Why You Should Still Vote for Barack Obama

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, I won't lie - if the Republicans elected Hitler to the White House, maybe I would also expect Congressional Democrats to stretch the letter of the law to breaking. But I wouldn't advocate this for anything less. So do Republicans not balance the integrity of the process against the substantive proposals, or do they just really think Obama is fairly equivalent to Hitler - that the situation is that dire?

To what are you referring with "stretch the letter of the law to breaking?"

[MercenaryChef]

I'll vote for the nuttiest motherfucker I can find.

keep me in mind then.

if the Republicans elected Hitler to the White House

i think i lead this guy in the polls in democratic states.

[Guest Raidne]

To what are you referring with "stretch the letter of the law to breaking?"

Refuse to give up or down votes on appointments, refuse to pass a budget, etc., etc. The Constitution doesn't compel Congress to actually do its job, and in fact the absence of any language like the pocket veto stuff kind of indicates that this is intentional, but when you can't get a budget for an entire year, the system is breaking down. And they're not asking for anything. That's what is so maddening.

[S John]

This sort of doom-complex never ceases to amuse me. What is it about this generation that has caused us to be convinced we are living in some sort of movie, where these years are Important Because I Live in Them? You are almost unfathomably lucky to have been born in this country at this point in history. It is a gift that was handed to you for free, and 99 percent of all humans who have ever lived weren't given it. If you look around you and see hell, get your eyes checked.

This feeling of "everything sucks and it keeps getting worse" is part of human nature more than it is a politcal reality. We are talking moneys sitting on a rock falling through space, how easy is life supposed to be? In 5,000 BC I'm sure they were talking about how much better things were in 5,050 BC. Every country is always going to the dogs, and everything was always better when everyone was a kid. This is a biological phenomenon more than a political one, its the way people work for some reason. Don't start believing this is reality.

First of all, you do have a point. There is no arguing that we've built a society in which the standard of living is better than most of the rest of the current world and probably also better than anything in the entire history of our species. And you're right, people will find something to complain about no matter how good they have it.

However, I wouldn't look at it in terms of 'its human nature to be dissatisfied no matter how good we have it', instead I would say that its human nature to strive for things to be better no matter how bad or good things are.

I think that the human mind is always going to be looking for ways to improve things. Its not like after the Wright brothers first flight humans threw our collective hands in the air and said, 'welp, congrats everyone, looks like we got flight out of the way!' No, we took the design and made it better and better and better. That is the natural progression of things, imo. And we want the same out of society as a whole.

There are obviously differing opinions on which direction we should go in order to build a government that best allows us to advance socially, technologically, and culturally. Some think less is more, some think more is more. But, I think one thing American voters can agree on is that we all want America to be a great place to live. And I think that we would agree that, for the most part, it is a great place to live. But that doesn't mean that we don't all have ideas to make things better. Creating and maintaining a positive environment in which we can thrive is what motivates us at the voter level - both to get out and vote in the first place and as an influence on who we vote for. I think that is almost universally true of the American voter.

But, unfortunately for us, I don't see a lot of political integrity in this country. The voter votes for whomever he or she thinks is best for their district/state/country - the elected official then does whatever they think is best for when it comes time for re-election. In some cases that system works - representative wants to please their constituents, so they do x,y, or z so they have something to show for it when its time to keep their job. Fair enough. But it does also lend itself to a lot of finger pointing and spinelessness when the going gets tough. Seems like folks are afraid to take responsibility and, y'know, lead because the consequences of failure are loss of your job. They'd rather tiptoe around, never getting anything substantial done, while being quick to take credit and even quicker to lay blame. These are not traits that excite anyone other than the political junkies of the world, but they are traits that most of our politicians possess. Its not hard, as a voter, to get sick of heading to the polls all full of hope and optimism - with good intentions too - and see the same bullshit repeat itself over and over. I'm tired of voting for these douche-bags. All of them. We already have checks and balances built into the system, these stalemates for the sake of scoring points are childish and selfish on the part of our elected officials.

Maybe we should just tweak Raidne's voter system to apply to politicians. Every election 10 qualified constituents are selected at random to run for the office against the incumbent. Kinda like jury duty. Career politicians can suck my balls.

[ljkeane]

Considering who you voted for last time, I'm not sure that "right side of the spectrum" applies except as it relates to this forum. Not trying to be mean, but I know some folks on the right who may sit this one out, and it's not because they perceive the GOP as being too conservative.

Well to be fair Scot is pretty much a classical liberal I'd say so his overall position is not particularly well defined by the left/right distinction as it's currently used but since in my experience people generally describe their political affiliation in terms of their positions on economic policy I don't think Scot calling himself right of centre is particularly unreasonable. Which is incidentally why I find the idea of Chataya being moderate a little odd.

[Verboten]

Well, I won't lie - if the Republicans elected Hitler to the White House, maybe I would also expect Congressional Democrats to stretch the letter of the law to breaking. But I wouldn't advocate this for anything less. So do Republicans not balance the integrity of the process against the substantive proposals, or do they just really think Obama is fairly equivalent to Hitler - that the situation is that dire?

