Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[V1P3R]

What Danoff was talking about...

Perhaps... the exact opposite of Communism?

I guess yeah now that I think about it again. Nevermind.

 

[Delphic Reason]

The 2004 election was successful. It may not have had the outcome you wanted, but it was just as clean and successful as the 2008 election was last night. Why were you not proud to be an American then?

Don't think for a minute that there wouldn't have been a blizzard of protests and fingerpointing if this election had been close.

I never said the 2004 election wasn't.

I merely stated we have witnessed a smooth transfer in government, and I just don't think many of us really realize how far we have come in the last 100 years (or even a thousand years if you want to be pedantic) to be able to have such non-violent smooth transfers in our governmental powers. Just a casual observation.

Furthermore, I have been very outspoken against George W. over the past eight years, and I do believe he has done a huge amount of harm to not only this country, but to many around the world due to his actions and the actions of others in his office. Therefore, I have not been entirely proud to be an American over the past eight years. It has been an embarrassing eight years in more than a few ways. Although, Barack Obama isn't perfect, I believe he was a far superior choice to McCaine. Put all these things together and you get to how I feel very proud today.

 

[Pupik]

What I don't understand is why any Americans are not proud to be an American, regardless of you disagree with, or even completely hate The President or his Administration. Sure, to voice your dissenting opinion about your leader is not an exclusively American ideal, but you can do it with no fear of reprisal. It's almost encouraged...so why be any less proud?

Sure, there's times I don't mentally chant "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!", because if we always agreed with everything our leader does, we'd be nitwits and/or under a totalitarian state. There's things that aren't perfect, and likely will never be. But that doesn't make me any less proud to be an American on July 3rd, September 10th, or the Tuesday after Memorial Day.

To realize that and to stand tall, even if we are of different opinions, under the same flag, is to be uniquely American.

 

[V1P3R]

The new reported what all the candidates are doing today, most of them went home to rest. Anyone know which house McCain went to? (I wonder if he even knows.)

 

[91hondawagon]

(...)

I'll celebrate when we end social security. I'll celebrate when we get a flat tax.

👍 Of all things Barack has promised, the higher tax rate for the wealthy troubles me the most. That plan essentially takes away money from the rich because poorer "need it" more than they do. At first glance, it seems like a great way to alienate the wealthy and to give lower classes undeserved money.

On another note, when Obama was declared the winner last night, a lot of stuff happened outside my dorm. Loud cheering, screaming, honking car horns, and rampant celebration were all going on. However, there were also several groups of black students who taunted any white student that walked past, jeering and calling them crackers. A fight between two girls (one white, one black) broke out because the white girl was wearing a McCain-Palin shirt. Generally, though, it didn't matter who the white students had voted for; they were taunted anyway.

Just food for thought. The good thing about it is there was only a small number of taunters, and the vast majority of the black students there were celebrating with the white students, not jeering them. Hopefully Obama can bridge race relations, and this sort of mindless racism won't happen anymore.

 

[magburner]

I would say: do not believe a word out of Jesse Jackson's mouth or an expression on his face. He will do or say anything to prolong his own relevance as long as possible, without hesitation.

Having looked further into the Jesse Jackson's history, I would be inclined to agree. 👍

Which is, not coincidentally, why he never had a chance in this election - not only couldn't the world be bothered to think of him as anything other than "McSame", but neither could more than half of the US.

I also think that he did himself no favours with his "fight! fight! fight!" rhetoric. For me personally, I saw him as "Mcsame" just because of that.

Something else that caught my attention though, was the number of younger voters. A lot of the imagery shown on the BBC last night was of young, twenty somethings. Maybe if McCain had mobilised that element of the electorate better, things could of been much different.

I can't believe how out of step with the principles this country is based upon the majority has gotten.

So your saying that the majority of Americans are, well, un-American?

Just because a majority goes a certain way does not mean we all go, "YAY GLORIOUS DAY!!!!" That would make us no better than bandwagon jumping sheep. God forbid we have individual opinions that we refuse to change just because the majority no longer cares about the principles this country was founded upon. It is about principles, not being popular. I have been harping on this all throughout this thread. Why do people think that the moment an idea becomes popular it is suddenly correct or good?

