Official 10/15 Debate Thread

[OliveButtercup]

Yes. The last debate. The program airs tonight PST 6 pm/9pm EST on Faux news, CSPAN, etc.

[Jetsetlemming]

Roxie's probably gonna close this and tell you to post in the Election thread because she hates freedom, fyi.

[stsparky]

McCain looks waxen.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

McCain's ideas on education are plain retarded. Why would you want public schools to compete for enrollment?

[Plekto]

God I want someone to go on the attack, get in the other's face, and stop using soundbites.

AG!!!.

So frustrating.

[OliveButtercup]

If I was a republican I'd be feeling pretty down right now.

[riona]

McCain looks waxen.

I bet it's the embalming fluid they use to keep him from decomposing.

[Beowulf]

The best part of the entire debate was when McCain brought up that bullshit about fining people who don't use "Obama's Healthcare Plan" and Obama just responded that the fine would be 0 because it doesn't exist. McCain's response, "ZERO!? grumblegrumblegrumble *no rebuttal*"

The whole fucking debate all McCain did was spout his false bullshit talking points, Obama would call his bluff and explain the real story, and McCain folds instantly because deep down he knows that none of his major attacking points are true.

[Kaji]

When asked if he could get off foreign oil in the first term of his presidency, Obama conveniently pushed it off for his successor to deal with by saying he thought it would take at least 10 years, then shifted and declared that we should be focusing on the economy so that he wouldn't have to elaborate. He then closed by claiming that getting off foreign oil is his top priority. Personally, this comes off as an indicator that he doesn't plan on effecting any real change.

On a related note, if he’s not planning on cutting spending, and he’s not going to raise taxes except on the top 5%, just where does he intend to pull in the money to pay for socialized medicine, thousands of dollars per student per year for college tuition, and all the other stuff he's proposing again? Or is he really just going to take wealth redistribution to its furthest and try to tax the wealthy into poverty?

[Jetsetlemming]

tax the wealthy into poverty?
This is fairly impossible fyi

[Plekto]

The thing that McCain never really understood is that today's uncommitted voters are the ones that are talking, reading, watching, and researching like crazy to figure this stuff out.

The party faithful on both sides are not really interested or participating. They vote for the D or the R candidate every time, or nearly so.

So he needed to stop attacking and start telling a story of hope, a brighter future, and change. Not politics as usually, because he doesn't need to say anything to one group or another or give a "nod" to the extreme right. They're not voting for a Democrat, no matter what he really says.

He really failed there. He came across as bitter, angry, and frustrated, but didn't really explain WHY. See, Ross Perot - he explained why right after he went off on both of the candidates. There was venting and then the reason why and what he would do about it. McCain? No follow-through that would reach the type of voter who actually reads, researches, and thinks about all of this.(which appears to now be the majority of the U.S. thanks to I suspect, the Internet being as commonplace as cellphones, TV, and coffee shops.)

Of course, Obama should have called him on that lack of vision. But I suspect all he has to do is have ads that tout his positive sides at this point and merely make an oblique reference to McCain being bitter, set in his ways, and so on to win.

P.S. From 1995 to 2007, the Republicans had a stranglehold on Congress. Totally in charge. He should have brought up that the President doesn't actually make laws and that it was the Republican congress that proposed all of the laws and tax increases. That the Republican Congress(tm) were actually the guys who were "taxing and spending" for over a decade - and who got us into this mess.

I would have had a little bit of fun - give quotes from Regan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. where they said they wouldn't raise taxes and then did. Turn that ancient Republican talking point on its ass and get rid of it once and for all.


On a related note, if he’s not planning on cutting spending, and he’s not going to raise taxes except on the top 5%, just where does he intend to pull in the money to pay for socialized medicine, thousands of dollars per student per year for college tuition, and all the other stuff he's proposing again?

His entire surplus to pay for it all comes from three sources: (funny how I can rattle this off far better and simpler than he can - he needs to really cut to the chase quicker)

1 - By not spending billions on Iraq.

