Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!
posted at 11/10/2012 9:51 AM EST
In response to BabeParilli's comment:
1. By that reasoning a "lot" of blacks voted for Romney.
The African Americans voting for Romney didn't come anywhere near one-eighth of the entire voting public. White men voting for Obama were roughly one-eighth of the voters. All I'm saying is that while Obama only got about 35% of the white male vote, that 35% is still a very large group of voters.
2. Never said anybody was a single issue voter. Said a key block was decisively influenced by a certain issue in particular.
Sorry, but this is a vast oversimplification of the polling data and not something anybody with any real knowledge of statistics would ever conclude. You go wrong when you try to claim that one issue was "decisive." It wasn't decisive on its own. It was part of a much bigger and broader package that moved (and has been moving) women and young people away from the Republicans for a while now.
3. Clinton presided over the dotcom bubble and nobody is trying to say that was real growth, except perhaps you. Reagan's tax cuts certainly did grow the economy. There were deficits due to military spending in a successful attempt to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Would you like to have them back? I think a lot of Ukrainians for just one example would disagree with you.
There are always bubbles, but what Clinton really presided over was a period of tremendous growth in information technology. It ended with a bubble, but much of the growth was real and lasting. As far as "bankrupting" the Soviet Union . . . that's a nice myth that Reaganites like to repeat as truth, but the Soviet Union's collapse was due to multiple factors. Defense competition with the US was only a part of a much bigger picture. And Reagan's deficits didn't help our own long-term financial health as a nation either. In fact, it was the start of truly uncontrollable deficits that may, in the end, bankrupt us even more completely than defense spending "bankrupted" the Soviets.
4. Maybe Canada should try having an army bigger than the NYPD. Then maybe they wouldn't have all this extra money laying around while we pay for their defense. I find it laughable that these many countries sit back and pontificate about the missteps of the USA while they bask in the warm safety of the US military. And when the US doesn't get involved they are the first to cry that we shirked our duty as a great power.
Or maybe we shouldn't have a bigger army? Maybe we think it's more important to ensure our own economy is healthy first, that our domestic infrastructure is in good shape, and that we have reasonable social benefits. Tell me exactly why the US is spending billions and billions of your tax dollars trying to "fix" the Middle East? Is there a plan to move you all there sometime? Believe me, it's not making you any safer. If you believe that bunk, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for you . . .
The average canuk is spending 20 bucks a year on defense, LMAO!
Yeah, we make our choices and you make yours. (Unfortunately, though, I pay taxes in both countries--I just think the Canadians are doing better things with my money than the Americans are right now. Health care for me and my wife at home versus never-ending war in places I'll probably never go? What's a better deal? To me, the answer is obvious.)