# The final presidential debate: 10/22/12 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 22, 2012, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497 "2012-10-22T06:57:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/741 "2012-10-24T13:47:25Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > You mockingly went through three scenarios in which Romney threatens to pull out of bases in France, England and Canada. But this is not what **Sam Stone** said. Let’s roll the tape: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Frankly, I think there is room to cut the U.S. military budget, but the proper way to do it is to force U.S. allies to pick up the slack. **Canada** has to rely on U.S. transport to get her troops overseas en masse. **France** is a pale shadow of its former self. **The U.K.** probably can’t even defend the Falklands any more. The same goes for other U.S. allies, who have cut back whenever America has increased its strength, taking advantage of U.S. power to protect them while spending their own money at home. > > A strong president should go to **these countries** and tell them in no uncertain terms that they will have to start picking up the slack, and **threaten the pullout of strategic assets and military bases** unless they step up to the plate. For Ghu’s sake, this wasn’t buried deep in the thread where you could have reasonably overlooked it – it was all of seventeen posts behind yours. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/742 "2012-10-24T13:49:11Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > You mockingly went through three scenarios in which Romney threatens to pull out of bases in France, England and Canada. But this is not what **Sam Stone** said. You asked **Sam Stone** for a scenario, but he basically already gave you one. Hmm, **Sam** said this: > [@](#): > > A strong president should go to these countries and tell them in no uncertain terms that they will have to start picking up the slack, and threaten the pullout of strategic assets and military bases unless they step up to the plate. NATO’s force structure should be much more balanced across the various treaty countries. That seems like the scenario **RickJay** was ridiculing, or are you referring to something else? Are you saying you think this strategy would work? It’d be great if we could go to our allies and say, “We’re going to spend less on our military. You guys better start picking up the slack” and have it actually work. But I’d be pretty surprised if that actually works. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/743 "2012-10-24T13:50:25Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > For Ghu’s sake, this wasn’t buried deep in the thread where you could have reasonably overlooked it – it was all of seventeen posts behind yours. I think the point is that the military bases in question need not be in those countries for them to be important to those countries. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/744 "2012-10-24T13:51:37Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Clearly 10 steel gun ships can project more power than 1 aircraft carrier. > > I mean, there’s 10 of them, for pete’s sake. That’s whats so great about 99-year-old battleships. There’s ninety of 'em! ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/745 "2012-10-24T13:55:46Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I think the point is that the military bases in question need not be in those countries for them to be important to those countries. So… Romney should pressure Canada by threatening to pull out of bases where? In Alaska? In the continguous US? :dubious: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/746 "2012-10-24T14:00:33Z")
A military base isn’t like a fort you keep on your border to keep the Mongols out. I don’t understand why you’re having trouble grokking the concept that proximity to the country in question is only one small part of why a base might be in that country’s interests. We care if the Balkans explode and we don’t have the resources in the region to respond. But you know who cares more? France. We care if China invades Taiwan and we have no ability to project force to prevent that. But we’re not the only country that cares. Canada also benefits from a free Taiwan. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/747 "2012-10-24T14:10:29Z")
I didn’t want to clutter this thread, so I started [another one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=669827) about how the candidates’ foreign policy only seems to recognize a half-dozen other places. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/748 "2012-10-24T15:27:37Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > For example, Obama seems to think that having an aircraft carrier means you need fewer ships. Does Obama think that having aircraft carriers means you need fewer ships, or does it just “seem” that way? It seems you believe the former. A more likely conclusion from watching this exchange would be that Obama was simply illustrating the foolishness of basing current military strength on a comparison with different levels and types of equipment from 100 years ago. Drawing a conclusion from these comments that the president doesn’t know what he’s talking about is ridiculous. Just because he didn’t start a discussion about the facts you mention is evidence of nothing. This was a debate on foreign policy, not a detailed discussion into our military capabilities. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/749 "2012-10-24T15:33:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So that we don’t waste money on Obama phones, Solyndra, and high-speed trains to nowhere? > **[The Obama Phone? - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/)** > > Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients? A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is... ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/750 "2012-10-24T15:38:36Z")
This whole kerfluffle over bayonets is really amusing. Obama made a simple point: the strength of our military is a question of its capabilities, and not some abstract measure of number of ships. No one seriously disagrees with that, but an even more fundamental belief among conservatives is that every Democrat must be ignorant about the military, so it follows that they must find something to criticize about the remark. Hence Sam Stone’s flailing about how carriers require support ships, which so completely misses the point that even he would see it were it any other context. We’re treated to a thousand right-wing blog posts about how horses are still being used in Afghanistan and soldiers still being trained on bayonets, as if that has anything to do with Obama’s comment. It’s a perfect storm of the armchair general tendency among conservative men and ordinary partisanship. