Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News USA Final 2012 Presidential Debate (#3) Observations

  1. Oct 22, 2012 #1


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    'Guess I'll start the thread for this one too.

    Use this thread for commentary on the 3rd (final) Presidential Debate. It starts at 9PM EDT Oct 22nd. Please keep debate of issues to a minimum and focus on observations relevant to the debate itself.

    Have a nice day :)

    I'll be watching it streaming from here http://abcnews.go.com/live. There are numerous other sources on the Internet that one can stream the debate too.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 22, 2012 #2


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Tonight's debate snacks include,
    • Tuna salad sandwich on "hoagie" roll.
    • 1/3 of a large bag of barbeque potato chips (with ridges).
    • Ramen noodles.
    The semi-traditional, presidential burrito has been cancelled due to traditional heartburn.

    The soft, cushy projectiles are armed and ready. :smile:
  4. Oct 22, 2012 #3

    Leftover meatloaf, s'mores and pepsi.

    I promise to try and sit through the whole debate, which I was unable to do the first two times. I will fail at this, but at least I will try.
  5. Oct 22, 2012 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I've been really busy so I haven't been listening to pundits much lately, so I don't know what they're saying about it. But it seems to me, given the tight race and late date, their biggest threat is to themselves - "First, do no harm!" There's very little time to make up for any serious stumble, so I bet both will be pretty cautious.
  6. Oct 22, 2012 #5
    I disagree in part. With how close this election is, whoever wins this debate could very likely turn into our next president, they both need to win in the worst kind of way. I expect them to throw caution to the wind.

    Although, I could very well be wrong.
  7. Oct 22, 2012 #6
    Romney coming out as stronger considering body language and voice.

    Romney wants to destabilize region or whole world by helping Israel attack Syria.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
  8. Oct 22, 2012 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Just watched an up and coming zombie killing movie, in preparation for tonight's discussion.

    That is all, for the moment...
  9. Oct 22, 2012 #8
    Why are they talking about domestic policy?
  10. Oct 22, 2012 #9
    Romney is losing badly IMO.
  11. Oct 22, 2012 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They might as well talk about football for all of the information their sharing....

    it's going something like..
    "We have placed nasty sanctions against Iran."
    "But i'll place super duper nasty sanctions against Iran."

  12. Oct 22, 2012 #11
    This is his weakest area so it is better to not lose horribly and at least come out without too much damage. It is much better to be overly cautious than make horrendous errors, although the 1916 navy remark was not a good point in my opinion.
  13. Oct 22, 2012 #12
    I am puzzled by the amount of times Israel was brought up.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
  14. Oct 22, 2012 #13
    Drone question was asked, and Mitt Romney did not bring up the fact that Obama did some serious drone strikes resulting in the deaths of many civilians and a drone strike on a U.S. civilian:


    Come on Romney, you should have done some research! This would have definitely netted you some points among progressives. Instead he agreed with the president. I am calling it, Obama won this debate. Throw in the white towel.
  15. Oct 22, 2012 #14
    I loved the bit about bayonets and horses and "this isn't a game of Battleship."
  16. Oct 22, 2012 #15
    Obama won the debate, and he also succeeded in making a connection to domestic, economic policy that I think Romney failed to do properly. Romney, as in the last debate, had some good moments, but most of them were flat out lies.

    The "Apology Tour" comment was handled well by Obama, especially when he mentioned going to a Holocaust memorial in Israel.

    The "Smallest Navy" comment was pretty much wiped off the board with Obama's zinger about Battleship.

    Romney's repeated assertions that "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon" lost its bite. It came across as desperate, especially after the first few times he said it and Obama knocking it down each time.

    Today was not a good night for Romney. Luckily for Romney, a bad night on foreign policy is not that bad of a night in this election.
  17. Oct 22, 2012 #16
    I completely agree. In fact I think several of his 'sayings' have lost their bite, though I'd say the same to Obama.
  18. Oct 22, 2012 #17
    Obama was wrong on the status of forces agreement and also on his claim that Romney was not for federal help for the auto companies as part of his bankruptcy plan: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0 Romney says at the end:

    IMO, that was rather petty and something that should have been a quite easy counter for Romney. Obama was implying that these are modern times, and thus it is okay for the Navy to be as small as it is, because we don't fight wars in the way that we used to and have much more advanced technology now, and therefore can get by with a smaller Navy. That reminds me of the Vietnam War, when it was decided that these are modern times, and modern fighter planes don't dog fight anymore, so therefore, no machine guns need be on them. The result was our fighter planes initially (F4 Phantoms) then began getting into fights with North Vietnamese fighters, where they very much needed a machine gun (later F4s were equipped with them).

    The idea that these are modern times, and thus X form of warfare is a thing of the past and Y form of weapon system is no longer needed, is incredibly dangerous reasoning, as nobody knows what the future requirements will be. Compare 1982 to 2012. Now go twenty, thirty years into the future. We could find that we seriously regret having shrank the Navy. No, we don't need a Cold War-sized Navy, but we shouldn't have a tiny one either.
  19. Oct 22, 2012 #18
    Who said we should have a "tiny" Navy? And who do you think is going to attack us such that we need more than eleven carrier battle groups? Russia and China each have, what, one carrier battle group?

    This is the problem I have with people who try to scare others about having a "weak military". We could cut our military by 50% and still have the most powerful arsenal on the planet. Plus we will always have nuclear weapons, which renders any conventional attack by any threat on the planet moot.
  20. Oct 22, 2012 #19
    Yet, America has 13X the tonnage in the sea then any other country. If our navy is small, that makes every other nations teeny tiny. Most of the countries with a top 10 navy are our allies.

    In reality, America's navy could fight a half decent fight against the rest of the world's navy combined. We would lose, but we would give them a run for their money.


    Edit: actually I'm not even sure we would lose
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2012
  21. Oct 22, 2012 #20
    Our current Navy is tiny by historical standards, and Obama was making the argument that this size is okay, that these are modern times, and just as we have fewer bayonets and horses today, we also have fewer ships (as if to say that we can get by with this level of ships just fine). My point is that line of reasoning can be dangerous as no one knows with any certainty what the future requirements will be for our military.

    As for who will attack us, I am not claiming any one will attack us, I am saying that the geopolitical situation could get to a point where a conflict could occur that requires a larger navy than we have now.

    If you are talking purely defensive purposes, as in defending the homeland of the U.S., then yes, the U.S. could cut its military by 50% and still have the most powerful. But in terms of power projection capability or the ability to underwrite global trade and security as our military does now, cutting it by that amount would be devastating.

    That's another area Obama was over-simplifying as I see it. He said that we spend more on defense than the next ten nations combined. That's because the next ten nations combined barely spend anything. No nation, aside from the U.S., has any real power projection capability, the only exception being the United Kingdom and even they, now, would have a hard time pulling off something like the Falklands War again.

    There are two definitions of "weak" regarding the U.S. military:

    1) Is the military strong enough to protect the U.S. itself from attacks by foreign countries or invasion

    2) Is the military strong enough to do its job of being the anchor that maintains global peace and security

    On nuclear weapons, that's fine for defending the homeland, but the issue of U.S. security is more complex than just defending the physical U.S. homeland. We aren't just talking American security, we're talking the security of the free world.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook