3rd Presidential Debate (Please see MOD COMMENT post #175)

Ozymandius2011

Obama clinging to a stubborn lead in Ohio 47-44.

Franticfrank

I think I'll ignore the polls from now on. I prefer to wait and see. Besides, with all these polls having the candidates neck-and-neck, I wonder if there's anyone who stands to make more money from pushing this 'fact'. After Lehman and LIBOR, I'm quite skeptical.

I'm also at the 'wait and see' point. Romney won the first debate by a distance and Obama edged the second, and statistics show he did even better in the third debate. Its very close but just 2 weeks and the voters will do the talking.

[-0-]

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Obama clinging to a stubborn lead in Ohio 47-44.

If we are to believe the following story, then it shouldn't matter. :pac:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/10/22/jennifer-brunner-tagg-romneys-stake-in-voting-machine-company-doesnt-look-good/

John Mongo

MadsL wrote: »

But horses not so much huh?


(Can't resist)

Well....



:pac:

nagilum2

Probably worth a separate thread - here's another potential voting issue with electronic voting machines:

GREENSBORO, N.C. –The Presidential election is just around the corner and voting issues have already become a problem in Guilford County.
On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote. All the complaints were made by people who voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location.
One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote it defaulted to President Obama.
“I was so upset that this could happen,” said Coromalis.
Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert says the problem arises every election. It can be resolved after the machine is re-calibrated by poll workers.
“It’s not a conspiracy it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said.
After the third try, Coromalis says she was able to get her vote counted for Gov. Romney but was still annoyed.

LINK

Spanish Johnny

joseph brand wrote: »

I'm not sure that the first debate was crucial, since the second and last debates are fresher in voters' minds. Debates in which Obama clearly came out on top. Surely winning the last debate would be more crucial?

OVERALL DEBATE SCORES:
Obama 2-1 Romney
Biden 1-0 Ryan

The first debate could likely be the defining moment of this election for crying out loud. Should Romney win it it will be a clip in Reeling in the Years in 20 years time. The Biden/Ryan debate had zero affect on this election. The other two Presidential ones merely had the affect of consolidating Romney as a credible candidate. It doesn't matter 'who won' FFS.

The fact is Obama was coasting and Romney was almost at the point of caricature and ridicule stumbling from gaffe to gaffe before the debate. An arrogant and unprepared President strolled in and got himself in lots of trouble. It changed the trend of the election no question.

Despite the cheer leading and flag waving for Obama here there seems to be absolutely no acceptance of the state of the US economy and why ordinary Americans would vote against Obama.

I don't like Romney but this image of him that's being created here by some borders on hilarity. The fact is he has presented himself to the American people as a very credible alternative. Flip flops? Sure of course he does. To win a Republican Primary and a then a General Election will require that. The guy is a moderate that is closer to Obama than any opponent he has faced in the past two years of campaigning. He's not going to stand on the steps of the Capitol in January should he win and then pull of a mask and reveal George Bush.

vetinari

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

The guy is a moderate that is closer to Obama than any opponent he has faced in the past two years of campaigning. He's not going to stand on the steps of the Capitol in January should he win and then pull of a mask and reveal George Bush.

That's the whole issue with his flip flopping. You just can't say that he will be a moderate, no one knows what Romney will be like. My concern is that he doesn't care much about certain issues. Take abortion, he doesn't really care about it but his VP does. To take a trivial example, if you wanted to go for a drink and didn't care which bar you went to but your friend did, which bar do you reckon you'd end up with?

On foreign policy, some of his advisors also served under Bush. Indeed on pretty much anything outside cutting tax rates, he could be liable to let the extremists in his party run wild.

Spanish Johnny

vetinari wrote: »

That's the whole issue with his flip flopping. You just can't say that he will be a moderate, no one knows what Romney will be like. My concern is that he doesn't care much about certain issues. Take abortion, he doesn't really care about it but his VP does. To take a trivial example, if you wanted to go for a drink and didn't care which bar you went to but your friend did, which bar do you reckon you'd end up with?

