Maybe I'm biased in saying Romney won.

Snap polls award debate to Obama

My take is both candidates based their performances/demeanor over their own very secretive internal polls they have.

Obama went on the offensive and tried to bait Romney into exchanges and was snarky at times. Romney on the other hand was more laid back, didn't get into pissing matches and tried to stay out of the fray and seemed a bit aloof.

My observations tell me that Romney is still riding the (undeniable) surge that the polls have indicated since the first debate. Obama is trying to reel back in some of the support he has lost.

Not sure if it was the tact that Romney should have taken, but he did. Snap polls had Obama winning decisively, but focus groups indicated although Obama won the debate, Romney is the guy they are trending to on the economy.

This is going to be soooooo close.

First, Obama seemed to be throwing out lots of "facts and figures" (who's I can't say) and it looked like he wanted to steamroll over the true topic/question hoping Romney would falter. Only problem was Romney knew what the true topic/question was and would go back to the topic in order to stress his points. He had to do this repeatedly as Obama kept rolling along, question after question. I guess if you keep talking long enough, you hope to prevent your opponent from giving a rebuttal?

Second, Obama must be reminding everyone that he is "Commander in Chief" and "current President of the United States" because he may not be able to say it much longer!!!! :biglaugh:

Noun 1. hanging chad - a chad that is incompletely removed and hanging by one corner

chad - a small piece of paper that is supposed to be removed when a hole is punched in a card or paper tape

Hopefully it'll be close enough that we can discuss getting rid of the Electoral College. Then, we can finally have a time in this country where every person's vote actually counts.

I can see how it may have been necessary 225 years ago, but it's completely nonsense today. At least Maine and Nebraska have it partially corrected.

Oh, by the way, what would you call a post election international tour where you downplay and belittle the US to many of our strongest adversaries in the middle east? Surely not the "Hope and Change" World Tour!
I still can't get over some of his simple flops that made him look more like Dan Quayle than anyone else!

When he referred to the 57 United States!

When he gave the Prime Minister of Great Britian a box set of dvd's as a gift, and they were the US version not the UK, so they couldn't be played on a european ddvd player!

When he won the nobel prize for just being the first black president. Imagine winning an award for doing nothing but just "being"???
(I guess they gave enough of them to scientist and scholars already?)

When he went on his world famous "Apology tour" after his surprising win.

I'm sure there's plenty more where these came from.

Fact Checker - Obama's 'Apology Tour'

yeah... damn him and his apologies....

[QUOTE=Bronko;965114]My take is both candidates based their performances/demeanor over their own very secretive internal polls they have.

Obama went on the offensive and tried to bait Romney into exchanges and was snarky at times. Romney on the other hand was more laid back, didn't get into pissing matches and tried to stay out of the fray and seemed a bit aloof.

My observations tell me that Romney is still riding the (undeniable) surge that the polls have indicated since the first debate. Obama is trying to reel back in some of the support he has lost.




I heard a great line this afternoon on talk radio that I agree 100% and sums up last night.

" last night Romney was playing chess while Obummer was playing checkers"

Romney baited him in beautifully a number of times.
Obama looked like an angry thug !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

.

Maybe Obama never used the word "apologize". But read the piece you quoted. Here is what Obama actually said, according to Karl Rove...

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

You're going to sit there, and tell us, that Obama was not engaging in America-bashing?

When he was in France, did Obama remind the French that the only reason they call themselves "French" and not "subjects of the Reich", is 100% due to Americans' "dismissive" attitude towards Europe? Count the gravestones at the American military cemetary at Normandy, and tell the families of all those dead kids that America doesn't care about Europe.

We have moral responsibility to the rest of the world specifically because we used a nuke? Did we use that nuke in an act of aggression? Did Jimmy Carter fall on the button by accident? Or was it the most humane way (for Americans and especially the Japanese) to end a war that we did not start?

Did Obama mention the fat that we are the most generous country in the history of the planet Earth?

Jesus God Almighty, you're denying that Obama was trying to make up for all of our faults, on that repugnant tour.

How about a shred, just a shred, of honesty here? Rockhound, will it make you feel better if, instead of calling it the "apology tour", we call it the "reprehensible let's bash the awesome legacy of the country that just elected me, while I suck up to the European leaders who are flushing their continent down the toilet, just as I plan to do" tour?

Is that better?

Musta been those snarley feminists in attendance.
They love to see a guy they can hold it over. :hihi:

and lets not forget -
In September 2009, US Ambassador to Japan John Roos reported to the Obama administration that the Japanese government did not think it was a good idea for President Obama to visit Hiroshima to apologize for the US having dropped an atomic bomb on that city

and that wonderful bow to the Saudi King

I think a lot of men watched football and game seven. Romney tried to appeal to women. :)
Virginia is up for grabs and Obama didn't help himself much with his Navy comments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rush was good enough to put many clips from Obama's apology tour on the front page of his site today so anyone hear Obama's own words.

