Support NeoGAF

[Freshmaker]

"Dov Zakheim, a top defense adviser to Mitt Romney, confirmed the Republican presidential nominee’s plan to build 15 Navy vessels, including three attack submarines, a year, which would require nearly doubling the Navy’s annual shipbuilding budget."

Is this what you are referring to? That's a far cry from 600.

You've been reading the constitution too closely for too long. It's killing your sense of humor.

 

[Cyan]

No there's no reason to flip out no, but if people are only looking at Nate Silver and thinking things are going just fine I think they need to reassess.

Ah. Should we be looking at unskewedpolls.com?

 

[Dash27]

Why are you conflating some of the twitter universe with Obama himself?

Because I've heard Obama and Biden using all those nonsense issue sound bytes for the past month. Romney has a thin platform but you have to realize that Obama has even less. I mentioned this in another thread and someone linked an Obama website to me. Neither candidate is being specific and it's sadly understandable why they wouldnt. There are no great answers, and anything you say can and will be used against you.

Suffice to say Obama had a decent lead and now he doesnt, so dont be shocked by a loss or narrow victory.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I don't know, I just think Romney chose the wrong strategy for this debate - his idea was apparently to not screw up, but the problem here is that polls aren't showing him winning. If polls were showing an outright heat I might buy it, but the problem is that "momentum" is often illusory anyways since people who are "undecided" are often lying, not voting or just go along with whoever the CNN pundits say "won." But in the end, I'm not sure those kind of things really translate into long term votes, I think they often even out much like Convention bumps that don't really mean anything.

Ultimately, even assuming Romney believed he had "momentum" on his side, there isn't anything to suggest that any such "momentum" is going to carry through being behind by 3 pts. in swing states for the next two weeks.

 

[RDreamer]

Because I've heard Obama and Biden using all those nonsense issue sound bytes for the past month. Romney has a thin platform but you have to realize that Obama has even less. I mentioned this in another thread and someone linked an Obama website to me. Neither candidate is being specific and it's sadly understandable why they wouldnt. There are no great answers, and anything you say can and will be used against you.

Suffice to say Obama had a decent lead and now he doesnt, so dont be shocked by a loss or narrow victory.

I really don't get how you can say Obama's platform is even thinner than Romney's. Sure Romney has said a lot of things, perhaps even specific things at times, but they don't work together. He's practically promising everyone a pony. When Obama is talking, even when he's not being specific, usually he's alluding directly to legislation like the American Jobs Act.

 

[pigeon]

That's not exactly how those percentages work. It's not saying there is a coin toss that is weighted at 70%; it's saying that Obama wins today--but there is a 30% chance that something happens to change the drift toward Romney between now and the election.

Take Ohio: That state is 70% Obama right now. That doesn't mean that if the election is held today in 'Mirror Universe Ohio' 10 times, Romney wins 3 of those. It means: Obama wins Ohio today. But if you drag things out, it's solid enough that there is only a 30% chance that something happens to drift the state red--and the longer the status quo goes, the more solid that number becomes.

At least that is how I've been lead to understand.

Two separate issues here. One is Monte Carlo. 538 is a simulation, so the "forecast" is made by running the simulation a few thousand times and totalling up how often Obama wins. In that sense, the forecast takes into account the possibility that the news cycle will go in unpredictable ways and things might chance in ways we don't know.

Second is margin of error. 538 says that Obama's chance to win the whole thing today is 70%. Princeton Election Consortium says his chance is more like 90%. However, they project Obama winning the same number of electoral votes -- 290! How is it that they agree on this point and disagree on the chance to win? The deal is that "chance to win the election" is really better phrased as "chance that Obama's number of electoral votes is at least 270," so your level of confidence on that is directly tied to how exactly you think you can predict the electoral vote outcome. PEC believes that their method has less error than 538, so the horse-race odds end up looking very different -- but they're actually showing basically the same state of the race. (And, nota bene, it's a state of the race where the median result is a solid Obama victory). Another way to say this is that they have the same data, but Sam Wang thinks Nate Silver is hedging unnecessarily in his conclusion from that data, and Nate Silver thinks Sam Wang is being overconfident in his.

