2016 US Presidential Election Pt. II - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-06-2015, 11:30 PM   #381
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 05:56 PM
The post debate on Fox is all about assassinating Trump.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:32 PM   #382
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:56 PM
They made him. They can destroy him.
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:32 PM   #383
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Gotta pump the Bush/Huckabee train. Of course those conservative campfires won't support Paul or Trump. Fox is playing to their audience.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:35 PM   #384
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaget77 View Post
Gotta pump the Bush/Huckabee train. Of course those conservative campfires won't support Paul or Trump. Fox is playing to their audience.

You sound so surprised in your disappointment. Were you really expecting Fox News to actually BE fair and balanced?

And, because I didn't watch it, so I don't really know how it went, what were you hoping for? This is a genuine question.
martha is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:42 PM   #385
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaget77 View Post
Gotta pump the Bush/Huckabee train. Of course those conservative campfires won't support Paul or Trump. Fox is playing to their audience.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Reality is a bitch, ain't it?!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
BVS is online now  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:43 PM   #386
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
You sound so surprised in your disappointment. Were you really expecting Fox News to actually BE fair and balanced?



And, because I didn't watch it, so I don't really know how it went, what were you hoping for? This is a genuine question.

I was optimistic for better questions and more balance. I was hoping they would let more of the candidates answer the questions. They kept bouncing between topics.
However, I'm not shocked at what happened. I am not a fan of Kelly or Wallace. It was bad coverage all around.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:46 PM   #387
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Reality is a bitch, ain't it?!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

He won't get the nomination. But the ride is fun.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:46 PM   #388
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaget77 View Post
I was optimistic for better questions and more balance. I was hoping they would let more of the candidates answer the questions. They kept bouncing between topics.
I see. Could that be a function of so many candidates and a limited amount of time?

What kinds of questions would you like to have heard?
martha is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:51 PM   #389
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 09:56 PM
2016 US Presidential Election Pt. II

Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I see. Could that be a function of so many candidates and a limited amount of time?



What kinds of questions would you to have heard?

The questions were poorly distributed. That was a big problem. Christie should not have been on the stage.
I would have rather heard questions about how they would have handled the situations in Baltimore and Ferguson and Healthcare. They briefly touched on those issues, but hardly.
Too many unimportant and stupid questions.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:51 PM   #390
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaget77 View Post
He won't get the nomination. But the ride is fun.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

No, I meant now you are realizing the agenda of your media.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
BVS is online now  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:55 PM   #391
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
No, I meant now you are realizing the agenda of your media.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I'm not a big Fox fan. Never have been. I like O' Reilly's show and Fox Business is good. Baier and Greta are pretty solid as well. But I am not a fan of Kelly, Hannity, etc.
It's just that there's not much alternative out there. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc are awful. The media in general is bad.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 08-06-2015, 11:59 PM   #392
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Have you tried NPR or PBS? I find the news to be much more comprehensive when it's not obsessed with ratings.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-07-2015, 12:00 AM   #393
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,274
Local Time: 08:56 AM
Tell me more about this Huckabee person. How is it that someone so phenomenally stupid can be up there and some people take it seriously
cobl04 is offline  
Old 08-07-2015, 12:03 AM   #394
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Tell me more about this Huckabee person. How is it that someone so phenomenally stupid can be up there and some people take it seriously
They vote for him. More than once.
martha is offline  
Old 08-07-2015, 12:05 AM   #395
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Tell me more about this Huckabee person. How is it that someone so phenomenally stupid can be up there and some people take it seriously

He's the former governor of Arkansas and a former preacher/pastor type. He was considered a strong social conservative but somewhat reasonable in 2008 when he was seen as the conservative option to McCain. Since Obama, he's swung much, much further to the right attempting to capture the hearts and wallets of an older, religious part of the conservative base. Recently published a book called "God, Grits and Guns" (something like that).