2 - By secondary effects of not paying for oil but making our own fuel sources at home.(note - this will take 10-20 years, until then, it's basically the government borrowing money) We're spending a "bailout" every two years for imported oil. Even reducing that by 20% and paying that money to U.S. firms and people(keeping the money from going overseas) is enough right there.

Think of it as renting versus a mortgage. Paying even a little bit to yourself is far better than tossing it all away every month. If Obama would make it this simple, it would be much better.

3 - By secondary effects from cleaning up the health care mess. This also will take a decade or so to show real dividends. He hopes to reduce crap like health services so on due to there being less people at the bottom being crushed and forced into often very expensive care due to not having medical insurance and showing up at the emergency room half dead.

#2 and #3 are the main ways, and honestly, are needed. But it's long term, much like putting money into our ailing infrastructure is, or education. Pay now - kick their asses in the marketplace a decade later.

EDIT:I should know better than to use figures from a debate. Heh. It's actually $370 billion last year for imported oil products. And ally or enemy isn't the issue - it's dollars staying at home or going abroad.

[Swede]

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9070/r1772410910oo5.jpg

This pretty much sums it up.

[Trump]

The simple fact is, over month and months of campaigning, Obama has never ONCE divulged the details in a public fashion like this. What is this going to mean for him as president? We're never going to have a clue what is going on without sifting through tons of written records.

It's either that or the policies really aren't his but they are his advisors and he doesn't know much about them. Simply, if his policies were actually explained and actually made sense, I'd vote for him, but he seems just as incapable as Mccain of doing this.

At least Mccain understands that reducing taxes on small business means more jobs for everyone while Obama believes if you make sure you someone has a house they'll magically have a job. Seriously, WTF? Unfortunately, that's the only thing Mccain actually does right and he totally drops the ball on everything from education to space policies.

So who do I vote for? They are both quite possibly the worst candidates this side of the current president.

[Plekto]

Except there's a hole that you could drive a Mack truck through with that idea of giving money to businesses to grow the economy. One that makes it truly "Voodoo Economics".

- The businesses take the government breaks and money and send it overseas, since there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

They build factories overseas and employ workers overseas. So the job creation never actually happens. Well, I guess it does in China, where their standard of living is skyrocketing...

[TygressVirgo]

Speaking of oversea production. Do you think there is a way to bring all that back over to the US?

[Beowulf]

When asked if he could get off foreign oil in the first term of his presidency, Obama conveniently pushed it off for his successor to deal with by saying he thought it would take at least 10 years, then shifted and declared that we should be focusing on the economy so that he wouldn't have to elaborate. He then closed by claiming that getting off foreign oil is his top priority. Personally, this comes off as an indicator that he doesn't plan on effecting any real change.

On a related note, if he’s not planning on cutting spending, and he’s not going to raise taxes except on the top 5%, just where does he intend to pull in the money to pay for socialized medicine, thousands of dollars per student per year for college tuition, and all the other stuff he's proposing again? Or is he really just going to take wealth redistribution to its furthest and try to tax the wealthy into poverty?
Kaji is it hard to remain this willfully ignorant?

[TygressVirgo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27206446/?GT1=43001

a fact check of the debate by msnbc

[Arctic_Slicer]

Kaji is it hard to remain this willfully ignorant?

So how is he as you put it "willfully ignorant"? Instead of name calling why don't you provide examples? It's no secret that the candidates distorted the facts in that debate. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27206446/?GT1=43001)

TygressVirgo thank you for the link. I was just looking for that same article.

OBAMA: "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent."

THE FACTS: Obama constantly says this. But the independent Tax Policy Center says his plan would cut taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009.

[RoxFontaine]

You two are pathetic, really. Of the 8 or so fact checks we were linked to, only 2 of them are against Obama. The one you chose to quote A_S......just wow. What that says to me is his team has provided him with either outdated or incorrect household income figures. Even still, that's a break for over 80 percent of Americans!

Obama is such a horrible person.

