Let me ask you something: do you think Obama or Romney is more likely to get the US into a shooting war with Iran that could easily degenerate into a broad Middle East conflict that leads to thousands more American casualties?  Are you comfortable putting a guy who basically took Bush II's foreign policy team, unchanged, and used it to staff his campaign's foreign policy division, into the role of Commander-in-Chief?

Allons-y!

I asked first.

I don't think Obama handled the Bengazi situation very well, but I'm not sure if they were lying about the attack to give them room to spin it or if they honestly didn't know (or more likely, a bit of both).  I don't like that and I wish Obama's foreign policy team was perfect instead of merely mostly competent, but I'll take mostly competent over looming disastrous clusterfuck any day.

Allons-y!

...more likely, a bit of both...

I don't like that and I wish Obama's foreign policy team was perfect instead of merely mostly competent, but I'll take mostly competent over looming disastrous clusterfuck any day.

Nice.

Like I said in another thread, Republicans are grasping for straws as they know they have totally lost their historical reputation as being strong[er] on foreign policy. If Bush administration had done exactly what the Obama administration did in Libya, trust that it would've been shoved under the rug quickright. I mean they completely fabricated a war on lies.

... do you think Obama or Romney is more likely to get the US into a shooting war with Iran..?

Are you comfortable putting a guy who basically took Bush II's foreign policy team, unchanged, and used it to staff his campaign's foreign policy division, into the role of Commander-in-Chief?

So you're slamming Obama for telling half-truths, while advocating putting the yellow cake / "there be WMD's" team back in power?  That makes total sense, nobody ever said.

Allons-y!

Despite your best efforts to make it seem otherwise, Bush is not running for president.

Romney has taken on Bush's first term foreign policy team - so in that sense, he is.  I would be willing to give Romney a chance if the election was about the economy alone - I think Romney wouldn't do any worse than Obama, and there's a fair chance he'd do better.  Romney has shown very poor judgment in setting up his foreign policy team, though, and his choices for the Supreme Court would very likely tip the court in a hard-right conservative direction for at least four or five years (Ginsburg almost certainly dies or steps down within the next presidential term, which would give conservatives a very solid 5-4 majority on the court, stepping up to 6-3 on most issues since Kennedy is far more conservative than not).  Romney himself isn't the problem, it's the people he's surrounded himself with and the party he's tied himself too.  He's going to have to make bargains and do things to keep the base placated in issue areas that will have real serious repercussions, and in those areas he is, exactly, taking policy positions right out of the Bush II playbook.

Allons-y!

...if the election was about the economy alone...

How do you feel about Romney's commitment to spend 4% of GDP on the military, whether they want it or not?

Allons-y!

It's a bad idea.

Can you explain to me how his tax plan and deficit reduction plans add up?  Or do you just have faith in the Republican version of Hope and Change?

Allons-y!

I don't think anyone knows enough about Romney's tax plans to know whether or not it adds up. (Including Romney himself, probably.) But we know that Obama's policies have dramatically increased the debt, and will continue to do so.

So, Hope and Change then.  Gotcha.

Allons-y!

there's a fair chance he'll do better

    I think there's very good reasons to believe the differences would be largely cosmetic. Unless you somehow believe, against all evidence, that Romney would stop chasing votes once he took office.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Two things.  First - you think Obama hasn't done things that are counterproductive to economic growth in the quest to chase votes?  Certainly he has, all politicians do.  Second - Romney's a very wealthy man and comes from a wealthy background...I think it's fair to say that he's going to do what he thinks are the best things he can do to grow the economy, because it's in his self interest and those of his friends.  Obama's attempting to grow the economy while also beefing up the social safety net (or at least, not cutting it).  Romney doesn't care about that, and I think it's probably fair and true to say that there's room to grow if we pare down our spending on things like Medicare.  The question is whether that sort of growth is worth it, in terms of overall wellbeing...which pretty much lays out the difference between Republicans and Democrats, when you get right down to it, at least on economic matters.

Allons-y!

What things has Obama done to chase votes which were counterproductive to economic growth?

Card check didn't pass, but he pushed it pretty hard.  He's engaged in some protectionist policies (filing WTO complaints against China, etc.).  Pushing for EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses.

Allons-y!

I'm not sure Card Check effects economic growth?

I believe the complaints against China have less to do with chasing votes and more to do with trying to deal with Chinese currency manipulation.

Agreed with EPA regulation, but don't really think it's a bad thing.

Here's another one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/23/how-obamas-tire-tariffs-have-hurt-consu mers

Allons-y!

I don't know man, I just bought tires for my car that originally were $200 a tire for $150 a tire and also got a $50 rebate. Not sure where the skyrocketing tire prices are.

