Is whoever wins the election screwed?

[Trajan]

Democrats had total power with a super majority.
****************************************
For two years. I don't think things will be SUDDENLY be great should that occur this November. We are in a hole dug by GWB, and are only climbing out slowly.

And republicans had congressional majority and the presidency for what 6 years?

Same rules for congress as the presidency in this thread.

pass that joint.

 

[GoneBezerk]

In addition to it being treasonous, it won't do what these idiots here claim.....fix the national debt.

They don't want the entitlement crap touched, which is the real problem, but they will damage our national security all for the image of doing something.

Most dumb Americans go along with this bullshit, yeah we've spent so much on the military and need to cut it. The whole time they have no clue the majority of debt is what they are causing in entitlement programs that have nothing to do with the Federal Govt per its guidance in the US Constitution.

Meanwhile dumbfucks like swallow claims the US military cannot project power to protect the nation....it must hide here as a "defense." You know we can only get them when they come over the hill to attack us, not actually deter them in their backyard from actually attacking us.

That wait until they attack us strategy failed in WWII. Now they want to try it with Iran, a country developing ICBMs or even buying them from China so they can hit the US with some WMD or conventional warhead. Iran with nukes....no big deal to these idiots.

Gutting our military as is being planned at this time is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen or heard of. It nearly boarders on treason.

There is not one person in this thread or even on this board who can intelligently talk about the threats that we face or may face in the near future. And because I have been retired 18 years that includes me.

But I'm smart enough to understand that our troops for the last 10 years have spent way to long on deployments into hostile areas, and the chance of more war coming up is not exactly slim. So we cut our military's throat? Dumb dumb dumb.

 

[Avorysuds]

Spending is not the problem right now. Neither is debt. We need more jobs and we need more revenue. Both are not hard to come by, assuming whoever is elected actually wants to increase them.

The last thing we need is tax increase, which is what you're so desperately trying to avoid mentioning.

We absolutely need tax increases, for multiple reasons.

Why do you think we don't?

Do something Dems/Liberals/Progressives never do.. Tell us all who gets taxed, how much and how much revenue it will add and if ALL the new revenue will be used to pay down debt.

Then tell us if you really think that at the tax rate needed to even make a dent in the yearly deficit will or will not have a negitive effect on the economy.

You can't say that cutting taxes is bad because it lowers revenue then claim high taxes gains more when it's simply not true. Please don't post some bullshit tax history where no deductions are shown.

 

[KissMy]

I believe candyass is quickly surfing the internet for the F-111 and F-117....so I'll just go ahead and educate the twit.

The F-111 has been retired by the Air Force for years since the F-15E replaced it and the F-35 was projected back then and just this year fielded by the Air Force after years of testing.

F-117 was also retired in more recent history after a short career starting in the 80s over Panama. The F-15E replaced the F-117s but the F-35 was the real reason for it being shut down early for a fighter/bomber.

The F-15 has been flying since the 1970s, so the Air Force decided the F-22 was needed to go into this century with new threats from China and Russia. It is designed to fly past radar on its own, take on enemy aircraft and drop ordnance when required deep behind enemy lines.

The F-15Cs and F-15Es need Navy radar jammers flying with them to do the job that F-22s can do, so the Air Force figures less planes with the F-22 is a better option to do the job.

But of course idiots on this board like candyass know more than Air Force fighter pilots.

So what candyass proposes is to keep the F-15s and F-16s instead of F-22s and F-35s, which means more fighter aircraft and support aircraft to use in a battle than what F-22s and F-35s can do. More airplanes in battle means more costs and more people in the battlespace that could die or become POW/MIA.

SecDef candyass wants to save money so make the Air Force fly more dangerous missions with older aircraft is his salespitch to the American public so that little kiddies can get free WiFi in their classroom via Uncle Sam diverting F-22 money to their school.

When it cost $400 a gallon for fuel in the battle-space, It does makes a lot more sense to reduce the number of fighter aircraft, support aircraft & other military support hardware in the battle-space. We need to mostly rely on UAV's & missiles. We could also use some of these advanced F-22/F-35 fighter/bombers when needed. Our forces must get way leaner on fuel efficiency. Fuel is costing us more than hardware & is the #1 expense in war. Guarding the fuel supply lines has cost us a lot of lives.

US Military Fuel Convoy in Afganistan is a huge liability.

 

[candycorn]

In addition to it being treasonous, it won't do what these idiots here claim.....fix the national debt.

Nobody has said that. Spending money we can't afford on hardware we do not need is simply foolish.

They don't want the entitlement crap touched, which is the real problem, but they will damage our national security all for the image of doing something.

Again, total misrepresentation--or lie if you will--of what has been said. I just don't think we need to spend 1/2 of the globe's military spending. Especially since we can't afford it.

Most dumb Americans go along with this bullshit, yeah we've spent so much on the military and need to cut it. The whole time they have no clue the majority of debt is what they are causing in entitlement programs that have nothing to do with the Federal Govt per its guidance in the US Constitution.

Again, please feel free to run on cutting SS or eliminating it. I double dog dare you.

Meanwhile dumbfucks like swallow claims the US military cannot project power to protect the nation....

