[–] [deleted] 6 points 37 points (+43|-6) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

3
18

[–] Foxhole17 3 points 18 points (+21|-3) ago 

The consensus seemed to be mostly against shrinking and pussifying the military, as well as using it without purpose. I think it was Huckabee who said the military exists to kill people and break things, not fundamentally change foreign cultures. He's entirely right in that regard. Cruz gets painted as a hawk when it he's really more of a Teddy Roosevelt "carry a big stick" guy. Check out his Code Pink incident video. Part of his opposition to the Iran deal is that it removes the strongest non-military measures we had in place (sanctions) and thus increases the risk of needing military force in the future. See also the Munich Agreement.

3
7

[–] ParadigmShift 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

If Iran breaks the deal, the U.S. can reapply sanctions.

1
7

[–] acratus 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Agreed about the Code Pink video. My respect for him jumped about 500% for that alone.

1
-1

[–] Fuckery 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

The military has a surprising amount of SJWs in charge though and that can be fixed without money. Not that its relevant to political debate.

0
6

[–] joethebob 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I wasn't prepared for quite how pervasive that stance became. The red meat show was on in full force.

0
6

[–] ParadigmShift 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Military contractors pay.

0
2

[–] spacezookeeper 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Their logic doesn't extend any beyond, "if we throw money at the military, they'll do what we want." Why? Why would they do what we want? Isis is rogue, completely rogue, Russia isn't afraid at all that we'll take military action against them. I have no clue what specific change a larger military would lead to in the world.

1
-1

[–] KleanRider 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I really didn't get that from the debate.

Also on us outspending the rest of the world: We outspend the rest of the world because our military spending is basically a stop gap to keep our economy afloat. Unlike everything else we do our military spending stays mostly internal and in some sense we get money from outside (like lockheed and its F-35 is getting sold to all our allies). So yes we spend a lot but a lot of it goes back to the hands of American's and creates tons of jobs. Its not the way you want to see our economy supported but its not like we are wasting money and its one of the few things the government does that actually benefits the middle class.

And one more thing, Teddy was right. Walk silent and carry a big stick. If you think the world listens to reason you are pretty naive, they listen to money and military power.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 25 points (+30|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

1
4

[–] JesTheRed 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

DOTA livestream was on. It's far more interesting watching the best kids in the world play for a $6m top prize than the best liars in the country lie about that time they lied about a lie.

1
1

[–] Calzone 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Than why are you in the politics sub?

2
2

[–] 1Sorry_SOB 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

I listened to a ball game but came her to see what voaters came away with.

0
21

[–] BloodPool 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Donald Trump thinks that Rosie O'Donnell is a fat disgusting pig.

0
13

[–] homosexuals_are_gay 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Which is the single most truthful statement made all night

1
4

[–] BloodPool 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Well, that and he's paid his way into quite a lot of favors.

5
-3

[–] kirkis 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago 

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

1
7

[–] gosso920 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Only if it was Chris Christie saying that.

[–] [deleted] 8 points 19 points (+27|-8) ago 

[Deleted]

0
17

[–] BRITTEACH [S] 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Yes. It's not a debate in the forensic sense. More like a forum for soundbites and potential grandstanding.

0
5

[–] guttervoice 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It was a goddamned beauty pageant.

0
9

[–] gmon 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's like a big press conference.

1
18

[–] chicknpoxequalsfalse 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Overall I liked Paul's responses, very concise and articulate.

0
10

[–] tex 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

He did a fantastic job even though every other candidate got more than twice as much speaking time:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/files/2015/08/image-14.png

0
4

[–] SecureRhino 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Paul got 5 minutes, everyone but Trump and Bush got below 7 minutes. 7 is not "more than twice as much" as 5. The scale on that diagram is deceptive.

0
0

[–] kirkis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Might be a blessing in disguise. I was expecting him to run into a sword.

0
9

[–] Calzone 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I would say I have even more respect for Rubio. He gave solid answers that are consistent with his previous positions and despite being the youngest candidate stood up there and ran with the big boys. Carson is a very intelligent man with very good ideas, however I feel he doesn't have the temperament to be a leader. Cruz is a powerful speaker, but I don't see him being popular enough to garner enough votes away from the other major candidates. Bush also gave very good answers and will most likely gain some ground out of the debate, however I feel he's not as steadfast in his positions as the other candidates.

0
4

[–] BAMFSoB 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Regardless of answers, who are the donors for everyone? I hope I don't come off as tinfoil-ly but as we have seen in the past money doesn't care about party lines.

0
3

[–] AgriGrunt 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I agree about Carson. I think he showed that he has great potential in politics, however, he did not show the fine tuning needed to be president.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] BRITTEACH [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

He's made a few mistakes, but he is doing his homework and is taking the campaign seriously.

3
8

[–] BoiseNTheHood 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

I think even lower of Rand than I already did before the debate. He didn't even try to answer for his flip-flops. His non-answer on Israel's foreign-aid handouts was especially weak and ineffectual.

I didn't really know much about Carson until the debate, but he seemed like too much of a lightweight compared to the other candidates. (In before an FPHer spins this into a Christie joke.)

Trump had an excellent performance. He was getting brutalized by the biased pro-establishment moderators and masterfully answered every single one of their leading questions.

1
4

[–] kirkis 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Rand Paul gave a very serious accounting of his foreign aid policy, don't borrow money to give it away to other countries, including Israel. Once we have a surplus, maybe. But not until we're out of the red.

0
0

[–] BoiseNTheHood 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

He used to be opposed to all foreign aid, period, end of story.

0
0

[–] jollycynic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sounded to me more like he flipped to suck off Israel like every establishment candidate of either party is required to. He put politics ahead of principle.

0
3

[–] BRITTEACH [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Carson has spent most of his life in medicine. He's not a professional politician, which is why he might appear light. It's good that he's in the mix though. Also, like many people, I was looking forward to seeing how Trump would handle himself.

0
1

[–] La_Pistola 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

His non-answer on Israel's foreign-aid handouts was especially weak and ineffectual.

How was it weak and ineffectual? He said we should not be giving money to our enemies, and we can't afford to give money to our allies. He said we shouldn't be borrowing money from china to give to anyone.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] BRITTEACH [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yeah. I think that was a greedy thing to do. It was a big FU to people who don't have cable.

1
6

[–] honorkell 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Given this election's current round of candidates... I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP leaders hoped no one saw this debate.

Face it: The neocon rise in the early 90s has run full circle: and actual, intelligent republicans who want small government, low taxes, and who understand honest business; now find themselves hostages of the social/religious fringe. They are no longer in charge of their own party, and this is the result: 10 lunatics who have no chance of winning the presidency.

People have been talking about the demise of the Republican party for years. We are witness to that prediction.

edit: The only chance the Republican party has is to nominate Jeb Bush, and hope the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton. A worst-case scenario for the American public, but a best-case scenario for Republicans, as Americans will be so disgusted by another Clinton/Bush choice they'll just opt out.

0
1

[–] Succotash 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The shutting down streams while it was on just to get the last FU in was extra aggravating. Not like i was going to call up and get cable between commercials. Hell they still got the commercial viewer since most of the streams didn't edit that out

1
-1

[–] acratus 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Who would have been opposed to "enter your cable account number OR send us $2 through Paypal?"

load more comments ▼ (23 remaining)