On foreign policy, some of his advisors also served under Bush. Indeed on pretty much anything outside cutting tax rates, he could be liable to let the extremists in his party run wild.

I think he will revert to what he was like as Governor of MA. My own feeling is Ryan was picked as a running mate not as a VP. So his role may be very very limited - we will have to see. I don't think we are going to see another Cheney.

Some peoples views on him are very conspiratorial. The Republican base don't like him or trust him and vice versa. Once he is in he can abandon the pandering to them somewhat.

As for foreign policy advisers from the Bush era this seems to me to be common practice. Always seem to be a select group of FP advisors on both sides that serve numerous administrations. I don't think we are going to see Karl Rove back or the so called neo-con hierarchy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ozymandius2011

Allegations of damaging information on Romney in sealed court documents connected to the divorce of a close friend who served on a board with him. The Boston Globe is trying to get the seal lifted. Romney gave evidence in the case.

southsiderosie

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I totally agree up to this point.

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

I think he will revert to what he was like as Governor of MA. My own feeling is Ryan was picked as a running mate not as a VP. So his role may be very very limited - we will have to see. I don't think we are going to see another Cheney.

Here is where we disagree. In Massachusetts, Romney was constrained by a relatively liberal electorate and a legislature controlled by Democrats. He would not face those constraints as president. What scares me about Romney as a Democrat is that I have no idea what he thinks or how he would govern precisely because he has seemingly done a 180 since leaving the Massachusetts statehouse (I was than and am now a Massachusetts resident, so I'm fairly familiar with his governing record). In addition, I think the current state of the GOP is, frankly, bat**** crazy. If I thought that Romney could have a restraining effect on his own party, the likelihood of his being elected would be less worrisome, but as it stands, given the degree to which he has pandered to the social conservatives within the party, I do not think this is the case.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

QFT. Unfortunately.

Spanish Johnny

southsiderosie wrote: »

Here is where we disagree. In Massachusetts, Romney was constrained by a relatively liberal electorate and a legislature controlled by Democrats. He would not face those constraints as president. What scares me about Romney as a Democrat is that I have no idea what he thinks or how he would govern precisely because he has seemingly done a 180 since leaving the Massachusetts statehouse (I was than and am now a Massachusetts resident, so I'm fairly familiar with his governing record). In addition, I think the current state of the GOP is, frankly, bat**** crazy. If I thought that Romney could have a restraining effect on his own party, the likelihood of his being elected would be less worrisome, but as it stands, given the degree to which he has pandered to the social conservatives within the party, I do not think this is the case.

Agree on the limits he had on him in MA alright but he did get elected in the first place. As you say he was a Governor of a liberal state. This obviously contributes to much of his outlook. That governing experience is something i would expect to bring with him. The reason I see him do such a U-turn is because he had to in order to win the nomination.

Also it is nearly always the case that elected Presidents end up forced into the centre anyway where Romney is right at home. Some of Obama's harshest critics are those of the far left who expected much much more from him in that regard. You could conceivably have Romney appeal to a number of Democrats in the house if he is elected. A moderate coalition that may isolate the need for Tea Party support? Not impossible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Amerika it is not true to say Obama's foreign policies have been similar to Bush's years... although he did inherit a load of Bush legacy stuff.

Not that I agree totally with Obama's actions - as I've said before the drones thing for instance makes me sick and I will never forgive Obama as a man for personally overseeing the drone murder that's been going on in Waziristan. That being said even the step up in Drone use was different to Bush... who used them quite sparingly in comparison... not that Bush ever had a bleedin clue what he was doing... everybody with more than 2 brain cells is fully aware of who was in control of Bush's foreign policy and it starts with neo and ends with cons.

Obama has played the Israel ass licking game differently... as Romney says putting daylight between himself and that sadistic animal Netanyahu... which he is absolutely right to do morally and geopolitically and which is completely against AEI Neocon style i.e. anti-bush style

Obama has played the Iran (who does not have a nuclear weapons development program) game more intelligently although he shouldn't have gloated the way he did last night referring to how he has personally crippled their economy essentially which is nothing whatsoever to be proud about and shows how coldhearted Obama is capable of being.... but again having not landed on the side of preemptive bombing is again anti-cheney,anti-bush, anti-AEI, anti-neocon and better for the world as a whole.