Are you not proud of the progress your nation has achieved? Regardless of his policies or beliefs, Barrack Obama is a black man in the White House - surely that means something!

Your right about the principles too, I'm always about the principles . 👍

Would the American Dream not be alive if McCain, Barr, Nader, Baldwin, or any of the others had won?

Of course it would! Up until last night though, I had always assumed that the 'American Dream' was exclusive, now of course, I know it is not! 👍

Also he has to live up to all those fat promises that he lacks any actual legal power to make happen...

...Mainly because he lacks the power to actually do half the crap he thinks/says he can do.

Haven't the Democrats got the majority in the Senate and the House Of representatives? Surely that's power enough?

Obama is exactly what this nation DOESN'T need right now. But McCain would have been just as bad.

What does you nation need then?

After watching the voting last night, I was wondering what the 'Electoral College' votes were for? Are they a form of proportional representation?

 

[Kylehnat]

👍 Of all things Barack has promised, the higher tax rate for the wealthy troubles me the most.

Me too. I don't quite understand what that is going to accomplish.

However...

That plan essentially takes away money from the rich because poorer "need it" more than they do. At first glance, it seems like a great way to alienate the wealthy and to give lower classes undeserved money.

A lot of government services do this anyway. All taxes end up being a redistribution of money. My taxes pay for roads I'll never drive on, schools for children I don't have, and social services I'll never use. Some people pay no income tax, and use all of the above.

 

[Keef]

After watching the voting last night, I was wondering what the 'Electoral College' votes were for? Are they a form of proportional representation?

Pretty much. Actually, I was just reading all the pro-Electoral College reasons, and I don't agree with any of them. I think the Electoral College is a liberal interest, as most of the pro- reasons were related to interests of the Democrat party. And I don't like it.

 

[Bones Brigade]

Pretty much. Actually, I was just reading all the pro-Electoral College reasons, and I don't agree with any of them. I think the Electoral College is a liberal interest, as most of the pro- reasons were related to interests of the Democrat party. And I don't like it.

The world would definitely be MUCH MUCH better if the electoral college wasn't around in say...2000.

 

[YSSMAN]

Something else that caught my attention though, was the number of younger voters. A lot of the imagery shown on the BBC last night was of young, twenty somethings. Maybe if McCain had mobilised that element of the electorate better, things could of been much different.

I don't think it would have mattered much. The youth vote that did turn out, from what I hear, was well over 60% in favor of Obama. The problem is that the Republican party has not done a good job of bringing young people into the party, many of the kids (as seen here) are swinging far right to the Libertarian party, sticking with the usual Democrats, or are a rare number of Republicans that can vary into a wide variety of things. I myself am of the minority in the youth Republicans who are a bit more progressive/liberal with their views, others are far more to my right on some things, and there are the usual centrists, etc.

The youth vote came out as they should, and thats worth something. Then again, the entire group of registered voters came out as they should, and that really is worth something.

 

[McLaren]

I was noting that ironic, alot of states mccain were southern states, where race is still an issue. They include:

Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
Alabama(lol, junior nation)
Tennessee
Kentucky
West Virginia
Texas (Gun Toting idiots)

I don't say all of them are, just that ironically consist mostly of them.

Speak for the folks you know. I find it really annoying to be stereotyped as the typical Texan (Gun slinger, drunken idiot redneck, & etc.) from TV shows & movies, and more so that another Texan buys into that BS.

Yes. Obama would be the first politician to ever fall short on his/her promises.

Didn't say that. However, he is easily on of the few who actually had to backtrack and tell the American people not to expect too much.

 

[eiriksmil]

Speak for the folks you know. I find it really annoying to be stereotyped as the typical Texan (Gun slinger, drunken idiot redneck, & etc.) from TV shows & movies, and more so that another Texan buys into that BS.

Stereotypes about the black man are dying slowly out, while stereotypes on Southern rednecks are alive and kicking. Why do you think it's like that?

