2012 Debates

[RandFan]

How are Obama's policies working?

Having voted for Bush twice and having lived through his miserable reign I can say with all sincerity, Obama's policies are working very well considering. I'll take an improved stock market and businesses making record profits over facing a depression any day. I'll take a president who actually did something to stop American soldiers from being killed and maimed by ending the war in Iraq over a president who invaded Iraq using a credit card and lies about WMD.

What amazes me is that we all know this. We know that the GOP refuses to negotiate with Democrats and to raise taxes (which even GOP economist Ben Stein and Reagan's budget director David Stockman says we must do) and some people want to go back to the Bush status quo.

Yeah, the policies are working well.

 

[Richard Masters]

Having voted for Bush twice and having lived through his miserable reign I can say with all sincerity, Obama's policies are working very well considering. I'll take an improved stock market and businesses making record profits over facing a depression any day. I'll take a president who actually did something to stop American soldiers from being killed and maimed by ending the war in Iraq over a president who invaded Iraq using a credit card and lies about WMD.

I don't think comparing Obama to Bush is a good argument for not voting for Romney. Nobody is saying Obama didn't do some good things; that's not in contention.

What amazes me is that we all know this. We know that the GOP refuses to negotiate with Democrats and to raise taxes (which even GOP economist Ben Stein and Reagan's budget director David Stockman says we must do) and some people want to go back to the Bush status quo.

I don't see the relevance to a Romney administration. And having watched Ben Stein's film on evolution hardly gives him any credibility in any domain.

Yeah, the policies are working well.

And yet no one wants to propose a connection between cause and effect.

 

[uke2se]

I don't think comparing Obama to Bush is a good argument for not voting for Romney. Nobody is saying Obama didn't do some good things; that's not in contention.

Obama doing good things is not a reason not to vote for Romney?

Can we then expect an end of Republicans on these boards denying good things Obama has done?

 

[Richard Masters]

Obama doing good things is not a reason not to vote for Romney?

Can we then expect an end of Republicans on these boards denying good things Obama has done?

Since I'm not a Republican, I don't know.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think comparing Obama to Bush is a good argument for not voting for Romney.

Oh it's a great argument. Romney offers little to nothing that Bush didn't offer. Bush lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 and Romney wants to lower taxes as an example. I see little difference in promises.

Nobody is saying Obama didn't do some good things; that's not in contention.

You asked a question. I answered the question. Now you are faulting me for providing premises to support my answer? ??? Please to explain that?

I don't see the relevance to a Romney administration. And having watched Ben Stein's film on evolution hardly gives him any credibility in any domain.

Ben is an economist. That Newton believed in alchemy didn't devalue his expert opinion. Stein's idiotic take on creationism likewise doesn't devalue his expert opinion. (your argument is ad hominem).

And yet no one wants to propose a connection between cause and effect.

Again, you ask a question but don't like the answer. What kind of game is this? Hell, I can't demonstrate a causal connection anymore than you. If I can't base on opinion based on the available evidence then what's the point? Is your point that bad outcomes are Obama's fault but good outcomes can't be credited to him? What exactly is your working hypothesis? Heads I win tails you lose?

 

[elbe]

Obama doing good things is not a reason not to vote for Romney?

Can we then expect an end of Republicans on these boards denying good things Obama has done?

Whatever Obama has done doesn't really say anything about what Romney will do. Someone could approve of actions Obama has taken but still feel that Romney will be a better choice going forward.

I'd want to know what, exactly, it is they believe Romney will do and why they think so, but that's more about my (and some republican family members) confusion about what exactly Romney's plan actually is.

 

[RandFan]

I'd want to know what, exactly, it is they believe Romney will do and why they think so, but that's more about my (and some republican family members) confusion about what exactly Romney's plan actually is.

That's like asking for the specifics of a perpetual motion machine. It will work and that's all you need to know.

 

[uke2se]

Whatever Obama has done doesn't really say anything about what Romney will do. Someone could approve of actions Obama has taken but still feel that Romney will be a better choice going forward.

I'd want to know what, exactly, it is they believe Romney will do and why they think so, but that's more about my (and some republican family members) confusion about what exactly Romney's plan actually is.

This, in itself, should be a top reason not to vote for Romney.

 

[Lowpro]

I wish this post could be read at the next debate, which is supposed to be mostly on foreign policy. Obama is respected worldwide among our allies and our enemies. So was Clinton. Both Bush II and Reagan were conisdered embarassments. True, Israel probably prefers Romney, but that is because they figure Romney is more likely to support them if they start a war with Iran.