It's all good though. Your thoughts are your thoughts and the same goes for your opinions. We can clearly see where your thinking lies.

[Plekto]

I don't want a tax break. Because they are never free. The money comes from someplace else. Usually something that's unpopular but critical nonetheless.

I'll gladly pay *more* in taxes if stuff actually got solved for a change.

[Arctic_Slicer]

You two are pathetic, really. Of the 8 or so fact checks we were linked to, only 2 of them are against Obama. The one you chose to quote A_S......just wow. What that says to me is his team has provided him with either outdated or incorrect household income figures. Even still, that's a break for over 80 percent of Americans!

Obama is such a horrible person.

It's all good though. Your thoughts are your thoughts and the same goes for your opinions. We can clearly see where your thinking lies.

You could read the thread and see who and what I was responding to. Kaji criticized Obama for have an unsustainable tax plan that only taxed the top 5%. Beowulf attacked Kaji for this and called him "willfully ignorant". I responded to Beowulf and quoted from the article the fact that Obama's tax plan does not in fact only tax the top 5%. However people like Kaji believe this misconception because Barack Obama himself is spreading this disinformation and as such Kaji is not "willfully ignorant". Also I didn't attack Barack Obama specifically I said: "It's no secret that the candidates distorted the facts in the debate." Note I used the plural of candidates and with only two candidates in that debate I must be talking about both Barack Obama and John McCain.

I am getting tired of the name calling that is happening to anyone who has legitimate criticisms of Barack Obama such as Kaji and myself. It's all fine to have a debate on the subject but it is not fine to post one liner ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks as a counter argument. It is this kind of behavior that ruins productive discussion and disenfranchises people from this community. Either people need to engage in these conversations more civilly or the mods need to step up the moderation. In other forums I visit posts like this (http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=458509&postcount=16) are unacceptable and are promptly edited or deleted.

[darighaz]

Just because people you declare bullshit a legitimate criticism doesn't make it one...

[Arctic_Slicer]

Just because people you declare bullshit a legitimate criticism doesn't make it one...

Kaji arrived at an incorrect conclusion based on inaccurate statements made by Barack Obama during the debate. It's not "bullshit" it is simply an inaccurate conclusion caused by the spreading of misinformation.

[RoxFontaine]

You could read the thread and see who and what I was responding to. Kaji criticized Obama for have an unsustainable tax plan that only taxed the top 5%. Beowulf attacked Kaji for this and called him "willfully ignorant". I responded to Beowulf and quoted from the article the fact that Obama's tax plan does not in fact only tax the top 5%. However people like Kaji believe this misconception because Barack Obama himself is spreading this disinformation and as such Kaji is not "willfully ignorant". Also I didn't attack Barack Obama specifically I said: "It's no secret that the candidates distorted the facts in the debate." Note I used the plural of candidates and with only two candidates in that debate I must be talking about both Barack Obama and John McCain.

Got ya.

That other shit you posted about though is largely irrelevant. YOU choose to post here.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

The AP says that Obama will only cut taxes for about 81.3% of American households, but this seems to be contradicting that:

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/4559/taxplansqt1.png

It's possible that the AP is using figures for the year 2009 only for a reason.

[Plekto]

And that says it all, really. Just post that in an ad. Leave it on the screen for something like 30 seconds. No audio - just on the screen.

[Roxie]

When asked if he could get off foreign oil in the first term of his presidency, Obama conveniently pushed it off for his successor to deal with by saying he thought it would take at least 10 years,
That wasn't a "convenient push-off", it's like, a fact. And even if it weren't, it wouldn't be possible for Obama to "deal with it" even if he got elected to two terms. I mean really, that's only 8 years.

[Kaji]

That wasn't a "convenient push-off", it's like, a fact. And even if it weren't, it wouldn't be possible for Obama to "deal with it" even if he got elected to two terms. I mean really, that's only 8 years.