Personally, I think Wang's perspective has several things to recommend it, but Silver's the more conservative conclusion and hence less likely to be wrong or argued about. I'm probably more confident than 70%. Maybe not quite as confident as 90%, but it's tough to be sure.

 

[Cubsfan23]

the only prediction that matters is the day before the election. Obama will be over 90% by then

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

That's the forecast vs now-cast distinction. Silver's now-cast has Obama at 72%. My (vague) understanding is that the uncertainty is coming from uncertainty in polling.

Two separate issues here. One is Monte Carlo. 538 is a simulation, so the "forecast" is made by running the simulation a few thousand times and totalling up how often Obama wins. In that sense, the forecast takes into account the possibility that the news cycle will go in unpredictable ways and things might chance in ways we don't know.

Second is margin of error. 538 says that Obama's chance to win the whole thing today is 70%. Princeton Election Consortium says his chance is more like 90%. However, they project Obama winning the same number of electoral votes -- 290! How is it that they agree on this point and disagree on the chance to win? The deal is that "chance to win the election" is really better phrased as "chance that Obama's number of electoral votes is at least 270," so your level of confidence on that is directly tied to how exactly you think you can predict the electoral vote outcome. PEC believes that their method has less error than 538, so the horse-race odds end up looking very different -- but they're actually showing basically the same state of the race. (And, nota bene, it's a state of the race where the median result is a solid Obama victory). Another way to say this is that they have the same data, but Sam Wang thinks Nate Silver is hedging unnecessarily in his conclusion from that data, and Nate Silver thinks Sam Wang is being overconfident in his.

Personally, I think Wang's perspective has several things to recommend it, but Silver's the more conservative conclusion and hence less likely to be wrong or argued about. I'm probably more confident than 70%. Maybe not quite as confident as 90%, but it's tough to be sure.

This sheds more light than on how I understood it.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Two separate issues here. One is Monte Carlo. 538 is a simulation, so the "forecast" is made by running the simulation a few thousand times and totalling up how often Obama wins. In that sense, the forecast takes into account the possibility that the news cycle will go in unpredictable ways and things might chance in ways we don't know.

Second is margin of error. 538 says that Obama's chance to win the whole thing today is 70%. Princeton Election Consortium says his chance is more like 90%. However, they project Obama winning the same number of electoral votes -- 290! How is it that they agree on this point and disagree on the chance to win? The deal is that "chance to win the election" is really better phrased as "chance that Obama's number of electoral votes is at least 270," so your level of confidence on that is directly tied to how exactly you think you can predict the electoral vote outcome. PEC believes that their method has less error than 538, so the horse-race odds end up looking very different -- but they're actually showing basically the same state of the race. (And, nota bene, it's a state of the race where the median result is a solid Obama victory). Another way to say this is that they have the same data, but Sam Wang thinks Nate Silver is hedging unnecessarily in his conclusion from that data, and Nate Silver thinks Sam Wang is being overconfident in his.

Personally, I think Wang's perspective has several things to recommend it, but Silver's the more conservative conclusion and hence less likely to be wrong or argued about. I'm probably more confident than 70%. Maybe not quite as confident as 90%, but it's tough to be sure.

Don't pretty much all the forecast models treat the 50 states as independent populations? IE: even though manufacturing and the auto industry heavily intertwine Ohio and Michigan, no cross-state or multi-state polls outside of national breakdowns by race, gender, religion, and party affiliation tend to exist. I would think that obama's high chances in Michigan would bolster his chances in Ohio based on correlational studies, and statistical models would attempt to somewhat incorporate multi-state correlational probabilities into their forecasts.

