or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Case for Obama's Reelection
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Case for Obama's Reelection

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 

Typically, Presidents seeking reelection point to their records and then lay out what they want to do in a second term.  But Obama has not done that.  For the most part, his record is indefensible.  He's also not laid out any real agenda for his second term, other than that he wants to raise taxes on the "rich."  The rest of the strategy is simple:  Destroy Romney and Ryan.  

 

In PO, it's much the same.  There has been little defense of Obama, nor many cases made for giving him another four years.  So this thread is more for our liberal members:  Can you and will you make the case for Obama's reelection?  What are his accomplishments?  What does he plan to do in the net four years that you support?   I'm interested to see who will make an actual case based on Obama's record and plans for the future, and who will resort to attacking and vilifying the Romney/Ryan ticket.  

 

Who's up first? 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Great to see you back after such a short banning for abusive behavior...

 

 

Oh dear the irony...

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...listen to why your politics are so far removed from reality.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...in order to lick the soles of the feet of the late Steve Jobs. You and the farts that control you are not only an embarrassment to Americas history of an independent and free spirit, you are a virus on the rights and liberties of all men, across all nations, who seek justice and life on this terribly wounded planet.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post
 
Great to see you back after such a short banning for abusive behaviour 

 

LOL.  Abusive?  Calling someone an idiot or a-hole or a whore when they act like all of those things?  Those may be punishable under the rules (while apparently insulting huge swaths of the population is not)...but they are not "abusive."  

 

 

Quote:
and willingly offering to listen to why your politics are so far removed from reality.

 

Anyone that makes that statement obviously has no idea what my politics are.  

 

 

 

Quote:
From global warming denial- keeping massive tax breaks for oil whilst strangling solar and wind and all the other clean energies. To massively increasing the nations debt, in order to lick the soles of the feet of the late Steve Jobs.

 

1.  Global Warming is far from proven.  I know you don't like it...but that's the truth.

 

2.  I don't support keeping "massive tax breaks" for oil companies, though it would be nice if you'd support your statement by ID'ing what those tax breaks ARE.  

 

3.  "Strangling" clean energy companies means not giving failing ones billions in taxpayer dollars? lol.gif

 

4.  Obama has increased debt more than all other Presidents...combined.  Hello?  

 

 

Quote:
 You and the farts that control you are not only an embarrassment to Americas history of an independent and free spirit, you are a virus on the rights and liberties of all men, across all nations, who seek justice and life on this terribly wounded planet. The Tea Party be damned. Those who are willing to stand up, we will gain our freedom.

 

Reported.  And thanks for refusing to answer the prompt in the OP.  


Edited by SDW2001 - 8/13/12 at 6:59am
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 66

So I guess there is no one willing to make the case for Obama's reelection. The trend is clear. There are a half dozen threads attempting to demonize Romney and Ryan but no threads that can explain why Obama should be reelected or what he has accomplished.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So I guess there is no one willing to make the case for Obama's reelection. The trend is clear. There are a half dozen threads attempting to demonize Romney and Ryan but no threads that can explain why Obama should be reelected or what he has accomplished.

 

Didn't Hands make a compelling case? Oh wait, no. He didn't.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #6 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Didn't Hands make a compelling case? Oh wait, no. He didn't.

 

Lay off Hands. He's busy being abusive while accusing others of being abusive. I imagine it's hard work to be that hypocritical.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Reported.  And thanks for refusing to answer the prompt in the OP.  

WTF!

What the f*uck for?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #8 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

WTF!
What the f*uck for?

 

Here's a hint:

 

 

Quote:
You and the farts that control you are not only an embarrassment to Americas history of an independent and free spirit, you are a virus...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Didn't Hands make a compelling case? Oh wait, no. He didn't.

I guess a denialist would say that.

There's a long list of things Obama's done that are right. I haven't had time yet to go through them all here now, but throughout his term you'll find many things he's done that I support. That's a lot of reading, especially if you read all the links.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #10 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I guess a denialist would say that.

 

What is a "denialist"? Is this simply your pejorative term for people who disagree with your interpretation of things?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

There's a long list of things Obama's done that are right. I haven't had time yet to go through them all here now, but throughout his term you'll find many things he's done that I support.

