VP debate

[Pointedstick]

Happening right now! Reub should be happy about the opening question.

Thoughts?

[moda0306]

The Iran sanctions are devastating.  Great use of soft-power, though I'm not sure how this game of cluster-chess will play out.

Now that I'm interested in hyperinflations, it's fun to actually see another one happen, especially when it proves the point that it's a hell of a lot more about non-monetary forces than some give it credit for.... though I have a love-hate relationship with having my assumptions thrown into a loop, so I'm a bit disappointed Japan isn't hyperinflating or that rich Americans aren't building societies in Wyoming to avoid taxes and regulation.

I'm beyond caring too much about who gets elected.  I've almost decided to quit voting, though I would be disgusted with that thought 4 years ago.  I like the HB approach of trying to control what you can, and if you have to have a "cause," make sure it actually improves your happiness by engaging with people that enrich your life.  Don't count on actually being able to change society and making yourself feel worse over not being able to do the impossible.

[Pointedstick]

It was fun to watch both Biden and Ryan try to avoid admitting that the sanctions are destroying Iran.

I'm watching it purely for the entertainment value. It's amusing to count how many times they tell the truth.  Each of them has done it several times! I'm impressed.

[Storm]

Here's a very relevant story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 54912.html

[clacy]

Yawn.... Both sides had their moments and neither made any big gaffs. No one is going to vote for Obama because of Biden. He's a known quantity. If Ryan woe have made mistakes he could have cost Romney but that didn't happen.

I say it didn't move the needle one bit.

[Pointedstick]

What made the biggest impression on me was the incredible degree of similarity between the two candidates on many issues, especially foreign policy. When pressed on the differences between what Obama did and what Romney would have done, Ryan mostly said things to the effect of, "well, Romney would have been more manly about it! He wouldn't have contradicted himself!" He had to admit that Romney would be doing basically the same things that Obama did. And on the subject of Iran seeking nuclear weapons, the two candidates apparently have identical positions, but Biden couldn't admit that having a "red line" necessarily requires the threat of military force.

[FarmerD]

Here's a very relevant story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 54912.html

I don't think it's relevant.  Out of $2B earmarked for the State Dept Worldwide Security Protection Program, the State Dept couldn't scrape up enough money for even a handful of security guards?  Do you really think the extra 1% Republicans cut would have made any difference?

The State Dept is just like the military - they screw around wasting half their budget on stupid extraneous crap while shortchanging security measures that should be the focus of their mission.  

[MediumTex]

I think that fans of either person probably thought his guy did the best.

It was mildly entertaining. 

I think that Ryan looks like a vampire.

[Tyler]

If you're a Republican, you thought Ryan won.  If you're a Democrat, you thought Biden won.  If you're an independent swing voter not up to date on detailed foreign policy issues, the main takeaway is that Biden is an insufferably rude douche. 

Advantage Ryan. 

[Storm]

If you're a Republican, you thought Ryan won.  If you're a Democrat, you thought Biden won.  If you're an independent swing voter not up to date on detailed foreign policy issues, the main takeaway is that Biden is an insufferably rude douche. 

Advantage Ryan. 

Admittedly, he could have done less smirking, but when you're presented with a guy playing fast and loose with the facts, you need to interrupt him and call him on his flat out lies.  "That's a bunch of malarkey" might sound rude, but to be honest, we needed some of that from Obama during the first debate and he was far too civil.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and tell it the way it is.  Joe might not be very tactful, but he did what was needed.

[MachineGhost]

Happening right now! Reub should be happy about the opening question.

Thoughts?

As with the first debate where I mised the first half hour, I quit watching after an hour and went to bed, missing the last half hour.  It was centrist Coke vs Pepsi.  Two observations, though.

1. Akin to Obama in the first debate, Biden made it much more clear by his mannerism's that he thinks Ryan and the Republicans are full of shit.  That's not hard to understand given their lack of specifics and lack of "man on top" information that Obama is privvy to.  But a Tea Party spokesman (Archer?) considered it arrogant, disrespectful, job self-preservation and that Democrats always think and act as if they are morally and intellectually superior.  I can see that as well.

2. Both sides seemed to be talking at each other, but not to each other.  It was all talking points to pander to the rank-and-file ideaologues, not any constructive dialogue.  Yet, at least Ryan tried to explain their bipartisan policy approach more despite Biden's constant interruptions.

Other than Obama and McCain once, this is the first election where I've actively followed all debates.  If we had debates on here like that debate last night, it wouldn't even be worth coming here to read.  What a joke.

[2thefuture]

A debate is a formal exchange. Biden was rude. He needed to listen, let the other's ideals be expressed, and speak when it is his time. He made the debate a bar room yelling match.

[Bean]

Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... n-82-Times

[Pointedstick]

Isn't what what the Democrats were looking for, though? Obama was widely criticized for not being aggressive enough in his debate with Romney. Looks like they might have been overcompensating by having Biden play attack dog. Probably better he be seen as rude and arrogant than the Prez, I suppose.

[Storm]

Isn't what what the Democrats were looking for, though? Obama was widely criticized for not being aggressive enough in his debate with Romney. Looks like they might have been overcompensating by having Biden play attack dog. Probably better he be seen as rude and arrogant than the Prez, I suppose.

Exactly.  If Biden hadn't done this, Breitbart would be claiming that Ryan steamrolled him.  You can always count on the right wing media to call it a win no matter what.  If Biden was polite, he would be considered too timid.  If he is strong, he's considered too aggressive.

[Tyler]

The purpose of a televised debate is not to win accolades from partisan media.  It's to win over swing voters by allowing them to see you without a filter.  

