Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Democrats Republicans Politics

Third 2012 US Presidential Debate Tonight: Discuss Here 529

Posted by Soulskill
from the oh-god-is-it-over-yet dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Third 2012 US Presidential Debate Tonight: Discuss Here

Comments Filter:
  • son of BOSSS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2012 @08:40PM (#41735751)

    a long time ago, Mitt Romney was chair of the audit committee at Marriott.
    And Marriott filed tax returns using a very lucrative tax shelter known as "son of BOSS"
    I contend that at the time, son of boss was illegal - it was patently a sham transaction.
    I don't know if legal liability attached to Gov Romney then, or now, what with staute of limitations, but this incident tells us that MR is quite comfortable filing fraudulent tax retrns.
    Which means, maybe all of these things in MR's taxes are real
    magic beanstalk IRA with undervalued capital contributions
    Rafalca as business that should have been a hobby
    sham transactions in cayman island accounts
    listing himself as passive instead of active investor...
    and the beat goes on....

  • a sad field (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2012 @08:41PM (#41735769)

    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.

    • Re:a sad field (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday October 22, 2012 @08:55PM (#41735887)

      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.

      Even outside of debates, the media has become *horrible* about not expecting their guests to actually answer questions. Even when they're playing softball, they usually let the guest cite some irrelevant talking points rather than actually answering the question.

    • Re:a sad field (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MyLongNickName (822545) on Monday October 22, 2012 @09:35PM (#41736287) Journal

      No, what is sad is how people judge a "winner" of a debate. I've seen honest conservatives who thought the first debate was a draw while the vast majority of people thought Romney won based on being "aggressive". Apparently the Romney ape beat his chest harder than the Obama ape, and that is enough for the rest of the tribe to decide that Romney is alpha and Obama the beta.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2012 @11:15PM (#41736937)

        No, what is sad is how people judge a "winner" of a debate. I've seen honest conservatives who thought the first debate was a draw while the vast majority of people thought Romney won based on being "aggressive". Apparently the Romney ape beat his chest harder than the Obama ape, and that is enough for the rest of the tribe to decide that Romney is alpha and Obama the beta.

        Before voting, ask a zoologist if a candidate is right for you.

    • Re:a sad field (Score:5, Informative)

      by RazorSharp (1418697) on Tuesday October 23, 2012 @12:36AM (#41737463)

      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.

  • by mfwitten (1906728) on Monday October 22, 2012 @08:45PM (#41735795)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2012 @09:37PM (#41736305)

      Three of my high school friends and I are also having a debate on public access TV on Oct. 24! I figure that we have as much of a chance of getting an electoral college vote as Rocky Anderson, so don't forget about our debate!

    • I can't watch ANY of it, and quite frankly, the Libertarians are the worst. All of the politicos spout platitudes describing things they will never do, let alone even attempt, pandering to the extremes with promises that can'r possibly come true...

      And the Libertarians are the absolute worst, with the exception of Lyndon LaRouche (who has in fact been dead for years - his body was preserved by the same folks who did Stalin). LaRouche and Ralph Nader, now there's a ticket I would vot for, just to be entertain

    • Well, since any third party will likely be excluded AGAIN from the "official" presidential debates, why not gather the third party candidates together for some sports analyst-style commentary on the debate? The debate will be streamed live into a studio where the other candidates are gathered. They will then be given a chance to comment or savage the arguments or lack thereof of the Democratic/Republican candiates. Of course, it won't have the immediacy of a real debate, but since the official debate is sh

  • Bingo! (Score:4, Informative)

    by dward90 (1813520) on Monday October 22, 2012 @08:49PM (#41735831)

    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.

  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday October 22, 2012 @08:52PM (#41735855)
    So on the one hand, you can watch the major party candidates lie as easily as they breath. On the other hand, you can spend those 90 minutes reading about what Obama did as president and what Romney did as governor. Oh, and you can also read about the third party candidates, and what they did previously.

    Why listen to lies, when you can uncover the truth?
  • fact checking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday October 22, 2012 @08:52PM (#41735857)

    I was thinking, after seeing clips from the previous debates, that the debate's host should include a real-time fact-checking panel of about six people seated behind the audience, with computers so they can contact their support staff and get quicker results. Then the debators could say "I'd like a fact check on that", and the audience (local and remote) would get a near-instant "vote" from the panel as to whether the purported fact is correct.

