Hillary has 15% of the pledged delegates, and Bernie has 10%. And that’s based largely on states that won’t even vote Democratic in November. Must be one of those dwarf rhinos.
Oh, and showing Bernie on a unicorn. Real cute, Anderson, real cute. Not.
@JmcaRice — I think the cartoonist was referring to the idiom, “chasing rainbows,” meaning “trying to achieve the impossible/impractical.” Still, I think Bernie has achived a LOT just by getting his message out there, and Hillary has had to adjust to accommodate some of his ideas!
In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion. Military spending includes: all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.
Our military budget is so big we could cut it in half and sti;ll have the biggest military budget in the world. All you paranoids want to increrase the military budget.
Most Democrats these days are DINOs—“Democratic” In Name Only.-Sanders was put up, along with O’Malley and that other guy to give us the illusion of a democratic party at work, which it isn’t.-A bunch of “back room deals” were made in the past to make this campaign possible, with possibly the Clinton family “cashing in their chips” and “pulling their favors” to get this opportunity.-“Boss Tweed” would have been proud if he were alive today.
The GOP isn’t that different, other than they made the mistake of “letting the winds blow where they may” this time.-The back-room dealers probably favored Governor JEB Bush for their candidate, but miscalculated his popularity with their most-common constituents, who were sick and tire of the Bush family and wanted somebody new and that is where Mr. Trump fits in.-But now they have a problem—JEB is out of the running and Trump is out of control and this situation has not been in that party since 1964 when the party had to back Goldwater as their candidate for President, even though he ran on a platform that catered to white southerners offended by the passage of the Civil Rights Act.-Eventually, the GOP embraced Goldwater, and they may embrace Trump, too, if they want to stay viable.
The way Bill played the cheaters game Super Tuesday in a declaration of “aide” I guess to help his “mate” cheat to win, who would have even given Bernie S. a chance to win in 4 or 5 States was unbelievable!!! To bad good ol’ boy Bill C. doesn’t believe in “fair” play anymore. Wonder if Bernie S. will play those “rotten” to the core ads (negative all the way against Hillary C. I might add) to help the undecided make up their minds in the coming elections? Think I would be tempted to try them in several of the states in the coming elections in March.
Nevertheless our military budget is way to high and depletes everything else.
List by the International Institute for Strategic StudiesWorld Military Balance 2016 (for 2015)RankCountrySpending($ Bn.) % of GDPPer capita ($)—World total15632.12161United States United States597.53.318592China China145.81.21063Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia81.812.929494United Kingdom United Kingdom56.22.08785Russia Russia51.64.13626India India47.91.8357Japan Japan41.41.03238France France32.01.97029Germany Germany36.61.145410South Korea South Korea33.42.468111Brazil Brazil24.21.311912Australia Australia22.7
Sanders beat Clinton by a margin of 19 points in Colorado caucus polls but the delegate count is coming out a tie at 38 – 38. The 38 – 28 split going to Sanders and 10 of 12 Super Delegates going to Clinton. Without the Super Delegates, Clinton’s lead would be slightly diminished, but she would still be ahead. Sanders still has a very high level of support, but this is where Obama took the momentum and went on to win the Nomination and ultimately the Presidency.
The U.S. military receives more generous funding than the rest of the 10 largest militaries in the world combined (China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, U.K., France, Japan, India, Germany & South Korea). And yet, despite the chaos and violence of the past 15 years, the Republican candidates seem oblivious to the dangers of one country wielding such massive and disproportionate military power.
The triumph of the “power dividend” over the “peace dividend” was driven by some of the most powerful vested interests in history. But at each step, there were alternatives to war, weapons production and global military expansion.
Carl Conetta explains the U.S.’s unilateral arms build-up as the result of a lack of discipline and a failure of military planners to make difficult choices about the kind of wars they are preparing to fight or the forces and weapons they might need. But this massive national investment is justified in the minds of U.S. officials by what they can use these forces to do. By building the most expensive and destructive war machine ever, designing it to be able to threaten or attack just about anybody anywhere, and justifying its existence with a combination of neocon and humanitarian interventionist ideology, U.S. officials have fostered dangerous illusions about the very nature of military force. As historian Gabriel Kolko warned in 1994, “options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles.”
The use of military force is essentially destructive. Weapons of war are designed to hurt people and break things. All nations claim to build and buy them only to defend themselves and their people against the aggression of others. The notion that the use of military force can ever be a force for good may, at best, apply to a few very rare, exceptional situations where a limited but decisive use of force has put an end to an existing conflict and led to a restoration of peace. The more usual result of the use or escalation of force is to cause greater death and destruction, to fuel resistance and to cause more widespread instability.
Atanwat about 8 years ago
Heaven forbid – the absolute last thing we want is to split the rational half of the electorate.
Happy Two Shoes about 8 years ago
There is little that is rational in the current give half of everything to the military economic plan.
WestNYC Premium Member about 8 years ago
Actually the LGBT community is more supportive of Hillary vs that socialist.
Cerabooge about 8 years ago
Hillary has 15% of the pledged delegates, and Bernie has 10%. And that’s based largely on states that won’t even vote Democratic in November. Must be one of those dwarf rhinos.
Oh, and showing Bernie on a unicorn. Real cute, Anderson, real cute. Not.
