# 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:** 16\ **Page:** 43
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/841 "2012-10-25T15:45:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Taiwan is a free country that depends on us to defend it from tyranny. If we let them fall without a fight, then that tells the Baltic Republics and Poland that we won’t protect them either. I hope you meant that tongue-in-cheek. Unfortunately that isn’t clear. Let’s please quit kidding about a military invasion by China of Taiwan being a real-world possibility, okay? That’s old Cold War rhetoric, completely at odds with the real status of their close economic relations today. It doesn’t do anybody any good to keep beating that drum. And the general question should be “What do we need a Navy \*for \*in the 21st century?” Only then can you discuss what its capabilities need to be. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/842 "2012-10-25T17:04:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Put some US firepower in those straits and an already difficult task becomes completely impossible. Put some US firepower in those straits and the U.S. economy collapses in retaliation due to our debt and trade balance with the Chinese, thus no it is not defensible except in conservative hawks’ imaginations. It would be ruinous for all three countries which is why it doesn’t happen, not because the U.S. is so invincible and ass kicking that the Chinese quiver in fear. The U.S. could dissapear overnight and as long as Taiwan does not declare independence overtly and officially, China will keep on pretending Taiwan is theirs, the U.S. has nothing to do with the status quo and could not defend Taiwan if China set her mind to it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/843 "2012-10-25T17:05:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Taiwan is a free country that depends on us to defend it from tyranny. If we let them fall without a fight, then that tells the Baltic Republics and Poland that we won’t protect them either. . . . From? ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/844 "2012-10-25T17:05:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Taiwan is a free country\*\* that depends on us to defend it from tyranny.\*\* If we let them fall without a fight, then that tells the Baltic Republics and Poland that we won’t protect them either. They don’t, but in conservative land the U.S. is what keeps all free countries free. :rolleyes: Thus, military spending palooza!!! ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/845 "2012-10-25T17:09:17Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > China owns 1.2T in US debt. While that would certainly create a shock to the system, I can’t imagine it would “destroy” the economy. Most likely we’d print our way out of it and deal with the resulting inflation. > > Finally, what in the world makes you think we would honor the debt held by a belligerent nation? If China attacked Taiwan, we would probably simply cancel any debt owned by them which would likely have pretty bad effects on _their_ economy. I said a war with China to defend Taiwan would ruin our economy, and your counter argument is we’d print our money and “deal with the inflation” and just “cancel Chinese debt”?? :dubious: Are you even being serious? This is not to even address what a trade embargo would do to the United States. Hint: 2011 trade imbalance with China was -295 billion dollars Do you know how much of the computer and tech industry relies on Taiwanese manufacture? Interrupt that and feel the burn as well. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/846 "2012-10-25T17:21:48Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > I said a war with China to defend Taiwan would ruin our economy What you said is in the quote box in my post. Are you now claiming not to have said those words? I’ll repeat them again here for clarity: > [@rogerbox](#): > > much less the fact that China can choose to utterly destroy the American economy anytime by calling in their American debt. I am addressing this claim by you. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/847 "2012-10-25T18:42:59Z")
Okay I misspoke then if I gave you the impression that I meant China could ruin our economy by instantly calling in our debt-that is wrong. They would ruin our economy using a myriad of tools. Happy? Your claim that we WOULDN’T have our economy ruined is the fantastic one especially since your solutions are the textbook solutions that have lead to financial ruin for so many countries already. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/848 "2012-10-25T20:46:45Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > Do you know how much of the computer and tech industry relies on Taiwanese manufacture? Interrupt that and feel the burn as well. Hell, do you know how much of _China’s_ economy depends on Taiwan’s? And vice versa? Or that neither government is notably suicidal? Time to end the fantasies. It ain’t the Quemoy-Matsu Crisis no more (and even that was just saber-rattling). The Cold War is over. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/849 "2012-10-25T20:57:58Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The 1916 reference was just a sound bite, in exactly the same way that Obama said that Romney wanted to return to the foreign policy of the 1980’s. Am I supposed to get outraged at how stupid that idea is? Or start snarking that Obama doesn’t realize that the Soviet Union is gone? Well, that would be pretty stupid, because Obama is not claiming that Obama wants to go back to the foreign policy of the 1980s. Obama is claiming that Romney wants to go back to the foreign policy of the 1980s. If you point out that there is no longer a Soviet Union, that is just making Obama’s case for him that Romney’s plans are stupid. > [@](#): > > I think we can safely assume that Romney knows that 1916 wasn’t the gold standard of Navy inventory levels. Just as I would assume that Obama saying that the 1980’s wants its foreign policy back is just a lame-ass joke, and not a statement of belief that Romney wants another cold war with a reconstituted Soviet Union. Both of them were simply taking license to use numbers in