It Wasn't Just an Apology Tour, It Was a Condemnation Tour! And We Have All the Evidence to Prove It Right Here... - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Rasmussen: Romney 50 Obama 46
Gallup: Romney 51 Obama 46

Among "likely voters"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a great point and makes quite a bit of sense. Real men were watching sports.

Could it be another Armchair Admiral? That was what I could post in 3 minutes, below will be what i can crank out in 20 because dinner is almost ready and I have to work tonight.

I trust my assessment more (and that of the CBO) than I trust them ;) and your 5 minute blurb - So in that light, a couple things numbers boy ;)

313 Was the number of ships they felt would be necessary to do their current missions - not all Navy mission is killing other ships. The true "Battleforce" is somewhere around 125 ships Carriers, Cruisers / Destroyers, Frigates - oh, but the 25 frigates remaining are not really "battleforce" ships as they cannot much reach out and touch someone (see below). I'll debate you either way - with carriers or without.

The FY2013 shipbuilding plan which plans out the next 30 years assumes higher amounts per year (17-18% - CBO's numbers not the Navy's) in shipbuilding budget than what was spent in previous years.

You said yourself we were at 282 - and yes, 30 ships does make a difference. Especially as we "pivot" to the Pacific we actually need more hulls to make up for the tyranny of distance. Or we can keep doing what we are doing which is sending undermanned ships for longer and longer deployments, wearing out both man & machine faster in the process. This forces earlier retirement of ships (think 250 ships in 20 years the way we are going). "Saving money" forces other ships to retire early so "battleforce" ships retired last decade averaged 21 years old - not the hope for or "planned for" 30.

Part of why we are at 282

Ships retired last decade:

8 FFGs (and the rest were Neutered) - average ship life 21 years - ships were "planned" for a 30 year life

24 DD Spruance (VLS / Non VLS) - average life for the VLS ships? 21 years

These were ships that were retired early to save money to buy more ships. The 24 Spruance class? Will be replaced by 3 DDG-1000, and some Arleigh Burke DDGs (good ships)


313 ships under current "plans" is a function of PowerPoint and little more.

BTW - I actually believe that by "pivoting" to the Pacific means we'll just gut the forces less there.

The ships being used to make up this 313 ship fleet will probably guarantee that we don't get there.

30 FFG FF (the G was lost when the pulled the Standard Rail Launchers a mid-late 2000s?) Perry class frigates are being stricken / transferred foreign sale en mass. The newest being 20 something years old and the oldest still in active service was commissioned while you were wearing a bib ( I was a sophomore in HS). These ships are being replaced by "54" LCS ships, split between 2 designs, both with lots of issues. Trust me - they will not build 54 of these (replacing more than the just the 20 Perry FFs) - I'll bet you a bottle of Scotch on that.

LCS is not considered a "warship" and is not designed to be survivable in a combat situation. They would not likely survive a Stark / Sammy B type damage.

They are weaker, less survivable, and probably have a higher pukability factor than those FFG they replace. They have range issues and cannot do one of the frequent missions of the Perry - barely hanging on with a carrier Strike Group. Even if they had the ASW mission module which is not close to being ready.

On top of that they are riddled with issues - some resolved, some resolving, some ain't gonna happen

Off Course: Did Navy Underplay Steering Problem Before Awarding Ship Contract?

The Navy?s New Class of Warships: Big Bucks, Little Bang | TIME.com (to be fair, a Navy Public Affairs chief of information offers a rebuttal LCS: Let?s Talk Facts )

Here is an example of FY13 a recent announcement that several Crusiers will be decomm'd early: Anzio, Vicksburg, Port Royal, and Cowpens. Add to that 6 FF nee FFGs are to be decommissioned. These 10 are for next year, plus the Big E, for 11 ships.

They are being replaced by 4 ships, 1 LCS, 1LPD, 1 LHA - the first 2 have loads of issues in their class and the third is a semi-new class so expect issues and a Virgina SSN (great boats)

This is the trend. 2014 has 2 ships, a LCS and a SSN, 2015: 2 DDG1000 ( major first class issues and development / testing), The Ford CVN ( major first class issues and development / testing), and another LPD and a SSN.

DDG1000 is going to have massive issues that I don't want to even link to as it is still too early but it ain't looking good.

DDG Burke Restart won't see anything until who knows when and Burke FLT III ships are an enigma because they cannot stuff the power generation in those to support AMDR and such.