 

[McLaren]

Stereotypes about the black man are dying slowly out, while stereotypes on Southern rednecks are alive and kicking. Why do you think it's like that?

So that justifies it? Ok.

 

[Solid Fro]

What Republicans must do...

 

[Christhedude]

You and everyone outside America really are tired of Bush aren't ya? lool

Pretty much yes!

 

[RACECAR]

Speak for the folks you know. I find it really annoying to be stereotyped as the typical Texan (Gun slinger, drunken idiot redneck, & etc.) from TV shows & movies, and more so that another Texan buys into that BS..

As a texan, I say "gun toting idiots" because their are people here who care more about their precious damn guns then about the country. I should've been more specific instead of making a sweeping assumption, but it pisses me off that somehow the guns are of an bigger issue then the shape the country is in.

Stereotypes about the black man are dying slowly out, while stereotypes on Southern rednecks are alive and kicking. Why do you think it's like that?

I wouldn't say that.

Also, I'm gonna edit my earlier post as my tendency of making unclear statements like that doesn't echoe my disliking of discrimination. I apoligize to all whom have felt offended.

 

[Vasco]

Speak for the folks you know. I find it really annoying to be stereotyped as the typical Texan (Gun slinger, drunken idiot redneck, & etc.) from TV shows & movies, and more so that another Texan buys into that BS.


Didn't say that. However, he is easily on of the few who actually had to backtrack and tell the American people not to expect too much.

As opposed to any other candidate in this election who would've been able to fulfill their promises despite the current ****storm the American economy is in right?
At least he's being honest! Also Solid Fro, do you ever make a post without a fox news video in it? I don't think anyone even bothers watching them anymore.

 

[TheCracker]

do you ever make a post without a fox news video in it? I don't think anyone even bothers watching them anymore.

I watch Fox News quite a lot, it's hilarious! - even more so since Tuesday 👍

 

[homeforsummer]

On another note, when Obama was declared the winner last night, a lot of stuff happened outside my dorm. Loud cheering, screaming, honking car horns, and rampant celebration were all going on. However, there were also several groups of black students who taunted any white student that walked past, jeering and calling them crackers. A fight between two girls (one white, one black) broke out because the white girl was wearing a McCain-Palin shirt. Generally, though, it didn't matter who the white students had voted for; they were taunted anyway.

Idiots and troublemakers are idiots and troublemakers the world over and regardless of colour/creed. If McCain had won, no doubt several black students would have come in for a hard time for a while too.

 

[FoolKiller]

So your saying that the majority of Americans are, well, un-American?

They have become greedy. Too many people buy into the idea that it is OK for them to get a tax break, or even a "stimulus" check, at the expense of the upper class. Yet, if that tax plan doesn't happen and I decide to break into a rich guys house and just take $600 (the amount of the last "stimulus" check) they would call me a thief. They have become hypocritical and think that anything is now OK if the government does it. They take no self-responsibility anymore, wanting the government to fix everything for them, including their own bad investments. If we had told them they couldn't buy the house because they don't have the money it would be bad, but when reality hits home they want government to fix their blunders.

And at the same time I am not sure that all the people that voted for Obama voted for him for those reasons. Some just get easily caught up in fancy speak. Some just wanted to not allow a Republican in.

And McCain wasn't much of a better choice. His plans were still bad. There are plenty of people who realized both were bad and would like to see us return to following the Constitution properly, but they sound like YSSMAN, where they think that it is just too hard to do and so they don't try. That kind of defeated talk is ironic coming from citizens of a country who gained their own freedom from a bunch of farmers with hunting rifles against an army of trained soldiers. People who live on land discovered by a man who took what many believed to be a journey to death in order to find a better way to perform his business.

No, there are plenty of people who agree on the principles of this country, but for many various reasons are afraid to risk allowing the person they most dislike from winning. Then there are those who have forgotten what those principles are. Personally, I believe that Obama himself falls into this last category based on his idea that we should be able to reinterpret the Constitution to create economic equality. Obama has good intentions and has convinced himself they are in line with the founding principles of this country. Most bad policy begins with good intentions. But, as they say, the road to ruin is paved with good intentions.

