What did you think of the third Presidential debate?

[Darrell Cody]

I think Romney did real good.

[Dormin111]

No clear winner but Obama destroyed Romney with the "army has fewer horses" segment.

[softwareNerd]

it appears that the ratings will come out something like the second: basically a draw, with voters giving Obama a small win. For most voters, foreign policy is not a driving issue in this election, but it is a "hygiene factor" where they just want to be assured that the candidate is not unreliable. In this regard, Obama has nothing to prove to swing voters, but Romney had to show that he was steady and would not go to war too readily. He did this. So, in that sense he won.

[Nicky]

I don't know it this is original, but my favorite radio show this morning dubbed that live graph the news outlets tend to show the "honesty graph", because every time the candidate would say something even remotely honest, the approval of the "undecided voters" would plummet like clockwork.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Romney went out of his way to explain how he is exactly the same as Obama when it comes to FP. The Jon Stewart send-up of the debate was perfect. The only difference between the two last night was the color of their ties.

This speaks to what I said before about FP and Romney: he's not going to be any different than Obama.

Of course, I don't think there's going to be much defacto difference between the two of them anyhow, but that's another story...

[intellectualammo]

Romney still has my vote:

ROMNEY: "Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world"

Thank you. We should, and stop appeasement.

ROMNEY: "We're also going to have to have a farm more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and Islamic extremism"

I propose three ways in which to move them easily away from us:

Crush the threat. Crush the threat. Crush the threat

[WeAllGetPaid]

I thought it was horrifying.

[Nicky]

Romney went out of his way to explain how he is exactly the same as Obama when it comes to FP. The Jon Stewart send-up of the debate was perfect. The only difference between the two last night was the color of their ties.

This speaks to what I said before about FP and Romney: he's not going to be any different than Obama.

Did he say he's going to continue the policy of shunning the Israeli PM and ignoring the Iranian nuclear program? Did he also say he's going to continue the policy of ignoring terrorist attacks by simply lying about them being terrorist attacks? Did he endorse Obama's apology in the wake of the September riots and the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi consulate? I missed those parts.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Nicky

[thenelli01]

Did he say he's going to continue the policy of shunning the Israeli PM and ignoring the Iranian nuclear program? Did he also say he's going to continue the policy of ignoring terrorist attacks by simply lying about them being terrorist attacks? Did he endorse Obama's apology in the wake of the September riots and the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi consulate? I missed those parts.

Are sanctions and diplomacy "ignoring" the Iranian nuclear program? I didn't hear what Romney would do differently with Iran except maybe be more stern in his language towards them. I think they have management differences, but I don't really hear any real substantial differences in a Romney FP vs. Obama FP when it comes to principles.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Nicky]

Are sanctions and diplomacy "ignoring" the Iranian nuclear program?

Yes. Sanctions and diplomacy are not working in preventing the Iranian nuclear program. Saying that by enacting sanctions and holding talks with the Iranians he's "not ignoring" the nuclear program has the same exact value as saying that "by praying for peace every night, he's not ignoring the nuclear program".

Both are having the same exact effect on the Iranian nuclear program: none whatsoever. The only country with a plan to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power is Israel. Unlike Obama, Romney would be willing to either allow Israel to implement their own plan, or, even better, invite them to find a common US-Israeli solution to the problem. Even if it's the latter, the addition of Israeli leadership to the discussion would guarantee at least one rational voice at the table.

But, I'm sure, they would not be the only rational voice. There are other competent people, mostly in the United States (including Congress) who's voices have been marginalized by the Obama administration and would be brought back by pretty much any other administration, especially a Republican one.

[thenelli01]

Yes. Sanctions and diplomacy are not working in preventing the Iranian nuclear program. Saying that by enacting sanctions and holding talks with the Iranians he's "not ignoring" the nuclear program has the same exact value as saying that "by praying for peace every night, he's not ignoring the nuclear program".

