2016 US Presidential Election Pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
Have you tried NPR or PBS? I find the news to be much more comprehensive when it's not obsessed with ratings.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Christie pushing to build a state of the art super Navy. Meanwhile...

defense.gif

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.
 
Christie pushing to build a state of the art super Navy. Meanwhile...

defense.gif

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.
 
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?


That is a very odd way of scaling a graph.
 
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.

I don't think the chart is trying to suggest that our military is loaded beyond reason, merely that we dedicate too much of an already strained budget to our military and the numbers are staggering compared to those of other nations. More work needs to be done to increase the efficiency of military spending, which was not addressed tonight, only that what we have is deficient to protect us. Framing the problem in those terms is more appealing to the base but will only compound it.
 
Last edited:
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

I was very disappointed by this as well, but not surprised.





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
every time he showed up on TV I kept yelling, what year is it?! To my parents.... I was quite drunk.
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

I'm glad Christie was in it because I actually liked him before it started.

Outside of the wall bullshit that you knew he was gonna spew, I thought Trump faired well. He's a lot smarter than a lot of the other people up there. But then again I probably agreed with a lot cause he's not really a Republican.

If I had to grade the nominees Kasich won easily. I liked him a lot. Jeb probably came in second, followed by Rubio or Trump. The rest were a cluster with Carson and Huckabee fighting for the bottom.

I also watched the kid's table debate. What a waste of an hour. Rick Perry is crazy the new York guy is OK, and everyone else was Under qualified or answered poorly.

Also I still hate Scott Walker and Rand Paul did better than I expected. He wiped the floor with Christie.
 
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?





.



It was what the people who might want to buy his books want to hear.
 
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?





.



It was what the people who might want to buy his books want to hear.
 
I'm glad Christie was in it because I actually liked him before it started.

Outside of the wall bullshit that you knew he was gonna spew, I thought Trump faired well. He's a lot smarter than a lot of the other people up there. But then again I probably agreed with a lot cause he's not really a Republican.

If I had to grade the nominees Kasich won easily. I liked him a lot. Jeb probably came in second, followed by Rubio or Trump. The rest were a cluster with Carson and Huckabee fighting for the bottom.
Also I still hate Scott Walker and Rand Paul did better than I expected. He wiped the floor with Christie.


Trump did solid, even though Wallace and Kelly clearly set out to take personal shots at him. He handled it well and owned Wallace on the bankruptcy question. I wish they asked him more policy questions.
Rubio had a very strong night and looked the most presidential. I've said for a while now that I think he's gonna win and I stand by that.
Kasich was very good, but I wish they let him talk more. And his record really speaks for itself, he has been an excellent governor in Ohio. Anyone who can win a re-election by 34% in a state like Ohio as a republican must be legit.
I haven't always been a huge Cruz fan, but he was very impressive last night. I think he's gonna hang in there to the end. Carson faired better than expected and his answer about racial tension was very good. Like Kasich, I wish he had more time to talk.
Jeb did about as well as you could expect. He certainly didn't bomb and faired pretty solid.
Christie, Huckabee, Walker all bombed. Walker is done after that debate. He looked like he was reading the script from a campaign commercial all night.
Rand Paul was the most underrated guy all night. He destroyed Chris Christie and was spot on about Israel, even though the campfire conservatives booed him. By the way, campfire conservatives = the conservatives in focus groups that respond to the 3 trigger words. Israel, Reagan, and 9/11.
Don't get me wrong, Israel is very important and our best ally. But Christie could go up there and say "we're gonna give Israel $385 trillion to bomb the world" and he would get a standing ovation. Meanwhile, Rand Paul gives people the truth and says that we simply can't afford it if we want to balance the budget. Then Christie plays the Reagan and 9/11 cards. That was pathetic.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Rand Paul has made far too many other mistakes and hold too many beliefs I'll never be able to side with for me to even consider voting for him, but he did fair well.

I don't know how you can seriously tell me Ben Carson did anything but look outmatched up there. He was Token. And that's terrible. It's really terrible.

Ted Cruz is a crazy man and has no personality whatsoever.

Kasich, Bush and Trump are probably the three that continue up to the end. Last night proved to me that Trump can toe the line just enough on a national scale not to get himself run out of the debates in the future.
 
