Why McCain will be the Next President of the United States

[dannubis]

Originally posted by ramseya
GePap:

McCain has said repeatedly that he is a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

said being the important word.

[ramseya]

Dannubis:

Gepap originally said...

I rarely hear any Republicans speaking about any ex-President BUT Reagan.

(emphasis mine)

I don't see what is so funny or why said is the important word, as if the implication is that McCain does not practice what he preaches. GePap said he rarely hears it.

Besides, references to Roosevelt must have some resonance among potential Republican voters because in politics, perception and what you say are huge, so McCain wouldn't be referring to himself as a TR Republican if he didn't think he would gain political traction out of it.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's my point. Eisenhower was one of our best Presidents ever because he tilted things towards common people and increased the power of government to deal with monopolies (remember how he wanted to break up GM? GM had 70% of the US auto market) but today his populist message would make him unwanted in the Republican big business establishment.

Which proves my point on why we don't really need protection from these so-called "monopolies." How's GM doing now? Teetering on bankruptcy. So much for that powerhouse, right?

Originally posted by Oerdin
I mean Eisenhower repeatedly said the military-industrial complex was the greatest danger to American democracy but today the Republican just can't suck enough **** from the big military contractors.

Again, the percentage of GNP spent on the military in the 1950s was about twice as great as what it is now. This "military-industrial complex" is a just another fantasy.

[dannubis]

McCain is all but a Teddy Roosevelt republican.

I wasn't laughing at you.

[ramseya]

Dannubis:

in case you missed it (sorry I edited after you read it)

Besides, references to Roosevelt must have some resonance among potential Republican voters because in politics, perception and what you say are huge, so McCain wouldn't be referring to himself as a TR Republican if he didn't think he would gain political traction out of it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Again, the percentage of GNP spent on the military in the 1950s was about twice as great as what it is now. This "military-industrial complex" is a just another fantasy.

How many military hawks have been president or congressmen?

[ramseya]

Actually, the crazy man rmsharpe (he was the Obama/Mugabe guy right?) is on to something.

Fiscal Year/
Military spending as
percent of GDP
1940 1.7
1941 5.6
1942 17.8
1943 37.0
1944 37.8
1945 37.5
1946 19.2
1947 5.5
1948 3.5
1949 4.8
1950 5.0
1951 7.4
1952 13.2
1953 14.2
1954 13.1
1955 10.8
1956 10.0
1957 10.1
1958 10.2
1959 10.0
1960 9.3
1961 9.4
1962 9.2
1963 8.9
1964 8.5
1965 7.4
1966 7.7
1967 8.8
1968 9.4
1969 8.7
1970 8.1
1971 7.3
1972 6.7
1973 5.8
1974 5.5
1975 5.5
1976 5.2
1977 4.9
1978 4.7
1979 4.6
1980 4.9
1981 5.1
1982 5.7
1983 6.1
1984 5.9
1985 6.1
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.8
1989 5.6
1990 5.2
1991 4.6
1992 4.8
1993 4.4
1994 4.0
1995 3.7
1996 3.5
1997 3.3
1998 3.1
1999 3.0
2000 3.0
2001 3.0
2002 3.4
2003 3.7

It has been climbing though. I couldn't find sequential data for the last 5 years but in 2005, it was 4.06%, which is still less than half of what it was in the 1950's.

[Kidlicious]

Good now compare that to every other country.

[ramseya]

North Korea: 33.9%
Saudi Arabia: 13%
Ethiopia: 12.6%
Oman: 12.2%

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ramseya
North Korea: 33.9%
Saudi Arabia: 13%
Ethiopia: 12.6%
Oman: 12.2%

Ok, what #'s are you using? What is your source, Heritage?

[Naked Gents Rut]

It's amazing that the Democratic Party may have found a way to lose yet another presidential election. All they had to do was nominate Hillary Clinton now and Barack Obama in 2016 and they would've had a good shot at 16 years of unbroken control of the U.S. presidency.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
It's amazing that the Democratic Party may have found a way to lose yet another presidential election. All they had to do was nominate Hillary Clinton now and Barack Obama in 2016 and they would've had a good shot at 16 years of unbroken control of the U.S. presidency.

Typically American, taking such an the important decisions away from party seniors.

[Naked Gents Rut]

The Democratic fetishization of youth over experience may well cost them an election they have no business losing.

[ramseya]

Kid:

actually I can't find the source that I just googled. I'll use the CIA factbook instead which doesn't list N. Korea unfortunately.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

Oman 11.4%
Qatar 10.0%
Saudi Arabia 10.0%
Iraq 8.6%
Jordan 8.6%
Israel 7.3%

We're way down at #28 between Chad and Libya (which is a weird place to be) at 4.06% in 2005.

[Arrian]

It's amazing that the Democratic Party may have found a way to lose yet another presidential election. All they had to do was nominate Hillary Clinton

This is a bit of a joke. First, don't book the loss yet (entirely possible, but it ain't over till it's over). Second, it's a fantasy that Hillary would've won easily.

-Arrian