Both are having the same exact effect on the Iranian nuclear program: none whatsoever.

No. They are not equivalent. Praying for peace has no evidence of ever working, but diplomacy and sanctions can work if done effectively. This is a complex issue, and you are oversimplifying it by saying any action taken by the U.S. that has failed is "ignoring" the issue and the same as praying.

The only country with a plan to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power is Israel. Unlike Obama, Romney would be willing to either allow Israel to implement their own plan, or, even better, invite them to find a common US-Israeli solution to the problem. Even if it's the latter, the addition of Israeli leadership to the discussion would guarantee at least one rational voice at the table.

Are you sure about that? Romney will say whatever to get elected, it is hard to know what he would actually be willing to do. And I do think once you are actually president and have more intelligence available to you, you make more informed decisions.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Did he say he's going to continue the policy of shunning the Israeli PM and ignoring the Iranian nuclear program? Did he also say he's going to continue the policy of ignoring terrorist attacks by simply lying about them being terrorist attacks? Did he endorse Obama's apology in the wake of the September riots and the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi consulate? I missed those parts.

Both Romney and Obama have the same policy on Israel and Iran and they said as much in the debate. Suddenly, when insane t-party blow-em-all-up crazies are no longer the constituency, Romney sounds exactly like Obama. Both are for a balanced approach that doesn't drag us into more useless wars and doesn't appease anybody and gradually puts pressure on Iran.

Romney did not explain how his magic powers would have prevented the Benghazi attack. Clearly looking into a hat in the woods might be his approach, but Romney is smart enough to know that is not the mainstream view.

[thenelli01]

Both Romney and Obama have the same policy on Israel and Iran and they said as much in the debate. Suddenly, when insane t-party blow-em-all-up crazies are no longer the constituency, Romney sounds exactly like Obama. Both are for a balanced approach that doesn't drag us into more useless wars and doesn't appease anybody and gradually puts pressure on Iran.

Romney did not explain how his magic powers would have prevented the Benghazi attack. Clearly looking into a hat in the woods might be his approach, but Romney is smart enough to know that is not the mainstream view.

I know you like the Jon Stewart talking points - but it isn't magic powers. Security officials testified that they asked for more protection at the site because they had intelligence that an attack was possible. That protection isn't in the form of magical fairies that put a bubble shield around the site, that protection is in the form of increased security and troops.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[2046]

Haha... it's funny how a lot of Objectivists can be convinced on the basis of a few pretty lines in some speeches, rather than... you know... looking at someone's actual record and actions. Objectivists seem to easily become petty opportunists or worse, virtually indistinguishable from conservative Republicans.

Of course voting in this election is pointless and immoral, so why pay attention to these idiotic debates?

[CrowEpistemologist]

I know you like the Jon Stewart talking points - but it isn't magic powers. Security officials testified that they asked for more protection at the site because they had intelligence that an attack was possible. That protection isn't in the form of magical fairies that put a bubble shield around the site, that protection is in the form of increased security and troops.

Right. And we are 1000% sure that Romney, possessing magic powers and all, would have decided to handle that differently, right? Obviously we know for sure the the decision was made out of incompetence and not that there were other trade-offs of security involved, right?

There is nothing fundamental or ideological about operational competence and with and army (including a literal Army) of experts surrounding them, Romney could have done Benghazi the same way as Obama, and he could have nabbed Bin Laden as well. The only question is high-level strategy and the debate saw Romney agreeing with Obama on that.

[Spiral Architect]

I generally will flip through the transcripts to stay informed, not that you really are informed when they work so hard to say the safest thing possible. It really serves two useful things:

• It cuts out unessential issues. For example, everyone talked about how Romney trounced Obama in the first debate but the transcripts made it look different since you saw nothing but the ideas and lack thereof.
  