Certainly he has, all politicians do

    Yes, that was exactly my point, along with the notion that the needs of those voters won't change if Romney wins the office. Not every American has suffered financially since January, 2009-- in fact, a lot of us have either seen no change, or even some improvement. Will Romney take care of his buddies if he wins? Sure, but he's going to take care of those same members of the voting class that kept Obama even in the polls, or even ahead, up until the traditional narrowing in the last couple weeks of the campaign. I just don't see overall fiscal policy changing that much, no matter who wins next month. YMMV.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Point taken...ironically I think if you care about the debt, you're probably better off voting for Obama than Romney.  Romney will probably more or less continue Obama's level of social welfare spending (maybe shifting some of it to military spending) and overall government spending, but he'll also cut taxes - and he'll get a pass on that because Republicans think that tax cuts magically increase revenue.  Obama won't cut taxes (maybe he'll raise them on the wealthy), and he can't really increase spending (particularly if Republicans control Congress again), so it's pretty much status quo with him.  So in sum:  Romney = no spending cuts, but tax cuts likely, while Obama = no spending cuts, but also no tax cuts.  Unfunded tax cuts do indeed amount to a stimulus, so we're more likely to get short term economic growth under Romney, but in the long term, if you're worried about the deficit, then blargity blargh all around, we're just fucked.

Allons-y!

Point taken...ironically I think if you care about the debt, you're probably better off voting for Obama than Romney.  Romney will probably more or less continue Obama's level of social welfare spending (maybe shifting some of it to military spending) and overall government spending, but he'll also cut taxes - and he'll get a pass on that because Republicans think that tax cuts magically increase revenue.  Obama won't cut taxes (maybe he'll raise them on the wealthy), and he can't really increase spending (particularly if Republicans control Congress again), so it's pretty much status quo with him.  So in sum:  Romney = no spending cuts, but tax cuts likely, while Obama = no spending cuts, but also no tax cuts.  Unfunded tax cuts do indeed amount to a stimulus, so we're more likely to get short term economic growth under Romney, but in the long term, if you're worried about the deficit, then blargity blargh all around, we're just fucked.

Allons-y!

a shooting war with Iran that could easily degenerate into a broad Middle East conflict that leads to thousands more American casualties

Is your objection to fighting all these wars seriously that volunteer American soldiers might get hurt?  If so, Barry's got a drone program that's right up your alley!

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

that's most American's issue which is why the drones will continue

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

so much for "skin in the game," although i guess that's a side effect of increasing technology and an all-volunteer force.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Who gives a shit about skin in the game?  The idea is to have as little skin in the game as possible.

In 50 years, if the US has any human beings in combat positions, the military establishment should be considered to have failed horribly.

If wars are fought entirely with drones and full mechanized weaponry, where's the incentive to avoid them?  I think moving from the draft to the all-volunteer military was problematic enough...I worry that as countries transition to more and more automated systems that pretty soon we're going to be staring 1912 in the face - a world where the last big war is just too far in the past for anyone to remember, and where all it's going to take is a few dumb-ass mistakes to lead to a real disaster.

Allons-y!

If wars are fought entirely with drones and full mechanized weaponry, where's the incentive to avoid them?

There are plenty of economic and political reasons to avoid war, even with automated weaponry.  For one, robots aren't exactly cheap.

I think moving from the draft to the all-volunteer military was problematic enough

You'd prefer an army of slaves over an army of volunteers over an army of robots?  The legality of the draft under the 13th amendment was the greatest crime against literacy & common sense ever perpetrated by the courts in this country and while not formally disavowed, we seem to have mostly moved past that particular piece of barbarism.

1912 in the face - a world where the last big war is just too far in the past for anyone to remember, and where all it's going to take is a few dumb-ass mistakes to lead to a real disaster.

I don't think anyone is particularly eager for a war between ICBM armed powers, robots or not, but the sheer pointlessness of fighting an unstoppable robot legion would, I think, bring a lot of the rogue powers into line with the consensus of the bigger countries which should improve the prospects for peace.

I don't think anyone is particularly eager for a war between ICBM armed powers, robots or not, but the sheer pointlessness of fighting an unstoppable robot legion would, I think, bring a lot of the rogue powers into line with the consensus of the bigger countries which should improve the prospects for peace.

What happens when these systems become cheap-ish off the shelf units that can be bought by random African or Central Asian dictators for a few bushels of diamonds or barrels of oil?  If you look at the way military tech has spread out in the past, and the way automation & computer tech is advancing, I think it's somewhat naive to expect that we can easily put the genie back in the bottle once it's out there.  On the flip side, there's so much overlap between things that are genuinely useful for civilian purposes and things that would have military uses (i.e. Google's self-driving cars), that maybe it's inevitable that this tech is going to be out there (much like air-forces pretty much became inevitable as soon as Orville and Wilbur did their thing), and it's better that the military have a handle on it...I dunno.

Allons-y!

For one, robots aren't exactly cheap.

Right, which means big money for the companies that build them and the contractors that support them.  That's where the "I" in "MIC" comes from.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

There are plenty of economic and political reasons to avoid war

     One of those "political reasons" is dead soldiers and their families. A cynic could even argue that this is almost the only serious restraint on the president when it comes to using the military.

For one, robots aren't exactly cheap

    There's a conservative line of argument that makes drone warfare undesirable, perhaps even unbearable. Unfortunately, these arguments only seem to be valid when a Democrat is in the White House. Is "partisan morality" an oxymoron? Doesn't seem a good basis for military policy, in any case.

bring a lot of rogue powers into line

    Are you arguing that the problem in the world is that smaller nations think they could stand up to the US military in full gear? I don't see the difference between getting crushed by robots or humans using overwhelming force, especially when it comes to the decision making by leaders in smaller nations. The issue looks to be less the war than the peace, and I don't see how automated warfare make that any easier.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras