."

If this Obama had showed up for the first debate it would not even be close. But I doubt that many people are paying attention to this one.

Funny as i thought it was that line will cost Obama the naval state of Virginia. Watch the republicans spin that line in Virginia ads this week as 'Obama hates the navy'. Won't be hard to do.
But he followed it up with carriers and subs as part of a modern navy. The R's can only spin it if they lie....

Romney's metric of counting ships and ignoring the capabilities of a modern navy is laughable. Imagine the firepower of one carrier group today compared to the fleets of WW II.

Either Romney has terrible advisers and writers, or he trusts too much in his own abilities to think on the fly. He made the 1916 reference earlier in the week and was foolish to bring it back up in this debate. And again, Romney is asking for money that the Pentagon is not even requesting. That would suggest that the Industrial part of Ike's warning about the I-M Complex is even stronger.

Unless of course you actually remember what Romney said directly BEFORE his count. He said "The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me."

So it was a funny comment, sure, but the reply of  "... the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships", isn't really a good answer unless you believe that the Navy is uninformed and doesn't really know what it needs.

10/23/2012 6:11 PM
All in all I'll tend to trust the guy actually communicating regularly with the Joint Chiefs about what the Navy thinks it needs over the outsider's assertions, but that's just me...
10/23/2012 6:50 PM (edited)
Posted by dahsdebater on 10/23/2012 6:11:00 PM (view original):
All in all I'll tend to trust the guy actually communicating regularly with the Joint Chiefs about what the Navy thinks it needs over the outsider's assertions, but that's just me...
Because Obama has such a history of valuing the opinion of the guys on the ground, and in the trenches? Or because you just want to?

I didn't realize "what the Navy needs" was a point of contention.


EDIT:

This is what I could find concerning the validity of the 313 claim:

From CNN

"His assertion that 313 ships are required for a fully operational Navy uses an outdated figure – Navy Secretary Ray Mabus dropped the number to 300 ships in April".

So while the number came down in April, we are still below that number and headed even lower. Also pretty sure the Navy is aware that they have Air Craft Carriers and Nuclear Submarines when they released that figure in April.
of 6
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Debate 3 = Foreign Policy

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.