Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I know this prediction is a bit late, but there's a pretty big anti-Obama mood sweeping over the country, even in the Democrats. I think Romney's got this one. I don't know by how much, but he'll win.

At 10/15/12 02:05 PM, TheMason wrote:
And what makes you so sure that there is 'No chance' of this occurring?

Well to add on, why would China want to go to war with either Russia or India? After all Russia just wants a closer relationship as does India (aside from the whole Kashmir thing, but China has taken more of a high road since it its war with India it just kept the status quo in terms of territory meaning there is no longer as much of a conflict). Even if that were to happen you're acting like China can force America to do anything, it has some leverage but this hasn't stopped America from supporting Taiwan and selling arms to Taiwan. Not to mention what's China going to do with all the US"s debt? Force them to default and go belly up? Well then as goes America as goes China because their #1 buyer can no longer buy their products.

At 10/15/12 02:13 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 10/15/12 02:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

And what makes you so sure that there is 'No chance' of this occurring?

America would go to war with two fully nuclear nations? Are you mad?

First of all...I'm not saying that we would start it. Nor am I advocating it.

But here's the geostrategic/political picture:
China shares a border with both India and Russia...a tense border.

India and Russia are not really our friends. Yes, we trade with India and have relations. However, once you dig into the history of Indo-American relations they followed a policy of nonalignment. And I get why: they were recovering from European Colonialism and was thus hesitant to trust England's spin-off. So during the Cold War they were nonaligned a little more with the USSR than the USA. And I get that too...it actually makes sense even though India is democratic and more capitalist than socialist/communist.

But that's over...right? Not necessarily. India and Russia are developing the next generation of MiG together while China is developing a copy of the F-16. So some of those old Cold War lines are still drawn.

Furthermore, prior to WWI the Balkans in Europe was the tender box to start a world war. I think that has shifted East. Both India and China are rising stars...which means they are competitors...overpopulated competitors. Also, the India/China tension is not the only one going on. You've got the Pakistan/India quandry. If something happened there, there is a potential of the US and China getting involved on one side and Russia coming in on the other.

But hey...what do I know? It's not like I've spent the last six years of my life studying the region both academically and for my military job. ;)

At 10/15/12 10:25 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/15/12 02:05 PM, TheMason wrote:
And what makes you so sure that there is 'No chance' of this occurring?

Well to add on, why would China want to go to war with either Russia or India? After all Russia just wants a closer relationship as does India (aside from the whole Kashmir thing, but China has taken more of a high road since it its war with India it just kept the status quo in terms of territory meaning there is no longer as much of a conflict). Even if that were to happen you're acting like China can force America to do anything, it has some leverage but this hasn't stopped America from supporting Taiwan and selling arms to Taiwan. Not to mention what's China going to do with all the US"s debt? Force them to default and go belly up? Well then as goes America as goes China because their #1 buyer can no longer buy their products.

1) Russia and China does not look at foreign relations like we do. It is not only about economics...but power. The 'closer relationship' is not because they want to go hand-out and drink Vodka together. It's all about keeping your enemy closer.

2) A war to China's East or North could draw us in a la WWI, especially considering that our economies are so closely linked.

3) There are two areas where our interests militarily bump against China's: Taiwan and Korea.

4) China's trade abroad is of secondary priority to domestic tranquility. Even though their economic health is tied to ours...a desperate CCP could quite conceivably act what we consider irrationally if it looks like they could lose power.

Finally, I'm not saying that this is going to definately happen. Geopolitical/strategic studies is a lot like watching fault lines along the San Andreas or New Madrid fault. You know there are stressors...but you cannot predict when it will flare-up.

At 10/15/12 11:14 AM, BumFodder wrote:

At 10/15/12 12:04 AM, TheMason wrote: The scary thing is if China were to decide to go to war with Russia and/or India...they could drag the US in as an ally due to our indebtedness to them.

No chance.

Despite other's comments, I'm still curious what special insight you have that makes your argument so a priori...am I missing something?

At 10/16/12 11:56 AM, TheMason wrote: 1) Russia and China does not look at foreign relations like we do. It is not only about economics...but power. The 'closer relationship' is not because they want to go hand-out and drink Vodka together. It's all about keeping your enemy closer.