Are you not proud of the progress your nation has achieved? Regardless of his policies or beliefs, Barrack Obama is a black man in the White House - surely that means something!

The color of his skin has little to do with his ability to lead this country in the right direction. Does it say a lot that we have overcome racism enough to put a black man in office? Yes. Unfortunately I wish it had happened with a guy who actually had good ideas and policies and hasn't expressed a disagreement with the Constitution he will now take an oath to uphold.

Your right about the principles too, I'm always about the principles . 👍

Then the color of his skin should mean absolutely nothing, as it does to me.

Of course it would! Up until last night though, I had always assumed that the 'American Dream' was exclusive, now of course, I know it is not! 👍

Can I ask where your stereotype that America is a racist country came from? We have plenty of black men who have been successful, they are just the ones who haven't followed the advice of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are the ones who refused to believe the system was out to get them, and instead worked with the system to succeed. Colin Powell and Condi Rice showed this in Bush's administration. Unfortunately, when a black man succeeds by working with the system they get called racist names by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The people that have done the most to hold black people back have been their own community leaders.

The greatest thing about Obama winning the election is that hopefully black youths will see that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are full of crap and realize that when people like Bill Cosby tell them to get out and actually try to succeed they will listen.

Want to know why I think Jesse Jackson was crying? Because he realizes that he built his career on hate speech designed to disillusion the black community and Obama has just proven him wrong, thus putting him out of business.

Haven't the Democrats got the majority in the Senate and the House Of representatives? Surely that's power enough?

Obama, by himself cannot implement a tax plan or any policy. And yes, there is a majority of Democrats in the Congress. But there are two issues. 1) Some of the things he promised are not even granted to Congress by the Constitution, some don't fall in line with the limits of those powers granted by the Constitution. 2) Our government has a clause regarding filibusters and super majorities. This is to prevent a small majority from enacting bad legislation that will negatively affect the minority. The minority party can filibuster (basically not stop debating, refusing the bill in question to come to a vote) until the time has run out on the bill. The only way to stop a filibuster is by having 60 Senate votes (a super majority). The Democrats do not have a super majority.

Even if they did have a super majority, it would only take one really bad idea to make sure they lost it in two years when more Senate seats are up for election.

What does you nation need then?

Someone like Ron Paul or Bob Barr. Someone that actually understands economics and someone that is willing to follow the Constitution.

I don't think it would have mattered much. The youth vote that did turn out, from what I hear, was well over 60% in favor of Obama.

If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no brain.

Stereotypes about the black man are dying slowly out, while stereotypes on Southern rednecks are alive and kicking. Why do you think it's like that?

Media. It is not politically correct to make fun of minorities anymore, but the PC police forget that racism is a two-way street and so no one makes a big fuss when prejudiced stereotypes are used against white people.

As a texan, I say "gun toting idiots" because their are people here who care more about their precious damn guns then about the country. I should've been more specific instead of making a sweeping assumption, but it pisses me off that somehow the guns are of an bigger issue then the shape the country is in.

Well, gun ownership is listed as the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. I wonder why it is so high on the list?

And what do you mean by the shape the country is in? If you mean the economy the president should not be involved in that so anyone who says they will be is either lying or ready to violate law. But then, most of what Obama intends to do about the shape of the country appears to be all bad from where I am standing, including his gun control proposals.

Also, I'm gonna edit my earlier post as my tendency of making unclear statements like that doesn't echoe my disliking of discrimination. I apoligize to all whom have felt offended.

For the record, I was not offended. I don't offend easily. But I will not allow stereotypes and prejudices to be spread about any group. You received the same kind of response I would have given if you had made similar comments about any other group.

As opposed to any other candidate in this election who would've been able to fulfill their promises despite the current ****storm the American economy is in right?
At least he's being honest!

If he had been completely honest up front he wouldn't have been having to backtrack.

Also Solid Fro, do you ever make a post without a fox news video in it? I don't think anyone even bothers watching them anymore.