And I can accept the possibility that he can't do it in his term. That said, he could at least have proposed some measures for dealing with the issue in his term so that his successor would be on track. Instead he diverts to another "more pressing" issue and doesn't even connect it to the question during his response. If Obama's not going to do anything, and it's going to take 10 years to get it done, then we're going to have to wait until he's out to get a start on those 10 years, by the look of it.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

And I can accept the possibility that he can't do it in his term. That said, he could at least have proposed some measures for dealing with the issue in his term so that his successor would be on track. Instead he diverts to another "more pressing" issue and doesn't even connect it to the question during his response. If Obama's not going to do anything, and it's going to take 10 years to get it done, then we're going to have to wait until he's out to get a start on those 10 years, by the look of it.
Did you or did you not listen to the parts of the debate where Obama stressed investing more resources in alternative fuels?

[RoxFontaine]

And I can accept the possibility that he can't do it in his term. That said, he could at least have proposed some measures for dealing with the issue in his term so that his successor would be on track. Instead he diverts to another "more pressing" issue and doesn't even connect it to the question during his response. If Obama's not going to do anything, and it's going to take 10 years to get it done, then we're going to have to wait until he's out to get a start on those 10 years, by the look of it.

Yeah. Obama is such an idiot. McCains plan for reducing foreign oil dependency in his first term is MUCH better:

McCAIN: "We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."

THE FACTS: For nuclear power to lower oil dependency would require a massive shift to electric or hybrid-electric cars, with nuclear power providing the electricity. No new U.S. nuclear reactor has been built since the 1970s. Although 15 utilities have filed applications to build 24 new reactors, none is expected to be built before 2015 at the earliest. Turmoil in the credit markets could force cancellation of some of the projects now planned, much less spur construction of 45 new reactors, as reactor costs have soared to about $9 billion apiece.

He's got an axe and a scalpel and he's going to put a total freeze on spending.

[Kaji]

If a tree's got dead branches, a scalpel's not a very effective tool to use to deal with them. Besides, putting a freeze on unnecessary spending sure sounds like a much better solution to a deficit than "I don't think we need to cut spending anywhere. While we're at it, I think we need to expand our social programs!"

[RoxFontaine]

If a tree's got dead branches, a scalpel's not a very effective tool to use to deal with them. Besides, putting a freeze on unnecessary spending sure sounds like a much better solution to a deficit than "I don't think we need to cut spending anywhere. While we're at it, I think we need to expand our social programs!"

You're quoting whom here as you dance around the pertinent points? It certainly isn't Obama.

[TygressVirgo]

The link I posted (should anyone have issue) was merely something I cam across, and posted for the sake of knowledge gained.

One thing that I got from Obama's talk of cuts and spending, was that he said "for every dollar he planned to spend, he planned to cut it from somewhere that was not working" Anyone else catch this, or have thoughts on it?

From my linked article
OBAMA: "Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut, so that it matches."

THE FACTS: The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that his programs would add $281 billion to the deficit at the end of his first term. The analysis includes Obama's proposals for saving money.
— The Associated Press

[OliveButtercup]

If a tree's got dead branches, a scalpel's not a very effective tool to use to deal with them. Besides, putting a freeze on unnecessary spending sure sounds like a much better solution to a deficit than "I don't think we need to cut spending anywhere. While we're at it, I think we need to expand our social programs!"

Who said this please?

[anver]

McCAIN: "We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."
Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

Nuclear waste instead of debt, what a trade.

[Kaji]

Who said this please?

The tree bit is mine, the spending bit is a paraphrase of Obama's evasion of the question on where he would cut spending during the first presidential debate.

McCAIN: "We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."
Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

Nuclear waste instead of debt, what a trade.

As he noted when he mentioned that, we've been dealing with the waste generated by a nuclear navy for decades now. Sure, the solution may need a bit of scaling up, but at least he put a solution out there other than "It'll take at least 10 years, so I'm going to ditch the question and talk about current events instead."

[Arctic_Slicer]

McCAIN: "We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."
Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

Nuclear waste instead of debt, what a trade.

