How can you justify voting for Obama a second time?

[jasonxe]

So this is it, what should we call our movement? Vote Third Party Movement? Can I be the founder? :3

 

[Your Star]

Only if you see the world in two colors: Blue and Red.



Much more effective than either Bush or Gore. Plus, need I remind you about the disaster that the Bush administration was? I don't think a wet ferret could have caused that much damage to America, yet you are using him as an excuse to not vote third party. Seriously?

I'll vote for a third party when a third party shows that they can win. Trust me I don't like the two party system, I think it's one of the reasons why we are so divided as a country, but realistically only a republican, or a democrat can win, and I'm going to vote for the person who best represents my views, and right now that is Obama. I wish he was more liberal, but it is what it is.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Only if you see the world in two colors: Blue and Red.



Much more effective than either Bush or Gore. Plus, need I remind you about the disaster that the Bush administration was? I don't think a wet ferret could have caused that much damage to America, yet you are using him as an excuse to not vote third party. Seriously?

The thing is, most third party candidates haven't been a part of the governing process enough to have any experience to be president. Most of them are third party political activists who haven't had the more radical parts of their ideology tempered by actually having to govern. I refuse to vote for anyone who hasn't been at least a senator, governor, VP, or general.

 

[Antiderivative]

I'll vote for a third party when a third party shows that they can win. Trust me I don't like the two party system, I think it's one of the reasons why we are so divided as a country, but realistically only a republican, or a democrat can win, and I'm going to vote for the person who best represents my views, and right now that is Obama. I wish he was more liberal, but it is what it is.

I am sure that you were just as content under the Bush administration.

The thing is, most third party candidates haven't been a part of the governing process enough to have any experience to be president. Most of them are third party political activists who haven't had the more radical parts of their ideology tempered by actually having to govern. I refuse to vote for anyone who hasn't been at least a senator, governor, VP, or general.

It sounds like you have a great plan. Our current President was a former Senator and he leading us to on a path to a new Golden Age. However, lets not forget his predecessor who laid the foundation for the road. He was a former governor.

Lets not forget the Constitution where is clearly says that in order to be President, you must first have to be a Senator, Governor, VP, or General. They rest of the population is excluded.

 

[Your Star]

I am sure that you were just as content under the Bush administration.

I don't know what you mean by this?

 

[the makeout hobo]

It sounds like you have a great plan. Our current President was a former Senator and he leading us to on a path to a new Golden Age. However, lets not forget his predecessor who laid the foundation for the road. He was a former governor.

And can you explain to me why Nader or Buchanan would have been better?

Lets not forget the Constitution where is clearly says that in order to be President, you must first have to be a Senator, Governor, VP, or General. They rest of the population is excluded.

I never said that those were legal standards, I said they're my standards. My standard can be I'll only vote for hot redheads, as far as it matters to anyone else.

 

[Whoppletraps]

I think the best excuse is mental retardation.

I think we've found our answer.

 

[Antiderivative]

And can you explain to me why Nader or Buchanan would have been better?

As I said before, need I remind you the mess the last administration caused? Need I remind you how poorly this administration is doing?

I never said that those were legal standards, I said they're my standards. My standard can be I'll only vote for hot redheads, as far as it matters to anyone else.

I never said that you did. I was just poking fun at your standards. You can have any standards you want.

 

[the makeout hobo]

As I said before, need I remind you the mess the last administration caused? Need I remind you how poorly this administration is doing?

And what makes you think Buchanan or Nader would have done better?

 

[Paschendale]

In 1992, Ross Perot got almost 19% of the popular vote. No 3rd party candidate has done anywhere near as well since. Perot was down to 8% in 1996. Ralph Nader almost managed 3% in 2000, and his biggest contribution was taking votes away from Gore, and letting the race be close enough for the massive illegal schemes in Florida to make it look like Bush won long enough for the Supreme Court to vote along party lines and declare him president. And since then, polarization and partisanship has only increased. I don't see a 3rd party candidate winning anytime soon. No 3rd party candidate has won a single electoral vote since 1968. In the current political climate, voting for a 3rd party candidate serves more to harm the party that's closer to yours than it does to actually advance one's agenda. (Tea Partiers, feel free to ignore this paragraph and vote 3rd party when Mitt Romney wins the nomination.)