I actually think Biden did pretty well on the arguments (other than his laughable excuses for Libya and outright lie about his own votes on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). But in a situation of he-said-she-said, it ultimately comes down to who you trust more.  And early polls show that Biden's attitude turned off viewers. So I'm not sure what he accomplished other than to high-five the people already voting for him.  

[Mountaineer]

My take:

Biden - rude, disrespectful, fake smiles, fake smirks, apparent intent to pull "facts" from his behind and sound smart, seemed extremely unprofessional - most Little League coaches display better leadership qualities.  I am mystified how Biden can say that his personal faith believes life begins at conception but he supports a woman's right to choose death for the innocent unborn and he is OK with that - sounds like he is condoning murder on one hand but life on the other - trying to get votes from those who believe differently than himself????

Full disclosure: I lived in Delaware for a long time and have had many opportunities to see/hear Biden over the years; he is a complete boob and an embarrassment to anyone who sees the real lack of character that hides beneath the showtime fluff.  Thus, I am biased based on my previous experiences with him.  Last night was more of his same blow hard behavior.

Ryan - polite, respectful, listened attentitively to Biden's blowing, did not go for the jugular several times when the opportunity presented itself, much better awareness and command of foreign policy that I expected.

Bottom line - vote Obama/Biden if you want those who play to the crowd, do not have firm principles or solid character, and care more for themselves than their fellow man; vote Romney/Ryan if you want leadership based on principles and solid character and by their records, care more about helping all our fellow humans and protecting our right to freedom and are not proponents of situational ethics.  The VP debate just continued to emphasize the differences between the two sets of candidates.  But above all, exercise your priviledge and responsibility to vote!

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

I'm curious to know what command of foreign policy you saw. Ryan seemed to indicate that Romney would have taken the same action as Obama in every major foreign policy area that was brought up. The differences he described amounted to minor details such as meeting more with such and such person, or working more closely with this or that agency, or alienating Russia more. To me, it came off as petulant nit-picking, especially because when really pressed, he admitted that Romney would also pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by 2014, would also use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, also endorses the use of harsh, economy-destroying sanctions to prevent that from becoming necessary, and also does not favor intervention in Syria's conflict.

[WildAboutHarry]

[Romney] would also use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,

I believe Romney would use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  The incumbent, not so much.

[Pointedstick]

I think Obama would too, he just wouldn't be as enthusiastic and gung-ho about it. He might have to be dragged into it or let Israel take the lead. Maybe this kind of thing is what riles up Republicans so much, but if the result is the same, (as I suspect it would be), than what''s the big difference? Style? Motivation?

[Tyler]

Leadership.

[Pointedstick]

What does that mean, though? What use do I have for "leadership" if I get the same results from the guy who supposedly doesn't have any? What benefit am I receiving by being led?

Maybe it's a Libertarian thing. I really just don't feel any need to have a strong leader at the top of my social hierarchy.

[Tyler]

I'm also a libertarian on social and economic issues. But for me, dealing with terrorists and nuclear-armed dictators is one area where I appreciate having a strong and serious leader actively looking out for my best interests.  

Laughing on camera while talking about Iran and throwing your own intelligence organization under the bus in the rush to blame a YouTube video for the assasination of an ambassador isn't a libertarian position.  It's a dangerous dismissal of a very serious situation. 

[doodle]

Biden came across as a clown in my opinion...I know he holds no power in the present admin. but his goofy smiles made me uneasy to vote for them again. I don't like my leaders smirking and smiling when topics like Afghanistan and Iraq are being discussed. It gives me an uneasy feeling that this is all a big joke.

Romney and Ryan seem like a much more competent pair than Obama and Biden and I agree with them on a lot of issues, but their party is so loony that I would have to hold back the gag reflex to vote for them.

If conservatives would live up to their name and attempt to "conserve" other things than the most perverted outcomes of a capitalist economic system gone wild, then they might pull me under their tent. I want to see less mention of "belief and faith" in their party and more deference to hard science. I want to see a concern for environmental issues, less war drum beating, and a more cooperative and less beligerent international policy.

[Pointedstick]

I'm also a libertarian on social and economic issues. But for me, dealing with terrorists and nuclear-armed dictators is one area where I appreciate having a strong and serious leader actively looking out for my best interests. 

I have a hard time understanding how belligerently threatening war with a country that's claimed to be trying to acquire nuclear arms is in my best interest. There are several scary dangerous states out there with WMDs, like North Korea, Pakistan, and China. I'm not very scared of them, and I have to admit I'm not very scared of the possibility of Iran joining that dubious club. The principle of mutually assured destruction pretty much ensures that nobody can use their nukes. It's actually a fairly stable system. Even psychopathic nuclear-armed murderers like Stalin had enough self-preservation to avoid triggering a nuclear war that would have destroyed his kingdom. Kim Jong Il was one of the craziest nutcases out there and he had his finger on that nuclear button for years and somehow managed to avoid starting WWIII. Why do we think Iran's current or future leaders have any less self-preservation that these two insane psychopaths did?

Laughing on camera while talking about Iran and throwing your own intelligence organization under the bus in the rush to blame a YouTube video for the assasination of an ambassador isn't a libertarian position.  It's a dangerous dismissal of a very serious situation. 

I'm just not sure how any of it is even any of our business. Why do we even have en embassy in Libya? What is it gaining us? If it's such a serious situation, then why are we putting Americans in harm's way of it for no clear benefit to anyone involved? Can anyone tell me what the benefits are on the upside? All I see is a bunch of downside risk.