|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 11 2016 12:35 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:26 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 11 2016 12:20 On_Slaught wrote:On March 11 2016 12:19 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On March 11 2016 12:18 AXygnus wrote:
The way Trump said "deal" some 15 times in a couple of minutes was annoying. Maybe they should stop asking the same question over and over again? Um, this is his answer to pretty much every policy question he's ever been asked. No one forced them to invite him. Btw, all 17 GOP candidates denied global warming. That's a bit of a white lie isn't it? http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266716-climate-change-where-the-gop-field-standsNot saying they are going to solve it, or make it a priority, I'm not even willing to say that they're ideas are valid--but to say they don't believe that the climate is changing is a bit, disingenuous.
I scanned all. They are all skeptic, outright opposite it or put in weasel worlds like 'may', 'might', etc.
It doesn't have all candidates, so who you think supports anthropomorphic global warming and what is the quote?
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 11 2016 12:35 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:31 Jibba wrote:On March 11 2016 12:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:27 Plansix wrote:
Germany is a disaster? They're holding all of Europe on their back, I think that's what Trump is getting at. He gave zero specifics of what he meant. A nuanced argument would be that their trade surplus has been a disaster for the rest of Europe, but he didn't say that and I guarantee he can't explain that to his followers. Russia is being decimated by the price of oil right now. Putin is strong in public support but the conditions within the country are dire. To call Putin strong at the moment is the same as calling Kim Jong Un strong. No, I think he's getting at "Americans are ignorant fucks when it comes to foreign policy. I dunno, Putin is interesting... I think that he does give Russian people a big sense of pride, and that's important, I think its what unites people and gets people to work together. Their GDP per capita has been doing well in recent years making it back to the USSR days.
Uh... are you following it? GDP per capita is down like 40% since 2014, and the ruble has tanked pretty badly.
|
On March 11 2016 12:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Kasich is kicking ass once again. He should be the front runner.
He is the only one on that stage I would entertain voting for. Him vs Clinton would actually be a hard choice for me.
|
Oh Rubio. You are such fun.
|
On March 11 2016 12:27 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:12 oneofthem wrote:
developing new tech especially new paradigm (beyond visual range combat) is hard. it is a strategically important system if they can get it off the ground. the planners aren't morons No one thinks otherwise. However, the government provides every incentive for defense companies to severely overcharge. The reason they get away with it is because that spending does create high-quality jobs, so state governments are willing to spend federal money to prop up defense jobs in their own states. it seems like a big developmental process problem, not necessarily nefarious.
It's not exactly nefarious or corrupt, but it is highly inefficient. It is generally true that if you give an organization more money then you will get more result. The money is heading in the direction of the defense companies so they spend it (and pay employees and executives a good portion of it, to be fair). Defense companies do a good thing very inefficiently and they are a pretty good example of pork barrel spending since state legislators tend to get projects funded for those contractors.
On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner,
There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentioned, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both).
Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2016 12:38 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Kasich is kicking ass once again. He should be the front runner. He is the only one on that stage I would entertain voting for. Him vs Clinton would actually be a hard choice for me.
he's still gutting the tax revenue by cutting the top bracket income tax. it's just a dealbreaker for me with any gop candidate
|
|
|
On March 11 2016 12:31 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:30 Introvert wrote:On March 11 2016 12:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Kasich is kicking ass once again. He should be the front runner. Said no one ever. He is the only one who gives clear answers in the debate. And I'm not afraid to be the minority. :D
Out of all the republicans, he is the only one that makes small amounts of sense... I'm just grateful this isn't my party, I would be embarrassed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:27 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:12 oneofthem wrote:
developing new tech especially new paradigm (beyond visual range combat) is hard. it is a strategically important system if they can get it off the ground. the planners aren't morons No one thinks otherwise. However, the government provides every incentive for defense companies to severely overcharge. The reason they get away with it is because that spending does create high-quality jobs, so state governments are willing to spend federal money to prop up defense jobs in their own states. it seems like a big developmental process problem, not necessarily nefarious. It's not exactly nefarious or corrupt, but it is highly inefficient. It is generally true that if you give an organization more money then you will get more result. The money is heading in the direction of the defense companies so they spend it (and pay employees and executives a good portion of it, to be fair). Defense companies do a good thing very inefficiently and they are a pretty good example of pork barrel spending since state legislators tend to get projects funded for those contractors. Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentions, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications.
you can't evaluate the effectiveness of a new generation of aircraft by using simple scenarios. the doctrine of a BVR fighter is completely different and it's designed to project force effectively, i.e. do damage while not suffering loss. this is really the only way the u.s. has a geopolitically effective force projection.
the aircraft carriers are huge sitting ducks to cheap storm of missiles. it's still worthwhile despite being less efficient than a f35 in terms of what can take it out.
it's not about winning some prolonged conflict.
|
A majority is a random number?
|
Haha wtf did Cruz just say? 8 states he has beaten trump then he mentions the entire US...
|
United States22883 Posts
Trump almost certainly has a better chance against Hillary/Bernie than Cruz.
Cruz's platform was dead in the water 8 years ago. Democrats would love for Cruz to win.
|
Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz speaks like robots lol
|
Trump with the banter.
"How can you [Cruz] make it so Trump's supporters don't sabotage the convention?"
Trump: "MAKE ME PRESIDENT"
|
Why do people like Rubio think that God only likes the US? Lol.
|
What Trump says is accurate Hillary is quite vulnerable to attacks.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 11 2016 12:45 Slaughter wrote:
Why do people like Rubio think that God only likes the US? Lol.
Bible thumping morons.
|
On March 11 2016 12:45 Slaughter wrote:
Why do people like Rubio think that God only likes the US? Lol.
Because they have never been out of their own state, let alone outside the US.
|
The fact that they are civil seems to be that they are scared of Trump.
Cruz comes off a talkative moron.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