Like, Obama has over a 97% chance of winning Michigan and a 72% chance of winning Ohio. But I highly doubt that obama would lose Michigan but win Ohio. Or, put it this way, in the 3% of simulations that Romney wins Michigan, I would expect romney to win Ohio much more than 28% of the time (more like 99-100% of the time). Similarly, I would expect that Obama's true chances in Ohio are more around the 80-85% range rather than the ~70% range becuase of the manufacturing/detroit tie in. Michigan and Ohio are likely to vote the same, and Obama's dominance in Michigan should send off warning bells for the more closely-polled state of Ohio

Statistically it may make sense to conduct independent polls for the 50 populations since that is how electoral vots are allocated, but I think demographic similarties and similar political influences among groups of states tends to go un-accounted for in these forecasts.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Ignoring the rest of your post, yes, this is true. People look at 538 and go "oh, Obama's at 70%, that's basically a guarantee that he wins." No, that's only slightly better than a 2/3 chance of winning. Out of 3 elections where Silver gives someone a 70% chance of winning, he should be wrong approximately once.

I'm not going to suggest that people go all Diablos and start flipping out about everything, but while Obama is clearly ahead, there are no guarantees here.

I will be shocked...fucken flabbergasted if Obama loses OH or PA or NM after leading there for so long, I don't see how you can call these swing states. These states seem way more certain than I felt in 2008. But if Romney wins by way of FL and Iowa and NH and VA and CO that will not surprise me.

If on election night you hear VA and OH go for Obama you can probably go to bed.

 

[pigeon]

Don't pretty much all the forecast models treat the 50 states as independent populations? IE: even though manufacturing and the auto industry heavily intertwine Ohio and Michigan, no cross-state or multi-state polls outside of national breakdowns by race, gender, religion, and party affiliation tend to exist. I would think that obama's high chances in Michigan would bolster his chances in Ohio based on correlational studies, and statistical models would attempt to somewhat incorporate multi-state correlational probabilities into their forecasts.

Like, Obama has over a 97% chance of winning Michigan and a 72% chance of winning Ohio. But I highly doubt that obama would lose Michigan but win Ohio. Or, put it this way, in the 3% of simulations that Romney wins Michigan, I would expect romney to win Ohio much more than 28% of the time (more like 99-100% of the time). Similarly, I would expect that Obama's true chances in Ohio are more around the 80-85% range rather than the ~70% range becuase of the manufacturing/detroit tie in. Michigan and Ohio are likely to vote the same, and Obama's dominance in Michigan should send off warning bells for the more closely-polled state of Ohio

Statistically it may make sense to conduct independent polls for the 50 populations since that is how electoral vots are allocated, but I think demographic similarties and similar political influences among groups of states tends to go un-accounted for in these forecasts.

As far as I can tell, 538 handles this essentially by projecting a Platonic national race, which every state then applies individual fundamentals to based on both past history and the history of their relationship to the mean this year. This is the basis of their tipping point concept: basically, the theory is that, as you say, if Romney wins Michigan he's going to win Ohio as well (which means that it's not really worth worrying about for him because Ohio is more important) because he'll have to be that far ahead. Theoretically, states that are demographically correlated should correlate in the polls as well, so they should show up correlated in a system designed along these lines. This hasn't worked perfectly this year -- Colorado being further right than Ohio, for example, was a surprise to many.

I tend to think your perspective is pretty insightful, but I think people perceive it as tough to poll effectively, since you need to keep identifying what the core demographic groups are this year, which takes a fair amount of savvy. For example, Rust Belt voting was not really much of a thing in 08, but it's a big deal now.

 

[akira28]

http://cavalrymenforromney.com/

 

[Dash27]

I didnt realize how pumped up people are over Nate Silver here.

I will be shocked...fucken flabbergasted if Obama loses OH or PA or NM after leading there for so long, I don't see how you can call these swing states. These states seem way more certain than I felt in 2008. But if Romney wins by way of FL and Iowa and NH and VA and CO that will not surprise me.

If on election night you hear VA and OH go for Obama you can probably go to bed.

PA and NM I would agree, but OH? Definitely possible and not shocking. If VA goes then yeah I'd say it's over.

 

[Rentahamster]

Green energy was mentioned a lot, but not the phrase "climate change", as far as I can remember, in any of the debates.

Ramifications?

 

[Lord_Byron28]

I will be shocked...fucken flabbergasted if Obama loses OH or PA or NM after leading there for so long, I don't see how you can call these swing states. These states seem way more certain than I felt in 2008. But if Romney wins by way of FL and Iowa and NH and VA and CO that will not surprise me.