• I invariably end up needing to talk this stuff with conservative or liberal friends/coworkers and it helps to have ammo. My conservative friends love to talk about how Romney will be so much better for the economy and all I need to point out now is that he is on record saying he against businesses spontaneously being started in garages (first debate). Apple would disagree with that absurdity – so much for entrepreneurism. Someday I might get one of them to open their eyes.
  

Meh. It’s a swamp of mediocrity to sift through however and after 9 elections I’m pretty much at the end of my rope with it.

[Nicky]

No. They are not equivalent. Praying for peace has no evidence of ever working, but diplomacy and sanctions can work if done effectively. This is a complex issue, and you are oversimplifying it by saying any action taken by the U.S. that has failed is "ignoring" the issue and the same as praying.

In what way is it working? Which parts of the Iranian program have stopped or been slowed down by these latest sanctions?

Are you sure about that?

Yes, I am. Everyone in American politics is sympathetic to Israel, except for Obama and the leftist radicals he surrounded himself with.

And I do think once you are actually president and have more intelligence available to you, you make more informed decisions.

The American President is not the only one with "intelligence".

Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are honorable men and patriots, from two opposing parties in Israel. And they have more intelligence available to them than anyone. They have both publicly stated that the sanctions aren't working and Iran is closing in on nuclear weapons.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Nicky

[thenelli01]

In what way is it working? Which parts of the Iranian program have stopped or been slowed down by these latest sanctions?

Your post wasn't only saying whether or not they were working. You were saying that Obama was ignoring the program and that their actions towards addressing the issue were the same as praying for peace. Praying for peace has no evidence of ever working, while diplomacy and sanctions have evidence of working in the past to get leaders to do what we want. They don't have the same value. Now I will repeat - you are oversimplifying a complex issue to say that any US policy that has failed is "ignoring" the issue and the same as praying.

The American President is not the only one with "intelligence".

Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are honorable men and patriots, from two opposing parties in Israel. And they have more intelligence available to them than anyone. They have both publicly stated that the sanctions aren't working and Iran is closing in on nuclear weapons.

I wouldn't disagree with them. The Iranians are continuing their program. But the decisions they would make compared to the decisions the US president would make are different, for now at least, because we are in different positions.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Nicky]

Your post wasn't only saying whether or not they were working. You were saying that Obama was ignoring the program and that their actions towards addressing the issue were the same as praying for peace.

I didn't say they were the same. Read what I said. Of course the two things are different. But they are equally effective solutions.

For instance, going golfing to solve the Iranian problems is not the same as going to play basketball to solve the Iranian crisis. Far from it, there are clear differences, for instance the ball is much bigger in one. But saying that either of them addresses the problem would have the same truth value.

If you're saying that sanctions and talks address the problem of Iran becoming a nuclear power, you're gonna have to give at least a specific way in which it does.

diplomacy and sanctions have evidence of working in the past to get leaders to do what we want

They're not working now. Let's say there are two urns, with a very large number of white balls and black ones in them. You know one of them has more black balls and one has more white balls.

There's a contest. Each contestant's goal is to draw a white ball, with as few draws as possible. You come up last. You've been able to determine which urn is likely to have more white balls, based on what the other contestants have been drawing. But alas, you get disoriented, and draw from the wrong urn. You get lucky, however, it's a white ball.

What do you do next? Insist on going back to draw from the right urn, as per you correct reasoning on which urn has the more white balls, or use the direct evidence of your senses telling you that you've drawn the right ball already?

You're doing the former with the Iran situation. You already know that the sanctions aren't working. It is a fact of reality that the sanctions against Iran are 100% ineffective. They are not stopping the nuclear program. That's a direct measure of effectiveness, you don't need to look at any indirect evidence. And yet, you are insisting on blatantly ignoring this information, and assigning effectiveness based on the outdated, irrelevant information on what happened in past attempts, in other situations.

I wouldn't disagree with them. The Iranians are continuing their program. But the decisions they would make compared to the decisions the US president would make are different, for now at least, because we are in different positions.

