US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Romney wins, it would be one of the campaigns studied by political wonks for generations. Fecking Mister 47%.
 
'The 80's called and they want their foreign policy back' :lol: Smooth as feck from Obama, thought he won this comfortably.
 
Repubs seem to be actually trying to turn that "horses and bayonets" comment against Obama. There is no universe in which that has a hope of working.

...right?
 
MJS, who won?

Obama won but did anyone expect anything else? He is the incumbent President with four years being the leader of the free world behind him. It would be a pretty poor showing if he wasn't well versed on foreign policy by now. Truth of the matter is no one cares about that debate and it will most likely have zero impact on the election.
 
Repubs seem to be actually trying to turn that "horses and bayonets" comment against Obama. There is no universe in which that has a hope of working.

...right?

they are crying because the President was rightly dimissive of Romney.

just think about this clown handling an international crisis. He will let his FP advisers take charge...most of whom are Bush people.

We have seen this movie before.

Fortunately it looks like the President has a better chance of winiing this election.
 
Obama won but did anyone expect anything else? He is the incumbent President with four years being the leader of the free world behind him. It would be a pretty poor showing if he wasn't well versed on foreign policy by now. Truth of the matter is no one cares about that debate and it will most likely have zero impact on the election.

He did the same to McCain before he was President as well.
 
Repubs seem to be actually trying to turn that "horses and bayonets" comment against Obama. There is no universe in which that has a hope of working.

...right?

I'm in an FB discussion with a friend-of-a-friend who has made the claim that Obama is making us weaker, is for reducing the budget, and that his comment about horses and bayonets was untrue, because we still use both of those in Afghanistan. (Me: "So you're saying we have MORE horses and bayonets than we did in WWI?")

Others pressed him for specifics and after 20 minutes during which he said he was "working on it", he comes back with the budget sequester.

At this point I can only conclude that being a Republican requires you to inculcate yourself in the total abnegation of logic.
 
He did the same to McCain before he was President as well.

And McCain was POTUS when?

Obama is a lawyer, he should be able to handle himself well in debate scenarios. He is also a very intelligent, well read articulate guy. I don't think too many politicians, current or past, would be able to get the better of him.
 
And McCain was POTUS when?

Obama is a lawyer, he should be able to handle himself well in debate scenarios. He is also a very intelligent, well read articulate guy. I don't think too many politicians, current or past, would be able to get the better of him.

That's besides the point.

McCain has been in Congress for ages and is a ranking member of the armed services committee. Most in Congress have access to the gamut of classified briefings that go into great detail, and McCain in his Senate ranking was definitely among them, and Obama, a junior Senator, managed to soundly defeat him. Therefore it doesn't matter if someone is a sitting President or not, since most Senators have some experience with foreign affairs through their committee memberships.
 
Intelligent, well read, articulate. Able to think on his feet (handle himself in a debate scenario). All useful attributes for a President, I would have thought. American electorate, please take note.

If those were qualities the electorate appreciated, then the race wouldn't be as close as it is.
 
And McCain was POTUS when?

Obama is a lawyer, he should be able to handle himself well in debate scenarios. He is also a very intelligent, well read articulate guy. I don't think too many politicians, current or past, would be able to get the better of him.

Mitt Romney also has a law degree from Harvard Law School, as far as I know Obama only practised law for a few years before changing careers.

Romney has also been groomed into politics from a young age, he should be the one dominating debates.

Last night his plan was to be Obama light (as in skin colour, because he was basically agreeing with everything Obama said)
 
Last night his plan was to be Obama light (as in skin colour, because he was basically agreeing with everything Obama said)

That may have been a plan or more likely foreign policy will not deviate too much between Presidents. Its the interests of the US that are at stake, and those do not change too much.

Foreign policy is of no interest to the electorate this year. Its not much of an issue any election but the problems at home are dominating peoples minds this year.
 
Whilst it won't shift the polls anywhere close to the amount the first debate did, even a 1 point swing to Obama would shore up the win for him right now. Possible?
 
Ann Coulter called Obama a "retard" on twitter last night, apparently. Nice.

Loved it when Chris Rock on the Bill Maher show asked if she was fecking Pres Bush.

Thing is, are these far-wing personalities really batshit crazy or do they do it to reap the cash rewards?

Or perhaps both in some personalities.
 
It's a extraordinarily idiotic argument. An aircraft carrier (of which the US have 11) counts the same as a tiny gunboat by that logic.

The US have a navy stronger than the next 13 countries combined, they have 71 nuclear powered submarines - more than the rest of the world combined - and no country in the world has even one comparable ship to their eleven aircraft carriers. How paranoid can you get?
 
Whilst it won't shift the polls anywhere close to the amount the first debate did, even a 1 point swing to Obama would shore up the win for him right now. Possible?

I doubt the debate will move the polls much, if at all. No one cares about foreign policy. The damage was done for Obama in debate one. It made Romney, previously considered an unelectable clown (and he still is TBH) look 'Presidential'. That is all many undecideds needed to considering voting GOP.

What you have to understand is the majority of Americans are not in favor of increased spending (unless its military spending) or increasing government involvement in their life's. It just goes against the grain over here. Obamacase is the wrong plan and the wrong time, its a vote loser..
 
It's a extraordinarily idiotic argument. An aircraft carrier (of which the US have 11) counts the same as a tiny gunboat by that logic.

The US have a navy stronger than the next 13 countries combined, they have 71 nuclear powered submarines - more than the rest of the world combined - and no country in the world has even one comparable ship to their eleven aircraft carriers. How paranoid can you get?

It really is time to shrink the military substantially. Eleven carriers is ridiculous, seven is more than enough to meet the current needs. Just leave them at sea longer and rotate crew off.
 
The next carrier, the JFK, will only cost 12 billion. Romney wants to add another. Nothing to do with his top naval adviser being heavily invested in shipyards and support services that will make millions from an expansion of the naval shipbuilding program.
 
US military strategy is to increase its focus in the Pacific and southern Atlantic right, as well as the two polar regions .

Whilst that may allow for a reduction in some unit types it will also necessitate reforms and equipment replacement in time, not a cheap undertaking.

In theory it should encourage alliances.


Ironically enough though, the British had more submarines during WW1 than we do today.
 
Not many interesting polls today..

Gallup still +5 Romney
ARG +2 NH Romney
ARG +2 Neveda Obama
Rasm +5 Minnesota Obama
 
Caption Competition!

03b14166-05ec-446a-b468-d10f0cce8ca2-460.jpeg


Off you go...
 
It really is time to shrink the military substantially. Eleven carriers is ridiculous, seven is more than enough to meet the current needs. Just leave them at sea longer and rotate crew off.

Are any of the Nimitz-class carriers scheduled to be decommissioned? Because I know the Enterprise is being decommissioned this year, we've got the 10 active Nimitz-class carriers, and I know there's 3 of the Ford-class ships planned. So if the Nimitz-es aren't retired, that'll be 13.
 
Romney might not count them in the same way but unlike the RN the USN are still operating harriers off their amphib assault ships.

You've still got eight of them in active service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.