He's admitted how stupid America was to do the things they've done in decades gone by and tried to make amends for those things by firstly doing his best to apologize for things America has done like propping up the very dictatorships he supported revolt against and did so in a subtle and brave way when he traveled to Egypt and was greatly received.... and opposed to what Romney said there is so much needless blood on American hands the world deserves an outright apology for the WMD debacle and the 50-150,000 men women and kids killed as a result of lunatic neocons pulling the strings of a depressingly illiterate incapable embarrassment that was George W Bush.

Oh Obama is not afraid to get his hands dirty and take out a few dozen 'haji's' with chicken sh1t drones to keep the American people believing he's the big man (when clearly he's just creating more and more hatred breeding more and more jihadists) BUT he does things small and relatively accurately as opposed to what Cheney, Pearle and Wolfowitz had in mind which was massive expression of American power given any excuse at all to create the world America deserves, which, as it turned out... completely backfired and has created more hatred for America and left America entirely embarrassed for voting in 8 years of painful Bush sh1te.... and Obama certainly has not represent similar foreign doctrine in any way shape or form, guilty as he is personally for the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians by drones in Pakistan.

Yes, America has ended genocide in the case of a late Kosovo appearance via untouchable stealth bombers, but has also stood open eyed and allowed preventable mass genocide in the case of Rwanda and Clinton. America is not the worlds police man. never was, nor does the world want it to be and I think Obama understands that. There are certain American principles which the world admires but it is not evident in the actions of America in the world and I could name a hundred examples where America has done the most inhumanly evil acts in the name of national interest or in some cases personal interest. The whole thing is a myth and it has always been a myth - America however CAN have massive positive impacts on certain situations out there such as the Israel Iran debacle - reigning in a bloodthirsty Israeli leadership and helping to get Kadhafi out. America is in a position to have certain effects on the further escalation of bloodshed in Syria but Obama knows that there is a limit to what he can do as sad as that clearly is. Romney has no experience of the world and these matters and has been a business suit in government clothing rather than the statesman that Obama clearly is and accepted and respected to be around the world.

Obama has single-handedly saved and restored so much of what Bush burnt as regards the world's respect for America. Bush made you all a laughing stock especially by being voted in twice jesus how did that happen... Obama is a credible leader with his moral compass, mostly, in the right direction which is an America the world wants influencing global situations and that is why I hope he stays on. Romney is an unknown, even to Romney... he literally will just adapt to what 'wins' for him and has no qualms sacrificing any remotely identifiable principles for political gain... which in business seems like an impressive set of skills however in the real world of people and the governance of people (who don't have 100 million dollars and a Harvard degree) is sick an amoral and not worthy of the leadership of what clearly could be such an amazingly great country.

I appreciate the time and effort put into this thoughtful reply, but from where I stand this could be used as an ad for the Romney campaign. Your response might play well with the far left over here, but it’s cringeworthy to a mostly center-right population. You might think "Obama has single-handedly saved and restored so much of what Bush burnt as regards the world's respect for America," but over here there is growing concern Obama's diplomacy and appeaser attitude has given the US the appearance of weakness and deserving of little respect from the international community. Much of what you see as strength, we see as weakness, and vise versa.

Hazys

Hazys wrote: »

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57537519/trump-i-have-very-big-news-on-obama/

Donald Trump looking for attention again...he has very big news on Obama which he will release Wednesday.

What are the odds its birth cert related? Get a life Trump

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/donald-trumps-major-news-now-twitter-laughingstock/

What a disgrace of a human being.

Be like Nutella

Amerika wrote: »

I appreciate the time and effort put into this thoughtful reply, but from where I stand this could be used as an ad for the Romney campaign. Your response might play well with the far left over here, but it’s cringeworthy to a mostly center-right population. You might think "Obama has single-handedly saved and restored so much of what Bush burnt as regards the world's respect for America," but over here there is growing concern Obama's diplomacy and appeaser attitude has given the US the appearance of weakness and deserving of little respect from the international community. Much of what you see as strength, we see as weakness, and vise versa.