 

Just so I'm clear: Is you supporting it synonymous with it being right? If so, why?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


I guess a denialist would say that.
There's a long list of things Obama's done that are right. I haven't had time yet to go through them all here now, but throughout his term you'll find many things he's done that I support. That's a lot of reading, especially if you read all the links.

 

You've wasted two opportunities now to actually respond to the OP and have instead chosen to use ad-hominem attacks against two forum members.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #12 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

You've wasted two opportunities now to actually respond to the OP and have instead chosen to use ad-hominem attacks against two forum members.

No I haven't, and besides SDW's no saint, as has been shown by his repeated banning. You would have thought that even he could learn to stop calling people fucking* assholes* all the time. 

 

On top of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and killing Osama Bin Laden-

 

 

Major legislation

[edit]2009

[edit]2010

[edit]2011

[edit]2012

 

Here's some more good reading- http://obamaachievements.org/list

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #13 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

On top of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize...

 

lol.gif

 

Good one!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No I haven't, and besides SDW's no saint, as has been shown by his repeated banning. You would have thought that even he could learn to stop calling people fucking* assholes* all the time. 

 

On top of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and killing Osama Bin Laden-

 

 

Major legislation

[edit]2009

[edit]2010

[edit]2011

[edit]2012

 

Here's some more good reading- http://obamaachievements.org/list

 

That's nothing more than litany of legislation Many have been a disaster or ineffective, such as the stimulus bill, Dodd-Frank, Budget Control Act and Obamacare.  I'm asking what are his accomplishments.  What results can you point to?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 66

Dodd Frank:

 

Propose meaningful financial reforms.

Republicans do their best to underfund it and limit its scope and enforcement.

Final bill does a decent job, but doesn't have the teeth it should have.

Republicans claim bill is ineffective and an example of Obama's failing.

 

 

Gee.  That's the Republican playbook since Obama took office.

 

Sabotage America.

Blame Obama.

Hope the country doesn't notice or forgets quickly.

 

Well, I remember that traitorous behavior.  I won't let you sweep it under the rug and forget it, either.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Dodd Frank:

 

Propose meaningful financial reforms.

Republicans do their best to underfund it and limit its scope and enforcement.

Final bill does a decent job, but doesn't have the teeth it should have.

Republicans claim bill is ineffective and an example of Obama's failing.

 

 

Gee.  That's the Republican playbook since Obama took office.

 

Sabotage America.

Blame Obama.

Hope the country doesn't notice or forgets quickly.

 

Well, I remember that traitorous behavior.  I won't let you sweep it under the rug and forget it, either.

 

lol.gif  Dodd-Frank accomplishes nothing.  Wait...strike that.  It made things worse for consumers.  One provision, for example, limits transaction fees on credit cards (cutting them approximately in half).  Did the banks sit back and take it?  Of course not.  They started charging new fees and raising other existing fees.  Surprise, surprise...especially to the Bill's namesakes, who personally helped contribute to our problems to begin with.  

 

The notion that the GOP "sabotaged America" is just a combination of Democratic talking points.  Embracing that notion requires an unbelievable amount of partisanship, as well as accepting the notion that Democrat actions (legislation) would have any positive impact on the economy.  Case in point:  Obama's "jobs" bill and tax proposals.  

 

I'm sorry, BR, but there is no way around the fact that our tax and regulatory systems are a nightmare that punish success, are unfair, and bad for the country.  Add to this the fact that we are spending over a trillion dollars more than we take in. Add further our broken entitlement systems.  Those are the problems, and no amount of "jobs bills" and taxing the rich are going to fix them.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 66
Thread Starter 

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to make a case for Obama's reelection.  So far we have a pointless and even laughable list of legislation and "things would be much worse" without him.  Next?  No?  

 

Of course "no."  That's because there is absolutely no basis for giving this man another four years. None. Zero.  He's an incompetent, weak and dishonest leader who's record is now hung around his neck.  The economy is terrible.  Unemployment is higher than when he took office.  He's added trillions in debt.  And all we hear from our resident Obamatrons is "Bush wrecked the economy" and "Republicans are obstructionists!"   It must be something to be both morally and intellectually bankrupt.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 66

SDW, you are hopeless.  You hate everything Obama does and won't give him credit for anything.  There was a long list of bills that were passed--many of them were quite good for the country.  You refuse to believe any of it.  This is religious thinking at its finest.  You have a pre-established conclusion and deny all evidence that might contradict it.  This thread is pointless.