As for voting for Obama... He's mostly honest, genuinely tried to deliver on his campaign promises, and is actually trying to help people. He doesn't resort to propaganda or outright lies to push his agenda (this is why his agenda hasn't gone so well). I'm frankly worried by the precedent set by GWB that presidents don't need to be honest or respect the law or constitution at all. I really like what Obama has done to contradict that position. He's promoting equality and tolerance, and not just trying to make his rich friends richer.

And even if he wasn't doing a lot of these things, how could I possibly justify not trying to oppose the republicans? These people want to strip protections for the working class, concentrate more wealth and power into the hands of the already wealthy and powerful, and oppose civil rights for anyone besides corporations and gun owners. The republican leadership has also continued to embrace the downright immoral tactics used by the previous administration, relying on outright lies to push their policy. If one looks at actual statistics and facts, the republican policies will not accomplish any of their stated goals of reducing the influence of central government, recovering the economy, or protecting small businesses and personal rights.

 

[radcen]

I did not vote for him the first time, so there is no second time for me, but...

...if I were to vote for him (which is highly unlikely) the Supreme Court balance would be my biggest reason for doing so. Otherwise I think he is weak and ineffective. His own party in Congress doesn't even seem to respect him.

 

[rocket88]

I did not vote for him the first time, so there is no second time for me, but...

...if I were to vote for him (which is highly unlikely) the Supreme Court balance would be my biggest reason for doing so. Otherwise I think he is weak and ineffective. His own party in Congress doesn't even seem to respect him.

n
I agree with the sentiment that he's been ineffective. I did vote for him, and will only do so again to save us from a dominionist nitwit like Perry or Bachmann.

 

[A.Pearce]

The man stands by nothing, his stimulus package failed, we're still in the middle east, and still in an economic mess. IMO its ridiculous to think he'll do better in a second term.

I'll be voting for whoever runs against him in 2012(hopefully it will be Ron Paul).

IMO it's ridiculous to think that most of the Republican candidates will be any better. I don't hate Ron Paul per say, but I don't think I would vote for him under most any circumstances. He is far too conservative for me.
I think I will be torn; unless a right-wing nut like Perry is the Republican nominee in 2012. There is a very good chance of that. Ok, I'll address you point by point.
You say he stands by nothing- There is a lot of truth to this. I like to think he's just playing politics, but oh wait, he wanted to change Washington.

You say his stimulus package failed. Really? I know we aren't recovering NOW, but look at these numbers: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fvrAZtJ5heshttp://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm It did work for a time, but there are other factors affecting the economy now. I agree that stimulus wouldn't help at this point (in the long term) due mainly to the Euro-Zone crisis and frozen housing sectors. But the facts are against you here in this particular statement.

We're still in the Middle East. Quite a mess the neo-cons got us into, huh? I wish he would just pull troops out too, but understand the real and political challenges. Can't just abandon Afghanistan, apparently (they are going to destabilize at some point no matter what we do, imho)

We're still in an economic mess. Partially Obama's fault for not even attempting to fix the housing market, partly congress's fault, partly the Eurozone, although we are involved in the same dysfunctional international banking system, so also Alan Greenspan's fault.

My conclusion: I dislike almost all politicians, but especially social conservative candidates. Especially if those social conservative candidates are neocons. I will not vote for Rick Perry, nor Herman Cain, Nor Santorum, Nor Bachman, Nor Gingrich. I would vote for John Huntsman over Obama 99% guarantee; Huntsman seems to be honest and actually have some good ideas, but then so did Obama when I first supported him. If it comes to Obama vs. Romney I'm really honestly completely not sure how I'll vote. I like results, Obama has sometimes delivered but mostly hasn't, and I don't think Romney is too horribly conservative.

 

[Whoppletraps]

I think Romney is a closet moderate, if he took office I doubt he'd completely stick with the conservative policies he talks about now.

Anyway I'd even take him over another four years of Obama.

 

[obvious Child]

I think the best excuse is mental retardation.

Coming from someone who twice argued that God lied to us as proof God never lied to us.

You really shouldn't be making insults like that.

 

[obvious Child]

Your're right, the economy is absolutely BOOMING.