Except Russia is not looking to make China an enemy, China and Russia alone don't pose as much of a threat to the US as much as an alliance of China and Russia vs. the US. And again, China and Russia don't have any dispute, they essentially side with each other every time. And China at the end of the day knows that whatever they do they cannot go to war as it will hurt the entire country, I mean hell the PRC has actually had improving relations with Taiwan. Russia on the other hand wants China to be an ally, much more than China wants Russia to be an ally.

2) A war to China's East or North could draw us in a la WWI, especially considering that our economies are so closely linked.

That's simplifying WWI too much. Some guy did not get assassinated and all of a sudden every country went to war with each other out of nowhere. The countries had had long standing tensions and rivalries, they had been building up their militaries for decades just for the war, they had been conquering the world for themselves etc.. The assassination was not a reason for the war, but an excuse for the war. Russia and China have nothing of the sort. China and India somewhat but the PRC was smart not to make India hostile after it destroyed India in the Sino-Indian war.

3) There are two areas where our interests militarily bump against China's: Taiwan and Korea.

And like I said, The PRC is warming relations with the ROC, as with Korea. To take such a simplistic view of the conflict is to ignore all the changes in attitude in the PRC favoring pragmatism.

Finally, I'm not saying that this is going to definately happen. Geopolitical/strategic studies is a lot like watching fault lines along the San Andreas or New Madrid fault. You know there are stressors...but you cannot predict when it will flare-up.

You haven't identified any significant stressor however.

At 10/16/12 11:57 AM, TheMason wrote: Despite other's comments, I'm still curious what special insight you have that makes your argument so a priori...am I missing something?

What makes you think that your premise that makes no sense in the real world may happen? Countries dont go around looking for wars, they try to trade with eachother. You just pulled a stupid scenario out of your ass.

At 10/16/12 07:54 PM, Warforger wrote:
Except Russia is not looking to make China an enemy...China and Russia don't have any dispute, they essentially side with each other every time. ...

Simply inaccurate.

1) Russia and China already are enemies. Starting in the 1960s tensions got so tense between them that they were having tank battles along their borders. During Afghanistan...China provided the AK-47s and Soviet-style small arms that the US sold/gave to Pakistan and the Mujahideen. We didn't sell them Western stuff (other than Stinger anti-air missles) because we didn't want them to know we were actively supplying their enemies.

2) China and Russia have disputes going back eons. They are not friends, they may not be shooting each other at the moment...but don't make the naive, ignorant mistake that this means they are friends.

That's simplifying WWI too much. ... The assassination was not a reason for the war, but an excuse for the war. Russia and China have nothing of the sort. China and India somewhat but the PRC was smart not to make India hostile after it destroyed India in the Sino-Indian war.

1) That the assassination was an excuse for the war is pretty much the entire point. The point was not the reasons for the war...but rather to demonstrate that a simple little spark can touch off larger events.

2) Russia and China do have tensions. Russia is in bed militarily enough with India to be jointly developing next-gen weapons. India and China relations are not stable like US-English or even US-Sino relations...it is a delicate peace.

And like I said, The PRC is warming relations with the ROC, as with Korea. To take such a simplistic view of the conflict is to ignore all the changes in attitude in the PRC favoring pragmatism.

I disagree, I'm not being simplistic just looking at the common trends. The PRC is very pragmatic...mixed with very much realism. They will warm to the ROC and ROK...but they still return N. Korean 'illegal immigrants' in defiance of international will/pressure. They still inflame anti-Japanese passions when it suits them.

The point is: the PRC understands that what is pragmatic can change from moment to moment.

You haven't identified any significant stressor however.

* Economic upheaval (domestically or globally).
* Flare-up of Indian-Pakistan hostilities.
* Famine and/or regime collapse in N. Korea.
* Flare-up of Sino-ROC tensions.
* Collapse of EU which leads to financial collapse of US.

The point is there are many significant stressors...and not all can be identified/anticipated/predicted. A key to understanding International Relations is to know you don't know everything.

At 10/14/12 11:40 PM, TheMason wrote: When I spoke of deflation...I meant of the value of the dollar not the cost of goods. A devalued/deflated currency can lead to inflated costs of goods...kind of a double edged sword.

Deflated and devalued are not interchangeable terms. Simply, deflation occurs when the supply of money and credit decreases relative to the supply of goods and service. Devaluation is a reduction in the value of a currency with respect to those goods and services.

