Why McCain will be the Next President of the United States

[rah]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Maybe not, but misspelling 'slobbering' and writing 'then' instead of 'than' pretty much automatically qualifies you as a slobbering idiot no matter who you vote for...

You're like 50+, you should know better...

Is that all you got? You've lowered yourself to being a spelling/grammer nazi on an obscure website.

[SlowwHand]

Don't take away what tiny claim to fame he may think he's won. Compassion for the idiots of the world.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala


Hey, if you're going to complain about somebody's tax cuts, complain about the 80% of Americans whose taxes Obama is going to cut more than McCain

http://obamataxcut.com/

according to his campaign promises, that is

both candidates, if elected, will probably work with Congress to raise taxes. The sudden steep decline of $'s value is a pretty action-forcing symptom of the constantly widening budget deficit. And since the Congress is controlled by the Democrats, how are they going to cut spending? Heck, McCain was prioritizing nalanced budget over tax cuts back in the 80s, when it wasn't this urgent.

The difference is, Obama will work with Congress to raise spending.

[Patroklos]

TR was "anti buisness" at the turn of the century. Circumstances are hardly the same.

[Barnabas]

Why do working class white americans vote for the republicans? I can understand the very religious ones doing that, but the ones who don't care much about religion, how do they benefit from republican rule?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Why do working class white americans vote for the republicans? I can understand the very religious ones doing that, but the ones who don't care much about religion, how do they benefit from republican rule?

Republicans are more militaristic and authoritarian which appeals to many of them.

[rah]

And there are quite a few in the working class that believe that the dems cater to the poor and minorities at their expense. Repugs try to take advantage of this using fear tactics.

[dannubis]

So Rah, what's your excuse?

[rah]

I'm in the upper middle class that usually benefits from repubs. AT LEAST USUALLY.

The trick is continuing to hoodwink the religious right so we have numbers.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala


WTF does this have to do with anything?

Yeah, you quoted me, WTF does that video have to do with anything? I'm saying McCain now polls close to Obama, despite the fact the Bush polls at like 30% approval rating -- that's a lot of slobbering idiots who disapprove of the current Republican, but are willing to elect his older, crazier newfound, long-lost cousin. It has nothing to do with voting irregularities (unless someone is hacking the opinion polls )

edit: despite the quote, that's @Frosty

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Those countries have much smaller GDP's as well. That means nothing to you?

Not particularly. Russia is presently flushed with petrorubles and China is rapidly industrializing. Falling behind on the military front would be a bad decision for our long-term defense strategies.

You can't see why smaller countries would need to spend more on military as a percentage of GDP? You have to look at overall military expenditures. In that regard US military expenditures is about half of total world military expenditures.

I don't think it would be entirely unfair to say that we are at least partly subsidizing the defense of other countries by hosting men and equipment in those countries, an implicit guarantee that we are acting as a military "insurance policy" for the country.

Also, those numbers only count the amt spent on DoD, not overall military expenditures, like nuclear weapons and research.

The defense budget does include research, about $73bn worth of it. As for the nuclear budget, that's less than $10bn/year for the Department of Energy.

[Agathon]

Ockham's razor would suggest that the simplest explanation is probably correct: Americans are stupid and racist. This is pretty evident from the way campaigns run. Try watching a Canadian election to see how normal countries accomplish it. There is very little of this character bull**** and almost no religion, because Canada, like most countries, isn't dominated by inbred, racist hicks. Even New Zealand or Australian politics, which is by no means cerebral, is like a gathering at Plato's Academy by comparison (hell, everyone knows that our Prime Minister is a closet ****, but woe betide any political opponent who tried to use it against her).

The fact that Americans elect morons is most easily explained by the fact that morons elect them.

When the most worthwhile political news show is run by a comedian, you know you're in trouble. That Americans don't seem to notice this is abnormal is testament to their stupidity.

rah's argument is specious. McCain is running as close to Bush as he can, and is in no way shape or form running as the insurgent of 2000 (which was atypical if you look at his past record). If people want to vote for another Republican who is running on a similar platform to the one whose approval rating is approaching Nixon's at his nadir, then I'm all for it, but then I don't really have US interests at hear, do I?

And it isn't as if rah is to be taken any notice of in any case, since he admitted that he votes purely out of self interest.

Still, for us foreigners it's a good laugh. Jesus, it's getting to the stage where even the Italians have a cause to laugh.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Not particularly. Russia is presently flushed with petrorubles and China is rapidly industrializing. Falling behind on the military front would be a bad decision for our long-term defense strategies.

That's exactly the prevailing militaristic attitude that has created such an obscene amount of military spending since Ike was president. We aren't even close to falling behind. We never were. We are constantly setting the bar for the rest of the world.

I don't think it would be entirely unfair to say that we are at least partly subsidizing the defense of other countries by hosting men and equipment in those countries, an implicit guarantee that we are acting as a military "insurance policy" for the country.

Of course we have, which has allowed countries like Japan to takeover our civilian industries.

The defense budget does include research, about $73bn worth of it. As for the nuclear budget, that's less than $10bn/year for the Department of Energy.

For 2007, the budget rose to US$439.3 billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (~$9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (~$33.2 billion) or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, ~$170 billion in 2007).[2] Conversely, the military budget does allocate money for dual-use items, such as the development of infrastructure surrounding U.S. military bases. Altogether, military-related expenses totaled approximately $626.1 billion.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

[Patroklos]

The US spends way more than it needs to to defend the US compared to other nations. This is due to the MIC.

Ummmm....

No.

Veterans Affairs

Why would veterans affaris be included as military spending? Are EPA pensions incuded in their budget?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Why would veterans affaris be included as military spending? Are EPA pensions incuded in their budget?

The bigger military spending is the bigger teh verterans affairs expenditure is going to be.