If on election night you hear VA and OH go for Obama you can probably go to bed.

Yeah VA scares me. I've seen at least 20-30 Romney signs posted on businesses and peoples lawns but zero Obama signs. A lot of my 'friends' on facebook are pro-romney or undecided. Romney will also be visiting my local highschool tomorrow and he's campaigned in town there before. However, our area doesn't fit in with most of NOVA as it constitutes mainly of rich people and poor rednecks which is Romneys/Republicans leading demographs. Which is why Obama campaigns mainly in Fairfax and Loudon county which are closer to DC and more ethnically, culturally and financialy diverse as well as more urban. Meanwhile Romney tends to campaign in the county below, prince william which in some areas are more rural and full of his core demograph.

 

[Evlar]

Green energy was mentioned a lot, but not the phrase "climate change", as far as I can remember, in any of the debates.

Ramifications?

We're screwed that science has been so thoroughly politicized that our leaders ignore looming threats for short term political expediency.

 

[Rentahamster]

We're screwed that science has been so thoroughly politicized that our leaders ignore looming threats for short term political expediency.

Or is it because the concept is fairly ubiquitous now, and that one of the reasons for green energy development is because of the tacit (unsaid) understanding of climate change?

 

[Evlar]

Or is it because the concept is fairly ubiquitous now, and that one of the reasons for green energy development is because of the tacit (unsaid) understanding of climate change?

I think the banishment of talk of climate change from high-profile political discourse indicates it is NOT being taken seriously, rather than the opposite.

 

[Cyan]

I didnt realize how pumped up people are over Nate Silver here.

Again, what is your recommendation for an alternative source?

Silver is well thought of because he uses actual numbers and a sensible methodology, finds the actual winner rather than something irrelevant like popular vote victor, and doesn't throw everything out to obsess over the latest poll number like a dog with a shiny toy.

 

[pigeon]

I didnt realize how pumped up people are over Nate Silver here.

Well, he has the advantage of being right a lot. Is there some other pundit you prefer?

 

[Learn2read]

I think the banishment of talk of climate change from high-profile political discourse indicates it is NOT being taken seriously, rather than the opposite.

I think it just naturally fades when the economy is doing poorly.

 

[Evlar]

I think it just naturally fades when the economy is doing poorly.

It was more visible during the 2008 campaign than today.

 

[Dash27]

Again, what is your recommendation for an alternative source?

Silver is well thought of because he uses actual numbers and a sensible methodology, finds the actual winner rather than something irrelevant like popular vote victor, and doesn't throw everything out to obsess over the latest poll number like a dog with a shiny toy.

Source of what, a prediction or model? None. Poll of Polls to say something is trending a certain way, fine.

If you want to take what he says into account sure, but people seem to be taking his stuff as gospel.

 

[pigeon]

Source of what, a prediction or model? None. Poll of Polls to say something is trending a certain way, fine.

If you want to take what he says into account sure, but people seem to be taking his stuff as gospel.

I don't think it's that people take it as gospel so much as the people who disagree with him rarely have much to offer in the way of substantive argument, rather than facile and unsupported talking points like "it's clear Romney has the momentum."

 

[KHarvey16]

Source of what, a prediction or model? None. Poll of Polls to say something is trending a certain way, fine.

If you want to take what he says into account sure, but people seem to be taking his stuff as gospel.

What reason do we have to not trust it? The methodology has proven itself time and time again rather effectively.

 

[Cyan]

What reason do we have to not trust it? The methodology has proven itself time and time again rather effectively.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but certainly there's no reason to trust, say, Gut Feeling (TM) over Nate Silver.

 

[j_k_redtail]

I highly suspect Ronmey's "plan" to double the number of Navy ships is a ploy to attract voters in Virginia. The shipbuilding industry in Hampton Roads is huge, so if this "plan" was ever put into action the area would stand to gain a lot of jobs and money.

but GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS

 

[maharg]

but GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS

Unless you get rid of the government and just let Mitt Romney become the CEO of United States, Inc!

 

[Zoibie]

Green energy was mentioned a lot, but not the phrase "climate change", as far as I can remember, in any of the debates.