Romney, by contrast, made a fool of himself and alienated our closest allies the first time he tried to step on the international stage. I think it is inevitable that the situation in the Mideast and north Africa is going to bite any administration. It is extremely complex, and none of the political entities are exactly aligned with American interests, so there are no good answers. Remember when the US propped up a murderous dictator called the Shah of Iran? Great plan, America. That worked out well, didn't it? But really, what was the alternative?

So I just watched the movie Argo and remember I'm a bit young so I don't know the history. But after watching the beginning of the film where they talk about that I actually thought "Wait, isn't America the real asshats in this one?"

 

[Dymanic]

Where exactly the blame lies and what exactly to do about it might remain unclear

Is it your position that it is the case that those things do remain unclear? Your use of the word "might" there suggests that you may still be reserving the right to play both sides, claiming that a comprehensive investigation either has or has not been done, depending on which best suits your purposes as support for a particular argument you wish to make.

The administration could have easily avoided that by releasing appropriately redacted documents themselves. If specific details like names were really that sensitive, then I don't find it credible that the administration couldn't have avoided this problem.

Oh, so now it's the administration's fault that lives have been placed in danger by the actions of a Republican committee chairman who took it upon himself to release sensitive State Department communications. That's rich. I especially love your reasoning: they should have pre-empted this by releasing those sensitive communications themselves. This strongly suggests that you're really not grasping my point here. You're also overlooking an irony I find rather striking: those who seek to publicize details regarding the inner workings of the way the State Department handles diplomatic security -- quite obviously in the hope of scoring political points -- run the risk of further compromising the very thing they're claiming to be so concerned about. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about such matters. Primum non nocere.

Your link is broken. I suspect you copied and pasted from elsewhere on this or a similar forum

Yeah, I sometimes forget about that when I'm in hurry. Of course, considering that I specifically stated that I was reposting something from further upthread, it wouldn't have taken a genius to find the original untruncated link. Anyway, here it is again untruncated:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...p_exposes_several_libyans_working_with_the_us

The protest wasn't coincidentally on 9/11. That date was chosen for a reason, a reason that has nothing to do with the video.

And do we see violent protests at large numbers our embassies every year on the date of that anniversary?

Obama: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others"

Clinton: "We absolutely reject [the Youtube video's] content and message"

Obama: "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths."

Clinton: "We do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be."

You aren't seriously going to try to convince me that you do not understand the difference between rejecting the content of a message and condeming free speech rights. Are you? Are you actually confused about that?

 

[Richard Masters]

...

Again, you ask a question but don't like the answer. What kind of game is this? Hell, I can't demonstrate a causal connection anymore than you. If I can't base on opinion based on the available evidence then what's the point? Is your point that bad outcomes are Obama's fault but good outcomes can't be credited to him? What exactly is your working hypothesis? Heads I win tails you lose?

The question was in the context of the economy and Obama's ability to connect cause and effect in the debates. Maybe that's why I didn't see your answer as relevant.

 

[RandFan]

The question was in the context of the economy and Obama's ability to connect cause and effect in the debates. Maybe that's why I didn't see your answer as relevant.

Hang on.

How are Obama's policies working?

That's what you asked.

You then go on to talk about how policy positions will affect change in the future. HUGE difference.

 

[Richard Masters]

Hang on.

That's what you asked.

I linked to the post so you can see the context.

You then go on to talk about how policy positions will affect change in the future. HUGE difference.

It's not clear to me what distinction you are trying to make with your last statement.

 

[RandFan]

I hear Romney explaining why reducing taxes for businesses is a better road to fixing the economy.

Never mind that it didn't work for Bush. An explanation vs no explanation doesn't mean that the explanation is any good. Supply side economics in in the dustbin of history. A candidate can say anything he damn well pleases, doesn't make it true.

I don't hear Obama explaining why increasing taxes unevenly is going to help the economy.

It's called fiscal responsibility. We have a debt problem and we need to be responsible. This will require cutting spending and increasing taxes as Ben Stein, David Stockman and two Nobel laureates have made clear.

I don't think that has been demonstrated, and just stating that it has, without logically explaining how Obama's policies have achieved this, is really not persuasive.

The economy is a complex dynamic subject to chaos. You cannot prove that Reagan's polices were ultimately good or bad. You cannot prove that Clinton's policies were ultimately good or bad. We ONLY have correlation.

I don't mind if you want to dismiss arguments as only being correlative, doesn't bother me one bit but be consistent. It's impossible to know if Romney's plan will work or not. If Romney is elected whatever the outcome it will be impossible to prove whether or not his policies were the reason for the outcome

 

[RandFan]

I linked to the post so you can see the context.