He's in it for the money. He's not stupid, he just plays that on TV. He's an effective communicator and is skilled at these debate things where he's really just selling his brand. He does not expect to be the nominee.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-07-2015, 12:06 AM   #396
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaget77 View Post
The questions were poorly distributed. That was a big problem. Christie should not have been on the stage.
I would have rather heard questions about how they would have handled the situations in Baltimore and Ferguson and Healthcare. They briefly touched on those issues, but hardly.
Too many unimportant and stupid questions.
Do you think the numbers were manipulated to get Christie on the roster?

Who chose the questions? The Fox News hosts?

Could it be that healthcare was purposefully avoided so no Republican would have to admit they have no alternative to the ACA? It could be that the question writers didn't want to (further) embarrass the candidates.

These are real questions, not my usual smarmy ones.
martha is offline  
Old 08-07-2015, 12:38 AM   #397
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 09:56 PM
2016 US Presidential Election Pt. II

Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Do you think the numbers were manipulated to get Christie on the roster?

Who chose the questions? The Fox News hosts?

Could it be that healthcare was purposefully avoided so no Republican would have to admit they have no alternative to the ACA? It could be that the question writers didn't want to (further) embarrass the candidates.

These are real questions, not my usual smarmy ones.

No. I don't think anything fishy happened to get Christie on the board, it's just that he should've been in the early debate. He has no chance of winning. Kasich is low on the polls too, but he has a lot higher ceiling to gain in the polls. He's a legit candidate and has been great in Ohio.
I believe the hosts chose the question. I think they avoided healthcare because it's a boring topic to many. They wanted to keep focused on topics that will keep viewership up. Iran, Abortion, etc. Don't get me wrong, they're important topics, but they should've touched some other important topics as well.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 08-07-2015, 12:44 AM   #398
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonMelon View Post
Christie pushing to build a state of the art super Navy. Meanwhile...

Very telling, they are only 33 billion behind us, keep in mind our labor costs and regulations means our dollars only go about half as far as costs in those other countries.
deep is offline  
Old 08-07-2015, 12:47 AM   #399
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 310
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonMelon View Post
Christie pushing to build a state of the art super Navy. Meanwhile...

A few things to remember about the above chart:

1. The figures are not adjusted for purchasing power parity. India may only spend $38 Billion a year, but $38 Billion in India buys a lot more than it does in the United States or United Kingdom.

2. Actual raw military capability is far more important than what is actually spent. How large is your military force and what can it actually accomplish regardless of spending levels?

Example, the United Kingdom may outspend India according to the chart figures at normal exchange rates, but the Indian military is probably the more capable of the two:

India
Spending per year: $38 Billion
manpower - 1,325,000
tanks - 4,200
Surface Combatant Ships - 23
Submarines - 16
combat aircraft -665

United Kingdom
Spending per year: $59 Billion
manpower - 178,000
tanks - 325
Surface Combatant Ships - 25
Submarines - 11
combat aircraft - 199

So although India spends less than the United Kingdom, the size of its forces in several areas are much larger than the UK. Plus India does have large numbers of modern weapons purchased from Russia.

So the above spending chart really does not tell you much at all. The only thing that matters is the actual size and capabilities of the forces that you do have and raw spending levels are not going to tell you that.
wolf is offline  
Old 08-07-2015, 12:55 AM   #400
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,274
Local Time: 08:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
He's the former governor of Arkansas and a former preacher/pastor type. He was considered a strong social conservative but somewhat reasonable in 2008 when he was seen as the conservative option to McCain. Since Obama, he's swung much, much further to the right attempting to capture the hearts and wallets of an older, religious part of the conservative base. Recently published a book called "God, Grits and Guns" (something like that).

He's in it for the money. He's not stupid, he just plays that on TV. He's an effective communicator and is skilled at these debate things where he's really just selling his brand. He does not expect to be the nominee.
Okay but so was he serious with the extremely transphobic comment followed by that comment about the purpose of war that I would only expect to hear in satire? Was that serious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonMelon View Post
That is a very odd way of scaling a graph.
__________________

cobl04 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×