a way that might generate a sound bite that sticks. Politicians do this all the time. And Obama did it better. > [@](#): > > But on this board, anything a conservative says (whether a Republican politician or a conservative poster on this board) must be parsed with a microscope, declared to be completely idiotic based on any possible stretch or literal interpretation of the meaning you can get away with, while allowing no possible benefit of the doubt. > > Once this anal word-parsing exercise is completed, the usual suspects then use that as evidence that the poster or Republican politician is A) lying, or B) stupid. > > It’s getting very tedious. Actually, it’s the Republicans who started the parsing by trying to argue that Romney’s claim about ship counts actually means something. > [@adaher](#): > > they just don’t have the air and naval dominance needed to successfully take Taiwan, unless they were heedless of casualties and willing to see about 250,000 Chinese resting on the bottom of the strait. Well, it _is_ China. They do seem to be somewhat more casual about things like that. > [@zut](#): > > Poor phrasing by the Tribune, it seems. Ray Mabus made those remarks references on April 16; the transcript of his speech is online [here.](http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/secnav/Mabus/Speech/SeaAirSpace2012%20transcript%20(2).pdf) In it he said: Thank you for looking that up. Given what the actual article is that the Tribune mangled, that makes Romney’s point even less valid. The plan is already in place and in work to increase the navy size. Romney’s whining about something that’s already been solved. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/850 "2012-10-25T21:47:24Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > Okay I misspoke then if I gave you the impression that I meant China could ruin our economy by instantly calling in our debt-that is wrong. They would ruin our economy using a myriad of tools. Happy? Yep. Thanks for acknowledging that. > [@](#): > > Your claim that we WOULDN’T have our economy ruined is the fantastic one especially since your solutions are the textbook solutions that have lead to financial ruin for so many countries already. And what you seem to fail to realize is that there is NO way the Chinese could ruin our economy that wouldn’t devastate theirs as well. Possibly even worse than ours. The trade deficit means that they make more off us than we do off them. What are they planning to do to replace that revenue? There’s an apropos old saying (attributed to J Paul Getty: If you owe the bank $100 that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem. China is the bank in this case. There’s also the fact that making Chinese billionaire generals unhappy could be literally fatal for the Party leadership and while they might be willing to risk 250,000 soldiers, they ain’t risking their _own_ asses. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/851 "2012-10-25T22:07:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Hell, do you know how much of _China’s_ economy depends on Taiwan’s? And vice versa? Or that neither government is notably suicidal? Uhhhh, do you think I don’t know that? Because if you read my posts in this thread it’s pretty apparent that I do. Here, let me quote myself: > [@rogerbox](#): > > …which is why they can’t even say they are their own country and China is content to pretend Taiwan is theirs as long as the $$$ keeps pouring in. In other words, China will keep on pretending Taiwan is theirs as long as they don’t make a stupid declaration of independence, we would not go to all-out-war with China over Taiwan under any circumstances, and China would not invade Taiwan for financial reasons. This is hardly controversial stuff, the only people who should have a problem with what I say are the deluded conservatives who think the only reason democracy exists anywhere is because 'Merican freedom is spread from a gigantic cancerously bloated military industrial complex. But military spending is their religion and we should only pity them. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/852 "2012-10-25T22:21:38Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Yep. Thanks for acknowledging that. > > And what you seem to fail to realize is that there is NO way the Chinese could ruin our economy that wouldn’t devastate theirs as well. Possibly even worse than ours. The trade deficit means that they make more off us than we do off them. What are they planning to do to replace that revenue? There’s an apropos old saying (attributed to J Paul Getty: > If you owe the bank $100 that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem. > China is the bank in this case. > > There’s also the fact that making Chinese billionaire generals unhappy could be literally fatal for the Party leadership and while they might be willing to risk 250,000 soldiers, they ain’t risking their _own_ asses. This is all well and good but my main point about Taiwan is that it is not defensible and that if the USA floated up and into outerspace, never to return, Taiwan would still be Taiwan. Their independence is not because we are so badass and love freedom fries, and even should China turn suicidal and try to invade Taiwan, we would sit around condemning them while continuing to do business with China. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2012, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/853 "2012-10-26T03:47:06Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > This is all well and good but my main point about Taiwan is that it is not defensible … Your main point is incorrect. Taiwain is perfectly defensible. China doesn’t have enough of a navy or air force to successfully invade Taiwain. No matter how many times you make this silly claim, it’s still false. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2012, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/854 "2012-10-26T05:32:15Z")
