The Case for Obama's Reelection

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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

Oh dear the irony...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

...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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

WTF!
What the f*uck for?

Here's a hint:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

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-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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

Good one!

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.

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.

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.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

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.

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.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

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

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

The Only Choice on November 6th

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

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.

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.

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. :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

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.