POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Kearn]

idk for a guy who indulges in politics all the time you sure seem to know like, forget all about basic facts

hurrr

well we don't spend our GDP, we spend our budget

this really doesn't refute anything he said

man i wish the entirety of our defense and intelligence agencies didnt take up the whole budget

I don't think that excuses the fact he's trying to downplay the obvious fact that the US spends the most on its military

probably because we have the biggest budget and economy in the world and are the only true superpower at present

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

there's like six or seven users who know actual stuff about politics and like two of them are conservative or libertarian

and they all left years ago

[PhantOS]

this was debunked many times by many people. discretionary and mandantory spending for military and health intersect with each other. also 'health' was intentionally broadened which makes it misleading

EDIT: title is also false, the graph is mandantory only.

[Maxwell.]

probably because we have the biggest budget and economy in the world and are the only true superpower at present

assuming you're finally on the same wavelength as everyone else then what's the problem with cutting back, like nonnel originally said but you somehow misread

[Red Spy]

this was debunked many times by many people

then post a better graph

[otto-san]

man i wish the entirety of our defense and intelligence agencies didnt take up the whole budget

wasn't contending that alternate solutions don't exist, just sayin that the GDP number isn't really relevant to expenditure conversations

[Frankie²]

yeah that graph is super misleading
military spending is ~60%
i dont think kearns original point is even relevant here

[Kearn]

this was debunked many times by many people. discretionary and mandantory spending for military and health intersect with each other. also 'health' was intentionally broadened which makes it misleading

EDIT: title is also false, the graph is mandantory only.

take it up with politifact then

military spending is ~60%

wew

assuming you're finally on the same wavelength as everyone else then what's the problem with cutting back, like nonnel originally said but you somehow misread

because that almost inevitably leads to the "cut the military and close all the bases" conclusion which throws away a lot of stability and allies' confidence for temporary gains that will quickly fall by the wayside as expenditures inflate beyond whatever was saved within several years

[Frankie²]

and somehow spending $100,000 and two months of travel to transport it from the middle east back to the us is definitely worth it rather than, keeping it where it's actually needed, ie the middle east

i dont think you understand the word 'waste' otherwise you'd be pretty opposed to this stuff

mraps are being replaced by the m-atv and being brought back

[PhantOS]

take it up with politifact then

wew

the graph is correct, but it's misleading. still doesn't prove your point.

politifact is apparently the only organization dumb enough to combine two separate graphs into one

[Foxscotch]

disregarding the apparently questionable accuracy of this chart... the existence of bigger chunks means that the military chunk is automatically Not Too Big? so it's completely reasonable to spend an obscene amount of money on fast food as long as it's less than I spend on my car and home?

[Frankie²]

disregarding the apparently questionable accuracy of this chart... the existence of bigger chunks means that the military chunk is automatically Not Too Big? so it's completely reasonable to spend an obscene amount of money on fast food as long as it's less than I spend on my car and home?

gotta stay competitive

[Red Spy]

the existence of bigger chunks means that the military chunk is automatically Not Too Big?

then what should be the ideal amount of money to spend on the military? 100 billion? 50 billion?

[PhantOS]

that graph is like spending $400 on rent and $350 on video games. you can argue that you spend less money on video games, but the fact remains that the $400 you spend on rent is a necessity in order to stay alive, meanwhile the video games are entirely discretionary and you can easily cut that down to like, $150 and not suffer any consequences

likewise, a non-wartime united states has no reason to spend 600 billion dollars on military. but it definitely has business paying $66 billion or more on health because people are constantly loving injured, sick and dying. in fact, the latter is the most pressing and there's absolutely no reason to choose the former

[PhantOS]

mraps are being replaced by the m-atv and being brought back

it doesn't change the fact that you're blowing hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars for something that isn't even necessary. just like the Annoying Orange wall thing, it's just a front to funnel millions of dollars into a private company in exchange for loving donation money or support

a smart country would say "hmm our police are definitely in danger of bullets so why don't we reinforce the cruisers with bulletproof glass". but a dumb loving country would say "hmm our police are definitely in danger of bullets so lets transfer all our IED-resistant tanks and TOWs to the cities on the off-chance that one person will be in that exact location with an assault rifle that shoots mines"