Ramifications?

Candy Crowley mentioned that she had a climate change question ready in the second debate but that there wasn't time to ask it. A shame really, I don't usually hear anything about it from candidates or pundits except when it's referring to green energy, as you say.

 

[Haunted]

*salutes*

Definitely a case of the outside looking in seeing the clearer picture while US citizens [voting Republican] seem misguided.


Oh well, nothing new. Liberal media bias, rest of the world is not important rah rah 'murica being an exception and complete outlier is good etc. etc.

 

[YoungHav]

Does the rest of the world know about NDAA? I feel like other countries love the hip black dude act Obama puts on and don't bother scrutinizing.

 

[pigeon]

Does the rest of the world know about NDAA? I feel like other countries love the hip black dude act Obama puts on and don't bother scrutinizing.

The rest of the world is somewhat more jaded than America and doesn't indulge itself with third-party candidates, which is the only way to get the civil liberties one-issue candidate that some people (not completely unreasonably) want.

 

[nib95]

Does the rest of the world know about NDAA? I feel like other countries love the hip black dude act Obama puts on and don't bother scrutinizing.

Lesser of two evils. Lest we forget NDAA was made by Republicans too, including the addition of the infamous detention rule. Obama originally opposed it but after amendments were made changed his mind. A few of the horrid elements of the act evidently were off set by the other positives.

I vehemently disagree with it and think it was one of Obama's lowest points. But they have been trying to stamp that detention rule out. Add to that, let's not pretend it wouldn't have happened if a Republican was in power. Hell, McCain co authored the act!

 

[Hilti92]

I think Romney is the smart one here. He recognizes that the ice caps up north are melting and that soon the world will be submerged in water. He's just getting a leg up on everyone else. Winner.

 

[Red]

I just watched it.

Thought it was the most substantial of the three. Sounded like Romney was agreeing with Obama a lot, even when he didn't want to directly say so. There were times when it appeared he was simply paraphrasing Obama's responses (started echoing the word "responsibility" near the end). I actually thought it was Romney's best appearance so far -- less performance, more responsive toward the questions.

The drone question got shrugged off and we didn't get a good response on the question of what would be done if Israel were to suddenly attack Iran. Was hoping for more there.

It did overall seem like a reversal of roles from the first debate. Obama on the offensive, Romney passive.

 

[xJavonta]

Dunno if this was posted yet, but Govenor Gary Johnson was on the PDS Live and shared his thoughts on the Final Debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPDPpqkq8bY&feature=autoplay&list=ULQujuo7BS2HE&playnext=1

 

[GaimeGuy]

Lesser of two evils. Lest we forget NDAA was made by Republicans too, including the addition of the infamous detention rule. Obama originally opposed it but after amendments were made changed his mind. A few of the horrid elements of the act evidently were off set by the other positives.

I vehemently disagree with it and think it was one of Obama's lowest points. But they have been trying to stamp that detention rule out. Add to that, let's not pretend it wouldn't have happened if a Republican was in power. Hell, McCain co authored the act!

No... he didn't "change his mind."

The NDAA was an appropriations act. National Defense Approprations Act. It funds the military for the year.

There is no way that the Commander in Chief could in good faith forbid the treasury from distributing funds to the departments of defense, homeland security, and energy, to essentially bring the military to a grinding halt.

He issued a (non-binding) signing statement outlining his opposition to the indefinite detention provisions, but also declaring his need to pass the bill as the chief executive and the commander of the miltary, since the bill's primary purpose was to appropriate funds for the military. He claimed that his administration would not enforce the indefinite detention provisions (and to my knowledge, they haven't). Actually, originally, the provisions would have required the administration to use indefinite detention as a matter of standard operating procedure, but the administration was able to get congress to make it optional (but not remove the provision outright). Even so, the option was already there according to the courts thanks to powers granted under the Patriot Act, so the weakened form of the indefinite detention provisions that ended up being passed are essentially a no-op to the US Code.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Dunno if this was posted yet, but Govenor Gary Johnson was on the PDS Live and shared his thoughts on the Final Debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPDPpqkq8bY&feature=autoplay&list=ULQujuo7BS2HE&playnext=1

I don't really want to watch an hour long video, were his thoughts, "Durrrr if only I had done better in the first GOP primary debate I wouldn't have to have pretended to be Libertarian to scam money out of people and do things like be on a show with two guys who might not even be old enough to vote?"

