An open letter to folks like myself who cannot in good conscience vote for Obama

[Kelvin Mace]

Note: I would ask that the pro-Obama folk refrain from insulting me until they have actually read what I am saying here.Thanks!.

Dear distraught fellow progressive:

If you are like me, the last four years have been a time of frustration, anger and sadness. Despite all the promises from Candidate Obama about "hope and change", President Obama, for whatever reason, failed to make significant changes on a variety of issues of moral imperative.

Rather than argue these points (yet again) and suffer accusations of being, at best, "naive" and at worst, a "secret Romney shill", I wish to suggest a means of resolving the issue ethically to (hopefully) everyone's satisfaction.

All other issues aside, the only hope Romney has of winning this election is by voter suppression, both "legal" and illegal. In my own state of North Carolina, a Tea Party corporation masquerading as a "non-partisan, non-profit" group protecting our election process from "fraud" tried to have 30,000 voters purged from the rolls, claiming that these people were dead. This forced our state board of election to waste time, money and resources disproving their idiotic claim.

(For more on this story, watch this RMS story)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/49112935#49112935

Obviously more of this tactic is taking place, and more is on the way.

The right of a citizen to vote is sacrosanct and the worst thing any other person can do is negate that right. No matter what our point of view, we should be allowed to vote for whom we please.

With this in mind, I have decided that I shall cast a vote for President Obama as a proxy for some person who will be denied that right by corporate sponsored goons, religious zealots, and anti-democratic political groups.

This is my choice, and one made after much soul-searching. I do not exhort anyone else to do what I am doing, but I do ask that they consider my reasoning.

And for those people who have been quite vociferous in their opinion of people like me who had planned to abstain from voting for President Obama as a matter of ethical/moral objection, please be as strident in pressing the President back to doing what is right, not what is expedient, should he win the election.

I hope this proposal will resolve this very contentious issue between myself and some of my fellow liberals.

Most respectfully proposed,

David Allen (Not Skinner)
aka Kelvin Mace

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Can you be more specific about what's ticking you off?

Much of what President Obama hasn't done was due to an unprecedented, contrarian congress.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. I have discussed this at length

and have the scars to prove it.

A short list can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1124&pid=3447

None of these issues listed involve congress and entirely within the President's jurisdiction.

[Cooley Hurd]

44. Thanks Kelvin. I agree with you regarding the list...

...but the conclusion I've reached (regarding the items in your list) is that he can only do what the MIC will let him do. I think the lessons learned from what the MIC and the CIA ultimately did to President Kennedy aren't lost on President Obama.

[Kelvin Mace]

55. I would think the CIA

would be extremely happy for the truth of the Bush years to come out, as recent revelations have shown them as being made the "fall guys" by Bush.

[nanabugg]

299. My take: A vote for Obama is a huge vote against Citizens United. That's enough for me.

All that money spent in a losing effort would speak volumes and probably save the Republic as Ben Franklin knew it.

[Kelvin Mace]

342. Barring a Constitutional amendment

Citizen's United is the law of the land.

That ship has sailed and cannot be undone, any more than Bush v. Gore can be undone.

A Constitutional amendment will come from the Congress, not the White House.

No matter who Obama might appoint to the SCOTUS (if he is allowed to appoint someone), it will be a 5-4 right-wing court.

[spanone]

2. misguided anger...a President can't do shit without cooperation from congress

[IMG][/IMG]

[HiPointDem]

17. so if presidents 'can't do shit', why the focus on presidential elections?

seems like bush did a lot of shit despite a democratic majority part of the way.

[librechik]

19. money. Celebrities sell the party brand n/t

[uponit7771]

66. It's best if you learn how the US Government works and get taught recent history but you're

...spouting GOP and FUD memes here whether you know it or not.

1. Obama isn't a dicatator and in no time in US history has the oposition party made the president the NUMBER ONE focus during a national crisis

2. It's well know the GOP changed senate rules defacto...

Regards

[HiPointDem]

70. that tone is sure to draw many disaffected to your cause

[GaYellowDawg]

77. Supreme Court nominations.

That ought to be a huge reason to vote in a Presidential election. I don't think even Ralph Nader thinks there's no difference between Democratic and Republican nominees to the bench. Or would you like to have a couple more Roberts clones as Supremes? Tone doesn't matter jack shit when you're looking at a monumental disaster like that, does it?

[Tarheel_Dem]

161. From your posting history, I'm not sure you ever had "a cause", at least not one that....

conforms to the mission of this board. You know the one I mean...."Electing Democrats"?

[HiPointDem]

170. i'm a life-long democrat who has never voted republican. i post here to discuss policy issues that

concern me. our president told us to hold his feet to the fire, & i took him at his word.

you got a problem with me, take it to management or alert on my posts.