Yes, we are in a position where the consequences of ignoring the problem aren't as immediate. But it is a problem, and we are ignoring it.

[thenelli01]

I didn't say they were the same. Read what I said. Of course the two things are different. But they are equally effective solutions.

For instance, going golfing to solve the Iranian problems is not the same as going to play basketball to solve the Iranian crisis. Far from it, there are clear differences, for instance the ball is much bigger in one. But saying that either of them addresses the problem would have the same truth value.

If you're saying that sanctions and talks address the problem of Iran becoming a nuclear power, you're gonna have to give at least a specific way in which it does.

They're not working now. Let's say there are two urns, with a very large number of white balls and black ones in them. You know one of them has more black balls and one has more white balls.

There's a contest. Each contestant's goal is to draw a white ball, with as few draws as possible. You come up last. You've been able to determine which urn is likely to have more white balls, based on what the other contestants have been drawing. But alas, you get disoriented, and draw from the wrong urn. You get lucky, however, it's a white ball.

What do you do next? Insist on going back to draw from the right urn, as per you correct reasoning on which urn has the more white balls, or use the direct evidence of your senses telling you that you've drawn the right ball already?

You're doing the former with the Iran situation. You already know that the sanctions aren't working. It is a fact of reality that the sanctions against Iran are 100% ineffective. They are not stopping the nuclear program. That's a direct measure of effectiveness, you don't need to look at any indirect evidence. And yet, you are insisting on blatantly ignoring this information, and assigning effectiveness based on the outdated, irrelevant information on what happened in past attempts, in other situations.

Yes, we are in a position where the consequences of ignoring the problem aren't as immediate. But it is a problem, and we are ignoring it.

Too bad you are misrepresenting the issue.

Imagine you have a rash and you want to eliminate it before it spreads all over your body. You debate over two options on addressing the issue: you can use a less powerful, safer skin ointment that may eliminate the rash - or you can use a powerful steroid that will definitely kill the rash but may damage the skin permanently and surrounding areas. You opt to use the less powerful skin ointment first because it is safer and can be effective. However it has been 10 of the recommended 14 day use and it still hasn't worked. You continue use for the remaining 4 days, but are willing to use the steroid at the end of the 14 days if necessary. That is not ignoring the problem and that is where we are now.

[Nicky]

Too bad you are misrepresenting the issue.

Imagine you have a rash and you want to eliminate it before it spreads all over your body. You debate over two options on addressing the issue: you can use a less powerful, safer skin ointment that may eliminate the rash - or you can use a powerful steroid that will definitely kill the rash but may damage the skin permanently and surrounding areas. You opt to use the less powerful skin ointment first because it is safer and can be effective. However it has been 10 of the recommended 14 day use and it still hasn't worked. You continue use for the remaining 4 days, but are willing to use the steroid at the end of the 14 days if necessary. That is not ignoring the problem and that is where we are now.

I wasn't misrepresenting anything. I wasn't trying to provide an analogy for the situation, I was providing one for your argument.

You just changed your argument: before, you were arguing that sanctions would count as "not ignoring the issue" simply because they have worked in the past. That means that they would count as "not ignoring the issue" indefinitely.

Your new argument is that the reason why Obama isn't ignoring the issue is because sanctions could still work. You are conceding that there will come a time when we will finally be able to say that sanctions won't work, and we will have to look for a different solution.

However, in your ointment example, there is an objectively determined timeline on how long it should take for the ointment to work. You haven't provided such a timeline for how long it should take for sanctions to work. That makes your analogy invalid, until you do. Until then, an honest analogy should contain no mention of the ointment coming with a recommendation of waiting for a specific amount of time.

So, please tell me, when will you concede that by sitting around waiting for the sanctions to work, Obama is ignoring the issue? According to Netanyahu's idiot-proof drawing from a couple of weeks ago, Iran is 90% there. Do you really think they'll stop now, that they're so close, because of the same sanctions that haven't stopped them back when they were only 50% done? Do you have a reason for thinking that?