You may be right, which is depressing. Personally, I am optimistic as far as I believe that the average intelligent American adult believes in a world where a strong tendency towards diplomacy and negotiation does NOT = weak and that almost everything George W caused to happen outside of American Shores was nothing short of idiotic, shortsighted and amoral and is a great source of embarrassment for the average intelligent American person.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I appreciate the time and effort put into this thoughtful reply, but from where I stand this could be used as an ad for the Romney campaign. Your response might play well with the far left over here, but it’s cringeworthy to a mostly center-right population. You might think "Obama has single-handedly saved and restored so much of what Bush burnt as regards the world's respect for America," but over here there is growing concern Obama's diplomacy and appeaser attitude has given the US the appearance of weakness and deserving of little respect from the international community. Much of what you see as strength, we see as weakness, and vise versa.

"Far left"? "Appeaser"?

One should actually know what terms mean before attempting to use them, methinks. It would obviate the need for such hyperbole.

BenMicheal

Found this article on Romney on Twitter (no connection, despite author having same first name) - hope the mods dont mind me posting a link to an external site - its an interesting view on one of Romneys favorite anti obama comments:

http://viewsfromapoint.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/does-romney-fail-to-grasp-foreign-policy/

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

I appreciate the time and effort put into this thoughtful reply, but from where I stand this could be used as an ad for the Romney campaign. Your response might play well with the far left over here, but it’s cringeworthy to a mostly center-right population. You might think "Obama has single-handedly saved and restored so much of what Bush burnt as regards the world's respect for America," but over here there is growing concern Obama's diplomacy and appeaser attitude has given the US the appearance of weakness and deserving of little respect from the international community. Much of what you see as strength, we see as weakness, and vise versa.

I would agree with Nutella and be on the more optimistic side, I really believe the trend is changing in America towards the attitude of war, power and strength.
I do live in northern California which is one of the more progressive and liberal areas of the US but the I do believe attitudes will gradually change throughout the country.
I think history is playing the biggest role in this change as Americans can clearly see the negative impacts their actions have caused for numerous generations, information is more readily available to people and events happening on the other side of the world are available in an instant.
Countrys actions are being exposed for what they are and with things like wikileaks there is nowhere to hide.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I appreciate the time and effort put into this thoughtful reply, but from where I stand this could be used as an ad for the Romney campaign. Your response might play well with the far left over here, but it’s cringeworthy to a mostly center-right population. You might think "Obama has single-handedly saved and restored so much of what Bush burnt as regards the world's respect for America," but over here there is growing concern Obama's diplomacy and appeaser attitude has given the US the appearance of weakness and deserving of little respect from the international community. Much of what you see as strength, we see as weakness, and vise versa.

Very few people I talk to are concerned about Obama's foreign policy to be fair.

Now as for the concern that's he's an appeaser, where is the evidence for this notion?

Mr.Micro

Carcharodon wrote: »

I would agree with Nutella and be on the more optimistic side, I really believe the trend is changing in America towards the attitude of war, power and strength.
I do live in northern California which is one of the more progressive and liberal areas of the US but the I do believe attitudes will gradually change throughout the country.
I think history is playing the biggest role in this change as Americans can clearly see the negative impacts their actions have caused for numerous generations, information is more readily available to people and events happening on the other side of the world are available in an instant.
Countrys actions are being exposed for what they are and with things like wikileaks there is nowhere to hide.

I hope so. I am not sure about Romney, he has the look of "old school" about him, ie. Bush and Bush. Attempts may be made to plug that leak in the future.

Ozymandius2011

Hurricane Sandy could harm Obama's chances in NH. PA and Ohio. NH and PA don't allow early voting. The effected part of OH is the NE where Obama is strong. No doubt the Religious Right will call it divine intervention if it helps them.

Mjollnir

Brian? wrote: »

Very few people I talk to are concerned about Obama's foreign policy to be fair.

