Yay, another political thread!

[Alpha]

You claimed that they were "remarkably similar", then addressed stances that Obama would take if he wanted to differentiate himself from Romney ... so I pointed out that he has taken those stances, and thus is much different than Romney.

I could list about ten different policies for any of those issues that Obama could take if he were interested in further differentiating himself from Romney.

... Did you watch the same debates I watched? I didn't see anything of the sort -- on the issue of coal, Obama wants to get out of it entirely while Romney wants to pursue clean coal technologies. And on military money, Obama wants to scale back nearly everything, while Romney wants to pursue what's been proven to work well and scale back on what has been proven to do nothing but waste.

Obama (2nd debate): "So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment." "And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy — and keep in mind when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, this plant kills, and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal. So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil; same thing with natural gas." "The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment."

Romney (2nd debate): "Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities — ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix. But what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal." "I — it’s absolutely true. Look, there’s no question but that the people recognize that we have not produced more oil — and gas on federal lands and in federal waters. And coal — coal production is not up, coal jobs are not up. I was just at a coal facility where some 1,200 people lost their jobs. The right course for America is to have a true all-of-the-above policy. I don’t think anyone really believes that you’re a person who’s going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal." "That was a statement. I don’t think — (chuckles) — the American people believe that. I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas. And the proof — the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then the strategy is working. But you’re paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about a buck eighty-six a gallon. Now it’s four bucks a gallon. Price of electricity is up. If the president’s energy policies are working, you’re going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country to get America energy-secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia where the people want it."

Obama (3rd debate): "Our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined."

Romney (1st debate): "The role of government: Look behind us. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America's military."

I wouldn't say that every debate needs a couple of legitimate candidates amongst a few complete whack-jobs to be considered a "complete debate". That's why Ron Paul never had a chance -- he was great on some issues, but on others (see: foreign policy), he was a complete loon. Weed out the crazies, and let the legitimate candidates duke it out.

It's not for you to decide who's a whack-job and who isn't. If people aren't hearing about ALL of the potential choices for President, they are not making an informed decision about who to vote for. As far as I'm concerned, a debate for a national election isn't complete or even legitimate if every party contesting it is not included.

Sometimes. Usually, it's either the state legislature (and thus, the majority party has more control), or by an independent commission appointed by the state legislature (and thus ... well, yeah, the majority party still has more control). However, minority parties will raise hell if there appears to be an advantage, and any redistricting has to be approved through legislative means anyway, so it would get (and, on many occasions, has gotten) filibustered instead of becoming permanent.

That sounds like a terrible way to arrange something so important.

[Sasquatch]

I could list about ten different policies for any of those issues that Obama could take if he were interested in further differentiating himself from Romney.

But you wouldn't have to -- you would only have to list a few, which is what I did. Just because he's not the polar opposite doesn't mean that he's not very different.

Obama (2nd debate): "So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment." "And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy — and keep in mind when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, this plant kills, and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal. So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil; same thing with natural gas." "The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment."

Coal production and employment have gone down since Obama stepped into office, primarily due to regulations enacted by his EPA. This, despite what Obama claims, is fact ... so much so that Obama's "war on coal" is now as big of a campaign phrase as the imaginary "war on women", enough so that a cluster of bills made its way through Congress as the "Stop the War On Coal Act". Hell, Obama didn't even add clean coal to his list of energy priorities until this May, after he came close to losing a Democratic primary election to a federal inmate in West Virginia (a big coal state). Hundreds of coal plants, thousands of jobs, and dozens of millions of tons of coal production have been lost. And that completely ignores the fact that we don't need to burn coal to get energy from coal -- we can instead extract natural gas or petroleum from it. Again, despite Obama's claims, this is fact. (If you'd like to research this yourself, I would encourage it. If you would like to be provided with links to studies and such, I would be happy to accommodate.)

As for oil, Obama has stifled drilling on federal land (you know, the stuff he has control over). Oil and natural gas production actually went down (by 14 and 9 percent, respectively) in 2011, and right now is still not up to 2010 levels. And not only has Obama refused to open federal lands -- for example, 30,000 square miles of barren tundra in Alaska -- for drilling that would make our country much more energy independent, he has also nixed projects such as the Keystone Oil Pipeline, which would have created jobs, dropped oil and gas prices, and reduced foreign dependency.

On the coal plant that Romney was proud to close ... that was one of five that continually ignored many standard regulations, pumping out toxins much worse than even the average "dirty coal" plant, and studies found that it actually did result in annual deaths. That by no means meant that Romney was against coal at any point, it meant that Romney was against companies refusing to comply with safety and health regulations.

You have to look at what they do, not what they say. Obama has "invested" millions of dollars into cleaner energy, quite a bit of which went to campaign contributors that went bankrupt shortly after being pumped full of taxpayer money. He's cut opportunities for oil and gas production, and made coal regulations so strict that they are forcing job and production losses.

Obama (3rd debate): "Our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined."

Obama's current plan is to cut nearly half a trillion dollars from the United States defense budget over the next decade. That's in addition to the sequestration implemented earlier in his term that cuts another half-trillion -- a sequestration that he has done everything he can to ensure does not get lifted and instead begins on schedule in early 2013. He has even turned it into a political move, advising defense contractors not to obey laws that dictate they inform their employees at least 60 days in advance of nearly one million layoffs (in violation of the WARN Act of 1988), and additionally, telling the companies that the federal government (read: taxpayers) will cover their legal costs, should they disregard the law as told. (Remember, this is in addition to his transference of funds from combat training and equipment to EO and logistics associated with signing away DADT ... and also remember that many servicemembers readily remember their paychecks being cut in half for a few months straight, even while in combat zones, during 2011, because Obama held military pay hostage under the budget until Congress pushed through his bills.)

Again. What they do, not what they say.

It's not for you to decide who's a whack-job and who isn't.

I would argue that as a voter, yes, it is my job to decide who is a reasonable candidate and who isn't. The voters, after all, decide the candidates -- the whack-jobs are the ones who get the least support (see: Ron Paul).

If people aren't hearing about ALL of the potential choices for President, they are not making an informed decision about who to vote for. As far as I'm concerned, a debate for a national election isn't complete or even legitimate if every party contesting it is not included.

While there are many more choices for President than those of the two primary parties (hell, you can write in whomever you want -- every election, Homer Simpson and Mickey Mouse receive tens of thousands of votes), only the two most plausible end up with endorsements by either of the two primary parties. Basically, I wouldn't want to watch a debate between three Presidential candidates if one of them ended up using a third of the debate talking about how we should disband the military and spend all of our taxpayer money on the manufacture of candy-corn-on-the-cob. We take the two most serious candidates and pit them against each other instead of crowding the field with anybody who can speak into a microphone.

That sounds like a terrible way to arrange something so important.

I agree. But like I said, any suspicion of advantage by one party over another is promptly dealt with, so much so that districts are drawn pretty fairly.

On another note ... candy-corn-on-the-cob would be the shit.