It's a simple question: All you have to do is take a red pen, and draw your own red line onto this image:

And please don't say that's an oversimplification. Progress is measured by a function that has one imput and one output. That's the exact level of complexity required to measure it. That picture is the exact level of complexity required to represent progress towards building a nuclear weapon.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Nicky

[oso]

I thought it was horrifying.

Really? I would think that in order for something to be horrifying it would either have to be a terrible surprise, or something completely beyond the pale. This debate was both predictable and the status quo of what we've been seeing for years. I couldn't imagine how an Objectivist would find it horrifying.

[thenelli01]

I wasn't misrepresenting anything. I wasn't trying to provide an analogy for the situation, I was providing one for your argument.

You just changed your argument: before, you were arguing that sanctions would count as "not ignoring the issue" simply because they have worked in the past. That means that they would count as "not ignoring the issue" indefinitely.

Your new argument is that the reason why Obama isn't ignoring the issue is because sanctions could still work. You are conceding that there will come a time when we will finally be able to say that sanctions won't work, and we will have to look for a different solution.

However, in your ointment example, there is an objectively determined timeline on how long it should take for the ointment to work. You haven't provided such a timeline for how long it should take for sanctions to work. That makes your analogy invalid, until you do. Until then, an honest analogy should contain no mention of the ointment coming with a recommendation of waiting for a specific amount of time.

So, please tell me, when will you concede that by sitting around waiting for the sanctions to work, Obama is ignoring the issue? According to Netanyahu's idiot-proof drawing from a couple of weeks ago, Iran is 90% there. Do you really think they'll stop now, that they're so close, because of the same sanctions that haven't stopped them back when they were only 50% done? Do you have a reason for thinking that?

It's a simple question: All you have to do is take a red pen, and draw your own red line onto this image:

And please don't say that's an oversimplification. Progress is measured by a function that has one imput and one output. That's the exact level of complexity required to measure it. That picture is the exact level of complexity required to represent progress towards building a nuclear weapon.

Where specifically did I change my argument? I was addressing why sanctions/diplomacy and praying for peace don't have the same value when I said that.

I agree that there is a red line - I will concede that I don't know where that red line is and am not prepared to give you one. I am unqualified to come up with a specific point. However, based on what the President+his administration is saying, and even Netanyahu, we are not there yet. Netanyahu even said that there is no reason to decide on an attack on Iran until next summer.

Whether or not a red line should be drawn publicly by US officials - I don't know. I can see it going two ways: It can push Iranians towards diplomacy or it can push Iranians to speed up their efforts and make their nuclear sites more secure. I am guessing the latter as there are reports that they are already creating underground bunkers.

[mdegges]

Sanctions haven't done anything? "In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October."

Negotiations aren't in progress? “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?” -R. Nicholas Burns [1]

Romney would do so much more (ie: draw the red line)? "But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability."

[Nicky]

Sanctions haven't done anything? "In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October."

Never said that sanctions haven't done anything. Just that they're doing nothing to stop the nuclear program.

Negotiations aren't in progress? “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?” -R. Nicholas Burns

Aren't false alternatives wonderful? All you have to do is say that there are two options: whatever you want to happen, and some extreme second option that you know your audience wants to avoid.

Then you just pretend that assassinating key people in Iran's leadership and nuclear program (which Israel is doing, and could really use US help with), targeting the research sites from the air (again, Israel would love to do that, if given US support and technology), using local opposition and special operations forces to target key installations and leadership instead of full blown war, etc. are not options, and shazam, you've won the debate.

Romney would do so much more (ie: draw the red line)? "But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability."

Romney challenged Obama on his catering to world opinion and Muslim sensibilities several times. That gives me hope that he'd be willing to consider some of the options Obama dismissed because they would not go over well with the "Arab street", like air strikes against nuclear installations.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Nicky