 

[Steelrain]

Dunno if this was posted yet, but Govenor Gary Johnson was on the PDS Live and shared his thoughts on the Final Debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPDPpqkq8bY&feature=autoplay&list=ULQujuo7BS2HE&playnext=1

Why does he say he's surprised Obama "doubled down on Afghanistan" when that is what he has been saying he would do since before he became President?

 

[Volimar]

Allow me to say again that I can't fucking believe it is so close in Ohio. Ohio would be Detroit on a statewide level if Obama hadn't saved the auto industry. It's baffling. OhioGAF please grab everyone you know and go vote. Find out if and where you can vote early at:

http://www.barackobama.com/lookup

Please don't let that weather vane Romney get into the White House.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

but GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS

The military creates jobs (for rich defense contractors). Guvment can't give you a job

 

[nib95]

No... he didn't "change his mind."

The NDAA was an appropriations act. National Defense Approprations Act. It funds the military for the year.

There is no way that the Commander in Chief could in good faith forbid the treasury from distributing funds to the departments of defense, homeland security, and energy, to essentially bring the military to a grinding halt.

He issued a (non-binding) signing statement outlining his opposition to the indefinite detention provisions, but also declaring his need to pass the bill as the chief executive and the commander of the miltary, since the bill's primary purpose was to appropriate funds for the military. He claimed that his administration would not enforce the indefinite detention provisions (and to my knowledge, they haven't). Actually, originally, the provisions would have required the administration to use indefinite detention as a matter of standard operating procedure, but the administration was able to get congress to make it optional (but not remove the provision outright). Even so, the option was already there according to the courts thanks to powers granted under the Patriot Act, so the weakened form of the indefinite detention provisions that ended up being passed are essentially a no-op to the US Code.

So basically, Congress cornered him?

 

[GaimeGuy]

So basically, Congress cornered him?

Yes, and I can't believe people fail to even realize thatthe provisions in question actually re-affirm powers the government already had, or that the bill is an appropriations act, or that the bill had no effect on the powers available to the executive branch with regards to indefinitive detention. Again, they simply affirmed powers that the 2001 AUMF already granted


It's almost like no one bothers to read the signing statement

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then.

 

[Volimar]

So basically, Congress cornered him?

It wasn't the only time that Republicans held the American people hostage to get what they wanted legislatively. Recall the standoff that could have resulted in people not getting their social security checks? The same standoff that led to our credit rating being lowered.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Yes, and I can't believe people fail to even realize thatthe provisions in question actually re-affirm powers the government already had, or that the bill is an appropriations act, or that the bill had no effect on the powers available to the executive branch with regards to indefinitive detention. Again, they simply affirmed powers that the 2001 AUMF already granted


It's almost like no one bothers to read the signing statement

Why is he fighting so hard against the judge's ruling to stop it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html

 

[Volimar]

Why is he fighting so hard against the judge's ruling to stop it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html

Good question. I'd really like to know if it's some procedural bullshit or if his justice department really wants the law.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Why is he fighting so hard against the judge's ruling to stop it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html

Depends on what you consider "fighting hard". A blustery opening statement might be fighting hard, but then again it might not if, in the trial itself, you present the case on its merits (i.e. none).

The matter can only be truly and finally settled by the court. So Obama is trying to get that done in an expeditious manner.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Why is he fighting so hard against the judge's ruling to stop it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html

I think because that would basically mean they have no choice but to release the inmates at Guantanemo.

Congress has forbidden the administration from transferring the prisoners to the court system for trial.



So on one side you have congress telling the administration they can't provide the detainees a trial.

On the other side you have the courts telling the administratino they can't keep them detained if they don't provide them a trial.

 

[NekoToshiro]

So who did the best in your opinion Gaf?

 

[Cyan]

So who did the best in your opinion Gaf?

Romney looked really presidential.