Edited by BR - 8/14/12 at 3:22am

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #19 of 66

SDW is narrow minded completely and ignoring all the pertinent facts which is true about Obama and implicating that Romney is the savior of the country if he gets elected  with all the right solutions.
 

post #20 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW, you are hopeless.  You hate everything Obama does and won't give him credit for anything.  There was a long list of bills that were passed--many of them were quite good for the country.  You refuse to believe any of it.  This is religious thinking at its finest.  You have a pre-established conclusion and deny all evidence that might contradict it.  This thread is pointless.

 

1.  Which bills were good for the country? 

2.  Why were they good?  What did they do or accomplish?  

3.  Demonstrate these bills were Obama initiatives.  

4.  A thread asking people to make a case for Obama's reelection is POINTLESS?  ROTFL!  lol.gif   

 

The fact is, BR, that you cannot make a case.  No one can.  That's because the country is far worse off than it was four years ago.  Unemployment is higher.  Growth is nearly stagnant.  Deficits are 4X higher.  We have over $5 Trillion in new debt in under four years.  The stimulus failed.  Social Security and Medicare are worse off.  Government is even less transparent.   We have a President who has invoked exec privilege over document he claims he's never seen.  We have a President who played venture capitalist with taxpayer money, invested in politically connected "green energy" firms--costing taxpayers billions. We have a President dedicated to putting the fossil fuel industry of business.  We have a President who openly ignores federal law.  We have a President who simply makes his own laws over the express will go Congress.  We have a President who repeatedly lied about Obamacare being a tax.  We have a President whose campaign calls his opponent a murderer and felon.  And so far, we have a President who has proposed nothing for the future other than more taxes for the rich.  

 

So go ahead, BR.  Show me where I'm wrong.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

SDW is narrow minded completely and ignoring all the pertinent facts which is true about Obama and implicating that Romney is the savior of the country if he gets elected  with all the right solutions.
 

 

I doubt anyone sees Romney as America's saviour. America has two truly bad options for this year's presidential elections.

 

The best idea is to pick the least bad option in November, and then continue working hard locally to change the direction of the country.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #22 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

I doubt anyone sees Romney as America's saviour. America has two truly bad options for this year's presidential elections.

 

The best idea is to pick the least bad option in November, and then continue working hard locally to change the direction of the country.

 

The least bad is still bad. I don't want bad. I want good.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #23 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The least bad is still bad. I don't want bad. I want good.

 

We all do (though, admittedly, we probably all define it differently). The point is that "good" may not really be an option at this juncture.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

We all do (though, admittedly, we probably all define it differently). The point is that "good" may not really be an option at this juncture.

 

I'm a firm believer that good is always an option.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm a firm believer that good is always an option.

 

OK. In the specific decision that is going to be made regarding who will be the next president of the United States, what is the "good" option?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

OK. In the specific decision that is going to be made regarding who will be the next president of the United States, what is the "good" option?

 

The decision that is going to be made, or the decision that should be made?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

The decision that is going to be made, or the decision that should be made?

 

Maybe we should start with what a "good" decision/choice is.

 

But let's remember that this particular decision (and others like it), by its structure, is not an individual decision (though it is a composite or aggregate of a bunch of individual decisions), it is a collective decision.

 

So what is a "good" decision, generally?

 

Is a good decision a decision/choice (by whatever means it is arrived at...i.e., individual or collective) that decision that results in the best outcome given the options available?

 

Note that there might have been a better option, but one that was not realistically or feasibly available at that time.

 

For example:

 

Let's say I'm hungry, homeless and have no money. Someone offers me something to eat: Either a spam sandwich or a bean taco. I HATE both. I dislike the taste of both. I'd love to have a steak with baked potato and asparagus. However, I'm still hungry. What are my options?

 

a) Continue being hungry

b) Eat the spam sandwich

c) Eat the bean taco

 

What's the "good" choice here?

 

Now let's make it a collective choice: A room of hundred people...all hungry, homeless and penniless. There will only be one kind of food served: Either spam sandwiches or bean tacos. Not both. It will depend on how everyone votes. The majority of those voting will decide the food to be served.

 

What is the "good" choice now?

 

I'll tell you which I think it is...it is the food choice that is least bad for me or most beneficial. Perhaps the bean taco (which I still hate) offers slightly more nutrition to my body than the spam sandwich. Perhaps it enables me to live for another day and, perhaps, enables me to have enough energy to work toward that steak dinner.