Another lie.

it must hide here as a "defense." You know we can only get them when they come over the hill to attack us, not actually deter them in their backyard from actually attacking us.

We have the deterrent already...you know; one of those things that fell on your head.

That wait until they attack us strategy failed in WWII. Now they want to try it with Iran, a country developing ICBMs or even buying them from China so they can hit the US with some WMD or conventional warhead. Iran with nukes....no big deal to these idiots.

Please walk us through how we get rid of Iran's nuke program while buying their oil.

Feel free.

 

[candycorn]

I believe candyass is quickly surfing the internet for the F-111 and F-117....so I'll just go ahead and educate the twit.

The F-111 has been retired by the Air Force for years since the F-15E replaced it and the F-35 was projected back then and just this year fielded by the Air Force after years of testing.

F-117 was also retired in more recent history after a short career starting in the 80s over Panama. The F-15E replaced the F-117s but the F-35 was the real reason for it being shut down early for a fighter/bomber.

The F-15 has been flying since the 1970s, so the Air Force decided the F-22 was needed to go into this century with new threats from China and Russia. It is designed to fly past radar on its own, take on enemy aircraft and drop ordnance when required deep behind enemy lines.

The F-15Cs and F-15Es need Navy radar jammers flying with them to do the job that F-22s can do, so the Air Force figures less planes with the F-22 is a better option to do the job.

But of course idiots on this board like candyass know more than Air Force fighter pilots.

So what candyass proposes is to keep the F-15s and F-16s instead of F-22s and F-35s, which means more fighter aircraft and support aircraft to use in a battle than what F-22s and F-35s can do. More airplanes in battle means more costs and more people in the battlespace that could die or become POW/MIA.

SecDef candyass wants to save money so make the Air Force fly more dangerous missions with older aircraft is his salespitch to the American public so that little kiddies can get free WiFi in their classroom via Uncle Sam diverting F-22 money to their school.

The aircraft we have now are more than sufficient to destroy anything the enemy can throw at us. We're competing with our self by fielding a 2nd all star team. We don't need to do it. You forgot F14's and F18's as well. The Warthog is a great example of what you can do when you simply just keep improving on the theme. Still going! Maybe we should spend another 1-200 billion to replace the Warthogs in service. I guess when it comes to military spending and wingnuts, we can't spend too much on improving the already superior. Maybe we should station squadrons at every airport in addition to every military base too? If not, why not? Mexico could attack at any moment.

If we could present nationwide free WI-FI, that would be just one step in improving the infrastructure that has been neglected by all recent administrations.

 

[snakedoc]

In the long run? Serious question.

-No matter who wins the debt will continue to spin out of control and likely be approaching $20trillion by the end of the next presidential term.

-And the economy, in no small part due to the governments lack of fiscal control, will likely not improve much.

These are just a couple of things, feel free to add more. But the major issues facing this country aren't going to be resolved by the next president. And the propensity of politicians these days to be more loyal to party than country will prevent any real action being done to attempt to solve them. Frankly I think whichever party wins this election will most certainly lose the one four years later.

I am a Republican, but I think the Republicans are kidding themselves if they think they can come in and turn this ship around, IMO there is no turning it around.

Sadly I think there is a lot of truth in what you have said but the problem is not just the two parties and the politicians it's us the people as well. Not all but most of us want simple easy painless answers to these problems the lefts answer to everything is tax the rich the rights answer is spending cuts neither of these alone will solve anything if we want to start to get out of this mess taxes will have to be raised on everyone not just the rich and there will have to be spending cuts major ones and yes people will suffer and be hurt by this but there is no way to avoid this. Until both parties and the people come to terms with this nothing will change.

 

[Trajan]

I believe candyass is quickly surfing the internet for the F-111 and F-117....so I'll just go ahead and educate the twit.

The F-111 has been retired by the Air Force for years since the F-15E replaced it and the F-35 was projected back then and just this year fielded by the Air Force after years of testing.

F-117 was also retired in more recent history after a short career starting in the 80s over Panama. The F-15E replaced the F-117s but the F-35 was the real reason for it being shut down early for a fighter/bomber.

The F-15 has been flying since the 1970s, so the Air Force decided the F-22 was needed to go into this century with new threats from China and Russia. It is designed to fly past radar on its own, take on enemy aircraft and drop ordnance when required deep behind enemy lines.

The F-15Cs and F-15Es need Navy radar jammers flying with them to do the job that F-22s can do, so the Air Force figures less planes with the F-22 is a better option to do the job.

But of course idiots on this board like candyass know more than Air Force fighter pilots.

So what candyass proposes is to keep the F-15s and F-16s instead of F-22s and F-35s, which means more fighter aircraft and support aircraft to use in a battle than what F-22s and F-35s can do. More airplanes in battle means more costs and more people in the battlespace that could die or become POW/MIA.

SecDef candyass wants to save money so make the Air Force fly more dangerous missions with older aircraft is his salespitch to the American public so that little kiddies can get free WiFi in their classroom via Uncle Sam diverting F-22 money to their school.

