Intrade: 70.5% chance Obama will win third debate

[Lonestar]

Or if we'd had a single super carrier.

Yeah, but the CVF is doing to have a mighty airwing of maybe 25 F-35s, assuming y'all buy the planned 50, with one Daring as a escort. The RN is a joke, and is projected to be one for years to come.

[Zevico]

If there’s a grimy lining to Barack Obama’s debate performance, it’s in the internals of the CNN snap poll. It’s a small sample, 356 people, 30% Republican and 34% Democratic. Second-to-last question: Do you think Mitt Romney can or cannot handle the responsibilities of Commander-in Chief?

All voters: Yes, by a 60-38 margin. Independents: Yes, by a 62-36 margin.

Next question: Did tonight’s debate make you more likely to vote for Barack Obama or more likely to vote for Mitt Romney, or did tonight’s debate not affect how you are likely to vote?

Among all voters: Romney, 25-24. Among independents, it’s Romney by a 32-20 margin.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/23/the_cnn_post_debate_poll_that_romney_won.html

[Lonestar]

I wouldn't trust Romney to command a RHIB.

[MikeH]

Yeah, but the CVF is doing to have a mighty airwing of maybe 25 F-35s, assuming y'all buy the planned 50, with one Daring as a escort. The RN is a joke, and is projected to be one for years to come.

Yeah, and what's that got to do with the point?

[Ben Kenobi]

Subvert the dominant paradigm, man!

It's not like there aren't conservative ones at my parish...

[Aeson]

Actually, Romney is right. Russia will be our worst enemy if we keep calling them that long enough. And if/when Romney starts Cold War II with his rhetoric about Russia, we will need extra an extra fleet in the Black Sea once Ukraine joins NATO, and one in the Artic when the ice caps melt, and one in the Caspian once we occupy Iran. Then we'll need more ships once Russia sees us building all these new ships and decides they need to build more ships. So we need more ships to counter their new ships they build to counter our new ships.

It all means more jobs building ships ... economic stimulus for just the cost of a half century of threatening the lives of everyone on earth

(Either that or Cold War II will be like Cold War I was, and we both still have nukes so it'll just be some pissy proxy wars and no actual naval battles.)

[Zevico]

Russia will keep sponsoring terrorist states whether or not you point that out. Calling them your enemy is stating the truth. That will not change their intentions. The Russian state and its power mad bureaucrats and nationalists view America as a strategic enemy. That is so under Obama and it will be so under Romney. The difference is that Romney understands this. You have no idea how Russians think or the slightest understanding of Russian society and its ruling class.

[kentonio]

Our fleet has the fewest actual vessels of any time since 1917--that means it is also smaller than 1997, and 1987, etc,which is very relevant to modern naval warfare. Ships can last in excess of 50 years. Naval technology does not go obsolete all that quickly.

How about the Falklands war, moron? The Royal Navy almost got its ass kicked by a nothing country with cruise missiles. If a couple more exocets had hit it would have been game over.

Doesn't this just completely destroy your own argument? You're saying that ships don't go obsolete very quickly, yet as the Falklands showed even modern ships like HMS Sheffield (commisioned in 75) were getting sunk by modern jets and missiles. What exactly are you suggesting, that you should have twice the number of ships so that you can last longer while the enemy is sinking them?

A ship without protection from the most modern air defense systems is a huge metal coffin waiting to be buried.

[kentonio]

Russia will keep sponsoring terrorist states whether or not you point that out. Calling them your enemy is stating the truth. That will not change their intentions. The Russian state and its power mad bureaucrats and nationalists view America as a strategic enemy. That is so under Obama and it will be so under Romney. The difference is that Romney understands this. You have no idea how Russians think or the slightest understanding of Russian society and its ruling class.

Which Tom Clancy book are you upto now?

[Aeson]

Russia will keep sponsoring terrorist states whether or not you point that out. Calling them your enemy is stating the truth. That will not change their intentions. The Russian state and its power mad bureaucrats and nationalists view America as a strategic enemy. That is so under Obama and it will be so under Romney. The difference is that Romney understands this. You have no idea how Russians think or the slightest understanding of Russian society and its ruling class.

Why you and Romney hate Reagan so much is beyond me.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Reagan was a commie, he even had dinners with commies, makes him one by default.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which Tom Clancy book are you upto now?

[Tuberski]

Doesn't this just completely destroy your own argument? You're saying that ships don't go obsolete very quickly, yet as the Falklands showed even modern ships like HMS Sheffield (commisioned in 75) were getting sunk by modern jets and missiles. What exactly are you suggesting, that you should have twice the number of ships so that you can last longer while the enemy is sinking them?

A ship without protection from the most modern air defense systems is a huge metal coffin waiting to be buried.

Sunk, not buried.

ACK!

[kentonio]

Our fleet has the fewest actual vessels of any time since 1917--that means it is also smaller than 1997, and 1987, etc,which is very relevant to modern naval warfare.

I decided to fact check those figures btw, as it had the feeling of a right wing talking point. As I suspected it turns out that in terms of actual surface warships, the US navy actually had more in 2011 (122) than it did in '99 (106).

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm

The US military is a thing of absolutely stunning power, especially the navy with it's mighty carrier battle groups. The idea that American's are actually worried about a decline in US military power, is so bizarre and fantastical as to raise questions about you guys sanity.

Just to recap, your closest rival China spends $143b a year on defense. America spends $711b.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I positively cringed at "bayonets and horses" comment, and I'm cringing that there are a lot of people who think that this was a snappy retort.

This. Furthermore, both bayonets and horses are and continue to be used by the military. Every grunt gets issued knife for both utility reasons as well as last ditch hand to hand use, and if I recall correctly the reason why we had so much early success in Afghanistan was that we had special forces on horse back with the northern rebels calling in the shots.

But hey it's not like as a commander in chief you need to know what you are talking about, as long as it sounds witty.