 

Both choices suck, but if they are all you have, you take the least bad one. Granted, it can sometimes be difficult to discern which that is. Especially in politics where people lie and and say one thing to get elected and do something else once elected. In politics the decisions are, of course, much bigger and more complicated. The decision about president doesn't stand on its own, it relates to who is in Congress as well for example.

 

Is Romney a better choice than Obama? I don't know the answer to that. It may, for example, depend on who is control of Congress after all of this. It might be, in my opinion, better for us to have a Democrat as president if the Republicans control congress in the hopes that these two factions will stand in each other's way enough to do less damage. On the other hand, this structure also cannot undo things that might need to be undone and...they might get together and "compromise" to do stupid things that they both agree on.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/14/12 at 3:16pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #28 of 66
Thread Starter 

MJ,

 

While we disagree on how "good" an option Romney is, we're in total agreement about making a choice.  I have a lot of respect for Jazz, but on this one issue I just don't get what I see as his stubborn refusal to accept that our choices are who they are, so to speak.  It's simply the way the system works, at least at present.  I'm all for trying to change that system so that there is greater choice in terms of candidates.  I also wish that Romney was far more aggressive or even different on many issues.  These includes a total reform of the tax code and dramatic cuts in government spending.  From our previous discussions, I know that both you and Jazz would like a vastly different military policy/foreign policy.  

 

The point is that none of that alters what our choice is in November.  There is no viable third party candidate.  The next President will be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney unless something extremely dramatic and unforeseeable occurs.  Jazz's response to this has been to 1) Refuse to accept that political reality, arguing there really are more choices and/or 2) Claiming that it simply doesn't matter which man is elected.  To me, this is a "take all my marbles and go home" approach.  That's his right, of course, but to me, it simply doesn't make sense.  Right or wrong, the President has enormous power, from his traditional roles and Commander-in-Chief and Head of State, to his powers as Chief Executive.  The latter includes appointing the Administration, justices, issuing executive orders, etc...all of which have a dramatic impact on our lives.  He also directs the legislative agenda, which has perhaps even a greater effect.  The bottom line is that the choice does matter.  

 

Again, both of you speak in terms of building movements and public support.  I completely agree on the importance of doing just that, even if we disagree in certain areas and on certain issues.  But in doing that, we can't ignore that our immediate future will be impacted by this choice.  Obama will lead us even further away from the ideals you both tend to espouse.  Romney is, at least, going to be better.  Not perfect or close to it, but better than Obama.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 66

Who Romney he will lead this country down the road to hell with his economic plans and screw ups on foreign policies which he knows nothing about.The middle class and poor  it will be detrimental if he becomes president and especially Seniors.
 

post #30 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama will lead us even further away from the ideals you both tend to espouse.  Romney is, at least, going to be better.  Not perfect or close to it, but better than Obama.  

 

Maybe. As I alluded to in my previous post and in previous discussions on this subject, the President is not the entirety of the equation. There is a scenario that could involve Obama as President that could be a net good for the country. That scenario is where the Republicans have control of Congress.

 

Though it is still more complex than this (e.g., Congress split in different ways, etc.), these are the options:

 

a. Romney + Democratic-controlled Congress

b. Romney + Republican-controlled Congress

 

c. Obama + Democratic-controlled Congress

d. Obama + Republican-controlled Congress

 
My opinion about these options is this:
 
a. Bad - Congress controls budget, etc.
b. Unsure/Possibly best option if the Republicans have started to abandon their neo-con ways and returned to fiscal conservatism
c. Terrible - We've already seen this
d. Unsure/Possibly best option if the Republicans and the President are more bent on obstructing each other and would do less harm this way
 
I actually think d is a real possibility. In fact I rank the probabilities this way currently:
 
d, b, c, a
 
Again...the splitting of Congress is not even factored into this.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 66

There is, of course, another choice: don't vote.

 

The Only Choice on November 6th

 

 

Quote:
The critical problem we face today is the same one all mankind has faced: the State, those monopolists who claim the right to break the laws that they make and enforce. How to restrain them is the critical problem of all sound political thinking. Making matters worse, this gang now has a monopoly on the money and the ability to print it, and they are abusing that power at our expense.
 
