• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How can you justify voting for Obama a second time?

obvious Child said:
...and Afghanistan is set to see a reduction in troops.
Click to expand...
After increasing troop numbers by something like threefold right after he entered office.


obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, probably true.

Still, I think it is time to pretty much pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely and be more selective in who we engage and where.
 

I didn't vote for him last time, won't vote for him this time. But I probably won't vote Republican either less they put someone good up. Which they won't. Because the goal is to maintain the status quo, not change it.
 
theplaydrive said:
I would agree with that if there was a strong movement that would ensure the 3rd party candidate had a fair shot. However, I'm really not willing to risk a Republican in office - I don't think most Democrats are.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with that. I see what has happened here in the midwest and my state of Michigan where the GOP controls all aspects of state government and its right wing wackjobism on steroids. By time they are done, they will have repealed pretty much the last six or seven decades of political reform. Its a living breathing nightmare. For that to happen in DC would be hell on earth.

There was one time I was so disgusted with the Dem nominee that I did vote for a small party candidate. That was the Carter reelection bid in 1980.
 

Your whole post seems to be putting all the blame on the republicans. You even attribute some things that democrats pushed for on republican shoulders. Like the deregulation which happened under Clinton's watch. The free trade agreements have been negotiated for by both republicans AND democrats as well as foriegn investments.

I can agree that Obama could not have possibly fixed even half of the problems in the US. However the problem as I see it is that Obama has not even really tried to fix any of the problems. Gitmo is still open, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and have even started another war in Libya. He has lied to us about various things concerning Obamacare. In his first year of office he spent more than Bush managed to spend on the war effort in 8 years. He spent time apologizing to alot of people when imo no apology was neccessary and he did so to many of the wrong people.

There are lots of other things that I could mention but these are imo the main points.
 
Both are to blame, no doubt, but I see Republicans owning more of the blame than Democrats. For example, the bill you mentioned that you claimed "Democrats pushed onto Republican shoulders" was actually a Republican bill, which after amendment, did achieve bipartisan support. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, named after the three Republicans who pushed it through Congress, was drafted by Republicans, sponsored by Republicans, received virtuall no Democrat support after it's first vote but was voted on and passed with bipartisan support after coming out of conference committee, before being signed by Clinton. There is no way you can rationally claim Democrats pushed that bill on Republicans, though Democrats who did vote for it were wrong to do so.

The other issues you raise ... Gitmo: Obama campaigned on closing it and failed to do so. That's not to say he didn't try though; he did, but apparently it turned out closing it wasn't feasible. Iraq: he campaigned on ending the war there and bringing home our combat troops, he accomplished that. Afghanistan: he campaigned on trying to win that war in order to end it, that's still in progress. Libya: He did not start a war in Libya, he sent support to a war already in progress.

As far as your comment that he spent more than Bush for the war effort, I have no idea where you got that from. Bush spent somewhere around $600B. In Obama's first year, he spent about $140B.
 
As hard of a time as people seem to be having justifying a second vote for Obama, I think they're having a harder time differentiating between Obama and Bush in any meaningful sense in the first place. Taking one look at Obama's appointees was all I needed to know about the kind of Wall St. puppet leader he is. Keep Goldman Sachs in control of the treasury. Keep the Bernanke chairing the Fed. Keep biotech corporate executives at the head of the FDA and USDA (Michael Taylor, Tom Vilsack, etc.). Put the GE CEO in charge of "creating jobs," as his company sends more and more overseas. Obama needs JP Morgan Chase's top executive as his Chief of Staff. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, yes, these are great people to have in charge. Ken Salazar, who has major ties to extractive industries, as Secretary of the Interior? Or Liz Fowler, an insurance industry lackey, to a key position at DHHS? It goes on and on.

Let's face it, the (D) voters despise with every fiber of their beings the types of corporate thieves Obama puts in charge of our regulatory agencies, who guarantee that there will be no real hope for change. Denial and deflection, however, are powerful tools with which to maintain a positive image of one's abuser.
 
