trumps voters truly are scary

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Feb 16, 2016.

  1. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    seems about as un American as it gets.
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf
     
  2. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #2
    For some people, America is the Land of the Free, So Long As It's Convenient For Me.
     
  3. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #3
    Yes, these people are really nuts saying things like "We're voting with our middle finger" and 62% of them identify themselves as evangelical Christians.
     
  4. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #4
    The fact that there are so many of them really bothers me. There is something very wrong that there are so many people so filled with hate.
     
  5. Strider64 macrumors regular

    Strider64

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Location:
    Suburb of Detroit
    #5
    As a conservative, Trump is the worse thing possible to happen to the GOP. Unfortunately all I can say is history can possibly repeat itself. :(
     
  6. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #6
    Democratic voters, on the other hand, go for socially engineering America, sapping it of its wealth, weakening its military, lowering standards, inviting hordes of women and gay hating Muslims with some terrorists surely going along for the ride, dividing the nation, and forcing deviancy on the population under severe punishment.
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7
    We owe Trump a huge thank you for exposing these disgusting evangelists. No better than the Muslims they rail about.
     
  8. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #8
    Surely you aware of the inconsistency of citing 'weakening [the US's] military' and 'sapping [the US] of its wealth'. How much money has been wasted on the F-35, littoral combat ships, and catapults for aircraft carriers?

    And, frankly, I am not sure where you got the idea that Democrats '[force] deviancy on the population under severe punishment'. :confused: Besides, surely the point about a free country is that being atypical, a minority, or 'deviant', as you put it, is perfectly OK provided it does not harm others.

    I suspect from the tone of your posts that you are like many on the right, wanting everybody to be like them and being threatened and angry when they don't.
     
  9. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    The F-35 will save the US and its allies money in the long term. It's already far less expensive than the Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale, its two market competitors. It's slightly more expensive than the plane that it's replacing, the F-18E/F, but it also performs far better (twice the combat radius on internal fuel alone, better kinematics, stealth, integrated electronic warfare and targeting avionics).

    Catapults allow naval aircraft to carry more fuel and munitions. It seems a bit strange for you to single that out as bad practice given that the US has been using CATOBAR since the 1970s, and France since the 1990s. The UK and Russia are the only ones who use ramps.
     
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    Source?
     
  11. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #11
  12. ChrisWB, Feb 17, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2016

    ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #12
    I suppose the easiest way to prove this is to compare the cost of alternatives to the cost of the F-35.

    The Dassault Rafale currently costs a little over $250million per plane. Sometimes they agree to sell them at heavy discounts that bring them down to ~$210 million, as with the recent sale to India.

    The Eurofighter Typhoon costs roughly $180. This is according to the UK government. As a result, the UK plans to switch almost exclusively to the F-35.

    The F-35A costs roughly $98million, and the more expensive naval variants cost $104 and $116 million respectively. Source. The total cost of the program has also been lowering every year. The cost of each jet has been lowering too as mass production has started up. This happens when a jet (like anything) is mass produced. It happened with the F-15 and F-16.

    Once a plane's been purchased, it needs to be maintained after every flight. The F-35 has a far lower cost per flight hour as compared to the European fighters, or the legacy F-16 and F-15. It costs less to maintain, by far.

    One quick way to look this up is by reading the Wikipedia article on the plane's procurement. It's not a good source, but you can read the sourced links if you're really interest.

    I'd also add that there are 162 F-35s already flying.

    Edit: here's a link to Lockheed Martin's PDF of the program's current status.
     
  13. steve knight thread starter Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #13
    Unless it blows up because the fuel was too hot or falls out of the sky or kills the pilot because of oxygen problems or fails to fire when needed.
     
  14. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #14
    I can understand why conservatives would like to blind themselves to the most vile elements of the Republican party. These people are an embarrassment. But I think Trump is a positive. He is in a unique position to expose the dark underbelly that we have always known flourished in the Republican party. This is the same element many on the Right played down or straight up pretended didn't exist for so long. Trump offers an opportunity for critical re-evaluation. He is giving you an opportunity to clean house and change the direction of the party. Ignoring a problem rarely makes it go away. The choice is yours and the country will be watching.
     
