Why I am not Voting Obama

@snood,

snood wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Quote:
It is the Republican plan to obstruct every move Obama makes, no matter what it costs the nation. That is plain and obvious. Plus, they clutter the dialog with birther and other irelevant chatter. Remove that from the equation and we still have a president who drags his feet when supposedly pushing an agenda.

It has yet to be removed from the equation so you have nothing to measure him with.

I was going to say that. But it feels like Ed has made a decision that is impervious to reason.

I read the situation differently than you. Thus, I am impervious to reason.
I think that people like myself want also to send a message to the Republican Party as well. No more business as usual.

1 Reply

Oust Obama.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I read the situation differently than you. Thus, I am impervious to reason.

I hope that regardless of how you read the situation, you are not impervious to reason.

edgarblythe wrote:

I think that people like myself want also to send a message to the Republican Party as well. No more business as usual.

You are sending the opposite signal. The Republicans don't want your vote, they want to force you out of the voting public while energizing their own base. For example, they don't want to court minority voters, they want to implement laws that impose impediments to minority voting. Just because the Republicans offer up a few nutty candidates doesn't mean that their strategists are stupid. They know they will never have your vote so they'll settle for your half vote which is effectively what failing to vote or voting third party is. If there is a third party candidate that better meets your ideals than those in the two main parties vote that direction, but not voting sends a very clear message to the Republican party - that their techniques are working and they should do more of the same. I think that is the opposite of "no more business as usual."

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Really? Frank and c.i. referred to themselves as poor sots?

Me too!

JTT...obviously you were speaking figuratively...but I do not understand your point even in a figurative sense. Could you flesh that out a bit. I'd love to comment on it.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

You can post things I agree with, like these, but it does not change the fact the nation is steadily sliding to the right.

Wait, what?

Overt racism took a brief uptick after Obama was elected, but it seems to be subsiding, now.

Gays can serve openly in the military.

Same-sex marriage is gaining traction.

Do you remember the blue laws? No retail on Sunday? Gone. No alcohol on Sunday? Gone.

The push for teaching evolution in Texas schools failed.

Women are still under attack, but I think that's more a reaction to their success.

That's a bone I have to pick with the original article you posted. He said something like, "things are getting worse."

Thinking back on the 80's, I have to ask, "how, exactly, are things worse now?"

1 Reply

Things have gotten worse since Obama began his rule and they won't
start getting better until after he is voted out of power this fall.

0 Replies

Just saw this thread, certainly expected to have a lot to say, but really, it's all been said already. I thumbs-upped the ones I agreed with (and did a lot of thumbs-upping).

1 Reply

@sozobe,

I appreciate the thumbs up, thanks!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I plan to either vote third party or ride it out. They can no longer count on my vote, just because they sound less loony than the other guys.

It's better to get nothing you want than get 70-80% of what you want?

What world do you guys come from? I am literally baffled by this.Cycloptichorn

I think Edgar is coming from a world that remembers American history. While America has always had a two-party system, the two parties haven't always been the same. (Ask any Federalist or Whig if you can find one.) At the moment, both parties stand significantly to the right of the median American voter on the issues that matter most to voters. So why shouldn't Americans mix up their two-party system once more, establish a party to the left of the Democrats, and ditch either of the others?

If Edgar believes it's time to do just that, the mixing-up process has to start somewhere. A good place to start is that liberal voters in solidly Red or solidly Blue states support a left-wing third party instead of the Democrats. That's just what Edgar is doing, and I approve of that. (Not that he requires my approval.) He won't change the outcome in the electoral college, but will send a signal that Democrats cannot take the liberal vote for granted anymore.

2 Replies

Why would any sane American vote to keep this Marxist in the White House four more years?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Yep, I get it and support his decision too. I hope he finds a third party candidate that he can connect with and vote accordingly. America Elects may have a significant impact on this years results. Those on the right can already vote for Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket. He's got a track record and isn't a loon. If America Elects comes up with a liberal alternative then this thing is wide open --- something I'm quite excited about.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I live in a state that automatically votes Republican. So, my vote is practically non existent.

This is a point that your opponents in this thread seem to miss. They react as if your choice has terrible consequences for liberal causes. But it does not. You're in Texas. It makes no difference at all to Obama's reelection whether Texas Democrats lose by five percent or by ten. It does make a difference to Texas Greens or Socialists if they end up with one percent of the popular vote or five.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

He later clarifies that he'd vote the same way even if lived in a state where it did matter, though.

2 Replies

Only a 'Good Government Subject' would vote for Obama this fall, are you a 'Good Government Subject'?

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

He later clarifies that he'd vote the same way even if lived in a state where it did matter, though.

On the third hand, neither you nor Cycloptichorn made that distinction when Edgar first announced his intentions. If anybody responded to him that "this is okay for you in Texas, but wouldn't be in Florida or Ohio", I missed it. (This has been known to happen.)

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Right, because he feels that Obama and the Dems have left him behind. He's looking for a liberal who will stick to his guns and fight for liberal causes. Obama was never a far-left liberal, no matter how much the R's tried to paint him as a socialist.

1 Reply

@JPB,

No, Obama isn't a socialists, he is a Marxist.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
I live in a state that automatically votes Republican. So, my vote is practically non existent.

This is a point that your opponents in this thread seem to miss. They react as if your choice has terrible consequences for liberal causes. But it does not. You're in Texas. It makes no difference at all to Obama's reelection whether Texas Democrats lose by five percent or by ten. It does make a difference to Texas Greens or Socialists if they end up with one percent of the popular vote or five.

Sure it does! There are plenty of Democrats in Texas. If more of them voted, instead of insisting their vote means nothing, the Dems would have a shot to win that large and important state. Even if they only come close, it forces the candidates to campaign there, and address their needs for once, instead of just taking it for granted.

In 2008 turnout for the prez election was only 54% of eligible voters. That means there's potential for the D's to catch up - if their own people will actually support them, instead of sitting at home on their thumbs.

re: the third party thing: I'm not against people working to build a more liberal party, IF, they are actually DOING something to do that. Just stating that you won't vote for the guy in office who is kinda liberal, and then doing nothing, doesn't forward anything new in this country, and only serves to advance the cause of Conservatism.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I hadn't said anything about it until just recently on this thread. (After the clarification.)

Just checked back on RJB's thread, I posted about other things but not that.

JPB, if I thought a protest vote worked, I'd be for it. I don't think it works.

I had this argument with people in 2004 re: Nader, and I still think that those who could have affected the election with their vote -- not the ones in a state where the result is preordained -- did the nation a disservice by allowing Bush to be elected for another four years.

That wasn't abstract, that was real, and had real effects on the country and the world.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Full disclosure: I live in New Jersey, a solidly-enough Blue State in federal elections. If I had a vote in November 2012, which I probably won't, I would be looking at third-party candidates myself. When presented with two bad choices, we all have a limit where we stop accepting those choices, stop settling for the lesser evil among them, and start looking for better ones. We're just haggling about where that point is.

2 Replies

Why I am not Voting Obama

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know