It's not clear to me what distinction you are trying to make with your last statement.

There is a disconnect between your questions about the past with your "context" that is about the future.

I'll say it again. You asked a question. I answered it. The question was about the past. I answered providing premises about the past. I'm really Not sure why that is so damn difficult to comprehend.

Had you asked a question about the future then that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

Given that the stock market is much, much higher and companies are making record profits and given that we are no longer hemorrhaging jobs and facing financial disaster whatever happened since GWB left town has been very, very good.

 

[citizenzen]

It's called fiscal responsibility. We have a debt problem and we need to be responsible. This will require cutting spending and increasing taxes as Ben Stein, David Stockman and two Nobel laureates have made clear.

Our fiscal boat is sinking.

Romney's plan: bail 20% less.

 

[RandFan]

It's called fiscal responsibility. We have a debt problem and we need to be responsible. This will require cutting spending and increasing taxes as Ben Stein, David Stockman and two Nobel laureates have made clear.

Our fiscal boat is sinking.

Romney's plan: bail 20% less.

And bear in mind that it was the GOP that made the case that a combination of spending cuts and tax increases WAS an optimal plan for getting the economy moving again.

That's from the GOP report. It's THEIR plan. The title of the plan? Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy

 

[SezMe]

What'd I'd rather understand from his point of view is what he would have done differently had he been given the information, or how he intends to move forward in correcting the mistakes made by those in the state department. Just my opinion

I'm on board with that. In fact, I think Obama's bluster about retribution is almost beside the point. As you say, I'd rather have him focus on what went wrong with the flow of information in his administration, what the State Department's decision-making process was and what needs to be improved, how best to combat anti-Americanism, etc.

 

[Tricky]

I'm on board with that. In fact, I think Obama's bluster about retribution is almost beside the point. As you say, I'd rather have him focus on what went wrong with the flow of information in his administration, what the State Department's decision-making process was and what needs to be improved, how best to combat anti-Americanism, etc.

Yes, but you probably won't hear about it. Basic security considerations would demand that any "improvements" remain confidential. It would be beyond foolish to announce them.

 

[Travis]

It doesn't. That's nto the criticism (or shouldn't be).

Here's how it is described:

1. In Libya, a terror group plans a coordinated assault on the consulate in Benghazi because they perceive the security there to be weak. 9/11 is chosen as the date for symbolic reasons.
2. Independently, and later, imams in Cairo begin complaining about a YouTube video that insults Mohammed. People begin to organize protests. 9/11 is chosen as the date for the same symbolic reasons as the terrorists in Libya chose. But there is no evidence of cooperation between the two groups.
3. On 9/10, the American consulate in Cairo, fearing the Egyptian protests will become violent, issues a statement condemning the YouTube video and calling for calm.
4. On 9/11, the planned protests in Cairo go froward with vandalism and some violence. At the same time, in Libya, the assault kills four Americans, including the Ambassador.
5. Romney condemns the consulate's statement, claiming it shows how the Obama Administration tends to blame Americans for the actions of Islamic radicals, rather than placing the blame on the radicals.
6. The White House states that the Cairo consulate's statement was unauthorized (seen as a weak retraction) and condemns the radicals, the makers of the YouTube video, and also condemns Romney for politicizing the issue.
7. In the Rose Garden, Obama says the attacks in Benghazi were caused by terrorists (true) and made an oblique reference to the YouTube video. (False.) (you can see the Rose Garden remarks here.*)
8. Subsequently, the US government asks YouTube to remove the video. YouTube refuses.

The issue, in a nutshell, is the GOP claim that the Administration has a habit of trying to associate a portion of the responsibility for terror attacks to America's own behavior.

But that is true. Part of why they attack us is our own behavior. So Obama would be correct in bringing that up. Now it doesn't mean our behavior actually is bad but it is why they attack us.

Al Qaeda doesn't attack America because they threw darts at a board and we came up randomly.

It seems to me that many on the right are so caught up in their own hyperbole that they have lost all perspective on this issue. Suggesting that this attack may have been related to ongoing protests in the region has become, to them, a failure of epic proportions.

As I see it they are merely trying to exploit what they erroneously see as the first failure of the Obama administration on foreign policy. Remember that prior to inauguration Republicans were pretty damned sure Obama would do nothing but fail on foreign policy. They were sure he'd just wholesale surrender to Al Qaeda and possibly welcome Bin Laden as an ambassador or something. They were sure he'd completely abandon pursuing terrorists of other kinds while demanding our military replace their weapons with flowers.

Basically they are desperate for their fictional Obama who hates America and loves Islamic radicals to finally show up.