  15. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #15
    Samantha Bee is doing a series on Syrian Refugees on her new show Full Frontal. This is a great piece, where instead of sitting around sounding hyperbolic alarms, she actually visits the country's border camps directly, talking to the people and explaining how difficult their actual path to citizenship is, even for terrorists. Totally worth a few minutes of your day.

     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    We've allocated almost 1.3 Trillion in three separate bills for the redoing just the nuke arsenal in 2015 in addition to rest of the military budget overwhelming almost everything else...WTF are you talking about?
     
  17. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #17
    [​IMG]
     
  18. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #18
    Yes, we certainly can't have that.
    [​IMG]
    --- Post Merged, Feb 17, 2016 ---
    Bent, we're obviously on the same page! Jinx, I owe you a coke:D
     
  19. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #19
    The F-16 and F-15 had similar (actually, much worse) problems with their A versions.

    The F-35 has never had any problems with oxygen. It's never fallen out of the sky. It's also never failed to fire. Are you thinking of a different jet? The F-14 had problems (rarely) with stalling, the F-16 can have post-stall problems, and the F-22 had the oxygen problems that you mentioned. The F-35 (so far) hasn't had any flight problems whatsoever. The only accident it's had is a failed engine while taxing on the runway.

    I'm not sure why I'm being so questioned about this, or why I'm having to defend a jet. Is it because I'm a conservative? Frankly, I agree that the military spends too much, and there's way too much wasteful spending. But if the US is going to maintain our current number of jets, the F-35 is the best option based on both price and quantifiable performance. There's literally no less-expensive option other than buying less planes, or simply doing away with parts of our air force.

    PS: VulchR's criticism of littoral combat ships was valid. Those are pure pork.
     
  20. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    Thank you for the sources. The F-35 has been widely criticized for being expensive, but, it is always difficult to compare across different generations and accounting for inflation vs capability. Superficially, it does look like an example of Augustine's Laws.

    I wasn't aware that you are a conservative.
     
  21. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #21

    I'm do not think you are doing an apples to apples comparison. The 98M (f35)is a unit cost of the line whereas the Eurofighter and Rafale numbers are not, they also include cost for maintenance and training. The f35 will have a forecasted program cost of 600M per aircraft, I can't use that number and say that the Rafale is 390M cheaper per aircraft.
     
  22. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #22
    I'm sorry, but according to the department of defence you're incorrect. You can look at the actual numbers spent in the pdf that I linked above. Here, I'll link it again.

    The highest possible number that you could argue is that the F-35s will cost $192 million per aircraft. I got that number by including maintenance parts and R&D for the past 3 years into the cost.

    I think that the reason behind this is rather simple: this is the first time the US has been so public about a fighter's development and procurement. The US government's releasing info that would previously have been private because they're hoping to sell hundreds of F-35 planes to allies. It's a marketing strategy that has backfired.
     
  23. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #23
    A discussion about fighter planes is totally off topic.
     
  24. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #24
    I'm using your source, now take out a calculator and divide 1.5 trillion (program cost) by 2443 = 614M per aircraft. So the program cost per aircraft is 614M per aircraft.

    Can you quote the program cost for the F35 from that link you said?
     
  25. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    The 1.5 trillion program cost that you're quoting is a projected cost over the next 50 years. Given that these aircraft will be replacing the F-15, F-16, and F-18 fighters, the program cost is essentially the cost of our fixed wing fighters for the next fifty years. In other words, 30 billion per year for all of our air force and navy fixed wing fighters. You can compare that to the amount we spend every year on the F-15, F-16, and F-18s. (Hint: it's less than we currently spend.)
    I agree. I'll stop taking the bait. Sorry.
     

Share This Page