The ratings say yes. More than any of the other stations. The same with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the radio.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

👍 Of all things Barack has promised, the higher tax rate for the wealthy troubles me the most. That plan essentially takes away money from the rich because poorer "need it" more than they do. At first glance, it seems like a great way to alienate the wealthy and to give lower classes undeserved money.

No no no. Do people not understand that our tax system has been running this way forever? The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Period. It has always been this way. And do you think that the rich are going to notice a 3% increase in taxes taken away from them!? AND, Furthermore, rich people are very good at staying rich. They find loopholes in our taxing system that makes it seem like they make less money anyway.

I can not stand it when people say that Obama's notion of slightly increasing taxes for people who make over $250,000 is a socialist, communist, or marksist idea!! I will agree that he should not have said, "Spread the wealth". That gives the wrong idea about what hes trying to do. AND, the extra taxes taken from people who make over $250,000 isn't only going to poor people. Its going towards all kinds of beneficial things.

 

[Tornado]

No no no. Do people not understand that our tax system has been running this way forever? The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Period. It has always been this way.

There is a difference between a flat tax and a tax that punishes success. The Obama tax does the latter.

And do you think that the rich are going to notice a 3% increase in taxes taken away from them!?

And that makes it fair...how? Seriously ask yourself why you think it should fair for someone to take more from you just because you have more. If I have $100 and someone else has $25, why should I have to pay $50 if he has to only pay $5? Yeah, it may not hurt me as much to have half my income taken instead of 20% if I am guaranteed another $100 later, as I would still have more money; but it is in no way, shape or form fair and it is an insult to say it is. It looks like punishment towards the successful, and it isn't far from it.

AND, Furthermore, rich people are very good at staying rich. They find loopholes in our taxing system that makes it seem like they make less money anyway.

Foolkiller covered this problem quite extensively already.

 

[FoolKiller]

No no no. Do people not understand that our tax system has been running this way forever?

So that makes it right? We had slavery for years, why did we stop it? Because it went against the principles of equality this country was founded upon. Continuing a mistake does not make it suddenly good.

And just so you know:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So, how does a progressive tax agree with that?

The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Period. It has always been this way. And do you think that the rich are going to notice a 3% increase in taxes taken away from them!? AND, Furthermore, rich people are very good at staying rich. They find loopholes in our taxing system that makes it seem like they make less money anyway.

So, if I steal from them and it is a small enough amount that they don't notice is it OK?
And it is the very complex and screwed up nature of our tax system that they are able to find these loopholes. A flat rate tax would have very little room for loopholes because it wouldn't be running itself in circles trying to justify how it doesn't violate the Constitution.

I can not stand it when people say that Obama's notion of slightly increasing taxes for people who make over $250,000 is a socialist, communist, or marksist idea!!

Combine that with decreasing everyone else's and he is basically giving that money to others, or redistributing wealth, which is a socialist economic idea.

I will agree that he should not have said, "Spread the wealth". That gives the wrong idea about what hes trying to do.

That gives the idea about precisely what he is trying to do. Read my post where I quoted him from 2001. He is not happy that the Constitution cannot be interpreted to allow for this.

AND, the extra taxes taken from people who make over $250,000 isn't only going to poor people. Its going towards all kinds of beneficial things.

Yeah, but when you get rid of all the non-beneficial things or things that the government should not be doing you wouldn't need a tax increase.

Foolkiller covered this problem quite extensively already.

You just saved me the trouble, even though I have that report bookmarked.

 

[Pupik]

Do people not understand that our tax system has been running this way forever? The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Period.

That's an opinion, although based on percentages, they obviously pay more in taxes. But it technically isn't fair to create a disincentive for being rich and potentially creating wealth for others.

It has always been this way.

Since Federal Income Tax was collected 95 years ago.

And do you think that the rich are going to notice a 3% increase in taxes taken away from them!?

It will likely be felt one way or another in the economy.

...Furthermore, rich people are very good at staying rich. They find loopholes in our taxing system that makes it seem like they make less money anyway.