You're correct. Some treasury bonds have fixed rates which means that they earn a fixed percent. Now if the dollar's intrinsic value decreases China and other bond holders are getting hosed because they are receiving money that is worth less then as it was when they purchased the bond. Think of it this way: you're the Emir of an oil rich Persian Gulf country and OPEC has set the price per barrel at $100. But then QE3 causes the value of the dollar to decrease by 10%...so now your $100 only buys $90 worth of stuff. Each barrel of oil still produces the same amount of gas, diesel, lubricant and/or plastics...so your product's value has not gone down. So are you going to trade your products, whose value is unchanged, for the same amount of a devalued currency? No; you're going to raise the price of your product by 10% to $110 to compensate.

And so is everyone else. However, if you've bought a $100 Series EE Bond at 4.6% interest when you go cash it in you're going to get $104.60 (assuming you've only held it for that year)...which will only buy you $94.14 worth of stuff. You're in a worse position than you started! Even though you have 4.6% more dollars than you started...it's worth less.

Okay but you've yet to demonstrate to me that inflation is somehow going to make China go batshit insane and control America or whatever? US Bonds have been exceptionally cheap since 2000, and the Chinese government has needed a stable investment. The increased budget deficit because of TARP, bailouts, and stimulus in the US gave them more bonds to buy, as well. However, it's not like they were just swimming in money and gobbled up our bonds; the Chinese government knew that American bond purchases would continue to keep American markets open and lending to American consumers who buy their goods moving. And like I already noted, US bonds are also an extremely stable and return-generating investment for anyone holding them (their government). China's currency (the Yuan) gives it a pretty significant advantage in exchange rates; its labor costs are remarkably low, they have an incredible integrated supply chain and material transportation infrastructure. Many of the companies that are based there are neither American nor Chinese, but entirely multinational. The CCP has enough sway in commercial banking and national regulatory management to shape their industrial policy in ways we cannot. This is not a simple problem with an easy explanation, and is only distantly related to jobs/recession or to spending/debt, and is not the result of a rouge Chinese economic insurgency or what have you.

Now Series I bonds have a fixed and variable interest rate component. The problem is deflation can wipe out the fixed rate's return.

Uhh no, devaluation will do that, not deflation. The only scenario in which this will happen is some runaway hyperinflation scenario which is virtually impossible. Please demonstrate to me projected inflation rates and show me how much it will cut into China's profits adjusted to inflation.

Also you have T-Notes which are considered safe investments with a fixed interest rate. The problem is since it is safe; the interest rate is not going to be all that great. It is designed to keep up with inflation at that time period. Now if inflation increases, especially b/c of the devaluation of the dollar, when you go and cash these bonds in you will have more than you started. However, now since the dollar buys you less...you are in a worse position than you started.

Except the real interest rates are actually negative. A negative interest rate means the interest rate is lower than the rate of inflation. TIPS are bonds that pay a fixed coupon rate, but adjust the principal based on the movements of the CPI. Let me just demonstrate how this works so other readers know what the hell this technobabble means.

Let's say you're buying a $1000 bond with a 10% coupon rate (a coupon rate is the interest rate that the borrower pays the lender). YouâEUTMd get $100 per year in interest. Now let's say hypothetically that the inflation rate is 5% over the course of that year. The principal ($1000) is adjusted to $1000*1.05 = $1050, to reflect the inflation. The 10% coupon rate is now worth $105 per year. The coupon rate is adjusted to inflation as well.

All Treasury securities are issued via auction. The interest rate is determined by the price that the buyers are willing to pay. For example, if buyers are demanding a high interest rate on the bond, theyâEUTMll be willing to pay less than the principle. Here's how that would work:

Let's say IâEUTMm auctioning $1000 bond with a 10% coupon rate and 1 year maturity (maturity is when the bond expires and pays out), and the market is only willing to pay me $990 for it. It's demanding a higher effective interest rate. So in this scenario, I would be forced to lend out $990. I get paid $100 interest (note: coupon payment is based on the coupon rate and the face value, not the selling price). At the end of the year, I get the $1000 back (again, I don't get only $990 because the selling price isn't what matters in this case, it's the face value of the bond). In this scenario, this is how you would calculate the actual interest rate: ($1000 (face value of the bond is what's owed to me, not selling price) + $100 (amount of interest) - $990 (how much I loaned)) / $990, which would be 11.11%.