    • That is about as likely to happen as a third party candidate being allowed to sit in the audience.
      • That is about as likely to happen as a third party candidate being allowed to sit in the audience.

        Better yet, have the TPCs pick the questions and serve as moderators.

  • Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well. both are lying pussies that REFUSE handle real questions from voters. and the media is too lame to ask the hard questions.

    What kills me is the conservative nutjobs that are foaming at the mouth thinking that their guy is any better.

    News flash. They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!

    No matter who wins, those of us that are not stinking repulsively rich will lose. that is what the Libe

    • Re:Worthless... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@gmail . c om> on Monday October 22, 2012 @11:54PM (#41737183)

      Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well.

      True.

      They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!

      They are NOT. They are LARGELY the same, with the exception of a few issues where they clearly are NOT (taxes, gay rights, health care)

      While I very much see your point, just because 80% of the issues have been cemented by a repulsive silent agreement between two parties, is still no reason to state that they are the same. There is still a lesser evil and a greater evil here, even though it isn't as much of a difference as I would have hoped.

    • Re:Worthless... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday October 23, 2012 @12:34AM (#41737449)

      well, one is a lot more publicly religious than the other. I don't like that. I actually hate that! its a showstopper for me.

      the other keeps his religion in check.

      this is not just them, either; its representative of their parties.

      vote NO on american taliban.

      that one issue will get in our way of so much progress. please don't send us backwards again! we had that with bush and the other republicans since reagan. enough with the christian bullshit, already! we are a mixed nation and we like it that way.

      now, bring republicans back about 20 or 30 yrs and we might have something. before they got all preachy and holier than thou.

      but the current R crowd, makes me sick. physically sick. that says a lot.

  • by Nyder (754090) on Monday October 22, 2012 @09:03PM (#41735995) Journal

    is where i watch the president debates. They seem to be more real.

  • I'm very much interested in hearing what each candidate has to say about things *other* than Libya...in particular China.

    Ferretman
  • Non-Americans don't matter... unless they are Israeli. Both candidates know they can trash talk the entire world for political points... to demonstrate how "tough" they are.

    And for reasons I don't understand, they will both want to curry favor with the Israelis - for what reason, I don't quite know. (I mean I do understand how a boogey man is needed to keep the Arabs in line but why is the US such a fop in front of the Israelis? I don't understand why we must take such scorn in the rest of the world for a

  • My friend from the future sent me this exclusive footage from tonight's debate. [youtu.be]

  • Russia is the enemy! (Score:5, Informative)

    by fuzzel (18438) on Monday October 22, 2012 @09:15PM (#41736121) Homepage

    "The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama :)

  • We as a nation always complain about our 2 party system and all the problems that come with it. We also frequently joke about how neither of the candidates are exceptional. We then proceed to completely ignore all third party candidates. Realistically no third party candidate can win, but the more votes they get, the more seriously they will be taken in the future. Parties need to get 15% to get in these debates. If you view this system a bit like a free market, that's like saying a small business needs t

    • The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday October 22, 2012 @09:27PM (#41736223)
      Possible causes for this problem:
      1. The mindset of "Well we need to keep the other guy out of the White House!"
      2. The idea that what candidates say has any bearing on what they will do (nevermind what they have already done).
      3. The fact that the major news media benefits financially from the policies that the major parties push (or that the news outlets are owned by corporations that benefit from those policies).
      4. The fact that people assume the Democrats are liberals and the Republicans are conservatives (and the failure to understand that both are fascist).
      5. The failure to recognize that there are more issues than what the media focuses on.
      6. The assumption that some things are not even matters of politics (the war on drugs, the existence of a standing army, the student loan system, etc.).
  • by King_TJ (85913) on Monday October 22, 2012 @09:22PM (#41736187) Journal

    I watched the last debate, out of what I guess was a partial sense of guilt and a partial sense of duty as an American citizen ... but it sorely disappointed me.

    Not that I expected better, but it just served as a reminder of what a circus the whole thing is today.

