Debate mistake

[Griffin NoName]

So I listened to The Debate last night - it was broadcast live on BBC World News channel. Sucked out all the significant statements from both candidates. Then listened to news. All the news snips were the ones I'd picked out. So I needn't have listened. Feel short-changed.

[Opsa]

I didn't bother. I'm just waiting for this election to be over with.

Oh, I'm voting, but my cynicism level is way up.

[Swatopluk]

Downloaded it for later consumption.

Got snippets from commentary clips.

Obama treating Romney to a (deserved) primary school explanation of military technological progress is hilarious!

Also, Romney seems to know about as much geography as Sarah Palin (Syria as Iran's access to the sea? )

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Debates are not about facts but about attitudes, which is why Obama lost the first one so miserably, and stupidly, according to polls he lost Florida and almost Virginia. The two subsequent debates, plus the VP one tried to undo the damage, but the taciturn performance of the first almost ruined his chances of reelection which is still in play. 

I watched the whole thing but I wasn't paying that much attention to the arguments because there was precious little substance to the whole affair. I was looking at their faces, how often they blinked (my book about psychopaths in enlightening on the subject), no forced errors and how often Obama disabused Romney's 'facts' (or not). IMO he held his own although I would've preferred a more consistent disabusing (albeit some 'analysts'  thought otherwise ).

Early voting will start next week, I'll do so and wish this election nightmare ends already.

[Griffin NoName]

I enjoyed Obama explaining to Romney why its ok the US has fewer ships than they used to. (airplane carriers, submarines etc).

[Opsa]

Yes, apparently the GOP are claiming that was a slap in the face of the military. After watching clips from the debate last night, it was plainly not a swipe, but more a praise of the military for being technologically up-to-date. We don't need a bunch of expensive boats loaded with crews lurking around the world, now that we have (expensive) missiles and drones and high tech gizmos out there.

But it was tiresome and disappointing to see the two candidates snarking at eachother like a couple of tomcats on a fence.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The problem is that when Obama wasn't hovering like a tomcat he was perceived as weak and indecisive.

Sadly politics are not a rational affair at all, so the whole thing is a play to induce emotional responses, not rational thoughtful dialog.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Sadly politics are not a rational affair at all, so the whole thing is a play to induce emotional responses, not rational thoughtful dialog.

But of course!  If not?  Nobody but nobody would've voted for Bush 2.... what with him being brain-damaged from coke & alcohol...

.. but trigger an emotional appeal?  And *bammo* foolish people vote against their own best interests...

... just check out Oklahomer & how it has voted time and time again for the richest of the richest who's sole function is to get more tax cuts for the 1%...

.. and to make matters worse?  Oklahoma's average income is among the lowest in the nation....!

Idiots.

[Opsa]

It really does feel like a freakin' charade. I wouldn't vote at all if I didn't feel like I had to put in my ballot against the worse of two evils.

Last year I voted for Obama. This year I'm back to just voting against the GOP. Both sides preach to their won choirs and say pretty much the same thing about each other. I don't know how people can get all worked up in favor of anyone.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The irony is that in a more rational world Obama would be a GOP candidate and there would be a truly left of center candidate to choose, as opposed to a corporatist to the right of Giovanni Gentile.

I still think Obama is a competent president and that he has done as much as any could under the circumstances, but I would be happier if I could vote for a viable center-left candidate.

[Griffin NoName]

I'd be happier if you could too!!

I dread what a Romney president might do to the world.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It can't be worse than dubya (although that was pretty bad ).

[Griffin NoName]

It could be because Iran is that much nearer nuclear. All we need is another dodgy dossier.

[Swatopluk]

Don't be too sure about that (that it can't get worse than under Dubya). Cheney/Bush attacked a (comparatively) healthy state organism. If something similar hits the still not fully recovered patient, the results could be fatal. Rachel Maddow also observed that Bush like Romney came into office with an (at least declared) disinterest in foreign policy, leaving it to the same guys that are now on Romney's paylist. And Romney also peddles a false anecdote that Reagan asked his people to not bother him with foreign policy in the first 100 days, so he could concentrate on the economy which would allow the country to grow strong enough to shoulder the military burden that would demonstrate the unrivaled strength of the US to the enemies.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It's true that it can always be worse, but I imagine that if we survived eight years of malfeasance and incompetence we can survive another round. Remember that I come from a place where those two qualities are elevated to an art form and people still lives, works (and dies) pretty much in the same way they had for the past 200 years.

I deeply want to believe that we are not at the Weimarer Republik point yet. 

[Swatopluk]

The problem is that that the US are not isolated. If the US economy would turn 3rd world*, it would destabilise the world economy maybe even worse than in the WEC of the late 1920ies. That does not necessarily mean that the world will repeat the general walk towards fascism and war but the suffering of the commoners would be immense. The actual banana republics may actually be the ones that can deal with that with the least difficulty.
In a way it's worse today than then. Then the totalitarian ideologies were not just camouflage for greed, they had 'higher' goals (however horrible) and some of the leading tycoons actually believed in more than just their own profits, politicians even more so. Today both the leading corporatists and their hireling politicians at best play kabouki or do not even bother with that. Hitler was a Nazi and Hugenberg really wanted the monarchy back not just because it helped their rise or bottom line. Find me something similar today.

*not that a banana republic model would be totally disapproved of by coporatists in the first place

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm not entirely sure, yes despots may have ideals (however twisted those may be) but the guys footing the bill do so for their own bottom lines regardless of the consequences.

I guess an equivalent question is if today's Murdoch is moving an ideology because it helps his bottom line or if he truly believes that the corporatist ethos is a 'fight worth losing money'.

[Swatopluk]

That's why I used Hugenberg as an example. He held the most powerful media empire in Germany at the time (originally newspapers but then he bought the UfA, i.e. the equivalent of the whole of Hollywood) and was the head of the DNVP, the leading old-conservative (=monarchist) party. There was no doubt that he was sincere in his political beliefs and that he used his empire to foster his political ideals not the other way around.
Murdoch on the other hand is imo a textbook case of 'vaterlandsloser Gesell' with no loyalty to anyone. He is into money and influence for his own sake. He found demagoguery to be a real seller and supports the Right because it is better at creating and maintaining the environment he can thrive in. He was 'pragmatic' enough to also stay on good terms with Obama when the otherwise demonized Dem was in the power position. He is able to take the longterm view and will not bet the whole house on one political current.
His viceroy at FOX, Roger Ailes, may be a different animal, far more willing to let personal politics interfere with the primary goal of making money.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Well, there's early voting in FL and we went with my wife to get that thing over with. We tried yesterday but there was a very long line, today we didn't  had to wait. The sad thing is that as it is there is a significant likelihood of RR* winning FL.

*I finally got why Romney chose Ryan as his mate: any subliminal reference to ol' Ronnie is always a plus... 

[Swatopluk]

Joss Whedon endorsed Romney - in a way
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/10/joss-whedon-romney-zombie-endorsement/

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Indeed-- Romney is practically a vampire already...


.... well, at the very least, he's a blood-sucking parasite.... right?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That man is a hero! Zomney for president!