I can't recall one moment of that debate when Carson gave an answer that made me think "oh, that was so succinct and knowledgeable, this guy knows something about politics." I can't recall one direct answer of any kind, actually. Describing a flat tax as being inspired by tithing was certainly creative but ultimately an oversimplification and something of a misunderstanding of history.

I won't call him stupid or anything like that though. I'm sure he's incredibly intelligent. He did separate Siamese twins, after all.
 
Last edited:
I've met Carson a few times. He's a very nice man and is brilliant, but he is just too quiet and doesn't have a killer instinct. I really liked his closing statement and like I said earlier, I thought his comment on race was very well done. I wish he would've been asked more questions. His first question was a bomb, but it's the guy's first debate, so I'll cut him some slack on that. I'll be interested to see how he fares at the next debate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I feel like freakshows like this are designed to lull the rest of the world into thinking that American politics is devoid of intellect or any kind of grasp on reality, so that we're all suddenly taken by surprise when America... oh wait, waltzes into another ill-advised war? Yeah only stupid countries like Australia follow in that wake now.

Seriously, there was actually a question about whether any of these dickheads think the voices in their head are divine? Answer that question seriously in any other Western country and you're immediately a dribbling fruitcake, the punchline for comedians for a decade.
 
I loved Trumps response to the tone question. "Christians being beheaded, anarchy at the border, we're living in Medieval Times"

They were definitely going for Trumps knee caps in that debate. Maybe getting their marching orders from Roger Ailes who hates Trump. He was inartful on the Mexican government question. Trump was the unconventional debater. Not the most eloquent, he did have some great memorable one-liners that people can grasp ie "if Iran was a stock it would quadruple"

Jeb sucked balls. I can't stand him. Rand didn't win any fans. Was whiny. Carson was very interesting to listen to each and every time. Walker and Rubio were uninteresting. Christie had a good night. Kasichs dad was a mailman but he was spitting too much resume. His answer on gay marriage was great. Huckabee was specific and well prepared to play to evangelicals. Cruz was the most eloquent and had a good tone.

So hard to breakdown each person with 10 players. Jeb and Rand were the losers.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I loved Trumps response to the tone question. "Christians being beheaded, anarchy at the border, we're living in Medieval Times"

They were definitely going for Trumps knee caps in that debate. Maybe getting their marching orders from Roger Ailes who hates Trump. He was inartful on the Mexican government question. Trump was the unconventional debater. Not the most eloquent, he did have some great memorable one-liners that people can grasp ie "if Iran was a stock it would quadruple"

Jeb sucked balls. I can't stand him. Rand didn't win any fans. Was whiny. Carson was very interesting to listen to each and every time. Walker and Rubio were uninteresting. Christie had a good night. Kasichs dad was a mailman but he was spitting too much resume. His answer on gay marriage was great. Huckabee was specific and well prepared to play to evangelicals. Cruz was the most eloquent and had a good tone.

So hard to breakdown each person with 10 players. Jeb and Rand were the losers.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Is Trump still your guy?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
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.
And he has very large adult sons.
 
Must-read.

Stop Pretending Donald Trump Is Running For President

In order to pretend that Trump is at risk of doing harm to his presidential prospects in tonight’s debate, you must pretend that he has any, and that he genuinely intends to have any, and that his recklessness and ridiculousness are not the precise and only reasons why he is in position to say things, in a televised presidential debate, that smart and thoughtful writers who know better may then pretend have done damage to a candidacy that is itself a figment of various imaginations. And if you’re the sort of person who’s up for this, it’s near-certain that you’ll do all of this only after assuming an equally phony position of amused agnosticism about Trump’s actual articulated policy positions, so that you may feign a kind of detached admiration for his willingness to say unpresidential things without examining their actual content.

That’s a lot of work! The alternative—covering his “candidacy” only as a gross professional famous person’s branding ploy, covering his participation in tonight’s debate only as a ratings-grab by a profoundly cynical news network, and covering the poll numbers as indicators of how little anyone cares about the presidential election from the shade of a beach umbrella—has the disadvantage of stripping away the borrowed gravity of implied potential consequences for American government, and the advantage of being honest. It’s an alternative the politics press rejects every four years, with a predictability that makes you want to punt your own head into the ocean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom