Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
If you dont have FoxNews already, you are not the target demographic for any of these candidates anyway...

Negatory, in democracies all candidates and debates should be available to everybody regardless of economic ability or ideology.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you dont have FoxNews already, you are not the target demographic for any of these candidates anyway...

Negatory, in democracies all candidates and debates should be available to everybody regardless of economic ability or ideology.

And who's going to pay for that? Do YOU want your taxes to go up? You want your neighbours taxes to go up? Get out of here you stinking socialistcommunistnazi!

(been working on my American impressions. How'd I do?)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And all I'd use it for is watching Discovery and Sci-fi channels.

Discovery, History and "The Learning Channel" have all gone to hell...

and it's Sy-Fy now

I think Discovery is still OK. There are a few genuinely nice shows among the mindless entertainment.

History and Learning, not mindless entertainment. Just mindless.

 Henry wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you dont have FoxNews already, you are not the target demographic for any of these candidates anyway...

Negatory, in democracies all candidates and debates should be available to everybody regardless of economic ability or ideology.

And who's going to pay for that? Do YOU want your taxes to go up? You want your neighbours taxes to go up? Get out of here you stinking socialistcommunistnazi!

(been working on my American impressions. How'd I do?)

You got me, thought you were serious for a second lol.

To answer you either way. American citizens pay in their taxes already for the National Public Radio and the Public Broadcast Service so there wouldn't be any increase.

What we would get is cable cannels not being able to control access to people running for public office or worse as with FoxNews having most the RNC candidates being people that have been on their pay rolls. It would be nice for the candidates to be beholden to the public and not corporates for once.

Fiorina won the "kiddie table" debate... she went after Trump's close relationship with the Clintons (pieced together from my twittah):

"I didn't get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race, did you? Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn't. Maybe it's because I hadn't given money to the [Clinton] Foundation or donated to his wife's Senate campaign," Fiorina said. "Since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare and on abortion I would just ask what are the principles by which he would govern?"

Fiorina also congratulated Trump for being the front runner and credited him for tapping into an anger toward the political class:

"They're sick as politics as usual," she said. "The political class has failed you, that's just a fact and that's what Donald Trump taps into."

This is the most awkward moderation I have ever witnessed.

They are talking about the debate instead of debating. Get the gak on with it!

There's a live feed of the debate on NBC. I'm not going to watch, after Australia's performance in the cricket yesterday and some of the commentary this morning I've had more than my fair share of rage for one 24 hour period.

Ouze wrote:
Maybe the plan is to immediately impanel another investigation, citing unanswered questions, and just keep repeating that over and over again for a few years.

JUST KIDDING, HOW STUPID WOULD THAT BE LOL

Spoiler:

Every time I see that hair, just... wow.

I'm surprised here... these are tough questions tailored to the candidates.

O.o

One question into the debate, and Trump is DONE!!! He just got owned by Rand Paul hardcore, and committed political suicide.

Can you give some explanation of that? It sounds amazing

Thwe whole panel was asked if they would run as an Independent, or support the eventual GOP nominee.

Only Trump raised his hand saying he would not commit to the Republican nominee.

Paul's like "You just buy politicians left and right. This is the problem."

Trump still would not commit to ther Republican Party, and got booed by the crowd pretty hardcore.

 motyak wrote:
Can you give some explanation of that? It sounds amazing

I can't... I'm laughing my ass off here. Trump doesn't disappoint. He just said "all politicians are stupid".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: TRUMP FOR THE TRUMP GOD! HAIR FOR THE HAIR THRONE!

Oh christ this debate...it's everything I hoped it would be. The moderators are gunning for Trump without any subtlety and he's loving it and throwing it right back and doesn't waste a chance to insult reporters or other politicians, and everyone else is playing sideshow.

The gak show is amazing. I'm making popcorn.

Moderators really are drilling these guys. Good questions.

Damn... there's an honest piss'n match between Christe and Paul.

O.o

 whembly wrote:
Damn... there's an honest piss'n match between Christe and Paul.

O.o

Thought they were doing to throw down on stage WWE style

Edit

Holy Hell Trump threw one at Paul with "Having a hard time to hear tonight." Deadpan damn near

 Jihadin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Damn... there's an honest piss'n match between Christe and Paul.

O.o

Thought they were doing to throw down on stage WWE style

Man... Paul is fiesty tonight... he went after Trump after his ACA's speil.

LOL Trump slammed them all on doing the bidding of the donors. Those who took donations
He used himself as an example with Hillary. He donated to her organization so she had to come to his wedding

Good move on Walker putting Brett in check

Edit

Rubio and Jed are pretty tight friends

Oh gawd... Trump is TRUMPING when he's called out for going through 4 bankruptcies.

The other candidates are having a hard time keeping a straight face.

o.O

 whembly wrote:
Oh gawd... Trump is TRUMPING when he's called out for going through 4 bankruptcies.

The other candidates are having a hard time keeping a straight face.

o.O

This whole thing is playing exactly to his style, it's beautiful, I'm not at all a Trump guy, have never been a fan, and I find myself rooting for him.

Trump admitted he took advantage of the laws of bankruptcy
Also those who were in on his deals were high rollers/risk takers. Cannot remember what's his name modding him on that question but Trump checked him bad

Edit

COMEDY GOLD
I'm actually liking him more after that19 trillion dollar debt comment he made
Basically
"Who would you want in charge of this goat rope?"

On a different note, Schumer has just announced he will vote against the Iran deal. I read his statement, and found the argument largely reasonable, especially compared to the vitriolic rhetoric spewed by so many from even before the details were released.

I do have one major issue with his argument. He states that if one believes that the Iranian leadership will moderate, then it is a good deal. If the leadership hardlines instead, it will be a bad deal and he believes that the Iranian leadership will not moderate over the next ten years. My issue with that logic is that refusing this deal (one that was co-negotiated with other nations, mind you) will most likely guarantee that Iran's leadership will not moderate.

Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.

And that really is bad for us in so many ways.

Carson had the best closing of them all

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.

And I think a lot of that is driven by the mistaken view that Iran is a rising regional power, when they're actually quite isolated, and buried in a bunch of proxy wars that are extremely unlikely to deliver them anything but empty pockets.

And yeah, total Iranian capitulation would be terrible. The last ten years really should have taught people that in the current political climate in the middle east, instability does not lead to nice, western friendly leadership.

 Jihadin wrote:
Carson had the best closing of them all

He was good right there at the last two questions, yeah. Kinda quiet the rest of the time...

I would say shooting it down is very very bad for us. With a growing generation ready to become moderate, not supporting them will do them no go what so ever. Showing a change in their favor from the US will embolden their cause.

At the very least we need to make it aboundantly clear we have no intention to liberate them by fire power (even if I know most candidates are being funded by an industry with that very intention).

 sebster wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.

And I think a lot of that is driven by the mistaken view that Iran is a rising regional power, when they're actually quite isolated, and buried in a bunch of proxy wars that are extremely unlikely to deliver them anything but empty pockets.

And yeah, total Iranian capitulation would be terrible. The last ten years really should have taught people that in the current political climate in the middle east, instability does not lead to nice, western friendly leadership.

I dunno - there is a sound bite of that whole "we will kill Israel, death to America" thing. Nukes in the hands of people who want to use them is bad bad bad.

There's also a sound-bite, made just today in fact of, along the lines of (paraphrasing") "Iran is the greatest of evils in that region".

I lol'd. I could feel the wake of Bibi's throbbing erection from here.

 zgort wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.

And I think a lot of that is driven by the mistaken view that Iran is a rising regional power, when they're actually quite isolated, and buried in a bunch of proxy wars that are extremely unlikely to deliver them anything but empty pockets.

And yeah, total Iranian capitulation would be terrible. The last ten years really should have taught people that in the current political climate in the middle east, instability does not lead to nice, western friendly leadership.

I dunno - there is a sound bite of that whole "we will kill Israel, death to America" thing. Nukes in the hands of people who want to use them is bad bad bad.

They are not getting a nuke from anybody so why is that a talking point?

If they actually wanted one, they would have got one. Its not like Pakistan or Russian wouldn't have sold them one. There is a large part of their political elite that believe nuclear weapons are anti-Islamic. However, they are much more lax on the notion of nuclear power. The deal takes away the easy route for nukes and allows for monitoring, if they break the deal what happens currently would continue. Either way it is not our right to impose rules on a sovereign state while we have nuclear plants, actively have nuclear research and have thousands of nuclear weapons.

Dontcha think that might make us look like the bad guys to a small nation on the otherside of the world that happens to have a different major religion. Personally I wouldn't be in favor of the US's continued existance either if I were them. I am a US citizen though and I want my gov to stay out of other nations business.

But that is me and I definitely don't hold a popular view.