Romney and +$2 trillion for the military. Talking in code?

[BobLibDem]

@jasg

Le lance-grenades frappe à minuit

Jean a une longue moustache

[R.P.McMurphy]

@Simplicio

How could random voters interpret the code if I can’t? And if Bush II and McCain also made increasing military spending parts of their campaign, were they also sending the same code? If not, how did people who were supposed to receive the code know Romney was sending them a code, and not just repeating the same position the GOP has had since 2000.

Response: Not random voters. Single issue voters. They get it.
Really? I’d say almost all those things were addressed pretty frequently.
Climate Change got short-shift, and the European financial crisis isn’t really something the President has a lot of traction over, but the rest was pretty extensively discussed.

They were not. I watched the debates. While things got touched on occasionally by some elements in the media, where did all the advertising dollars go? They weren’t extensively discussed by the candidates or their or their campaigns. What about the role of Russia? Did that get discussed in the debates? What about the situation in Africa? No mention. What about South America? Never a word about it. What about the drug war in Mexico, on our border? No discussion. Gun control? Not even mentioned.

All Romney kept pounding on was the last 4 years. It was as if human history started then. What about the last 12 years? What was his foreign policy? Even he didn’t know and he took a knockout punch in the debates when it got to that subject.

I really think he was pandering to a small group of influential voters (nothing new about that) with his plan. With an extra $2 trillion to the military we can afford another war. Of course that war would be in Iran.

[Dewey_Finn]

@John_Mace

Romney never said $2T. That was inferred by Obama based on his statement that he wanted to put a floor on military spending at 4% of GDP, and later verified by some fact-check sites. There are lots of reasons why he might want to increase military spending.

What would “fully funded” mean? It could mean anything.

One article I read said that the four percent of GDP figure came from no where. In other words, there was no reasoning behind that particular number.

[Captain_Amazing]

@R.P.McMurphy

Politically, there was no way he or Obama wanted to address the direct question of what their policy would be if Israel made a preemptive strike. Therefore, I’m suggesting that he stated his position by talking in code.

Romney pretty much came out and said that he’d support Israel if they launched a preemptive strike on Iran. He didn’t have to talk in code. He said “We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course. And it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so. In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel’s right to defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with you.” His aid, Dan Senor, said to the press, “If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing that capability the governor would respect that decision”

[Simplicio]

@R.P.McMurphy

They were not. I watched the debates.

Not very closely.

Israel/Iran

The word Iran or Iranian was used 39 times in the third debate. The word Israel or Israeli occured more then 25 times.

The Arab Spring

Egypt alone occured 11 times. Didn’t count Libya+Syria+Tunisia, but I imagine they were represented as well.

China’s effort to assert itself in Southeast Asia

Not sure that’s really an issue many people care about. But China was discussed extensively, and Obama did discuss using the military to check Chinese power in the “Asia-Pacific” region.

North Korea

North Korea only came up once. But both men generally agree on policy towards N. Korea, so I’m not sure there’s much to discuss.

immigration

Seriously?

Russia

Occurred nine times during the third debate.

What about South America? Never a word about it.

Romney talked about trade with Latin America in the third debate. I believe he used words when doing so.

Your factually wrong. Almost everything on your list came up during the debates.

[John_Mace]

@R.P.McMurphy

I really think he was pandering to a small group of influential voters (nothing new about that) with his plan. With an extra $2 trillion to the military we can afford another war. Of course that war would be in Iran.

This is what we in the business call a “just so” story. It’s laughable as a debate tactic.