The Ohio replacement SSBNx will blow the Navy Shipbuilding budget. Just crush it. Each ship could cost 1/3 of the total shipbuilding budget (I actually believe SSBNs should be funded outside of Navy shipbuilding). The Virginia is too small to rework even though that has been suggested (Trident D5s are larger than the hull) and the Ohio is tooooooo old to restart production. It would take years to scan the drawings (yes, paper) and recreate in 3D intelligent CAD systems. Seawolf might be able to be reworked but we stopped those at 3 because they were too much $$$$


This is where our Navy is today and for the near future.

Put that in your 313 Horse & Bayonet pipe and smoke it

If this took you 20 minutes to come up with then you really need to read more.

I don't trust you at all, so I guess all is fair, and where do you think the CBO got their numbers? The ship fairy?

*giant snip because its all irrelevant*

So basically now you're admitting that Romney was wrong? Great! Good to see were on the same page.

Congratulations! How's 2008 working out for you? Virginia replaces Seawolf. Seawolf is done due to stupidity and massive overruns. The new SSBN will be modeled after the Virginia program to stay on budget, which amazingly GD has done very well (and kept a ton of Americans employed in Groton and Quonset.)

How's that "lowest number since 1916" working out for you? I hope well.

LOL JD. :musc:

John R, not to worry about Obama's unbelievable knowledge of the Navy.
Fox showed a clip of Obama, Commander in Chief, using his teleprompter in a speech
calling Navy Corpsman, Corpse men four different times. :hihi:

Yawn. Bottle of Scotch. I speak the trooth

BTW - reread it without the chip on your shoulder and the happy juice. And for the SSBNx - the Virgina class has a 34' beam. The D5 is 44' in length. It won't fit. Even with a hump (a la Russian Deltas) which is not outside the realm of possibility it is too small of a hull. The Ohio is way old. Redesign might cost about as much as a clean sheet of paper. If you redesign a new missile to fit in a smaller Virginia style hull you double the costs and loose range.

Mitt Romney: Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us.

I checked to see if I forgot a word, I didn't, I said after the Virginia program not after the Virginia itself.
They came in under budget, and under timeline on EVERY boat in Groton.

Bottle of Scotch? Hittin the juice won't do you any good, nothing to be that depressed by.

So which president were we under when we had the smallest fleet? :D

look at a real map...he was talking about the Mediterranean Sea....obviously:uhuh:

Syria receiving Iranian arms 'almost daily' via Iraq - Thursday 20 September 2012

Syria receiving Iranian arms 'almost daily' via Iraq - Thursday 20 September 2012 | World news | guardian.co.uk

SYRIA has accelerated its supply of weapons, including advanced ballistic missiles, to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon in a move that could further inflame an already destabilised region.

With the help of experts from Iran and North Korea, Damascus is pressing ahead with its development of sophisticated missiles at a secret site nicknamed "missile city" built into Jabal Taqsis, a mountain near the opposition stronghold of Hama.

With financial and political support from Iran, the Syrians have also stepped up their military assistance to Hezbollah, which must now rank as the most powerful non-state military force in the world.



Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

The Virginia PROGRAM is just that, a program. The Virginia hull won't work, the reactor too small to be used in a big hull.

Yes, Groton & EB do subs the best. Just as Bath Built is Best on surface ships. But remember, this is a Navy, not a jobs program.

i have no f'in clue what you people are talking about

It's OK - neither does Likwid but we are talking bayonets and horses.

ouch, comparing me to Likwid is a little rough. Do you have to be so insulting?

:rotf2:

You 2 need to step back and relax....enough of the name calling.....:hee:

The Navy thing in interesting if you look at the underlying strategies for our position in the world.

Right now everyone is talking tough about China do to the jobs lost. So part of the get tough on China rhetoric is the need to have a larger Navy to keep routes , etc open and free to all nations. If you believe this then we need a huge expansion of the Navy. Forget 313 ships. To do the Pacific (huge , huge body of water) we need 500+ ships.

Now realistically , I see things going differently than the current Presidential Debates , get tough on China talk. Yes there will be arguing about currency issues and possible restrictions on technology exports , etc. However , I see us totally abandoning the idea that we can keep that part of Asia under our sphere of military influence. China will someday have that part of the world under its sphere of influence. Its an unstoppable tide. Just as the Monroe Doctrine claimed the Americas for the US in terms of our sphere of influence based on logistics and seperation by the Oceans , China will eventually dominate the south and east coasts of Asia simply do to the obvious geography of the world. This would have happened hundreds of years ago had China not continued to be a third world , closed society until recently. You simple cannot project US influence across that part of Asia from across the worlds largest expanse of ocean against a rival with a land mass the size of our own , a Pacific coast as long or longer than our own and a population nearly triple our own.

IMO we need to stop thinking of China in hostile fashions and go back to thinking of them as a huge trade partner and potential military ally as they were in WW2. There is nothing we can do to prevent China from becoming a superpower and dominating that part of the world.