Verb, I don't agree with some of Ini's assessment of Obama, but his attitude - that he should vote for a liberal third party candidate if he wants to see the Democrats become more liberal - is unquestionably sound, and is more in line with "working toward the ideals of the country" than anything you are saying (which, apologies, is largely totally irrelevant shit about the wonders of the Canadian school system that fails to in any way differentiate it from American school system).

Over a few threads now, after observing your opinions on a few topics, I can only say that you have really been totally and perfectly brainwashed into believing that the United States is some perfectly polarized Other to Canada such that you can't even talk about what we are or aren't without reference to your own country on the face of your posts.

Shit, I thought only Americans did that. ;)

I wasn't talking about the Canadian school system, my school was actually using a teaching method that no other school in the province used. I was trying to explain why I found his view appalling, and that I reacted so badly because it is an attitude other Canadians have. I have this amazing ability to type before I think.

EDIT: Also I am fully aware that America is different from Canada and that I am largely ignorant about its current state, which is why I preface most of my comments with references to Canada.

EDIT II: Also you are making me picture the Great Other as an undead Ronald Reagan screaming about communists and feminazis.

[Ser Greguh]

Wow. Talk about being a prisoner of your own POV....

I'm not sure why it is impossible for some on both sides to believe that there are people who truly, honestly disagree with them about what is best for the country.

Of course I believe that there are people who truly, honestly disagree with me about what is best for the country. It just so happens that such people are not in charge of the GOP at the moment. Bush for example, for all his faults (and they were legion), sincerely believed that he was doing what was best. You would probably never believe it since in your brain you've condemned me to the fanatic's corner, but I always respected him for that (even if he was catastrophically wrong on most issues, and even if members of his inner circle were certainly guilty of High Treason, particularly regarding the issue of Valerie Plame).

It staggers the imagination, though, that anyone of even remotely discernible intelligence could describe what's been happening in Washington, since the midterm elections in particular, as "honest disagreement." It has been the Republicans' stated strategy, from day 1, that they were willing to sink the ship if it meant killing the captain. That's treasonous, plain and simple.

[MercenaryChef]

Refuse to give up or down votes on appointments, refuse to pass a budget, etc., etc. The Constitution doesn't compel Congress to actually do its job, and in fact the absence of any language like the pocket veto stuff kind of indicates that this is intentional, but when you can't get a budget for an entire year, the system is breaking down. And they're not asking for anything. That's what is so maddening.

my issue exactly.

obama's opponents have totally just given the finger to the american people and opted to not actually do their job so as to devalue the aims of the opposite side of the aisle and the president. they are seemingly more content to let things further slide into the shit and hopefully win the next election than to try to be part of the change. it is more important to be on the winning side than to be on the side of helping improve the lives of americans, the prosperity of the country and our global identitiy.

[drawkcabi]

It's possible to be disappointed in somebody, a parent, child, sibling, teacher, student, leader, and still have faith in them.

I agree with Triskele's statement that it's almost entirely the other side's fault. Believing this has me angry and wanting to vote against the Republicans out of sheer spite, but that's still not the only reason I'm voitng for Obama.

In 2008 I voted forObama because I had faith he could change things. But he did end up disappointing me because even with the Repubs out to get him he could have brought the fight to them harder and sooner, he could have played the game closer to the vest and not given away half the chips before the real betting even started.

I do think he's learned though. And I never stopped liking him or admiring him, bringing me back to my first sentence in this post, I still have faith in him. He's got my vote.

[The Progressive]

It might seems odd to fellow liberals but I'll vote for Obama not because of blind faith, salesmanship or integrity ............. but because I prefer results over ideology. It's kinda ironic that flow and I are seeing the same big pictures regarding how America has progressed compared to prior to 2008 and the incredible acccomplishments achieved so far. And that's why I'll vote the way I do and he'll vote the way he does.

I mean seriouslt, slashing defense budget is the sort of starve-the-beast strategy that Republicans are infamous for but I love it here. Consolidating federal agencies that duplicated each others? Sign me up! Cutting federal taxes for the middle class, woohoo! EPA regulations fading out coal-powered energy plants ................. that shit doesn't come every other decade you know.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Refuse to give up or down votes on appointments, refuse to pass a budget, etc., etc.

Raidne, the arguments over appointments have been going on for decades, and have been getting progressively worse. But that applies to both sides -- remember the Democrats refusing to give votes to all those GOP judicial nominations under Bush, leading to the "Gang of 14" compromise? Republicans have let most of his judicial nominees, including both Supreme Court nominations, go to an up or down vote.

And in terms of a budget, Republicans didn't control the House until 2011, and House Democrats didn't pass a budget at all in 2010.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/104635-dems-wont-pass-budget

They didn't even bring one up for a vote, because they didn't want to go on record prior to an election with something that was controversial. So were the Democrats committing "treason" by not passing a budget too, or is that just a standard that applies only to Republicans?