The "loopholes" are usually because they are donating money to offset the taxes; but even those living paycheck-to-paycheck can do the same, to the extent they give away valuables/donations.

There's also many loopholes and tax breaks for people who make less than a certain amount, others for those who make over a certain amount. It's commensurate with your earnings. Pick up a copy of TurboTax, and you'll see.

I can not stand it when people say that Obama's notion of slightly increasing taxes for people who make over $250,000 is a socialist, communist, or marxist idea!!

Well, to be honest, it's no better nor worse than the system we've had in place for 95 years. It's not putting the rich into the gutter overnight, but there is the potential for wages or jobs to decrease slightly on the other end because of it.

I will agree that he should not have said, "Spread the wealth". That gives the wrong idea about what hes trying to do. AND, the extra taxes taken from people who make over $250,000 isn't only going to poor people. Its going towards all kinds of beneficial things.

"Spread the wealth" could technically mean anything, but he referred to the removal of tax breaks and/or increase in taxes for those making over an arbitrary certain amount (in this case, $25,000).

Who knows what it goes to...everything from a textbook, to a road sign, a round-trip plane ride for a congressman, to a nuclear submarine. You don't get to pick and choose so easily...

Despite his potentially flawed economic plan, I voted for him anyhow for other reasons. Neither major candidate was seriously going to dent nor improve my wallet. At least the Democrats aren't lying about increasing taxes and making socialist-based plans, but the Republicans have largely removed the "smaller government" plank from their platform in the past 14 years.

 

[McLaren]

No no no. Do people not understand that our tax system has been running this way forever? The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Period. It has always been this way. And do you think that the rich are going to notice a 3% increase in taxes taken away from them!? AND, Furthermore, rich people are very good at staying rich. They find loopholes in our taxing system that makes it seem like they make less money anyway.

Um, yes, esp. if they own businesses? There are small business owners all over Dallas right now already contemplating who they're going to let go when & if Obama puts his plan into action.

I can not stand it when people say that Obama's notion of slightly increasing taxes for people who make over $250,000 is a socialist, communist, or marksist idea!! I will agree that he should not have said, "Spread the wealth". That gives the wrong idea about what hes trying to do. AND, the extra taxes taken from people who make over $250,000 isn't only going to poor people. Its going towards all kinds of beneficial things.

So then why has Obama been on the record of lowering that amount as far as $102,000?

Is it because he realize he's going to need more money to give to the poor? Or maybe it's to help appease the rich by saying, "I'm sorry. Here, I'll tax people below you as well". I guarantee you, the lower that little income/year goes, the more it affects the rich and everyone else.

 

[YSSMAN]

And McCain wasn't much of a better choice. His plans were still bad. There are plenty of people who realized both were bad and would like to see us return to following the Constitution properly, but they sound like YSSMAN, where they think that it is just too hard to do and so they don't try.

Try? Try what? You mean the third party thats going to sweep in and make everything better for everyone? I'm being realistic, my friend. I hate to break it to you, but unless we change the way in which we represent ourselves, the Republicans and the Democrats are going to be the "big tent" parties that absorb the outliers. It has been that way since 1796, and given the track record of the past 212 years, I don't see it changing much. If that makes me someone who is "giving up," so be it. The system is what the system is, and constitutionally, we will have to alter it so that it does not favor a two-party system.

Now, what you do speak of, the emergence of a solid third party may happen. As I've been saying, it depends on what happens to the Republicans, if they can consolidate themselves into a single unit again, or if they outright fracture and become something else. I'm under the impression that an otherwise "centrist" but with a conservative lean party (ie, not the "moral majority" and the like) could very well replace what we see today, stand a very good chance of taking back seats in Congress, and curtail what reforms are being suggested by the oncoming Obama administration and the next congress.

What this means is that as citizens of the republic, it is our duty to be as active and as vocal as possible for getting our voices heard. The trick is having your representative giving a damn about what you say. I know that I'm not going to agree with the Democratic leadership on everything, just as much as I didn't agree with the Republican leadership before it, but we all have to work together to make the best of what we have. If we continue to vote for the third parties, by all means, it is an important thing to do (ie, legitimizing their platforms), but as soon as they get a bit too big for their britches, they will be absorbed by one of the two major parties. That is both a part of history and a part of politics, I'm sorry it is not all rainbows and unicorns like we wish it could be.

