To take the GOP presidential field seriously-- hold no illusion, even though it may seem like an insult to your intelligence, you are obligated to take these cartoonish, skit-ready, corporate indigents seriously--there a few things you have to do.
1. You have to dismiss the incoherent rambling and any attempt any of the candidates have made at improvising speeches, debate answers, predetermined ethical values or sexual exploits. For example:
With Naughty Newt Gingrich, you must dismiss his utilization of secularism as a scapegoat for nearly every problem that has ever plagued the U.S. (I don't believe he's blamed Catholic priest molestation charges on secularism like Santorum yet, but hey, it's a long election season), his past infidelity-not so much with his other wives either "cancerous" or not, but the multiple ethics violations imposed on him by the House, his acceptance of over $1.6 million in lobbying, excuse me "historianing" cash from Freddie Mac, using mailing lists from charities he headlined that didn't end up making any charitable donations, taking the "evil stepmother with better tits" stance on child labor, and his early work as the model for Gummi Bears.
With The Multi-Million Dollar Man Mitt Romney, you have to deal with his adherence to the Pixar bad guy hair style code, rivaling Vatican City with his living quarters of which he recently quadrupled in size, his advocacy of Corporate marriage while opposing same-sex marriage, proposed $6.6 trillion in tax breaks for the rich and corporations (which isn't far removed from Gingrich's plan offering over $600,000 in annual tax decreases for the average millionaire), and his indecision on any given issue that would give Heisenberg a woody.
With Bachmann you have to deal with, Jesus Christ this will take me all night, tune in for my presidential round-up later this week. Besides, we can all be adults here, admit Blink 182 was kind of overrated and that none of the other candidates really have a homosexual's chance in Iowa.
2. You have to pick out common themes that each candidate shares, despite their propensity to engage in "my dad could kick your dad's ass" pissing matches.
The most common theme I have taken from subjecting myself to the torture of watching the debates to see who gets shotgun on the shortbus on the way home is that America, the beautiful, is the best country in the world, above reproach, and totally is so not gay.
Gingrich unappolgetically doesn't apologize for not apologizing for America. Santorum continually flaunts the, "America is a light on a hill" rhetoric, Ron Paul is too realistic on this issue so we won't mention him because he's probably busy filling up glass jars with orange slice candies that nobody will ever eat, Bachmann is still dealing with the possibility that all of these other countries people talk about weren't invented by Herman Cain, and Herman Cain, well, he thinks we have the best women in the world when they're not being little bitches and thwarting his advances. Hey, we've forced a lot of people to do a lot of shit, and America has always come out on top. God Bless Herman Cain's love rod, and God Bless America!
(Either Herman Cain or Frank Lucas shown here)
However, there are some people in the world trying to tell you America isn't the beacon of prosperity on a hill of poor children, personal and federal debt, would-be corporate tax revenue, and shitty pop music. These anti-America treasonous terrorists that are probably gay and Muslim are even found in our own country! The biggest problem I have with these good for nothing elitist assholes is their allegiance to scientific inquiry, and above all, statistics. I don't trust words longer than 5 letters to begin with, but especially ones that can also disprove my belief system. So what are these "statistics" that people are claiming exist? I'm not one to believe in anything that doesn't require blind faith.
Wilkinson and Pickett, in The Spirit Level, compiled an index of health and social problems for the wealthiest countries in the world. They wanted to emphasize that inequality not only impedes on the quality of life at the bottom, but the country as a whole, including the elite. They found that the countries with the most inequality scored worse on every single criterion. They found that the countries with the best quality of life were Norway, Japan, and Sweden, while the U.S. scored dead last.
Inequality? Doesn't mean that trickle-down economics is working? Which of course is the idea that if wealth is concentrated at the top, the rich will take out their dicks and piss on the poor so they work harder and make more money.
Wait, wait. So if this stuff is true, and inequality is a bad thing, then in 2005, the average CEO making 262 times more than the average worker is a bad thing. And if that's bad, then 400 Americans at the top owning more wealth than 150 million Americans is also pretty bad. If that's not good, then neither is that the income of the top 1% in the last 32 years has increased 275% while the bottom 20% of the country's income has only increased by 18%. It's probably not a good thing that 88% of income growth since 2009 went to corporate profit, with only 1% going to wage increases. We should probably be kind of pissed that in 2010 corporate tax revenue was down 27% from 2000, despite corporate profits increasing by 60%.
So the Census Bureau releasing that 46 million Americans live in poverty, including 37% of young families must mean we've got a lot of golden showers to give out. Glenn Beck is telling you our poor aren't really poor because many own appliances is disingenuous considering we are supposed to be that light on a hill. These poor people must be lazy. They could get a job at McDonald's right? Well, McDonald's only hired 60,000 of the 1 million applicants last year. They just need to go get an education! College tuition tripling in the last 30 years might hinder that, though.
Well, these American-loving, squeaky clean family candidates probably all have solutions to the inequality and poverty problem. More tax breaks for corporations? More tax breaks for rich? Don't want to extend payroll tax cuts for middle class? Don't want to create jobs with rebuilding falling infrastructure because of a %0.7 surtax on income over $1 million? They must know something that economists, sociologists, and anthropologists don't.
Oh... okay... nevermind, we had it wrong guys...
Taxing rich people prevents them from creating jobs. They need the tax breaks--we're all struggling right now. I mean, pre-emptively rewarding someone for something they haven't done yet always works. We don't need tax credits for hires, that's against logic! That's why we give lab rats cocaine BEFORE they press the lever. That's why my mom takes off the parental lock no the computer BEFORE I clean my room.
Anyway, all this shit is making me depressed. What is America best at?
The American Journal on Public Health determined the U.S. has higher rates of gun ownership than other industrialized countries (we'll ignore the higher homicide rates)!
The U.S. spends he most on healthcare! I guess scoring a 64 out of 100 on key measures in the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System study means we still have room for improvement. As does the fact we spend more, but cover less people than countries with socialized medicine.
We spend the most on Defense! That must be why everyone feels so safe all the time.
We have more prisoners than any other country!
So if you've learned nothing, if you want to question if America is the best country in the world, remember that we have more guns than you. USA! USA! USA!