Third 2012 US Presidential Debate Tonight: Discuss Here 529
Tonight marks the third and final U.S. Presidential debate in the lead-up to the election on November 6th. It starts at 9PM ET (6PM PT, 0100 UTC), and it's taking place at Lynn University in Florida. The topic this time around is foreign policy, including discussions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, America's role in the world, "The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism," and China's rise as a superpower. You can livestream it from the usual suspects: (C-SPAN, ABC, PBS, CNN). Politifact has posted an article fact-checking statements the candidates have made about foreign policy. Both they and Factcheck.org will be using Twitter to verify statements in real time. This presidential debate again excludes the smaller U.S. political parties. If you're interested in hearing other voices, you'll be able to see candidates from the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties in a debate tomorrow with Larry King moderating. As before, we're doing a separate post for the debate in the hopes that political talk won't clutter other stories tonight. Tell us what you think as the debate unfolds. For live conversation, remember: context helps. And, as reader Ryanator2209 keeps pointing out, you can entertain yourself by playing Logical Fallacy Bingo while you watch.
Final presidential debate? I THINK NOT! (Score:5, Informative)
There is going to be a debate at 21:00 EDT on October 23, hosted by Larry King. [2012presid...onnews.com] The candidates taking part are the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson, the Green Party's Jill Stein, the Constitution Party's Virgil Goode, and the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson.
Bingo! (Score:4, Informative)
Somehow, I don't suspect we'll see anything different than we saw in the first two: heated exchange of cliches and platitudes, punctuated with awkward smiles. Enjoy it while you can.
Play logical fallacy bingo! [lifesnow.com] It also makes a great drinking game.
Russia is the enemy! (Score:5, Informative)
"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama :)
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:2, Informative)
It absolutely matters who wins. You're just being lazy because it hurts to vote for a guy who loses, or to vote for a guy who then does stuff you don't like.
Let's say that the Democrats grow a spine and don't let Romney get whatever he wants. At the very least, he will be able to appoint new SCOTUS justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79 years old. It is very likely that the winner of his election will name her replacement. If she is replaced by a conservative justice, Roe v Wade will be overturned within a year. Many women will die in back-alley abortions. Many more will have their lives turned upside down.
And that's if we're optimistic and assume that's all Romney gets to do. He also wants to end Medicare, which will bankrupt countless seniors. He wants to slash taxes by 20% across the board and pay for them in a manner that has been proven to be mathematically impossible. He wants to increase military spending by trillions of dollars. His bellicose rhetoric, constantly accusing Obama of being soft and an apologist, makes it far more likely that he'll bow to pressure from Netanyahu and go to war in Iran.
Now, you're probably a fairly well off young straight male, so who cares if women die trying to get abortions? Who cares if some old people are thrown out into the streets? Who cares if some poor people are sent off to die in a foreign land? Who cares if gay people are treated as subhuman?
It's so much easier to pretend it doesn't matter. And cooler too! You get to show off to the internet how wise and jaded you are!
You disgust me.
Re:Is it a US presidential debate ... (Score:4, Informative)
I agree the China pissing contest is ridiculous, but. . .
Sky-rocketing crime rate
Any statistics to back that one up? This isn't up to date, [wikipedia.org] but as you can see, the general trend of crime since its peak in the early 90s has been that of steady decline.
Tanking of morality
What does this mean and how does the president have any sway over this? "Morality laws" are generally outside the domain of the federal government as a power reserved for the states. It's unconstitutional for the federal government to make prostitution and gambling illegal, for example (hence Nevada). If the courts hadn't broadened the interpretation of the Commerce Clause to its furthest extent, drug prohibition would also be unconstitutional. How many people here would really want a Mormon to have any sway over legislating and enforcing morality? There's a reason sane people don't live in Utah.
Re:a sad field (Score:5, Informative)
I've watched all the #debates so far and it's sad how little they say, tapdance around questions, avoid talking about the critical issues while spending lots of time on things that don't matter for shit.