 

[FoolKiller]

Try? Try what?

Try getting an actual voice heard instead of saying you disagree with one more so you will support the other guy you disagree with the least.

I know people who really didn't like McCain but didn't want Obama to win. Even if McCain had won all it really does is put a vote for yes under everything McCain does. Too many people vote for the lesser of two evils. Even if we stick with a two-party system, showing a growing support for something outside of these two parties that are barely different from one another would at least make those two parties change.

If you direct your vote, and in essence your voice, toward someone you don't completely or even mostly agree with how does your voice get heard? Do we need a third party to sweep in and steal an election? As cool as that would be, no. We just need people to make their voices heard.

I'm being realistic, my friend. I hate to break it to you, but unless we change the way in which we represent ourselves, the Republicans and the Democrats are going to be the "big tent" parties that absorb the outliers. It has been that way since 1796, and given the track record of the past 212 years, I don't see it changing much. If that makes me someone who is "giving up," so be it.

And as long as people have the mindset like this then it will never change.

The system is what the system is, and constitutionally, we will have to alter it so that it does not favor a two-party system.

If we had been doing things Constitutionally we wouldn't need a change.

What this means is that as citizens of the republic, it is our duty to be as active and as vocal as possible for getting our voices heard.

Voting for the lesser of two evils, as many do, does not make this happen.

Why do you think I voted for someone I knew would lose? Because I wanted my vote, and my voice, to count for something that didn't say I accept the same old BS.

The trick is having your representative giving a damn about what you say. I know that I'm not going to agree with the Democratic leadership on everything, just as much as I didn't agree with the Republican leadership before it, but we all have to work together to make the best of what we have.

The problem is that the best of what we have is barely acceptable right now.

I'm sorry it is not all rainbows and unicorns like we wish it could be.

If it were we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[91hondawagon]

You read my mind, Toronado.

I can not stand it when people say that Obama's notion of slightly increasing taxes for people who make over $250,000 is a socialist, communist, or marksist idea!!

It is a deeply unfair idea. While his idea is not nearly as extreme as communism and Marxism, they do share a very basic foundation: that wealth must be shared so all can benefit.

I will agree that he should not have said, "Spread the wealth". That gives the wrong idea about what hes trying to do.

Then what is he trying to do? Taxing the wealthy more and giving that money to people who haven't earned it is a very collectivist idea, which sounds good on paper, but does not work in reality.

If poorer folks receive money they did not earn, why would they want (or need) to work as hard? If richer folks have their money taken from them unfairly, why would they be motivated to keep working as hard? It only makes the system break down more by encouraging sluggishness and laziness. "Spreading the wealth" is a sort of twisted charity: others need the money you've earned, so we will take it away from you and expect you to cooperate. As Toronado said, calling that "fair" is an insult.

AND, the extra taxes taken from people who make over $250,000 isn't only going to poor people. Its going towards all kinds of beneficial things.

What kinds of things? Beneficial to whom? I doubt if a small-business owner in Tennessee will ever benefit from a road in North Dakota that was built with his money. "Beneficial" is a relative word in this sense; usually, those who benefit from a federal public works project do not pay for it, while those who do pay for it will not benefit from it. It's convenient for those North Dakotans, but that business owner is losing money for something he will never gain from.

Perhaps Obama's economic policies deserve their own thread (?)

 

[Tornado]

Perhaps Obama's economic policies deserve their own thread (?)

I second the motion. Especially now that the Election is more-or-less over.

 

[Solid Fro]

The ratings say yes. More than any of the other stations. The same with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the radio.

I watch Fox News all the time because it is the only one who does indeed provide fair and balanced news coverage and Left and Right debate for political shows. I came to this conclusion long before I knew what the difference between Republican and Democrat was.

If I post a youtube from Fox News, it's because I watched it and I would like to share it with other users.