The exact opposite of this is happening with US bonds. The buyers of the bonds are willing to accept a negative interest rate on their investment, which means they're willing to pay more than the face value of the bond. Using an interest rate of -1.36% (the 5-year quote for 9/5), a face value of $1000, a maturity of 5 years, and a bond valuation formula, we get an auction price of $1006.83. That means, currently, people are willing to pay the US Federal government $1006.83 under the stipulation that the Federal government would pay them $1000 in 5 years. The Treasury is also considering selling government debt for negative interest rates since its T-Bills (which have an essentially zero interest rate) are being bought as fast as they can offer them. People will literally be paying $101 today for $100 in 5 years time. This is a perfect time to spend money to get us us out of this hole we are in. People would not be doing this if they had the same fears you have. There's essentially zero fear of high inflation rates. China understands this as well as the US markets do.

At 10/17/12 09:08 AM, BumFodder wrote:

At 10/16/12 11:57 AM, TheMason wrote: Despite other's comments, I'm still curious what special insight you have that makes your argument so a priori...am I missing something?

What makes you think that your premise that makes no sense in the real world may happen? Countries dont go around looking for wars, they try to trade with eachother. You just pulled a stupid scenario out of your ass.

Actually, I brought up that scenario out of an understanding of the region that comes from being a scholar who specializes in Asian politics, member of the military, and having lived over there.

As for the point about: "Countries dont go around looking for wars, they try to trade with eachother." That's not entirely accurate. The notion of make trade not war...did not exist until after WWII. Up until then...you increased your trade through war. If anyone is making a premise that makes no sense in the real world...it is this notion of yours about trade.

And again...you're just throwing about slogans and catch-phrases. You're not offering up any argument, it's like you assume that the Neoliberal worldview is correct and this post-WWII, post-Colonial, and post-Cold War paradigm is correct. That we can just stand athwart history. And if anyone offers a scenario that comes from a different perspective it is automatically 'stupid', baseless, or otherwise worthy of auto-dismissal because it conflicts with your rosey worldview.

At 10/17/12 05:08 PM, TheMason wrote:
As for the point about: "Countries dont go around looking for wars, they try to trade with eachother." That's not entirely accurate. The notion of make trade not war...did not exist until after WWII. Up until then...you increased your trade through war. If anyone is making a premise that makes no sense in the real world...it is this notion of yours about trade.

Amen, Mason. One need look no further than the Bosphorus, the Hellespont, the Moluccas, the entire Indian Ocean trade to see how war and trade went hand in hand well into the 19th century.

At 10/17/12 05:08 PM, TheMason wrote: As for the point about: "Countries dont go around looking for wars, they try to trade with eachother." That's not entirely accurate. The notion of make trade not war...did not exist until after WWII. Up until then...you increased your trade through war. If anyone is making a premise that makes no sense in the real world...it is this notion of yours about trade.

While that was no doubt true historically, the mass globalization and commercialization of the world has changed the parametersquite a bit since the 19th Century and even pre-WWII. With the extreme amounts of foreign investment, and the outsourcing/insourcing of sectors countries have become more and more tied. Not only has this tied the economies to gether, it has tied the daily lives of the citizens to other countries. How many Americans would support the loss of all their precious Apple frivolities because of some stupid dispute between China and India? How many Chinese would support losing their poorly piafd (but better than dirt farming) jobs at the Apple factories because the US felt like butting their nose into a conflict between China and India?

One big difference between now and the "Opium Wars" era is that trade routes no longer need to be opened by military solutions. Back then in order to trade with Japan the US had to fire cannons at the port of Yokohama just to get them to let us in. Nowadays, flash the cash and damn near every country, wanting to prosper (or at least their rulers wishing to line their own pockets) would open their ports to trade. If you look at the locales where war is being waged, they have one thing in common: little value to the global market.

The geopolitical realities of the world no longer mean that war is needed to precede trade. Rather it has shifted to a paradigm where trade precludes, supercedes, and often is a surrogate for war.

At 10/17/12 04:57 PM, TheMason wrote: Simply inaccurate.

1) Russia and China already are enemies. Starting in the 1960s tensions got so tense between them that they were having tank battles along their borders. During Afghanistan...China provided the AK-47s and Soviet-style small arms that the US sold/gave to Pakistan and the Mujahideen. We didn't sell them Western stuff (other than Stinger anti-air missles) because we didn't want them to know we were actively supplying their enemies.

Many things have changed since the goddamn 60's and 80's. THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED, the PRC has led away from the stagnant Socialist economy, China has been getting record growth etc.. And since then they've been improving relations, especially when Russia has been letting China flood investment in Siberia.