Now as for the concern that's he's an appeaser, where is the evidence for this notion?

There is none. It's the same vapid feces as the 'apology tour', and it's used as a default by those who choose to eschew rational analysis in favor of emotional dismissal of reality.

Black Swan

The craic of these debates is that the US economy has been in gradual recovery from the beginning of the Great Recession that started 2007-2008, and no matter who wins the presidency, in 4 years from now, they will take credit for full recovery and some growth, when in fact the president, Republicans, or Democrats will have had little to do with it.

Carcharodon

Black Swan wrote: »

The craic of these debates is that the US economy has been in gradual recovery from the beginning of the Great Recession that started 2007-2008, and no matter who wins the presidency, in 4 years from now, they will take credit for full recovery and some growth, when in fact the president, Republicans, or Democrats will have had little to do with it.

I know this, you know this, most rational intelligent people know this but unfortunately the majority of America will never comprehend this.
It can be mind boggling sometimes that people expect a rapid recovery after such a major recession, it is a slow gradual recovery and when its all said and done, it will all have to be done again sometime down the road.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well done on rolling out the biggest fallacy of them all: it's Keynesian economics that caused the recession and will cause the next great depression if left unchecked.

It was nothing to do with the reversal of Keynesian policy that began during the Reagan years and continues right up to 2008. It was all those pesky banking regulations that killed the economy eh?

Delusional, even the great Friedmanite Alan Greenspan admits he was wrong about.

SupaNova2

Black Swan wrote: »

The craic of these debates is that the US economy has been in gradual recovery from the beginning of the Great Recession that started 2007-2008, and no matter who wins the presidency, in 4 years from now, they will take credit for full recovery and some growth, when in fact the president, Republicans, or Democrats will have had little to do with it.

Just curious what metrics you are using when you claim the US is recovering, I'm guessing its not fiscal sustainability and debt levels, because they're not recovering anytime soon.

Are you using GDP which is greatly dependent on deflators? Or are you using unemployment numbers that exclude discouraged workers? And what kind of numbers do you expect in four years time?

Valmont

Brian? wrote: »

Well done on rolling out the biggest fallacy of them all: it's Keynesian economics that caused the recession and will cause the next great depression if left unchecked.

It was nothing to do with the reversal of Keynesian policy that began during the Reagan years and continues right up to 2008. It was all those pesky banking regulations that killed the economy eh?

Delusional, even the great Friedmanite Alan Greenspan admits he was wrong about.

This has nothing to do with the issues discussed by Peter Schiff in the video? Additionally how do you explain this quote from prominent Keynesian Paul Krugman?

Paul Krugman wrote:

Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble

Honestly, Brian?, your apologising for the democrats on every conceivable issue is unbelievably extreme; it's a wonder to anyone you accuse others of the same trick!

Brian?

Valmont wrote: »

Honestly, Brian?, your apologising for the democrats on every conceivable issue is unbelievably extreme; it's a wonder to anyone you accuse others of the same trick!

That's a quite hilarious interpretation of what I said. I am standing up for Keynsian economic policy. A policy that was supported by both sides at various times.

How is that apologising for anything?

FYI, I'm not actually pro-democratic party I'm just very very anti Republican party.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

FYI, I'm not actually pro-democratic party I'm just very very anti Republican party.

Well its always easier to be against something than for something.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Well its always easier to be against something than for something.

I am for a lot of things, as you well know. No need for the snide remarks, they're getting petty at this stage.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

I am for a lot of things, as you well know. No need for the snide remarks, they're getting petty at this stage.

I was making an observation. Many people love to hate the GOP but then when asked about Obama or the democrats they shrug their shoulders "Meh!". That way then they can attack one parties position on everything yet then offer no alternative solutions nor do they have to defend any positions on the counter. Its a perfect side stepping of responsibility.

vetinari

jank, that is frankly a bit nuts.

Obama's tax plans compared to Romney's are a lot more detailed and realistic.