I totally agree, nuclear power was halted 35 years ago and it's our best interest it stays that way. Not only is there a problem with figuring out what to do with all of the nuclear waste there is also the fact that the existence of nuclear powers plants are a threat to national security. They practically have a bulls-eye for a terrorist attack; nuclear waste transports are also easy targets for terrorists. You also have to consider natural disasters such as earthquakes. Then there is the cost. We could spend a lot less money and achieve energy independence a lot faster by investing in energy efficiency as well as greater infrastructure in solar, wind, geothermal and tidal sources of energy.

Nuclear power along with "clean" coal is not clean energy but dirty politics.

[anver]

As he noted when he mentioned that, we've been dealing with the waste generated by a nuclear navy for decades now.
From the EPA website (NWPA (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter108_.html)):

- a national problem has been created by the accumulation of [...] spent nuclear fuel [...] and radioactive waste

- Federal efforts during the past 30 years to devise a permanent solution to the problems of civilian radioactive waste disposal have not been adequate

Makes it almost sound like storage of materials that are highly dangerous for at least a century, more often several, is not as easy as that. Surprising.

Sure, the solution may need a bit of scaling up, but at least he put a solution out there other than "It'll take at least 10 years, so I'm going to ditch the question and talk about current events instead."
A solution? So where will the 405 billion dollars come from? How exactly will the change to electric cars come about?

Personally, I find Obama's plan of pushing alternative energy while reducing oil dependency a tad more realistic.

[Jetsetlemming]

McCAIN: "We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."
Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

Nuclear waste instead of debt, what a trade.
That's a pretty positive trade. I, personally, would prefer a glowing radioactive mountain than the entire country broke.
Somebody should propose a federal backing of Tesla Motors to McCain. :V

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Nuclear waste isn't really as dreadfully awful as a lot of people make it out to be. Nuclear power plants are not capable of exploding like a nuclear bomb and at most are going to explode like a big conventional bomb if attacked, which kind of ruins the point of attacking them. Transportation of nuclear waste are pretty much indestructible too and frankly I doubt they'd just be strolling them down the street for all to see. Nuclear waste storage could be problematic but isn't really that big of a deal and if we used updated and upgraded plants and took advantage of reprocessing it wouldn't be that bad at all.

The biggest (and really only problem in my opinion) would be the cost. McCain's proposition of just building 45 nuclear power plants would be a logistical nightmare but more nuclear power isn't a bad thing at all and I think people who oppose it should probably just educate themselves on it a bit more.

If you have an hour and a half, then this is a great place to start. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BHdsjo-NR4)

[PiccoloNamek]

I am all for more nuclear power, personally. People who are educated as to how a nuclear power plant is actually constructed and functions would realize that they aren't a good place for a terrorist to attack to all. The reactor is impervious to damage from the outside, and it would be virtually impossible to purposefully cause a meltdown. Neither fission nor fusion rectors can explode like a bomb. They are expensive, but they're also one of the best sources of energy we have right now.

[Mastiker]

They are expensive, but they're also one of the best sources of energy we have right now.

You know, if you can get past the whole "toxic waste" issue. No big deal, amirite?

[Beowulf]

Personally, I find Obama's plan of pushing alternative energy while reducing oil dependency a tad more realistic.
That's funny because I just noticed that there is absolutely nothing John McCain can't do (if you listen to John McCain). Not that he offers any explanation as to how he'll do any of it but he'll do it, nonetheless.
Catch Osama Bin Laden? McCain can do it.
End our oil dependence? McCain can do it.
Balance our budget instantly? McCain can do it.
"Win" in Iraq? McCain can do it.
Fix the economy? McCain can do it.

How?
Fuck you that's how.

[anver]

That's funny because I just noticed that there is absolutely nothing John McCain can't do (if you listen to John McCain).
And he has the scars to prove it.

[Plekto]

One thing that I got from Obama's talk of cuts and spending, was that he said "for every dollar he planned to spend, he planned to cut it from somewhere that was not working" Anyone else catch this, or have thoughts on it?