2) China and Russia have disputes going back eons. They are not friends, they may not be shooting each other at the moment...but don't make the naive, ignorant mistake that this means they are friends.

Not eons, but merely border disputes, which they resolved after the Soviet Union collapsed.

1) That the assassination was an excuse for the war is pretty much the entire point. The point was not the reasons for the war...but rather to demonstrate that a simple little spark can touch off larger events.

My point was that there were many underlying tensions, alliances and events with each government blinded by nationalism. You don't see as much with China and Russia at all.

2) Russia and China do have tensions. Russia is in bed militarily enough with India to be jointly developing next-gen weapons. India and China relations are not stable like US-English or even US-Sino relations...it is a delicate peace.

Again in India they've been trying to stabilize relations. Like I said even when India went to war with China and China steamrolled them, China didn't do anything to take advantage of the war. It immediately brought back pre-war borders and now I doubt that India will want to fight China over a small piece of territory.

* Economic upheaval (domestically or globally).

China and Russia have mostly had economic growth for now.

* Flare-up of Indian-Pakistan hostilities.

They've been at war 3 times now and now they're not going to go to war since they have nuclear weapons. I doubt China cared that much.

* Famine and/or regime collapse in N. Korea.

This only increases tensions with the US, not Russia. Both China and Russia have the same approach towards North Korea.

* Flare-up of Sino-ROC tensions.

This is still Sino-US not SIno-Ruso relations.

* Collapse of EU which leads to financial collapse of US.

Europe makes up around 2% or America's trade. It's probably not.

The point is there are many significant stressors...and not all can be identified/anticipated/predicted. A key to understanding International Relations is to know you don't know everything.

You haven't provided many significant stressors with Russia and China. You've provided more stressors for a US China war however.

At 10/17/12 07:37 PM, Warforger wrote:

* Flare-up of Indian-Pakistan hostilities.

They've been at war 3 times now and now they're not going to go to war since they have nuclear weapons. I doubt China cared that much.

Dohohoho Kashmir.

* Collapse of EU which leads to financial collapse of US.

Europe makes up around 2% or America's trade.

HOW DO I INTO FINANCIAL MARKETS

At 10/17/12 08:56 PM, JMHX wrote: Dohohoho Kashmir.

Which like I said China contains a little stretch of land. As a whole China prefers not to get into those affairs.

HOW DO I INTO FINANCIAL MARKETS

Ok that's nice. Try explaining something next time.

hmm Debate 1. Obama got rolled over, Romney's polling numbers improved.

VP Debate: Moderator was playing Obama cheerleader, Biden won... not much changed.

Debate 2: Moderator was playing Obama cheerleader, Obama slightly won. Even after getting the last work in 8 out of 11 times, and was allowed to go over the time limit every time, he only barely won.

I don't expect Bob Schieffer to be neutral either. I have no doubt he'll try to sway things for Obama on the 3rd debate too. After the Crowley debacle, I don't think he'll try the same tactics she used. Course, I have no faith in the people who set up the debates either, given they selected 4 liberals to be moderators, 2 of which actively steered things in Obama's (and Biden's) favor. Having Candy Crowley moderate, the only way to offset that would be to have someone like Sean Hannity moderate the 3rd one.

At 10/17/12 07:37 PM, Warforger wrote:

* Collapse of EU which leads to financial collapse of US.

Europe makes up around 2% or America's trade. It's probably not.

Are you seriously claiming that is true unironically? 2%? You have to be trolling.

At 10/18/12 07:25 AM, Korriken wrote: hmm Debate 1. Obama got rolled over, Romney's polling numbers improved.
VP Debate: Moderator was playing Obama cheerleader, Biden won... not much changed.
Debate 2: Moderator was playing Obama cheerleader, Obama slightly won. Even after getting the last work in 8 out of 11 times, and was allowed to go over the time limit every time, he only barely won.

So when Romney wins, it's because he did well, but when Obama wins it's a conspiracy with the moderators?

The real world is very nice. I suggest you vist sometime.

At 10/18/12 11:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

So when Romney wins, it's because he did well, but when Obama wins it's a conspiracy with the moderators?

if the moderator keeps interrupting romney and giving him the last word all but 3 times, then yeah, I would say the moderator had it in for Obama, or was on Romney's side. However, that's not the case. and yes, Romney did surprisingly well considering what he was up against.

conspiracy? I never mentioned a conspiracy, they all lean left on their own. the stats speak for themselves. look at how many times Obama got the last word in at the last debate. coincidence? Doubt it. I expected better of you, really. I mean, you could refute me with facts, but instead you throw around the conspiracy card to try and discredit me.

