I have been watching Fox News just to hear how bitter they are that Obama got a second term.

For the last few months since the election the republicans only have 3 talking points going into the New Year.

#1. Obama better not start cutting back on the Military–industrial complex in in his second term.

#2. Obama better not increase taxes on all the multi-millionaires and billionaires of America.

#3. As I type this Fox news is talking about the urgency of Netanyahu for the US to 'Shock & Awe' Iran.

So i guess it's safe to say i feel forced into wanting to stand against this by becoming more Democratic.

Thoughts?

.......... wrote:
Sure..

#1 He didn't before so why should he start now?

#2 He didn't before and he cannot now...after all he's only a president not a dictator right?....(chuckle)

#3 How typical of fox news and the warmongering RWA xtian fundie pricks...

andyh wrote:
Because the republicans are saying he has been waiting to get re-elected first so he can get started in 2013.

Basically Fox news is saying Obama is going to start a radical agenda of 'change' in his second term.

.......... wrote:
This is fox news remember?
They think presidents are dictators remember?

Oh fixed news...I mean fox. Yeah. that's what I meant.
Everyone has been saying and has always said that Obama will radicalize America but he is not even that radical when compared to past presidents.
Although I was told by a government official, that back when Israel was planning on bombing Iran, Obama told them to hold it off until he was elected.

Andy Fox News has an audience of millions and alot of influence in the masses tho.

.......... wrote:
Ofc they do yep and millions of them actually believe presidents actually have those powers despite having this thing called a senate, courts and congress.

From what I have read it - and it may be utter bollocks being as I don't really understand much about american politics and how it works - it doesnt really matter what obama wishes to do the republicans will block him at every turn just to be wankers.

thoreau wrote:
Fox news seem to think he can do anything, lol

Fox news combined with some fairly out there Republican senators talking about legitimate rape etc gave Obama the election fortunately. I know a lot of people on this forum say that democrats are no better than republicans but I think America has to fight right now to avoid going backwards.

It is true that Obama can not do much without the house and senate supporting him or at least working with him and it would seem that during his first term the republicans sat on their hands to stop him doing anything. As always money is the problem. Obama is painted by some as a socialist but of course he is fairly conservative on many issues. He is however progressive on other issues which can not be said for any Republicans really.

Fox news supports the Republican party and in the same way MSNBC supports the democrats. Neither are balanced in their reporting and they cater to their demographic. MSNBC not being as bad as Fox in my opinion but between them they do have influence in what they report and do not report.

Watching Fox does make you angry and it makes right wingers angry too but in a different way. They get mad at the socialist Muslim president.

If people want change then they can vote for the libertarian candidate in the US who will uphold constitutional law.

They continue to do otherwise though /shrugs.

andyh wrote:
Tell that to everyone who voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore and got stuck with Bush and the Iraq war...

^ I also wan't to point out that line Rhymes....

.......... wrote:
He was an independent not the libertarian presidential candidate...

turn your tv off its putting thoughts into your head that arent your own and its gonna grow like cancer

You can go to fantastic places instead....

A list I have a few problems with but much of this list is stuff we would not have seen under a republican president.

www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/30/obamas-...historic-presidency/

Anybody suggesting a third party candidate must be unaware of the political system in the united states I assume. Even if all other parties joined together and put their money together they would have no chance to take power. Nadar would have been one to get behind. I would have voted for him for sure.

Thanks for that link there I-B nice alternative view to the dogma we get used to hearing in pop-culture.
So the third party candidates in the US, they can seek to influence politics at the executive level by campaigning and running for election in their State for the Senate or House of Reps is that right?

i-baster wrote:
Yea even Paul & Nader probably knew a 3rd party ticket still would never win...

batou wrote:

Guevarista wrote:

I am probably not the best person to ask but as I understand it to run for president you need the nomination of a party. If you look into there are actually a bunch of other parties out there left wing right wing and broken wing. The larger of these being the libertarians and the green party. The libertarians usually have failed Republicans running which tells you a lot. The greens are to the left of the democrats and neither of these parties get on the ballot in every state. Added to the obvious problem that gives you is these parties have less money for ads. Around election time you see Romney ad Obama ad followed by the local dem and local repub. You don't see ads for other parties. They do not get on the news hardly either and they are not a part of the debates. They simply don't have a voice outside of social networking and word of mouth. In England such a problem could possibly be battled by boots on the ground campaigns but that simply isn't viable in the USA. Then you have the electoral college which actually decides the president. It is a weird set up that most people (especially those that lose the election) see as unfair. Certain states are worth more. It still confuses me and I think that is the point.

Essentially all those noble or daft enough to vote for a third party are already split anyway. Left wing green right wing libertarian. It really is divide and conquer because a bunch of people are not eligible to vote for various reasons then certain people get more of a vote based on state. So if the democrats win a particular state they get twice as many votes as they would for another state.