How does voting change the situation? Neither of the candidates for president wants to do anything about the problem. On the contrary, they want to make it worse. This is for a reason. The State owns the “democratic process” as surely as it owns the Departments of Labor and Defense and uses it in ways that benefit the State and no one else.
 
On the other hand, we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.
 
You might say that this is ineffective. But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.
 
This year especially there is no lesser of two evils. There is socialism or fascism. The true American spirit should guide every voter to have no part of either.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

There is, of course, another choice: don't vote.

 

The Only Choice on November 6th

 

Yes, as an individual, that is an option we all have. But it ignores the fact that a collective decision is going to be made.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Yes, as an individual, that is an option we all have. But it ignores the fact that a collective decision is going to be made.

 

I don't think it ignores that fact at all. It's an acknowledgement of the reality that the collective decision will not be a "good" decision for everyone affected by it. It's a withdrawal of support for an inherently flawed system - a statement of belief that such a system cannot fix itself from within.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I don't think it ignores that fact at all. It's an acknowledgement of the reality that the collective decision will not be a "good" decision for everyone affected by it.

 

This may well be true of course. It may well be that both options are exactly the same. This is hard to know with certainty a priori. We make educated guesses at best.

 

I would argue that if it is at all possible that one choice is even a little better than the other, a vote for it should be considered.

 

In the mean time, I certainly believe that we ought to be doing our level best to directly (or indirectly by supporting...financially and otherwise) educating, informing and convincing more people to see things our way in order to (as trumptman has put it) "move the needle" in such a way the more people are willing to vote for a "good" option so that a "good" candidate will actually be put forward.

 

That's working within the system as it exists. You may be right that the system is so far gone that it is beyond repair from "within." I believe you may be right. However, we need to be a bit careful about what we defined as "within." What I mean by this is that "within" can mean trying to educate, inform and convince more people to see things our way in a way that starts turning the ship in a different direction.

 

The fundamental problem that we have is that it has taken us generations to get where we are now. Generations of government-schooled and mainstream media propagandized folks who've been convinced that what we have going on now is ok. It's going to take a lot of effort and energy and time to change this.

 

Other options include:

 

- Armed revolt and revolution. But you still need a sufficient number of people to go along with this.

- Attempt to carve out some degree of freedom within this ocean of growing socialism and fascism. Possibly geographically with the US or in another area that is more likely and more open to the ideas of liberty.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/15/12 at 8:57am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Who Romney he will lead this country down the road to hell with his economic plans

 

Uh, yeah...the ones that cut taxes and new regulations and get us on a road to stop spending $1 Trillion+ per year more than we take in.  Speaking of which, aren't we on the road to hell now?

 

 

Quote:
and screw ups on foreign policies which he knows nothing about.

 

What foreign policy experience did Obama have?  What about Biden, who wanted (for example) to break Iraq into three separate countries?  What about promising Vladimir Putin that he'd give away the farm on missile defense after the next election?  Apologizing for America on foreign soil?  Insulting Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on an open mic and in the oval office?  Losing Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood (a confirmed terrorist organization), and then inviting them to the White House?  Obama and Biden have been a disaster on foreign policy.  And you're worried about Romney.  lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
The middle class and poor  it will be detrimental if he becomes president and especially Seniors

 

That is simply false.  The middle class has been hurt most by President Obama and his policies.  The welfare roles have grown massively since Obama was elected...what do you think that means?  It means more people are poor.  Obama cut medicare by over $700 Billion to pay for the disaster that is Obamacare.  And once again, you're worried about Romney.

 

Also, I notice that you have not made a case for Obama's reelection.  Who wudda thunk it?  

 

 

.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 66

Quote jazzguru- "I don't think it ignores that fact at all. It's an acknowledgement of the reality that the collective decision will not be a "good" decision for everyone affected by it. It's a withdrawal of support for an inherently flawed system - a statement of belief that such a system cannot fix itself from within."

 

 

We hold very different positions on most things, but I agree with you here. There are too many compromises to be made in voting for the better of two evils for me. I've voted strategically before and I won't do it again. There are better ways to change things. Indeed not having someone to vote for who can possibly win motivates one, instead of giving a false sense of achievement and indeed giving legitimacy to a corrupt government. 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #37 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

There is, of course, another choice: don't vote.