Maybe Bob Schieffer is more professional than the other moderators. we'll see when the time comes.

The real world is very nice. I suggest you vist sometime.

I think I'll pass on replying to this one out of fear of being outright cruel about it.

At 10/18/12 01:32 PM, Korriken wrote:

conspiracy? I never mentioned a conspiracy, they all lean left on their own. the stats speak for themselves. look at how many times Obama got the last word in at the last debate. coincidence? Doubt it. I expected better of you, really. I mean, you could refute me with facts, but instead you throw around the conspiracy card to try and discredit me.

DAT LIBERAL MEDIA

>#1 broadcast media outlet (daytime AND prime time) by a gigantic margin is the conservative FOX News
>#1 print media outlet by a large margin is the conservative Wall Street Journal
>#1, #2 and #3 radio media outlets are conservative talk radio organizations

>CNN Prime Time Viewership: 446,000
>MSNBC Prime Time Viewership: 689,000
>FOX Prime Time Viewership: 1,800,000
>CostCo Connection Magazine Readership: 8,600,000

Damn LIBRULZ. Damn CostCo.

At 10/18/12 03:01 PM, JMHX wrote:

DAT LIBERAL MEDIA...
stuff about FOX News

and what does ANY of that have to do with the debates?

At 10/18/12 03:09 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/18/12 03:01 PM, JMHX wrote:

DAT LIBERAL MEDIA...
stuff about FOX News

and what does ANY of that have to do with the debates?

You're making the claim that any Obama performance short of horrendous is due entirely to this vast network of liberal operatives in the media. It's a confirmation bias Democrats had in 2004 (but on the opposite end of the scale) and that Republicans had in 2012.

- Romney owns any victory
- Romney disowns any defeat because of external forces
- Obama owns any defeat
- Obama disowns any victory because of external forces

Whether you think the ideal moderator is a Lehrer type, or a Crowley, or somewhere in between, I think it's fair to say that the opposition movement in any presidential debate, that is the one with the opportunity to gain power, tends to fall into the trap of attributing good performances to skill and bad performances to coordinated efforts against the individual. In fact, one of the main reasons this wasn't so pronounced in 2008 is because BOTH candidates were challengers.

This is one of the main reasons why you're not hearing a lot of comparisons to 2008's debates. It's also the main reason why you heard a lot of comparisons to President Bush's poor performance against John Kerry in the first 2004 debate, and his recovery in the second 2004 debate. Bias is bad for business. The media's job is to build a horse race out of whatever they're given. There's no financial sense in cutting off the bulk of your audience when the metrics I've posted clearly show a healthy and commercially essential conservative presence in the media.

And more importantly, before you get into the reams of tired points about how I'm a shill or an apologist for some liberal media complex, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Feel free to look at my thread excoriating the Federal Reserve. If I felt what I did professionally had any relevance on my opinions here, I'd list it, but suffice to say the industry in which I work is not one that really rings true for the Obama Administration after the past four years.

At 10/18/12 03:22 PM, JMHX wrote:

You're making the claim that any Obama performance short of horrendous is due entirely to this vast network of liberal operatives in the media. It's a confirmation bias Democrats had in 2004 (but on the opposite end of the scale) and that Republicans had in 2012.

Alright then, where exactly do I state that "any Obama performance short of horrendous is due entirely to this vast network of liberal operatives in the media"? nowhere. I'm making the claim that the moderators in the VP debate and 2nd presidential debate are tilting things toward Obama intentionally. Nowhere did I mention a "vast liberal conspiracy".

did Obama blow the first debate? yes. did he improve in the 2nd debate? yes. Did Obama get the last word in 8 out of 11 times? yes. Does that really matter? YES. Obama got the last word in 8 times. Romney got the last word in 3 times.

