It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionFOX News LMAO(119 posts)(119 posts)
(119 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 27, 2015
avatar
hedwards: I sure as hell won't be voting for her if I have any choice. She's popular with feminists and I'm not even sure whom else. Barring it ending as a match up between her and one of the particularly crazy GOP candidates, she hasn't got a snowball's chance. She's just marginally preferable to having another Bush in the Whitehouse.
We've got a pretty seriously flawed system in this country, I'll admit. But at least anyone can create a new party and work to get it elected. A two party system, especially those two parties... it's just a question of what kind of headfuck you're going to get.

You're going to look back on Obama favourably, you know that, right? At least he just played his golf and left you guys in relative peace.

avatar
dtgreene: The way I see it, you are the one who made a claim, and therefore you are the one who needs to back it up. It's you being lazy, not me. (If you notice, when I make certain claims in other threads, I provide links.)

I am certainly informed enough that I will vote for her in the general election over any Republican candidate, especially since she does have a good (recent) track record on LGBT rights. (Of course, Bernie Sanders is even better on that front, but he's not a Republican, and therefore they won't both make it past the primaries.)
OK, fuck it. I'll bite just to see how this pans out.
BBC
BBC is funded in a communist manner so as you'd expect it's about as left wing as it gets. They think that Hillary is more or less innocent and either they ignore the illegal access and phone number theft or they're not paying attention.

DailyMail
The Daily Mail is just to the right of Hilter and is mainly regarded as the UK's answer to Fox. But unlike Fox they do pay attention to the facts and win awards for their journalism. It's just that they really go out of their way to skew things into a right-leaning direction.

As you'd expect, they immediately leap to the bit that the BBC chooses to overlook and then some.

As for voting for her, I'd be more concerned about the broader implications of a Hillary presidency if I were you.
Posted September 27, 2015
avatar
hedwards: I sure as hell won't be voting for her if I have any choice. She's popular with feminists and I'm not even sure whom else. Barring it ending as a match up between her and one of the particularly crazy GOP candidates, she hasn't got a snowball's chance. She's just marginally preferable to having another Bush in the Whitehouse.
avatar
Navagon: We've got a pretty seriously flawed system in this country, I'll admit. But at least anyone can create a new party and work to get it elected. A two party system, especially those two parties... it's just a question of what kind of headfuck you're going to get.

You're going to look back on Obama favourably, you know that, right? At least he just played his golf and left you guys in relative peace.
Look back? His security policies are a complete embarassment, but his social policies are better than any other President in my lifetime. I'd probably have to go back to LBJ to find somebody that advanced the welbeing of average Americans as much as Obama has. Not that it's a particularly high standard.

I guess, the free trade agreements are another area where he's been a complete disgrace. Unfortunately, none of the candidates at the time were any better and I agree about the future prospects. I'm starting to look forward to Kang and Kodos.
Posted September 27, 2015
avatar
hedwards: Look back? His security policies are a complete embarassment, but his social policies are better than any other President in my lifetime. I'd probably have to go back to LBJ to find somebody that advanced the welbeing of average Americans as much as Obama has. Not that it's a particularly high standard.

I guess, the free trade agreements are another area where he's been a complete disgrace. Unfortunately, none of the candidates at the time were any better and I agree about the future prospects. I'm starting to look forward to Kang and Kodos.
There's also the fact that the republicans have been nothing but a ball and chain for him since his election and that's only been on the increase.

As an outsider it astounds me that not only do the republicans brag about how much they're holding Obama back and retarding the development of America, but also it seems to have worked and people blame Obama for the very things that the republicans openly brag about causing. How that even works... I don't want to know.

I just think that if Obama fought a little harder I'd hold him in higher regard than I do. It just looked like he gave up not long after winning his second term and started phoning it in.
Posted September 27, 2015
avatar
hedwards: Look back? His security policies are a complete embarassment, but his social policies are better than any other President in my lifetime. I'd probably have to go back to LBJ to find somebody that advanced the welbeing of average Americans as much as Obama has. Not that it's a particularly high standard.

I guess, the free trade agreements are another area where he's been a complete disgrace. Unfortunately, none of the candidates at the time were any better and I agree about the future prospects. I'm starting to look forward to Kang and Kodos.
avatar
Navagon: There's also the fact that the republicans have been nothing but a ball and chain for him since his election and that's only been on the increase.

As an outsider it astounds me that not only do the republicans brag about how much they're holding Obama back and retarding the development of America, but also it seems to have worked and people blame Obama for the very things that the republicans openly brag about causing. How that even works... I don't want to know.

I just think that if Obama fought a little harder I'd hold him in higher regard than I do. It just looked like he gave up not long after winning his second term and started phoning it in.
That's how the legislature is set up, for better or for worse. When one party has more than 40 votes, they can block everything that happens. And when it's extremists, there's not much you can do about it.

Whether or not he fought any harder, I don't think he would have gotten much more done. What troubles me personally, is the things where he clearly didn't try at all. Mostly national security things where he didn't try to walk it back to the degree that he should have.
Posted September 27, 2015
avatar
hedwards: That's how the legislature is set up, for better or for worse. When one party has more than 40 votes, they can block everything that happens. And when it's extremists, there's not much you can do about it.