Sad, sad field. These ain't the best, and they ain't the brightest.
The problem is that a person has to have been living under or a rock for the last year or just stupid if they don't know who they're going to vote for at this point. Since not many people live under rocks, let's assume these people are stupid. That's the assumption the candidates and the media make, as well. Stupid people don't know who's right or wrong on the 'Libya issue' because they have no idea what's being discussed. They don't know the pitfalls of a laissez-faire system because they don't know what that is. They think 'socialism' is evil because that has something to do with the Soviets or the Chinese or some other county they watch their favorite action hero beat up on.
Recent elections have been decided by very slim margins so that very slim percentage of the population that's stupid enough to still be undecided at this point in the election are those whom the candidates are courting. These people are going to cast their votes based on who "looked stronger" and "sounded more like a leader" and "seemed to know what he's talking about." These are the people who handed George W. Bush a second term after getting his ass thoroughly kicked in debates by Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Because, unlike his opponents, "he seemed like the type of guy you'd like to have a beer with."
These guys probably are among the best and brightest. But proving that isn't what these debates are about.
Re:son of BOSSS (Score:5, Informative)
That means Mr. Romney got a return of at least 44 times his initial investment. If you don't think that's suspicious, maybe you're the one wearing a tinfoil hat...
44x Even assuming your numbers are correct, Romney is a piker. I'll show you a real rate of return:
Under increasing pressure from the media on Whitewater, Hillary Clinton called a dramatic press conference in the East Wing of the White House in April 1994. She answered the questions with calm authority, momentarily silencing her critics. . . .
First, reporters had discovered that Mrs. Clinton had realized a $100,000 return on a $1,000 investment in commodities futures back in 1979. Jim Blair, a friend and chief attorney for Arkansas food giant Tyson, had advised her. Now, the first lady said she had made the trades by herself. Later, she would admit that Blair and others had taken the lead. . . . -- Arkansas Roots [cnn.com]
That would be 100X for Secretary Clinton. No doubt it was that sort of savy that landed her the Secretary of State's job.
And Mr. Romney's IRA is something I'd like to know more about, too.
It looks to me that Romney was a good investor and business man that made the most of the opportunities available, including getting in on the ground floor of several very successful companies. He also did it starting almost 30 years ago. That is a long time for investments to compound, especially for large amounts put in up front, and investments bought at a discount. Maybe this will help:
Myths Vs. Truths: The Truth About Saving for Retirement [financialexcellence.net]
You go to work for a brewery, you might get discounts on beer. You go to work for an investment firm, you may get interesting financial opportunities. Pretty straight forward, I think.
Mitt Romney exited Bain Capital with rare tax benefits in retirement [washingtonpost.com]
Before Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital, the enormously profitable investment firm he founded, he made sure to lock in his gains, both realized and expected, for years to come. . .
Romney’s former colleagues say his retirement package is a well-justified reward for a chief executive who built Bain from scratch in 1984 into a financial powerhouse that backed business successes such as Staples and the Sports Authority.
The structure and tax treatment of his retirement, including the IRA, was legally sound and appropriate, they say, adding that he has earned less money over his career than some other top private-equity executives, who earned billions of dollars during the same period.
His severance package, for instance, allowed him to continue sharing in the profits of the company as if he were still a partner managing it, according to his 2010 tax return and interviews with present and former Bain executives. And because he benefited from the firm’s investments as if he were an active Bain partner, he paid taxes at a lower rate on these earnings than if they were treated as ordinary retirement income. Romney negotiated the package when he was leaving the firm, Bain executives said, while he set up his IRA long before.
. . . Under the law today, individuals may contribute up to $5,000 per year and employers may contribute up to $50,000 a year to an employer-sponsored IRA. The money is invested, and the investments grow tax-free until retirement. There is no limit on how much money an IRA can earn tax-free.
What determines an IRA’s growth is the performance of the investments, and Bain enabled Romney, its other employee
Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (Score:5, Informative)
And ran the country into a ditch.