- Romney owns any victory
- Romney disowns any defeat because of external forces
- Obama owns any defeat
- Obama disowns any victory because of external forces

Whether you think the ideal moderator is a Lehrer type, or a Crowley, or somewhere in between, I think it's fair to say that the opposition movement in any presidential debate, that is the one with the opportunity to gain power, tends to fall into the trap of attributing good performances to skill and bad performances to coordinated efforts against the individual. In fact, one of the main reasons this wasn't so pronounced in 2008 is because BOTH candidates were challengers.

a good moderator keeps the playing field even, asks the predetermined questions, keeps everyone within their time limits, and otherwise stays out of the debate. a good moderator does not let one side go over their time more than a second or two, a good moderator does not make up their own 'follow up' questions, and a good moderator does not let the same person have the last word damn near every time.

in all 3 debates the democrat side was given more time to speak.

Crowley asked her own 'follow up' questions, let Obama ramble on, let Obama have the last word almost every time. Didn't even make him answer the question on how he was different from Bush after asking the question to Romney, and allowed obama to go over 3 minutes longer than Romney. How is this neutral? and don't give me any of that "conspiracy theory" bullshit people like to use to discredit people when they don't have an easy answer.

Do I expect the same from the 3rd debate? Given that it's the same format as the first debate, not really. I expect Obama to get quite a bit more time to speak and fewer interruptions, as has been the norm for these debates this year.

This is one of the main reasons why you're not hearing a lot of comparisons to 2008's debates. It's also the main reason why you heard a lot of comparisons to President Bush's poor performance against John Kerry in the first 2004 debate, and his recovery in the second 2004 debate.

Bias is bad for business.

blatant bias is bad for business. that's why you have to be subtle about it... what does this even have to do with the debates? oh right, nothing.

At 10/18/12 05:13 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/18/12 03:22 PM, JMHX wrote:

a good moderator keeps the playing field even, asks the predetermined questions, keeps everyone within their time limits, and otherwise stays out of the debate. a good moderator does not let one side go over their time more than a second or two, a good moderator does not make up their own 'follow up' questions, and a good moderator does not let the same person have the last word damn near every time.

You should attend some debates outside those done by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

in all 3 debates the democrat side was given more time to speak.

First Debate: Obama spoke for 42:50 , compared to 38:32 for Romney. Romney got in 7,802 words and Obama spoke 7,294 words. Actual things said advantage: Romney 6%

Second Debate: Obama's spoke for 44:04 and Romney's 40:50. Romney said 7,984 words and Obama 7,506. Actual things said advantage: Romney 6.5%

Cut away how much time was spent on interrupting each other and trying to hijack, and we'll probably find a much closer parity.

Crowley asked her own 'follow up' questions, let Obama ramble on, let Obama have the last word almost every time. Didn't even make him answer the question on how he was different from Bush after asking the question to Romney, and allowed obama to go over 3 minutes longer than Romney. How is this neutral? and don't give me any of that "conspiracy theory" bullshit people like to use to discredit people when they don't have an easy answer.

If you have a problem with asking follow-up questions, I mean, I guess we're just at an ideological divide. That happened in Reagan/Carter, Reagan/Mondale, Bush/Clinton, Clinton/Dole, Gore/Bush and nobody freaked out about it. In fact, if you watch the Reagan debates, it's easy to argue that Reagan scored most of his points ON the follow-up questions, and those were moderated by journalists who were accused at the time of having *gasp* a liberal bias.

In short, this whole thing is nothing new. The right bitches and the left bitches after every debate, trying to explain away missteps and less-than-stellar performances with external factors.

Do I expect the same from the 3rd debate? Given that it's the same format as the first debate, not really. I expect Obama to get quite a bit more time to speak and fewer interruptions, as has been the norm for these debates this year.

Until we can actually do an interruptions duration count, we should hold off on assuming one was interrupted more than the other.

Bias is bad for business.

blatant bias is bad for business. that's why you have to be subtle about it... what does this even have to do with the debates? oh right, nothing.

>Talk about biased moderators
>B-B-BUT WHAT DOES BIAS HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

At 10/18/12 05:57 PM, JMHX wrote: trying to explain away missteps and less-than-stellar performances with external factors.

CORFing in action. Isn't it pretty?

At 10/18/12 05:40 PM, Spretznaz wrote: Here's his new anti-Romney ad that's attacking him for not giving details about his $5 trillion dollar tax cut plan. It's absolutely hilarious.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

LMAO. This gave me a good chuckle. They sure do love hammering that 47% comment. I can't believe how many punches are going below the belt in this campaign. It's unreal.

At 10/18/12 05:13 PM, Korriken wrote: Did Obama get the last word in 8 out of 11 times? yes. Does that really matter? YES. Obama got the last word in 8 times. Romney got the last word in 3 times.