Here's the mission statement of DU; i think you must have forgotten the majority of it.

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!

[Tarheel_Dem]

171. Yeah, and this is the part you forgot.

who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office

[HiPointDem]

172. i posted the entire statement. i forgot nothing. as i said, if you have a problem with me or my

posts, take it to management or alert, but leave me alone. i don't respond well to bullying.

continue in the same vein if you like but i won't be reading or responding.

[eridani]

452. There is electing Democrats period, and there is electing Democrats comma

For a lot of us, after the comma comes "because you usually get better public policy from Democrats." And when we don't, we do not intend to just let it go at that.

[tavalon]

178. You don't know this person, clearly.

He has been a stalwart activist against election fraud. Obama led all of us to believe he would do much more in a much more transparent way than he has.

[Kelvin Mace]

346. Democrat is used as synonymous with "liberal"

which it is not.

I fought against "Democrat" Lieberman back in the day, and will fight against anyone like him.

A "D" after your name does not automatically command loyalty. What is the difference between a Dem that constantly sides against us and a Conservative that always sides against us?

Hey, Lieberman was with us on everything except the war. And abortion. And Social Security. And Medicare. And....

[Tarheel_Dem]

348. Tell it to Jill Stein over at Green Underground. Oh wait......

[Kelvin Mace]

124. I greatly resent being accused of "spouting" any GOP "meme"

1) Given that Obama is currently fighting for indefinite detention without trial and has already asserted that he can murder anyone, even a U.S. citizen, by simply declaring them a "terrorist", I believe that is pretty much the definition of a dictator. These are the facts, sorry they don't bother you, but they do bother me.

2) How could the GOP "change" the senate rules when the Dems were in the majority. The rules changed because the Dem MAJORITY allowed them to be changed.

3) My objection to Obama is to the abuse of his executive power, not his fights with the Congress.

4) I am old enough to remember when Bush acted this way and people were outraged. Suddenly, since there is a "D" beside his name it ain't no thing?

[BlueCaliDem]

304. It's sad that some self-described Liberals suffer self-defeatism.

Not voting gives your vote to the GOP. That's just the reality. Even RepubLemmings know that glaring truth, that's why they'll vote for Romney even if they can't stand him or his ideas for government. They're not voting for Romney. They're voting against President Obama. Maybe you can silence your conscience and tell yourself that same truth and vote anyway.

You will never get 100% of what you want from anyone. In fact, if you wait for that Liberal Messiah, you might as well withdraw from ever voting because no one will be up to your impossible standards. That's just the painful truth - something I had learned the hard way.

[Kelvin Mace]

347. Face palm!

Not voting gives your vote to the GOP. That's just the reality

Where do I say I am not voting? The very point of the post is I AM VOTING, and trying to provide an ethical reason others who feel as I do can vote.

I do not ask 100% of anyone, just that they not cross some pretty damned bright lines, you know, murder, torture, domestic spying, massive civil rights violations, shit like that.

[blue neen]

373. Well,

it is just my impression that the very point of your post is probably not "I AM VOTING."

I could be wrong.

[Kelvin Mace]

376. How many different way can I say

YES I AM VOTING?

Do you need a sworn statement?

[blue neen]

378. Sworn statement? Strange, since I didn't say that you aren't voting.

Hey, if it would make you happy, go ahead.

It won't stop people from thinking, "Things that make you go hmmm", though.

[Kelvin Mace]

383. My profound apologies

I misread your post.

[blue neen]

388. No problem!

I'm sure you can now understand how people can misread your posts, too!

[GaYellowDawg]

75. re: Bush

He did a lot of shit because for 6 years, he HAD a Republican Congress. And during a lot of his regime, all the Democrats either rolled over or bent over, depending on what he was demanding.

[Hippo_Tron]

113. Bush got a bunch of tax cuts and wars

War-making powers are more or less turned over to the executive, even though they were intended to be held by the congress. Tax cuts can be passed through reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.

The signature piece of Bush's domestic agenda was the privatization of social security. He didn't get it.

[HiPointDem]

193. bush got no child left behind with increased spending to close schools, not to mention an entirely

new department of homeland security, seig heil.

plus he turned travel into a fucking nightmare with no shampoo.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. My objections

involve issues totally with his jurisdiction and don't involve Congress.

See above, if you wish a list.

I know why I am angry, please do not tell me my anger is misguided.

I am attempting to provide a solution for myself and folks like me, not get back into this fight.

[CitizenPatriot]

112. I respect your compromise here a lot

I don't agree with everything on your list, but that's not the issue. It made me very happy to think of you voting via proxy for those who will be denied. That's really a wonderful idea.

Carry on!

[Kelvin Mace]

343. Thank you for understanding

and taking my post in the spirit intended.