 

The Only Choice on November 6th

 

 

 

MJ stated it better than I.  A choice will be made regardless.  If you choose not to vote, that's certainly your right.  I certainly don't think it accomplishes anything other than making one possibly feel good about himself.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

I don't think it ignores that fact at all. It's an acknowledgement of the reality that the collective decision will not be a "good" decision for everyone affected by it. It's a withdrawal of support for an inherently flawed system - a statement of belief that such a system cannot fix itself from within.

 

Are we just talking about the Federal Government, or are we talking about ALL government?  As MJ points out, other than trying to change the system from within, there aren't many good options.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

This may well be true of course. It may well be that both options are exactly the same. This is hard to know with certainty a priori. We make educated guesses at best.

 

I would argue that if it is at all possible that one choice is even a little better than the other, a vote for it should be considered.

 

In the mean time, I certainly believe that we ought to be doing our level best to directly (or indirectly by supporting...financially and otherwise) educating, informing and convincing more people to see things our way in order to (as trumptman has put it) "move the needle" in such a way the more people are willing to vote for a "good" option so that a "good" candidate will actually be put forward.

 

That's working within the system as it exists. You may be right that the system is so far gone that it is beyond repair from "within." I believe you may be right. However, we need to be a bit careful about what we defined as "within." What I mean by this is that "within" can mean trying to educate, inform and convince more people to see things our way in a way that starts turning the ship in a different direction.

 

Other options include:

 

- Armed revolt and revolution. But you still need a sufficient number of people to go along with this.

- Attempt to carve out some degree of freedom within this ocean of growing socialism and fascism. Possibly geographically with the US or in another area that is more likely and more open to the ideas of liberty.

 

 

100% agreed.  Well put.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote jazzguru- "I don't think it ignores that fact at all. It's an acknowledgement of the reality that the collective decision will not be a "good" decision for everyone affected by it. It's a withdrawal of support for an inherently flawed system - a statement of belief that such a system cannot fix itself from within."

 

 

We hold very different positions on most things, but I agree with you here. There are too many compromises to be made in voting for the better of two evils for me. I've voted strategically before and I won't do it again. There are better ways to change things. Indeed not having someone to vote for who can possibly win motivates one, instead of giving a false sense of achievement and indeed giving legitimacy to a corrupt government. 

 

What ways?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I would argue that if it is at all possible that one choice is even a little better than the other, a vote for it should be considered.

 

I agree - we should seek to understand what our options are and consider each of them thoughtfully. But we're dealing with subjective terms like "better" and "good". These mean different things to each individual. From my perspective, any perceived benefit of a Romney presidency over an Obama presidency is so insignificant, so trivial, that the option is undesirable to me.

 

 

Quote:

In the mean time, I certainly believe that we ought to be doing our level best to directly (or indirectly by supporting...financially and otherwise) educating, informing and convincing more people to see things our way in order to (as trumptman has put it) "move the needle" in such a way the more people are willing to vote for a "good" option so that a "good" candidate will actually be put forward.

 

Also agreed. And each individual must determine whether continually voting for the "lesser of two evils" is an effective way to "move the needle". From my perspective, it isn't. At least it hasn't been in my brief lifetime.

 

 

Quote:

That's working within the system as it exists. You may be right that the system is so far gone that it is beyond repair from "within." I believe you may be right. However, we need to be a bit careful about what we defined as "within." What I mean by this is that "within" can mean trying to educate, inform and convince more people to see things our way in a way that starts turning the ship in a different direction.

 

In fairness, it was Lew Rockwell in the article I linked to who was suggesting the system doesn't deserve our support. But it's an idea that appeals to me.

 

I take "within" - in the context of voting - to mean voting for leaders and hoping they will wield the massive amount of power the government has acquired for "good", or relinquish that power back to the people. It takes a very strong, principled, and yes "good" person to withstand the temptation to use that power for personal gain. Frankly, I don't think I completely trust any mortal man with that responsibility - not even Ron Paul, not even myself.

 

So...where does that leave me? Asking a lot of questions and continuing to seek knowledge. :-)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

We hold very different positions on most things, but I agree with you here. There are too many compromises to be made in voting for the better of two evils for me. I've voted strategically before and I won't do it again. There are better ways to change things. Indeed not having someone to vote for who can possibly win motivates one, instead of giving a false sense of achievement and indeed giving legitimacy to a corrupt government. 

 

I think we probably agree on more things than we realize, Hands.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Case for Obama's Reelection