Obama's approach to energy independence is a lot more rational.
Oil and gas production is increasing and cars are getting a lot more fuel efficient.
Romney want's to repeal the fuel efficiency increases making energy independence even harder.

Romney want's to solve the health care question by scrapping Obamacare and ???
Obamacare is a workable solution to getting everyone to pay into the health care system.

Personally, i think Obama has been a very good US president. There's limits to how much a president can do or mess up. The stimulus helped avert further recession, he introduced Obamacare and is winding up the Bush era wars. If someone had said that to me before his election, I'd have said that would be a productive term.

jank

vetinari wrote: »

Oil and gas production is increasing and cars are getting a lot more fuel efficient.
.

Hmmm, cars have been getting a lot more fuel efficient long before Obama came to office to give him that is "frankly a bit nuts".

vetinari

jank do you live in the states?

Cars for the european market have been far more efficient than cars for the US market for years.
Up to about 2 years ago, a car was considered "fuel efficient" here if it got over 30 miles per gallon!

Now after the fuel efficiency improvement mandates, they're producing cars with up to 40 miles per gallon.
This is a positive outcome from regulation. Without it, the car companies over here wouldn't have increased the fuel efficiency.

jank

vetinari wrote: »

jank do you live in the states?

Cars for the european market have been far more efficient than cars for the US market for years.
Up to about 2 years ago, a car was considered "fuel efficient" here if it got over 30 miles per gallon!

Now after the fuel efficiency improvement mandates, they're producing cars with up to 40 miles per gallon.
This is a positive outcome from regulation. Without it, the car companies over here wouldn't have increased the fuel efficiency.

I think you will find that more expensive oil has had a far greater effect on the on fuel efficiency than some government regulation. It is now in the interests of car companies to create more fuel efficient cars.

joseph brand

vetinari wrote: »

jank do you live in the states?

Cars for the european market have been far more efficient than cars for the US market for years.
Up to about 2 years ago, a car was considered "fuel efficient" here if it got over 30 miles per gallon!

Now after the fuel efficiency improvement mandates, they're producing cars with up to 40 miles per gallon.
This is a positive outcome from regulation. Without it, the car companies over here wouldn't have increased the fuel efficiency.

Plus, it benefits their auto exports. Those of us outside the US assume every American drives 8/ 10 L gas-guzzlers.

Increasing fuel efficiency is essential.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

I think you will find that more expensive oil has had a far greater effect on the on fuel efficiency than some government regulation. It is now in the interests of car companies to create more fuel efficient cars.

I think you'll find that both have an effect. Give credit where it's due every now and then. The mpg regulations are having a positive effect and costing nothing.

Suryavarman

Brian? wrote: »

I think you'll find that both have an effect. Give credit where it's due every now and then. The mpg regulations are having a positive effect and costing nothing.

They are actually costing quite a lot as car makers are cutting weight out of their cars which makes them less safe in order to comply with these new regulations. On top of that cars will also cost more as car makers use higher end parts to make their cars more fuel efficient.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

They are actually costing quite a lot as car makers are cutting weight out of their cars which makes them less safe in order to comply with these new regulations. On top of that cars will also cost more as car makers use higher end parts to make their cars more fuel efficient.

Less safe you say? Have you any proof of that?

An increase in purchase cost will be offset by savings on fuel.

Are you honestly going to argue that more fuel efficient cars are a bad thing?

vetinari

Suryavarman wrote: »

They are actually costing quite a lot as car makers are cutting weight out of their cars which makes them less safe in order to comply with these new regulations. On top of that cars will also cost more as car makers use higher end parts to make their cars more fuel efficient.

Sources??
I've no idea how you can say that cars are less safer. Check any of the safety authority tests. That line of argument would suggest that everyone is Europe is driving cars that are unsafe!

Regards jank's point about gas prices, they've gone up before in the past few years to 3 dollars 50 a gallon and the mpgs for cars didn't rise to 40 mpg. It's mainly due to the regulations that the mark of a fuel efficient car has climbed to European standards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman

Brian? wrote: »

Less safe you say? Have you any proof of that?