We'd be far better off doing all we can to further develop India as one of our strongest world allies. India will soon be the most populated country in the world. They are friendly to the US. They are in a crucial strategic geographical location. Next we should be beginning to make our presence known in Africa and do all we can to develop friendly allies there.

The overwhelming priority of foreign policy should be concentrating the bulk of our military planning and resources to combat radical Islam which I believe is our "to the death enemy" for the next 50 to 100 years. Most every other conflict we face are rooted in economics but the radical Islamists want to kill us. Its pretty easy to see there will be no negotiations with these radicals except for their attempts to pull the wool over our eyes to buy time to strengthen their position until they feel bold enough to break out and kill us and any other people who will not convert. Nothing in history has ever shown us that they will behave in any other way.

Anyway , as far as the debates go , I think Romney's camp had the strategy of specifically targeting the swing voters. By now those firmly committed to either side will not be changing their vote based on the third debate. The ones who can still be influenced are the middle of the roaders who in general are moderates. I believe Romney's stately performance was aimed at these moderate undecideds and I think it was a big success with that group. O---BAM-BAM-BAM-A simply appeared like an overbearing teen age bully. He kept interrupting Romney. Kept calling him a liar , had the body language of a bully and the facial expressions and foolish rhetoric of a condecending know it all. Yet behind all his bravado is an indefensable 4 years of doing no good for the country.


I think its going to be a very close race. I am thrilled there are no serious 3rd party candidates to steal significant votes from either side. I think there will be a winner who gathers a majority vote (not just a plurality) and I sure hope its a vote to change course for the country.

We'll find out in two weeks!

Interesting points Mike.

Likwid - for your reading: Mitt Romney’s Big Plans for the U.S. Navy | Defense News | defensenews.com

Every person's vote counts more with the electoral college than it would with a direct national vote--that is, if you believe in federalism. Your vote is far more effective at a state level than it would be at a national level. The smaller the number of total votes, the greater the weight of each vote. The Founders understood the dangers of a pure democracy. Their intention was optimal individual freedom. One of their greatest fears was the tyranny of the majority over the minority. That's why they vested most of the power in the States and the People. That's why they instituted a republic rather than a Democracy.

Federalism allows a great number of diverse localities each of which has a consensus by vote. The electoral college gives the consensus of each State the proportional power of votes, and thus commands the candidates to appeal to a wider variety of needs and wishes. The ability of those elected to the central government is restrained more by this electoral power of States rather than by politicians being able to appeal directly to each voter not on the basis of what is the wish of his community, but what is most profitable to him individually, thus more easily winning power by the old method of divide and conquer. Corruption and control is more possible when you can win by appealing directly to individual greed and skirting various community values and local powers. The consensus power of the States holds federal power in check, and prevents it from implementing that majoritarian power over individuals.

So much has already been done to erode Constitutional governance by transferring State and individual power to the central goverment that there is not much more that needs to be done to totally transform us into a society with a totally top down form of government which becomes the sovereign and we its underlings. The power of the States has been diminished to the status of vassals to a central directorate. The lion's share of taxes imposed on the citizens of the States goes to the Federal Government, leaving the States a comparatively meager share on which to operate. The Senate, which used to be appointed by the States, is by amendment elected directly, which often makes them representatives of the Federal Government through party affiliation more than representatives of the States except to be emissaries who beg for money from the central leviathan as a reward for doing its bidding. As the Federal government expands its unelected regulatory power, the need for States and local government becomes less necessary, and the Constitution no longer is able through this so-called progressive transformation to check that trajectory. If the electoral college is abolished, and the Federal government is directly elected by the people, and this central government has its now unlimited ability to tax and spend, and it has the power to create, without popular votes, especially without the diverse wishes of various States, any number of regulatory agencies that promulgate thousands of pages of regulations by which it administers the country, what is the need for States?

Curtis Gans, the director of the non-partisan Center for the Study of the American Electorate, commenting on the Electoral College wrote "The Electoral College stands as a bulwark for pluralism, federalism, coalition building and participation. It stands as a deterrant to unbridled majoritarianism, total dominance of the news media and money, and the nightmare of a national recount. Its ground rules need to be amended, but the essential institution should not be discarded."

I'll vote but doing so in RI is a waste. RI will elect or re-elect all the democrats by about 65-35 margins. The only time a republican gets elected is if he is a famous name who is actually a democrat but running as a republican cause someone else got the Dem party nomination. Its always this way. Probably always will be. The Democrats are the party of those with their hands out and RI has the highest percentage of gimme people in the USA. Oh well , its got a beautiful bay and shoreline and lots of great restaurants. What more could you ask for! :)