When it cost $400 a gallon for fuel in the battle-space, It does makes a lot more sense to reduce the number of fighter aircraft, support aircraft & other military support hardware in the battle-space. We need to mostly rely on UAV's & missiles. We could also use some of these advanced F-22/F-35 fighter/bombers when needed. Our forces must get way leaner on fuel efficiency. Fuel is costing us more than hardware & is the #1 expense in war. Guarding the fuel supply lines has cost us a lot of lives.

US Military Fuel Convoy in Afganistan is a huge liability.

part of getting leaner is getting platforms that can perform more roles and the roles of previous aircraft better. your response really doesn't address that. Those tankers etc. you are showing in the convoy aren't supplying forward airfields, they generally get their fuel via airlift. Bases require that fuel for vehicles, and their power requirements since they aren't hooked to a grid- ala generators etc.

the Q on say the F-22 is of air superiority.

 

[Trajan]

I believe candyass is quickly surfing the internet for the F-111 and F-117....so I'll just go ahead and educate the twit.

The F-111 has been retired by the Air Force for years since the F-15E replaced it and the F-35 was projected back then and just this year fielded by the Air Force after years of testing.

F-117 was also retired in more recent history after a short career starting in the 80s over Panama. The F-15E replaced the F-117s but the F-35 was the real reason for it being shut down early for a fighter/bomber.

The F-15 has been flying since the 1970s, so the Air Force decided the F-22 was needed to go into this century with new threats from China and Russia. It is designed to fly past radar on its own, take on enemy aircraft and drop ordnance when required deep behind enemy lines.

The F-15Cs and F-15Es need Navy radar jammers flying with them to do the job that F-22s can do, so the Air Force figures less planes with the F-22 is a better option to do the job.

But of course idiots on this board like candyass know more than Air Force fighter pilots.

So what candyass proposes is to keep the F-15s and F-16s instead of F-22s and F-35s, which means more fighter aircraft and support aircraft to use in a battle than what F-22s and F-35s can do. More airplanes in battle means more costs and more people in the battlespace that could die or become POW/MIA.

SecDef candyass wants to save money so make the Air Force fly more dangerous missions with older aircraft is his salespitch to the American public so that little kiddies can get free WiFi in their classroom via Uncle Sam diverting F-22 money to their school.

The aircraft we have now are more than sufficient to destroy anything the enemy can throw at us. We're competing with our self by fielding a 2nd all star team. We don't need to do it. You forgot F14's and F18's as well. The Warthog is a great example of what you can do when you simply just keep improving on the theme. Still going! Maybe we should spend another 1-200 billion to replace the Warthogs in service. I guess when it comes to military spending and wingnuts, we can't spend too much on improving the already superior. Maybe we should station squadrons at every airport in addition to every military base too? If not, why not? Mexico could attack at any moment.

If we could present nationwide free WI-FI, that would be just one step in improving the infrastructure that has been neglected by all recent administrations.

do you do vegas too?

 

[NoNukes]

Well I can definitely say we sure as HELL do not need another 4 years of Obama.
This is obvious to anyone except the sheep.
Romney is not my particular choice...but I will be voting for him without the slightest pause.

Voting for someone who is not your choice without the slightest pause, hmmmm, this could be part of what is wrong with America.

We only have two choices.
1) A idealist flop.
2) Not the most ideal prospect, but a clear better option than #1.

So yes, that is a part of what is wrong with America.

Both number 1 and 2 are only your opinion. I would not vote for someone I did not believe in.

 

[Claudette]

In the long run? Serious question.

-No matter who wins the debt will continue to spin out of control and likely be approaching $20trillion by the end of the next presidential term.

-And the economy, in no small part due to the governments lack of fiscal control, will likely not improve much.

These are just a couple of things, feel free to add more. But the major issues facing this country aren't going to be resolved by the next president. And the propensity of politicians these days to be more loyal to party than country will prevent any real action being done to attempt to solve them. Frankly I think whichever party wins this election will most certainly lose the one four years later.

I am a Republican, but I think the Republicans are kidding themselves if they think they can come in and turn this ship around, IMO there is no turning it around.

So you're basically saying that if they're screwed it's their own fault.

Can't argue with that.

I agree.

Turning this economy around isn't going to be easy.

If the Reps hang onto the House and gain the Senate it should be easier. But nothing is a sure thing in politics.

I feel for the next POTUS. (Provided it isn't Barry)

 

[Katzndogz]

Whoever wins the election will be under relentless attacks from the other side. The presidential election only reflects the deep and wide divide in the entire nation.

 

[candycorn]

Please walk us through how we get rid of Iran's nuke program while buying their oil.

Feel free.

Still waiting GB...tell us...you want to NOW invade Iran?

 

[KissMy]

Please walk us through how we get rid of Iran's nuke program while buying their oil.

Feel free.

Still waiting GB...tell us...you want to NOW invade Iran?

We have not bought oil from Iran for 40 years.

 

[candycorn]

Please walk us through how we get rid of Iran's nuke program while buying their oil.

Feel free.

Still waiting GB...tell us...you want to NOW invade Iran?

We have not bought oil from Iran for 40 years.

Really? Who buys their oil then?