How does that equate to failure?

Want to take a gander at GDP, the stock market and unemployment in the absence of the stimulus?

Do you understand the concept of keeping demand at a stable level?

That wasn't my point, Obama said end he would end the wars and he didn't deliver on that.

I wasn't aware that Obama was out of office. Iraq is winding down and Afghanistan is set to see a reduction in troops.

Furthermore, the war on terror is never going to end. You can't end a war on an idea as long as the idea is out there.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If you want to vote 3rd Party, I'm running in 2012.

 

[Whoppletraps]

If you want to vote 3rd Party, I'm running in 2012.

I bet you'd be better than this guy

 

[poliblogs]

The GOP ideas of smaller and more efficient government, state's rights, individual responsibility, and conservative financial policies are attractive to me. However, with a possibility that congress and the SCOTUS will all be controlled by republicans, it's the hyper-religious, anti-science, social conservative, blind rejection of revenue increses, etc. wing of the GOP that scares me. As any party does when they get complete control, the idea that they might play to this base is the reason I might vote for balance.

 

[Kal'Stang]

How does that equate to failure?

Want to take a gander at GDP, the stock market and unemployment in the absence of the stimulus?

There is no way to acurately predict what things "might" have been like without the stimulus. Sure you can speculate...but speculating is about as reliable as teets on a boar hog.

I wasn't aware that Obama was out of office. Iraq is winding down and Afghanistan is set to see a reduction in troops.

We should have been out of Iraq by now. The reduction of troops in Afghanistan is nothing more than a political move. And lets not forget the start of a new war in libya. With which as far as I know Obama still hadn't gotten official congressional approval for. I admit that I may be mistaken about that last part...I've distanced myself from politics for awhile now as I was getting a bit jaded so needed a break.

Furthermore, the war on terror is never going to end. You can't end a war on an idea as long as the idea is out there.

I can agree on this. I had always thought that the "war on terror" was idiotic in the way that it is being conducted. You can't fight an idea with guns. You can only fight an idea with a better, more appropriate idea.

 

[radcen]

The GOP ideas of smaller and more efficient government, state's rights, individual responsibility, and conservative financial policies are attractive to me. However, with a possibility that congress and the SCOTUS will all be controlled by republicans, it's the hyper-religious, anti-science, social conservative, blind rejection of revenue increses, etc. wing of the GOP that scares me. As any party does when they get complete control, the idea that they might play to this base is the reason I might vote for balance.

Those ideas are attractive to me also. Too bad that in practical reality the Reps abandoned them long ago. Now they're just campaign soundbites.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

How can you justify voting for Obama a second time?

Because I learned from Republicans in 2004 that results don't matter.

 

[Easy Rider]

Justification... easy, really. It took 30 years of right wing activisim to bring the country to it's economic knees in 2007. The deregulation frenzy, so-called Free Trade agreements, foreign investment with public money, etc. You can spin it anyway you want but the simple fact is that Trickledown Economics was a dismal failure, except for the five percenters.

We're not going to fix that mess in 4 years, or 8, no matter who gets elected. If we put the GOP back in charge, nothing of substance will change. I truly believe that. And I've not yet heard anything from the current batch of Republican candidates to change my mind.

Is Obama our savior? Hah! Not hardly. But considering the mess he walked into, combined with stonewall politics, I'm not so sure that anybody could have accomplished very much under those circumstances. I'll give him an "A" for effort, anyway.

My point is... it was the Right side of the aisle that got us into this mess over a long period of time and I don't see them offering anything of value to effect a turnaround. While I don't necessarily agree with the entire Democratic platform, I do think we need legislation influenced more by the Left to re-center the country. And I think Obama has proven to be more of a Centrist than a true far-Left winger.

And that's how I justify voting again for Obama...

 

[American]

The man stands by nothing, his stimulus package failed, we're still in the middle east, and still in an economic mess. IMO its ridiculous to think he'll do better in a second term.

I'll be voting for whoever runs against him in 2012(hopefully it will be Ron Paul).

It's kind of an unfair question, since they have no other choice.

 

[American]

Because I learned from Republicans in 2004 that results don't matter.

Since you admire Republicans, you should vote Republican.