From my linked article
OBAMA: "Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut, so that it matches."

THE FACTS: The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that his programs would add $281 billion to the deficit at the end of his first term. The analysis includes Obama's proposals for saving money.


We're spending 200 billion a year in Iraq. That's 800 billion in his first term we save just by getting out. There's the missing money and then some.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

You know, if you can get past the whole "toxic waste" issue. No big deal, amirite?
It really isn't a big deal once you find out how nuclear waste is handled, how dangerous it really is (and for how long it's dangerous), and the fact that it can be reprocessed to greatly reduce the amount of nuclear waste produced. A lot of the fears regarding nuclear power are either unfounded or archaic, and it could be a great source of energy in the future. Like I said, the biggest problem is cost, really.

[Roxie]

Yeah...I don't know.
A few of my poorer family members had to move in the early 90's b/c it was found that the projects they lived in had built upon a toxic waste dump.

[TygressVirgo]

We're spending 200 billion a year in Iraq. That's 800 billion in his first term we save just by getting out. There's the missing money and then some.


Ok, but how can we pull out of Iraq i without shooting ourselves in the foot?

Also more on joe the plumber

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aysiUbzAUIZs&refer=us

Supposedly he admitted that Obama's plan WOULD be better for him on Good Morning America . . .

[Plekto]

That's the thing - we need to leave, just like in Vietnam. We can't "win" and honestly would you rather we save face or save our economy? Oh wait - the rest of the world thinks we're assholes, so saving face... yeah... good luck with that one.

[darighaz]

Nuclear waste being unsafe is a bit of a who knows.

check out the Oklo Natural reactor.

Short version, there was a natural reactor underground. the byproducts moved about 200 foot, after about 2 billion years of being there. Clearly we are screwed if nuclear waste gets out (owait, we have no idea).

Nuclear power is extremly safe, relativly cheap, and a hellavalot better for the environment than burning coal/gas is.

[Plekto]

Two words:

Subduction Zone

[TygressVirgo]

That's the thing - we need to leave, just like in Vietnam. We can't "win" and honestly would you rather we save face or save our economy? Oh wait - the rest of the world thinks we're assholes, so saving face... yeah... good luck with that one.

I do think that repairing our international standing is important, and I have yet to hear Mccain mention this. Do you think that if we leave Iraq within Obama's first term that it will destabilize that region, or is it already fubar?

:gwitch: just cause I felt like using it.

[Kaji]

We decided Iraq was done the first time, left, Saddam rose again. We decided Afghanistan was done, left, the Taliban rose again. Now we're back in Iraq, and likely on the rise in Afghanistan as well. If we keep leaving the job half-done, we're just going to have to keep coming back. Let's just finish it once and for all instead.

[darighaz]

Wait, why do we have to keep coming back?

Why did we have to come back this time?

OWAIT, we also have the option of leaving that shit alone.

[archdukezeb]

We decided Iraq was done the first time, left, Saddam rose again. We decided Afghanistan was done, left, the Taliban rose again. Now we're back in Iraq, and likely on the rise in Afghanistan as well. If we keep leaving the job half-done, we're just going to have to keep coming back. Let's just finish it once and for all instead.

I like how you can finish something like this. You do it just right and try really hard and you can make sure there will always be a regime in power favorable to you. With little to no upkeep!

[TygressVirgo]

Can you give people freedom if they don't want it? Don't fight for it?

[Plekto]

Given that 30% of our economy is now outsourced or being propped up by the good will of other nations(loans they keep making us and not asking for repayment on), a lot of bridge-mending needs to be done.

I just don't see McCain willing to sit down and talk. Shoot, Obama when McCain kept bringing up that blather about talking with our enemies... he should have immediately spat back "Oh, you mean like Regan did?"

[TygressVirgo]

Was it just me, or was Mccain completely misunderstanding what Obama was saying about meeting with other not so friendly countries? It bothered me that he didnt even consider Obama's explanation. To be fair, I will say Obama has prolly done somethign similar. However I think Obama is more willing to listen.