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/751 "2012-10-24T15:41:59Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > [The Obama Phone? - FactCheck.org](http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/) Wow, I didn’t even know what he was talking about there. Someone clearly buys into the glurge. Even then, even _if_ it were true, it certainly makes a lot of sense. If you’re going to get someone back on their feet and employed again, a phone is even more necessary than an internet connection, and an internet connection is nearly mandatory these days. Basic cell phones are extremely cheap (on the order of $20 each) and 70 minutes a _month_ is worth about $3 from some companies, or about $7 for most pay-as-you-go plans. Yes, someone on welfare can probably afford that themselves, but again even if it were true, a federal plan of this nature would barely even qualify as a drop in the bucket. Again, Ditka, stop bitching about pennies and ignoring the dollars if you want to be taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/752 "2012-10-24T15:50:49Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] This whole kerfluffle over bayonets is really amusing. Obama made a simple point: the strength of our military is a question of its capabilities, and not some abstract measure of number of ships. No one seriously disagrees with that, but an even more fundamental belief among conservatives is that every Democrat must be ignorant about the military, so it follows that they must find something to criticize about the remark. [/QUOTE] Probably because so many Democrats (and Republicans too) ARE ignorant about the military, while thinking they actually know quite a bit. I agree that the strength of our military isn’t measured in the number of hulls or planes or bullets we have…that’s the whole point of the military we’ve built, and why it costs so much. We use technology instead of large numbers of planes and tanks ans ships to force multiply. That said though, it’s all about requirements in the end. You don’t base your budget on vague things like ‘well, we have carriers now so don’t need as many ships’ (not saying that Obama said this btw), or ‘well, the budget sure looks like enough…I mean, it’s a lot of money right??’, nor ‘yeah, why do we need so much money for this stuff?? I mean, the UK only spends a fraction of what we do, and they have a navy thingy too, right??’ but instead on what our actual global commitments are (i.e. our requirements for the military). Do we have enough ships to meet those commitments? I mean, not ‘we sure have a lot of these useless carrier things that are clearly out dated’ (as I’ve heard numerous of this boards left wingers state in the past…ironic considering this change in the discussion here :p) but ‘we need X number of ships in order to meet Y number of requirements in Z theaters throughout the world…with some reasonable reserve for contingencies like being down for maintenance or allowing the crews to actually do something besides year round patrols’. I’d say on this that Romney was more wrong than Obama, but Obama’s response wasn’t what it could have been either…and, really, this is yet another example of the media (left wing, right wing, whatever wing) blowing stuff up because it’s another Big Bird sound bite that was just a minor clash of no real substance, but has been picked up by all sides as some sort of mountainous molehill that must be discussed, dissected and examined from every angle for days on end. Gods I’m sick of election season, and this year I’ve tried my best to ignore the whole thing, not watch the debates or get to involved in the discussions and just bleach out my brain of all the ridiculous drama and rhetoric. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/753 "2012-10-24T15:54:44Z")
> [@XT](#): > > That said though, it’s all about requirements in the end. Absolutely. How strong our military actually is is not the policy question. We don’t elect Presidents because they are good at assessing a modern military’s capabilities. The policy question is how strong it \*ought \*to be. But Romney’s claim is that Obama made our military weaker by not building more ships. That claim is not just wrong, but fundamentally wrongheaded since it is measuring military strength by a stupid metric. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/754 "2012-10-24T15:54:57Z")
It’s absolutely about requirements. That’s why so many people were going “What the _hell_ is Romney talking about? We don’t need all those ships!” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/755 "2012-10-24T15:55:24Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > A military base isn’t like a fort you keep on your border to keep the Mongols out. I don’t understand why you’re having trouble grokking the concept that proximity to the country in question is only one small part of why a base might be in that country’s interests. So, “A strong president should go to these countries and tell them in no uncertain terms that they will have to start picking up the slack, and threaten the pullout of strategic assets and military bases unless they step up to the plate.” doesn’t necessarily refer to strategic assets and military bases in or near “these countries”. I suppose that’s a natural companion piece to the assertion that a reference to “acts of terror” in a speech about the Benghazi attacks given the day after the Benghazi attacks doesn’t necessarily have bugger all to do with the Benghazi attacks. Remember when we laughed at Bill Clinton for finessing the defintion of “is”? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/756 "2012-10-24T15:58:34Z")
You’re the one inferring that the bases must in “in or near” these countries. That inference doesn’t come from what Sam Stone wrote. It comes, apparently, from your own misunderstanding of why bases are important to the strategic interests of various countries. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/757 "2012-10-24T15:59:30Z")
In case anybody was wondering why Romney has such a hard-on for building ships we don’t need: [Romney’s top Navy adviser made millions building them.](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/big-business-romneys-navy/all/) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/758 "2012-10-24T16:03:28Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Absolutely. How strong our military actually is is not the policy question. We don’t elect Presidents because they are good at assessing a modern military’s capabilities. The policy question is how strong it \*ought \*to be. > > But Romney’s claim is that Obama made our military weaker by not building more ships. That claim is not just wrong, but fundamentally wrongheaded since it is measuring military strength by a stupid metric. I agree…and as I said, from what I understand of the exchange Romney was wrong and doesn’t get it. It’s not the number of ships, per se, that makes us strong, but how those ships fulfill our global commitments that is the real bench mark. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/759 "2012-10-24T16:13:49Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I agree…and as I said, from what I understand of the exchange Romney was wrong and doesn’t get it. It’s not the number of ships, per se, that makes us strong, but how those ships fulfill our global commitments that is the real bench mark. So why do you say Romney was “more wrong than Obama”? Obama was never the one suggesting that we count ships to evaluate our strength. He in fact very deftly illustrated why arguing otherwise is stupid. We’re not weaker now because we have fewer bayonets than we used to. Instead, things have evolved to the point that the utility of the bayonet is dramatically reduced. So again, why suggest that Obama was wrong at all? Is it just in your DNA? ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/760 "2012-10-24T16:14:41Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I was mostly joking, but only mostly. > I really hope Obama wins, because if he loses, the take away from the 2012 election will be\*\* Lie Even More.\*\* Sad, but probably true. The Karl Rove Big Lie School. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497.md?page=39)