Whether or not he fought any harder, I don't think he would have gotten much more done. What troubles me personally, is the things where he clearly didn't try at all. Mostly national security things where he didn't try to walk it back to the degree that he should have.
It's very difficult to see how a system can change without going into revolutionary or total collapse scenarios. People aren't really too keen on the idea of change unless it's absolutely necessary. Which is why even the best leaders can only hope to nudge things in what they see as being the right direction. Those that try for more than that... well it tends to end badly, regardless of the intent.

We don't get to see and hear everything on this side of the pond. But even so, if he struck back at the republicans and made clear exactly what their politics were costing the country I think I'd have heard something about that. He didn't need a democrat majority. He just needed a lack of opposition. Which isn't necessarily the same thing at all. He just seemed to accept the situation and switch into something of a hibernation mode.
Posted September 27, 2015
Just to clear a bit up, one of the main reasons this latest Hillary thing is being dismissed is how its the result of a multi-year witch hunt. It all started with Benghazi and the tragedy of a terrorist attack. Repubs tried every trick in the book to try to blame Hillary for it...asking for E-mails, and then when they didn't find the smoking gun they were looking for, going after her personal E-mails. That's how we came here, still no Benghazi smoking gun, but now its this E-mail server thing. To me, it just looks like typical governmental incompetence. Certainly nothing criminal. Makes me dislike the Republicans more for having to listen to this piddly crap.

Not that I'm necessarily voting for Hillary, but I'm not sure I'd vote for an establishment Republican either. I'll probably vote "None of the Above" and vote for some wacky third-party candidate although I might be tempted to vote for "The Donald" just so I can laugh at his haircut for 4 years...
Posted September 27, 2015
avatar
RWarehall: Just to clear a bit up, one of the main reasons this latest Hillary thing is being dismissed is how its the result of a multi-year witch hunt. It all started with Benghazi and the tragedy of a terrorist attack. Repubs tried every trick in the book to try to blame Hillary for it...asking for E-mails, and then when they didn't find the smoking gun they were looking for, going after her personal E-mails. That's how we came here, still no Benghazi smoking gun, but now its this E-mail server thing. To me, it just looks like typical governmental incompetence. Certainly nothing criminal. Makes me dislike the Republicans more for having to listen to this piddly crap.

Not that I'm necessarily voting for Hillary, but I'm not sure I'd vote for an establishment Republican either. I'll probably vote "None of the Above" and vote for some wacky third-party candidate although I might be tempted to vote for "The Donald" just so I can laugh at his haircut for 4 years...
Regardless of motivation, those emails were supposed to be retained. At least the ones that were related to her official duties.
Posted September 27, 2015
Trump vs Fox news:No matter who wins, we lose....
Posted September 28, 2015
@ hedwards

Hey I am not american, but as far as I`ve read your posts and given the fact that you seem to be unFOXable I think you should take a look at Bernie Sanders
He`s is closing up to AND overtaking Clinton, and the fact that the corporate media tries everything to marginalize him is I think a good sign. He has an active youtube channel.

He has no Super-PAC and he opposes those shitty trade deals (that would affect my country in a very bad way). And he draws WAY bigger crowds than any other candidate. Again I am not american, and this is not my election. But I imagine you could prefer him above all other candidates easily

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
Post edited September 28, 2015 by Mr. D™
Posted September 28, 2015
avatar
dudalb: Trump vs Fox news:No matter who wins, we lose....
The only thing that saddens me right now is that Trump Crazy is taking away focus from many of the other Republican candidats Crazy, so hopefully when Trump loses speed that won't be forgotten.
Posted September 28, 2015
Anything as long as Trump doesn't win, he seems like a truly intolerable person.
I really don't think he has the charisma to win though, at least Bush seemed like a nice person to be around.
Posted September 28, 2015
avatar
Shadowstalker16: MSNBC vs Fox =
Stalin vs Hitler
Not really.
Posted September 28, 2015
Lol LOLOLOL found some thing else LOLOLOLcan`t write LOLOL
FOX panel on the issue if wind farms may LOL blow earth lolo off its orbit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0UkH81NMTo
Posted September 28, 2015
avatar
Navagon: ...

I just think that if Obama fought a little harder I'd hold him in higher regard than I do. It just looked like he gave up not long after winning his second term and started phoning it in.
When Big Corp lobbyists are as powerful as they are in the US any positive change in welfare for the average citizen is rather unlikely. The fulfillment of electoral promises will thus depend on how much these powerful lobbyists are willing to secede. These big American corporations don't even have to pay taxes in their own country, that's how powerful they have become in influencing policy. Not that this kind of legalized corruption is unique to the US in any way.
Post edited September 28, 2015 by R8V9F5A2
Posted September 28, 2015
avatar
Navagon: ...As an outsider it astounds me that not only do the republicans brag about how much they're holding Obama back and retarding the development of America, but also it seems to have worked and people blame Obama for the very things that the republicans openly brag about causing. How that even works... I don't want to know.
...
Another bizarre thing about Republicans, or at least many of their followers, is their failure to see the correlation between taxes and public services, that you can get something for nothing.
Post edited September 28, 2015 by R8V9F5A2
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionFOX News LMAO(119 posts)(119 posts)
(119 posts)