    As I pointed out to some friends of mine after the debate, both candidates are primarily concerned with putting on a good show. They went over their allotted speaking time over and over again. I've seen high-school debate classes with students FAR more capable of getting their points across within their time slots! You have to ask yourself if Romney and Obama are really that unskilled at time management? I think you and I both know the answer to that one. They're only running out the clock and continuing to talk because it's a TACTIC. If a candidate really doesn't have a good, effective comment or rebuttal to make, he wanders off topic to run the clock down, and then pretends to start addressing the issue as time is running out. That way, he can appear to have simply not been given enough time to explain his position rather than do so in full and look foolish. Alternately, he can purposely exceed the time limit in an attempt to irritate his opponent and rattle him.

    Beyond that? I expect more of the REAL issues will be directly addressed by those "alternative, smaller political parties" we finally get to hear debate in their own little CNN hosted program tomorrow.

    If you want to really discuss where the U.S. stands in the eyes of the rest of the world, a good start would be expounding on the recent Wall Street Journal article explaining how U.S. citizens living abroad are suddenly finding foreign banks no longer want their business. The U.S. government (and IRS in particular) have become so demanding and ruthless in their quest to "know all" about each person's investments and spending habits, they've made it uneconomical for foreign banks to comply anymore. Even the Swiss bankers (once considered almost untouchable) are being given the ultimatum by the USA ... turn over all those records of who has what in your bank, or else. Some people have even tried to turn in their passports and renounce their U.S. citizenship, only to find the IRS invalidates it, because they haven't paid past taxes (or even an "exit tax" they expect to be paid first).

    It's an ugly state of affairs when your country believes it literally "owns" you, despite your express intentions to leave it behind. And the rest of the world realizes how draconian the U.S. government is getting, and doesn't want to get involved in that mess.... Here's betting NONE of this is even hinted at tonight in the "debates".

  • Mitt Romney wants to create world peace? By arming the Syrian rebels [guardian.co.uk]? Because that's never bit us in the ass [wikipedia.org]. I'm sick and tired of this mentality that the United States needs to police the entire world and Romney keeps saying crap like "it's an honor that we didn't ask for but we have." What the hell?

    Oh! But yeah, go ahead and arm Syrian rebels! Iran totally won't view that as an aggressive act! No, they'll sit by and watch that happen! And just say "Gee, I guess the people of Syria have spoken!" Try meeting with them then [go.com] and using diplomacy to reduce their nuclear efforts!
    • by Greyfox (87712)
      Nah, he's just saying that to get elected. He'll say anything he thinks you want to hear, in order to get elected. Take Obamacare, perfect example. He says he'll repeal it, but he knows the Democrats will cock-block him in the Senate if he tries to do that. He actually likes Obamacare. It's HIS FUCKING HEALTHCARE PLAN! But he knows a lot of people hate the idea that the might be required to act responsibly (many of them while claiming to be Republicans) and so he says that to get elected. He'll get elected,
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2012 @11:02PM (#41736835)

    They are both the same? Not to me. As a cancer patient who has gone from unemployed to a semi-well paying job, I can now get insurance that I couldn't get/hope to afford before Obama.

    You close your eyes and ears and say it all looks/sounds the same. Your an albatross around the neck of this country, and if you truly feel that way, brush up on your Mandarin and move to China where it really is all the same.

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Tuesday October 23, 2012 @02:33AM (#41738193)

    Just from all the "fuck politics, I'm going back to being a libertarian" pouting I'm seeing here. Just like right after the 2008 election.

    As for the actual DEBATE, anyone catch Romney's comment about Syria important to Iran as their only shipping route to the ocean? Or, how about how he went from "the Arab spring sucked, we shouldn't have done it" to "I agree with deposing Mubarak." He also went back to defending the $5/$2 trillion tax-cut/defense spending hike he DENIED in the 1st debate.

    Also notable was Romney getting called out on his Big Flashy Numbers approach to military spending which works fantastic when you're cheerleading for your base, but really poorly when there's someone to challenge you. OMG did you know our Air Force is smaller than it was in 1947???? When we had tens of thousands of prop jobs and 1st generation jets as opposed to a mere hundreds of supersonic modern fighters with state-of-the-art electronics???? Oh noes!!!

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...