Last edited:
There's a lot of truth to this, and in many ways not a lot of difference between Bush and Obama. Indeed many of Obama's policies are merely continuations of Bush's policies.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually we can. The stimulus, the spending side at least, essentially kept state spending at similar or the same levels. That prevented massive layoffs in schools, fire departments, police and a whole host of other services. States replaced their dollars (many of them nonexistent) with Federal dollars and didn't cut to the bone. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would have occurred in the absence of a stimulus. States largely cannot deficit spend, I say largely because states like Texas can run real deficits while balancing their books by raiding rain day funds. Therefore, they would have had to severely cute. The stimulus basically kept GDP at a similar amount. True, it did not result in material growth, but it did prevent a significant material drop. The only people who argue that the stimulus did nothing or failed are those who are extremely ignorant, or extremely partisan.

We should have been out of Iraq by now
Click to expand...

Given how their combat training is going, yes we should have sans trainers.


I'd agree that Afghanistan is a political move. We actually need more troops. Afghanistan has so many problems. While I do agree he should have gotten approval for Libya in an ideal world, the problem is that the GOP right now is basically anti-Obama on anything, even their own historical proposals. If Obama had waited, we would have seen murder on a massive scale. Hell we gave the European (rightfully) endless **** for Srebrenica. To say that we would have prevented a much larger massacre of innocent civilians except that some in the GOP were willing to let millions die purely out of spite for Obama is pretty absurd.

The GOP right now has taken obstructionism to a new level. It's really bad when McCain is telling his fellow GOP to lay off Obama on Libya and the rest of the GOP giving him the finger.

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.
Click to expand...

Well, you can fight an idea with guns, you just kill everyone so that the idea cannot take hold in someone;s mind...because they're all dead. I predicted a year or so ago that we'd be indefinitely holding people at Gitmo without charge. Guess what we're doing now?
 

The cattle call to deregulate started with Transportation in 1971 during the Nixon administration. Energy deregulation began it's trip through Congress in '76 when Ford was President. The push to deregulate banking also began on Ford's watch. It was Jimmy Carter that signed the first wave of finished bills, not Bill Clinton. The Natural Gas Policy Act, Airline Deregulation, Depository Institutions Deregulation (1st of 3), Motor Carrier Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Staggers Rail Act were all signed by Carter (he was kinda weird..). The Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act and Bus Deregulation were signed by Reagan. The Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act and the National Energy Policy Act were signed by Bush41. Only the Telecommunications Act and Graham-Leach-Bliley Act (banking) were signed by Clinton. Clinton had more to do with Trade Agreements than deregulation.

So yes, I agree that both parties were culpable in creating the fiasco we're all currently experiencing. But it was clearly the so-called New Conservatives (Neocons) backed by corporate campaign dollars that initiated the effort. The politicians that voted for it were little more than pawns in the game regardless of party affiliation.

Bottom line... the rich declared war on the working people and spent what it took to win. What did they win? Look anywhere you want, the evidence is clear. Huge profits on Wall Street for one, as a result of banking deregulation. And when the mortgage derivatives market bubble burst, who paid for it? We did. You and I. Our government borrowed money against OUR future tax dollars to cover AIG's insurance exposure and bailout the very banks that promoted the scheme.

I look at it this way. Pre-1980's regulations had problems. No doubt about it. Think of it like a fence with holes in it. Sure, we need to fix that fence so our cows don't wander off. But what did we do? We bulldozed the whole thing down! And now we don't have any cows...

Am I going to vote for the people with the bulldozers? Eh... probably not...
 

I'm totally with you. If we could get a third party off the ground and it was a good centrist party, I'd love to support it. As it is, if my choice is Obama or Romney, I'd pretty much have to go with Obama, despite my misgivings and disappointments.
 
I feel you, and have debated this back and forth in my mind for over two decades now. This is the catch-22. People won't vote 3rd party because they won't win or even show well. Third party candidates don't win or show well because nobody votes for them. If it's going to happen, somebody has to start.

Another way of looking at it: Who is really wasting their vote? The 3rd party voter who knows his candidate won't win? Or, the voter who votes for the "lesser of two evils" knowing they're still going to be unhappy after the election when the person they voted for wins?


the makeout hobo said:
The problem with most 3rd party candidates is that they have no experience actually working in the political system, and would have no idea how to get things done. Do you really think Nader would have been effective as president?
Click to expand...
This is a legitimate concern.