China is perfectly content to play the long game on Taiwan (see the famous Chinese statement about the French revolution). As long as they don’t relinquish any claims to the island, they know that eventually it will come back to them. Maybe in 30 years, maybe in 100 years, but eventually. And in the meantime it’ll keep making money. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2012, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/855 "2012-10-26T05:40:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Your main point is incorrect. Taiwain is perfectly defensible. China doesn’t have enough of a navy or air force to successfully invade Taiwain. No matter how many times you make this silly claim, it’s still false. Because partisan hacks who love military spending and wrongly believe democracy cannot exist without the US say it, doesn’t make it so. [Wired quotes a RAND study:](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/08/think-tank-china-beats-us-in-simulated-taiwan-air-war/) > [@](#): > > But nine years later, a new, much-updated edition of the RAND study found that China’s improved air and missile forces “represent clear and impending dangers to the defense of Taiwan,” whether or not the U.S. is involved. > [@](#): > > Dan Blumenthal was senior director for China and Taiwan under Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. > > “Beijing strategists are thinking about it this way: Taiwan will fold quickly. That you can make them come to their knees quickly, not necessarily by invading Taiwan, but by launching ballistic missiles at Taiwan, there are many many pointed at Taiwan right now,” Blumenthal said. > > “By trying to bring down their critical infrastructure. By making it seem like the Taiwan government has lost control. Using Information and computer network attacks. Blockading the island, starving it from its economic resources,” he added. > > Pike said Taiwan’s strategy is to wait. So basically people who know a lot more about this than anyone on this board, say that China would cause Taiwan to fold, possibly even if the U.S. intervened, which I say is impossible to happen because Taiwan is not worth the U.S. losing 50+ years of economic progress over. You can be a snide little SDMB poster all you want but the Taiwanese do NOT think it’s a settled case that Taiwan is defensible, nor do our own government officials, so I reiterate that I couldn’t care less what the “consensus” is from that other thread which was mainly right wingers who never found a military dollar spent they didn’t like. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/856 "2012-11-04T15:21:43Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Point, game, and match - Romney! 😃 [Here](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/US_President_Barack_Obama_taking_his_Oath_of_Office_-_2009Jan20.jpg/220px-US_President_Barack_Obama_taking_his_Oath_of_Office_-_2009Jan20.jpg)’s something you won’t see Romney doing. > [@a35362](#): > > Is this supposed to discourage Democrats from voting, or Republicans? 😕 Depressed turnout favours Republicans. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I feel exactly the same way about all the welfare / social safety net spending. What’d be the comparison for compassion with the poor and someone with a dilettante fascination with the military? A Christian? Besides, your household analogy is inept, since there is not a demarcated point for invasion (presumably the analogy for homelessness). Perhaps rent is better: one can adjust rent in accordance to income. Perhaps the neighbourhood will be a bit more dangerous, but it’s better than skipping medical bills or grocery shopping. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem with Obama’s snarky comment was that it came across as being completely ignorant as well as condescending at a level so low that it showed Obama’s own ignorance. > > Once in a while you’ll get someone interjecting condescending nonsense like that into a discussion, and all it makes you think is, “This idiot knows so little about what we’re talking about that he doesn’t even realize his snark just shows his own ignorance.” > > Obama also mentioned that horses and bayonets are long gone, but in fact bayonets are still standard issue in some services, and horses are still used by special forces. > > The key takeaway for future snark is that if you’re going to give someone a condescending, smug response, you’d better be damned sure that you come across as someone who really knows what he’s talking about, lest you just look like an ass. Snipped cruft. > [@Obama](#): > > 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. > Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military’s changed. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > No, you’re right about that. I was going from memory, and misremembered that he said ‘fewer’ bayonets and horses, and not ‘none’. But that was hardly central to my point. Even having said ‘fewer’, it was a stupid comment to make. I get that he’s basically saying that the needs of the modern military are different than the needs of the military in 1916, but again, do you think there’s anyone in North America who doubts this? > [@Romney](#): > > Our Navy is older — excuse me — our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. Good fight, acolyte. > [@XT](#): > > Take your pick. The result of this short sighted and ignorant position, IMHO, is that the US won’t be able to adequately protect our global interests or the interests of our numerous allies, trading partners or associated nations, we will lose our tech edge, and when (not if) we DO have to fight again sometime in the future we will sustain (and inflict) many more causalities while we ramp back up and figure things out again from scratch. For examples of this, see just about every war the US was ever involved in up to the First Gulf War. You think the opposition’s position is ignorant? Are you aware of how [US](http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-propaganda-s-triumph-u-s-public-opinion-on-iran/29343) [military actions](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/718.php?lb=btis&pnt=718&nid=&id=) are viewed around the [world](http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/06/USIMAGE0035.png)? > [@tomndebb](#): > > Knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit. > > [/Moderating] What do you think of Sam Stone’s characterisation of another post as “idiocy”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497.md?page=42)