This is a really petty thing to be throwing a fit about. It's the debater's job to read the judge, adapt, and use their social skills to get the rules bent in their favor. Romney's social skills generally suck, so I'm not at all surprised to see that he doesn't know how to interject or close the deal on the last word without being an asshole.

Romney scores points on Obama in the middle of his points, rarely at the end. And he does pretty well at it, too. I think he's completely full of horse shit, but he gets some good rhetoric in there. Whoever coached him for the debate should get some kind of medal from bringing a Presidential candidate back to life.

At 10/17/12 07:37 PM, Warforger wrote: Many things have changed since the goddamn 60's and 80's. THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED, the PRC has led away from the stagnant Socialist economy, China has been getting record growth etc.. And since then they've been improving relations, especially when Russia has been letting China flood investment in Siberia.

Okay...I understand that to you 40 years seems like a long time and that things are changed and now they are Forever BFFs...but that's naive. 40 years is nothing in the sweep of history.

Not eons, but merely border disputes, which they resolved after the Soviet Union collapsed.

Yes...because the Han, Mongolians and Russians haven't been swapping territories going back all the way to Ghengis Khan. Just so you know...Ghengis Khan lived in 1200 and set-up a dynasty that would include all of China and a good part of Russia.

But you're absolutely right...these are tensions that suddenly erupted when Mao Tse Tung took over after WWII.

My point was that there were many underlying tensions, alliances and events with each government blinded by nationalism. You don't see as much with China and Russia at all.

May I suggest you disengage? You've continually shown that you're pretty ignorant in regards to the region's history and politics.

To answer this point: There is nationalism and ethnic tensions between Russia and China. In his book on his involvment with Biological Weapons ex-Soviet Doctor-Colonel Ken Alibek wrote in the book I just linked about how 'white' Russians treated people of Han/Mongolian descent.

These are deep divisions that go back years. They did not just show-up because of disagreements over Marxism.

Again in India they've been trying to stabilize relations. Like I said even when India went to war with China and China steamrolled them, China didn't do anything to take advantage of the war. It immediately brought back pre-war borders and now I doubt that India will want to fight China over a small piece of territory.

First of all; in 1962 China most likely returned to pre-war boundaries because they did not have the military to control captured territories long term. Back then China's military sucked in terms of logistics and military technology. So...it was the prudent course of action. Had China been as powerful as it is today, they probably would not have been that magnanimous.

China and Russia have mostly had economic growth for now.

Key words: "...for now."

* Flare-up of Indian-Pakistan hostilities.

They've been at war 3 times now and now they're not going to go to war since they have nuclear weapons. I doubt China cared that much.

True, however there is always the danger of spillage.

* Famine and/or regime collapse in N. Korea.

This only increases tensions with the US, not Russia. Both China and Russia have the same approach towards North Korea.

Not at all. China would be overrun by N. Koreans fleeing the greatest humanitarian crisis since the Holocaust. This very well could destabilize parts of China where there are ethnic Korean Chinese populations, and Beijing would fear contagion. Furthermore, N. Korea have played off the Russia-China divide throughout its history. Seeing that it weakens thier adversary, Russia may see an opening.

* Flare-up of Sino-ROC tensions.

This is still Sino-US not SIno-Ruso relations.

Yes...it is predominately Sino-US. However, if the US is perceived as weak someone like Russia could try to muscle in.

You haven't provided many significant stressors with Russia and China. You've provided more stressors for a US China war however.

No...I've provided enough. You're just stuck with a post-Cold War mentality that dictates that we have seen 'the end of history' (a famous quote from the mid-1990s). We have not. The fact is there are many ethnic and nationalistic tension throughout the world just like there were tensions in Europe during the Colonial Era that eventually led to WWI. Now we see an ascent of the East as the West wanes. Now we see powers rising to near-superpower status both in terms of military tech and economies. Some, especially Russia, have not so covertly let it be known that they want to re-expand their borders/influence to ones from some past golden age.

The reality is that the world is shifting, and now old tensions pose dangers to the peaceful status quo. Afterall the Pax Americana is not the first era of peace thanks to one person/dynasty/nation becoming a superpower. The Pax Romana lasted 207 years and the Pax Mongolia lasted about 90.

The current peace, unfortunately, will not last forever. In order to see this all you need to do is take off your rose-colored glasses.