Most 3rd parties would do better to start local and build up to national offices. This would provide them with both a base and experience. It would take patience, though, and our society has no patience for patience.
 

I see little point in voting or even having an election if it's Obama v. Romney, which I expect it will be. Vote whoever. As far as we're all concerned they're the same person.
 
I find it humorous that liberals still stand with Obama. He's gone back on just about everything he campaigned on, he campaigned as the peace candidate, we're still over the M.E. and he went to Libya. He kept Gitmo open, he extended the Bush tax cuts, he's shown an aptitude for crony capitalism (Solyndra), "Fast and Furious" happened under his watch, etc. Whether you come at life from the right or the left or other I really don't see how you can support Obama. He's been a failure for the most part and I find him to be in way over his head. Due to the financial collapse in 2008 and our wars in the Middle East we needed a man who was up to the moment. Obama's not measured up. I will fully admit that Obama is not to blame for what happened in 2008, he wasn't in charge then, I admit he inherited a mess. I didn't expect us to be back fully roaring again at this point. However, Obama has done nothing to better the situation and he's compounding the mistakes and failures of previous administrations. I may be a Republican, but I'm mostly a centrist so I'm not completely opposed to voting for a Democrat, so I'd cut Obama slack if he was taking the right steps to remedying the situation. He's not, he's making it worse.
 
First of all, if I vote for Obama, it will be my first time, not the second.

Second, if I vote for Obama, it will be because the GOP has put up a candidate I consider so bad that I would much rather have Obama remain in office then have that person get the office.
 

I thought "nobody could be worse than Bush" was the mantra for voting for Obama?
 

1) Many liberals still stand with Obama simply because the alternative - someone more conservative - would be worse. There aren't exactly a lot of options after a certain point.

2) Personally, I believe President Obama to be largely impotent at this point in his Presidency. He simply doesn't have a lot of power to make things happen. Whether or not that is because of his personal failings, or because of other external factors, is another discussion.
 
Reg said:
I thought "nobody could be worse than Bush" was the mantra for voting for Obama?
Click to expand...

I actually rooted for Bush in the 2004 election (I voted for an other party candidate).
 
You think Obama should have a chance to recreate the failures of a European styled socialism?
 
Whoppletraps said:
He's trying to turn America into f**cking Sweden.
Click to expand...

It'd actually be an improvement on what we have right now if he tried to do that, if indeed that were his intention (which it is not). Sweden doesn't have 9 percent unemployment right now, nor do they have a 100+% public debt-to-GDP ratio. Nor do they have military forces invested abroad in wars of questionable utility.
 

They have high taxes.

America has to make a few sacrifices for freedom.
 
Unless Huntsman is the GOP candidate... highly unlikely... I'll probably vote 3rd party. Probably Libertarian.
 
Whoppletraps said:
They have high taxes.

America has to make a few sacrifices for freedom.
Click to expand...

Like high taxes? You mean the kind we enacted to pay for WWII?

I don't get people like you who want lots of freedom and yet don't want to pay for any of it.

Fyi: Check out the test scores from Sweden. Wowzers. They make our kids look dumb....which considering the average intelligence here is TRUE!
 
Whoppletraps said:
They have high taxes.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. But it seems they get a good bang for their buck...

Taxes run approximately 48% of wages in total.

But... they get good healthcare from cradle to grave. Their system is publicly financed but adminstration is decentralized. And their healthcare is ranked among the highest in the world. Total costs run about 9% of GDP and have been stable since the '80's. The maximum cost to any citizen per year is just $380(USD), entirely as small co-pays for individual services.

Also under the healthcare program is a disability benefit that pays a significant percentage of your regular earnings indefinately from the 2nd day of illness/injury.

And... they get free higher education, too, if they want it. Bachelors, Masters, Doctorate. Paid for out of those taxes.

Retirement benefits are also included and average over $2500/month (USD).


Frankly, that's not too shabby...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…