To quote from this news column:

Another, far worse consequence of the skyrocketing mileage requirements is that many cars will need to be made smaller, lighter, and with thinner metal and more plastic, to achieve the new “corporate average fleet economy” (CAFÉ) standards.

These vehicles – even with seatbelts, air bags and expensive vehicle modifications – will not be as safe as they would be if mileage weren’t a major consideration. They will have less “armor” to protect drivers and passengers, and less space between vehicle occupants and whatever car, truck, bus, wall, tree or embankment their car might hit.

The NHTSA, Brookings Institution, Harvard School of Public Health, National Academy of Sciences and USA Today discovered a shocking reality. Even past and current mileage standards have resulted in thousands of additional fatalities, and tens of thousands of serious injuries, every year – above what would have happened if the government had not imposed those standards.

An increase in purchase cost will be offset by savings on fuel.

Any proof for that?

What about the used cars that increase in price as a result of this law? They haven't become anymore fuel efficient yet they are becoming more expensive.

Are you honestly going to argue that more fuel efficient cars are a bad thing?

No I am not. But more dangerous and more expensive cars are a bad thing.

vetinari wrote: »

Sources??
I've no idea how you can say that cars are less safer. Check any of the safety authority tests. That line of argument would suggest that everyone is Europe is driving cars that are unsafe!

What's to say that those cars couldn't be safer in the absence of these fuel regulations?

vetinari

That logic leads us all to be driving tanks!

Heavier cars are safer in a collision only by virtue of being heavier than the other vehicle.
If cars in general get lighter then this scenario is mitigated.

Permabear, it mentions it in your article

In a multi-vehicle collision, the heavier vehicle will be favored as the momentum from the heavier vehicle will be transferred to the lighter one

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're judging the safety of a car by a single metric. A very poor way to judge anything. By your logic we should all drive around in Hummers.

The top pick for the safest car in 2012, an Audi A6:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/01/20/safest-cars-for-2012/

I wonder what weighs more an Audi A6 or a F150 or a Hummer.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Any proof for that?

Simple maths? A car that uses less petrol/gasoline per mile costs less to run. Depending on the purchase price the economy saving will over take the extra cost of purchase eventually, simple.

What about the used cars that increase in price as a result of this law? They haven't become anymore fuel efficient yet they are becoming more expensive.

Are they?

No I am not. But more dangerous and more expensive cars are a bad thing.

A lighter car=/= a more dangerous car. See my other post. Weight is only one metric.

Mr.Micro

vetinari wrote: »

Personally, i think Obama has been a very good US president. There's limits to how much a president can do or mess up. The stimulus helped avert further recession, he introduced Obamacare and is winding up the Bush era wars. If someone had said that to me before his election, I'd have said that would be a productive term.

It would perhaps take another term for Obama to show what he is really made of. He inherited a mess from Bush and the last 4 years have been spent trying to level things out from extremes. Not sure though that he will get another go as voters seem to want a short term fix via Romney.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

I think you'll find that both have an effect. Give credit where it's due every now and then. The mpg regulations are having a positive effect and costing nothing.

Apart from making cars more expensive...:rolleyes: You see the price of a Prius now a days?

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Simple maths? A car that uses less petrol/gasoline per mile costs less to run. Depending on the purchase price the economy saving will over take the extra cost of purchase eventually, simple. .

Of course it depends on the actual purchase price of the car itself and how long you intend to keep it as well as the amount of miles you drive.
Simple maths may very well state that a cheaper car that burns more fuel may be more cost friendly than a very expensive car which is more fuel efficient. One must take all variables into account!

American cars have always used more fuel than european cars, this is down to the culture of driving AND the cost of fuel.

The price of fuel in europe has ALWAYS been more expensive (mainly thanks to taxes!) then the US, thus european cars are more fuel efficient. When did european and US governments mandate fuel efficiency in their cars. I imagine only quite recently, so what has been going on in for the past 50 years in regards to fuel efficincey in Europe?

Brian? wrote: »

A lighter car=/= a more dangerous car. See my other post. Weight is only one metric.

Why is a motorbike more dangerous than a car?