Elizabeth C Premium Member about 8 years ago
@JmcaRice — I think the cartoonist was referring to the idiom, “chasing rainbows,” meaning “trying to achieve the impossible/impractical.” Still, I think Bernie has achived a LOT just by getting his message out there, and Hillary has had to adjust to accommodate some of his ideas!
Happy Two Shoes about 8 years ago
In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion. Military spending includes: all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/
Our military budget is so big we could cut it in half and sti;ll have the biggest military budget in the world. All you paranoids want to increrase the military budget.
californicated1 about 8 years ago
Most Democrats these days are DINOs—“Democratic” In Name Only.-Sanders was put up, along with O’Malley and that other guy to give us the illusion of a democratic party at work, which it isn’t.-A bunch of “back room deals” were made in the past to make this campaign possible, with possibly the Clinton family “cashing in their chips” and “pulling their favors” to get this opportunity.-“Boss Tweed” would have been proud if he were alive today.
californicated1 about 8 years ago
The GOP isn’t that different, other than they made the mistake of “letting the winds blow where they may” this time.-The back-room dealers probably favored Governor JEB Bush for their candidate, but miscalculated his popularity with their most-common constituents, who were sick and tire of the Bush family and wanted somebody new and that is where Mr. Trump fits in.-But now they have a problem—JEB is out of the running and Trump is out of control and this situation has not been in that party since 1964 when the party had to back Goldwater as their candidate for President, even though he ran on a platform that catered to white southerners offended by the passage of the Civil Rights Act.-Eventually, the GOP embraced Goldwater, and they may embrace Trump, too, if they want to stay viable.
ron2nips about 8 years ago
The way Bill played the cheaters game Super Tuesday in a declaration of “aide” I guess to help his “mate” cheat to win, who would have even given Bernie S. a chance to win in 4 or 5 States was unbelievable!!! To bad good ol’ boy Bill C. doesn’t believe in “fair” play anymore. Wonder if Bernie S. will play those “rotten” to the core ads (negative all the way against Hillary C. I might add) to help the undecided make up their minds in the coming elections? Think I would be tempted to try them in several of the states in the coming elections in March.
Happy Two Shoes about 8 years ago
Nevertheless our military budget is way to high and depletes everything else.
List by the International Institute for Strategic StudiesWorld Military Balance 2016 (for 2015)RankCountrySpending($ Bn.) % of GDPPer capita ($)—World total15632.12161United States United States597.53.318592China China145.81.21063Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia81.812.929494United Kingdom United Kingdom56.22.08785Russia Russia51.64.13626India India47.91.8357Japan Japan41.41.03238France France32.01.97029Germany Germany36.61.145410South Korea South Korea33.42.468111Brazil Brazil24.21.311912Australia Australia22.7
Happy Two Shoes about 8 years ago
Furthermore, having a war based economy is immoral.
Mr. Blawt about 8 years ago
Sanders beat Clinton by a margin of 19 points in Colorado caucus polls but the delegate count is coming out a tie at 38 – 38. The 38 – 28 split going to Sanders and 10 of 12 Super Delegates going to Clinton. Without the Super Delegates, Clinton’s lead would be slightly diminished, but she would still be ahead. Sanders still has a very high level of support, but this is where Obama took the momentum and went on to win the Nomination and ultimately the Presidency.
Happy Two Shoes about 8 years ago
U.S. Military Budgets 1948-2015
ObamaFY2010-15$663.4 billion per yearBush JrFY2002-09*$634.9 """ClintonFY1994-2001$418.0 """Bush SrFY1990-93$513.4 """ReaganFY1982-89$565.0 """CarterFY1978-81$428.1 """FordFY1976-77$406.7 """NixonFY1970-75$441.7 """JohnsonFY1965-69$527.3 """KennedyFY1962-64$457.2 """Eisenhower FY1954-61$416.3 """TrumanFY1948-53$375.7 """
The U.S. military receives more generous funding than the rest of the 10 largest militaries in the world combined (China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, U.K., France, Japan, India, Germany & South Korea). And yet, despite the chaos and violence of the past 15 years, the Republican candidates seem oblivious to the dangers of one country wielding such massive and disproportionate military power.
The triumph of the “power dividend” over the “peace dividend” was driven by some of the most powerful vested interests in history. But at each step, there were alternatives to war, weapons production and global military expansion.
Carl Conetta explains the U.S.’s unilateral arms build-up as the result of a lack of discipline and a failure of military planners to make difficult choices about the kind of wars they are preparing to fight or the forces and weapons they might need. But this massive national investment is justified in the minds of U.S. officials by what they can use these forces to do. By building the most expensive and destructive war machine ever, designing it to be able to threaten or attack just about anybody anywhere, and justifying its existence with a combination of neocon and humanitarian interventionist ideology, U.S. officials have fostered dangerous illusions about the very nature of military force. As historian Gabriel Kolko warned in 1994, “options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles.”
The use of military force is essentially destructive. Weapons of war are designed to hurt people and break things. All nations claim to build and buy them only to defend themselves and their people against the aggression of others. The notion that the use of military force can ever be a force for good may, at best, apply to a few very rare, exceptional situations where a limited but decisive use of force has put an end to an existing conflict and led to a restoration of peace. The more usual result of the use or escalation of force is to cause greater death and destruction, to fuel resistance and to cause more widespread instability.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicolas-j-s-davies/the-record-us-military-bu_b_8227820.html
All of my life my tax dollars have gone to kill people except during the Carter admin.
echoraven about 8 years ago
well said.