The Senate Democrats couldn't even agree within their caucus on a budget for the last two years -- either 2010 or 2011. And the budget Obama submitted at the beginning of 2011 didn't garner a single Democratic vote in the Democratic-majority Senate. Not one. How is that the fault of Republicans?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/163345-obama-budget-receives-zero-votes-in-senate-

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/02/senate-democrats-and-budget-still-missing-in-action/

In fact, the only budget passed by either House that last two years was passed by House Republicans this year. In other words, House Democrats didn't pass a budget in 2010, Senate Democrats didn't pass one in 2010 or 2011, but House Republicans did manage to pass one in 2011. Yet, you cite the Republicans for "refusing to pass a budget" and "stretching the letter of the law until breaking." And I should point out that the budget resolutions Democrats are have been unable/unwilling to pass are not even subject to the filibuster, so that can't be their excuse for failing to pass one in the Senate.

but when you can't get a budget for an entire year, the system is breaking down. And they're not asking for anything. That's what is so maddening.

Again, the only chamber of Congress controlled by the GOP the last years, the House of 2011, passed a budget. If Democrats weren't willing to pass that, them maybe they should have come up with one of their own to support. Which they didn't/couldn't.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The ACA is still not universal health care.

[The Progressive]

Preventing discrimination against people with prior medical-conditions sure is a nice thing though, don't you think so Scot?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

I'd rather see overall healthcare costs go down so that health insurance isn't a needed any longer making such coverage questions non issues.

[The Progressive]

Me too, Scot. Too bad you're against mandatory cap to reimburments though.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

To TM and Ini - The question I am trying to ask you here is why is this? Why would Obama promise to change these things and not do it? What conclusions about his character have you drawn from that fact?

1. He didn't believe them in the first place.

2. He changed his mind.

(1) Makes him a liar and (2) means he has been converted by the same people we hated for the last 8 years.

What Tormund mentioned is a legit gripe, but there is so much else that matters. It matters what our tax policy is. It matters what people we put on the Supreme Court. This is not a game.

Lets say that he appoints Supreme Court justices who will legitimize indefinite detention, torture, extrajudicial murder, warrantless search and seizure. All of these are things he robustly supports. If these things matter then you should absolutely not support Obama.

[Ser Greguh]

They didn't even bring one up for a vote, because they didn't want to go on record prior to an election with something that was controversial. So were the Democrats committing "treason" by not passing a budget too, or is that just a standard that applies only to Republicans?

This would be an example, described very clearly in the articles you link, of an impasse within the democratic party that resulted from arguing over a legitimate disagreement, combined with a hint of being unwilling to commit to controversial policies in an election year. For that matter, I'm not referring to the general inability to pass a budget as treasonous; that was just partisan obstructionist bullshit.

The debt ceiling debate, on the other hand, was another matter entirely.

[Howdyphillip]

Lets say that he appoints Supreme Court justices who will legitimize indefinite detention, torture, extrajudicial murder, warrantless search and seizure. All of these are things he robustly supports. If these things matter then you should absolutely not support Obama.

This is what could very weel keep me from voting for Obama again. It is a legitimate concern. Although I do not think there is a paper's worth of diststance between him and Romney on this issues. As a matter of fact, I don't really believe that there is all that much difference between the two candidates at all. One is slightly right of center, while the other is slightly left.

I have never voted for a Republican in my life, but if Romney runs on repealing NDAA, I would seriously consider it. I was also one that waited in line to vote for Obama for three hours last election.

[The Progressive]

http://www.thedailyb...is-critics.html

On topic...

I don't think many people here gonna like that article ................ the author used "unhinged" and "deluded" several times to describe impatient liberals, lol.

[Iskaral Pust]

I think the salesman/leader dichotomy is not the big issue here, which is basically a question of (in)sincerity.

I still believe in Obama's sincerity and good intentions and I think most of his original supporters do too. The big issue for Obama is the question of (in)competence. He raised expectations and did not deliver. Absolutely an intransigent opposition blocked every attempt in a campaign of purely political obstructionism. But that was pretty predictable. When we did not see the dawn of a glorious new age of bipartisanship, there was no Plan B. Healthcare was ultimately a pyrrhic victory -- it used up so much political capital to gain so little.

Even so, I have no intention of voting GOP (if I were eligible to vote). They have played a spoiler role for four years, to the detriment of the country, why on earth would I reward that? It creates a permanent incentive for scorched earth partisanship -- a moral hazard as large as TARP. It's not as if the GOP is offering any viable policies and even Romney would have to pander to the nutty fringe to some extent.

Our economic situation is effectively hostage to the gradual recovery from a debt binge. It has happened at many times in many places and result is almost always a slow recovery. Rogoff and Reinhart wrote an excellent book that spelled it out very clearly.

Devalue and inflate could help but is very difficult while we are the global reserve currency. The Fed has been trying to do this since 2008 but monetary policy is in the liquidity trap. I think our only other option to speed the recovery would be large fiscal stimulus to invest in long term infrastructure -- something that improves future economic efficiency, not just adding useless federal payroll for the sake of it -- but we've left it too late. That kind of stimulus takes effect over several years.

At this point we're probably going to continue to muddle along with low growth and neither party has the stones to do anything radical enough to change that. I'd rather muddle along with Obama.