[tavalon]

179. You're not misguided

But the wagons have circled. It's too late in this term to call him out on these things. 24/7, I will be at the barricades with you after he's back in for the next four years. I'm glad you found a way to circumvent the despair. I'm not surprised that you found it withing voter suppression.

[sabrina 1]

74. Then let's stop spending all this money and time on the Presidential election and start focusing on

Congress.

Looking at DU recently, if what you say is true, why are there so few posts on all the Progressive Dems who are running for Congress?

It may well be true that the POTUS no longer has any power. That s/he is merely a figurehead for the Global Corps and the MIC, even if they don't want to be.

Can you explain why there is so much emphasis on this 'powerless' office and so little on where the real power of the people could be?

[tavalon]

182. Explain it to me

I've been sounding that cry for a number of weeks now. The Presidential race is over. Over. We already know that Obama has it locked, even with rampant election fraud. It's time to think about his coattails and get Congress back. And then, we need to hold all of their feet to the fire.

Obama and the Democrats will get my vote. But the day after the election and years into the future they will serve us or they will wish they had. I am done with the bullshit in Washington DC. Done. Stick a fork in it.

The rage that is being directed at RMoney, his aristocratic shrew wife, and Lyin Ryan, will still be out here after the election. We still Occupy. And they will learn how to be good civil servants. It's way past time they did.

[Champion Jack]

250. Exactly

[Starboard Tack]

530. Actually, reality is the converse.

A president can do lots of shit with or without Congress. He can't do much good without support from Congress. That's the downside of a non-parliamentary system.

[Zorra]

3. Thanks, Kelvin. You could also consider it a vote to try to help me gain equal rights.

That's a very real, and critically important, thing for me, and for the rest of the LGBT community also.

Also, please consider it a vote for the maintenance and furthering of women's rights as well.

Etc.

I understand your issues with the President, and I have more than a few issues myself. But the overall benefits of a President Obama, rather than a President Romney, are enormous.

Rest assured, I will continue to adamantly advocate for the President to always do the right thing after he is safely back in the WH where we need hm to be for his 2nd term.

[Booster]

8. Yeah, what you said. Rmoney would be a disaster.

[Freddie]

190. Yes and women too

How anyone could stay home and let the party of "legitimate rape" and flat-out misogyny take office...in the words of John Lennon, how do you sleep?

[Kelvin Mace]

344. I will indeed

Thanks for actually reading my post.

[Zorra]

420. lol ~

Maybe DU should offer a few free complimentary courses?

[russspeakeasy]

4. Put that bottle down. Right now !!

[sadbear]

5. Remember, we don't elect Kings.

Has it completely escaped you what the opposition party has been doing the entire time? And they've actually made no secret of their priorities either. Why haven't you picked up on this?

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Once again,

my objections are based on issues totally within Obama's power to act upon. I am not blaming him for laws he cannot get through Congress. However, prosecuting war crimes, torture and Wall Street fraud do NOT require congressional approval (to name a few items).

Also, I am trying NOT to argue the issue again.

[HiPointDem]

35. he sets his own ed policy too. and pubs are happy to vote the money to destroy public education.

[sadbear]

47. But you're basis is without merit.

President Obama has amazingly accomplished quite a lot when you factor in the republican obstructionism he's had to deal with since day 1, mainly because Congressional republicans gave their approval. I am under no illusion that they would not have let anything slip through if President Obama hadn't made any concessions of his own. If President Obama had gone after the things we all wanted him to go after, he would have accomplished nothing because Congressional republicans would have blocked EVERYTHING.

[Kelvin Mace]

56. I keep trying to avoid arguing this issue

and people keep insisting I do.

I have provided a link for those people who demand I explain myself.

My reasons have nothing to do with Congress, and everything to do with issues totally under his control.

Congress is NOT forcing Obama to argue for the power to detain people without charge forever. He is doing that himself.

[sadbear]

127. President Obama doesn't govern is a vacuum.

And you think republicans will scratch is back even if he doesn't scratch theirs'? They may not be arguing anything, but President Obama is smart enough to read between the lines. This purist bullshit is a big reason why we got blown out of the fucking water in 2010.

[Kelvin Mace]

349. On issues directly under executive authority

he sure as hell does.

No one is forcing him to fight for unlawful detention.

[sadbear]

368. You don't think so?

I do.

[tavalon]

183. Reading comprehension is hard, huh?

Look, I get that the wagons have circled and nothing bad is to be said.

However, after the election, the Third Way Democrats must be taught that there isn't a third way in America, it's just a way to Republicanize the Democrats. And we won't have it anymore. No more Rahm Emanuels, no more DINOs. Done.

[sadbear]

263. Short memory, huh?

That's what happened in 2010. You want that again? Sorry, but the only way to move to the left is to elect fewer republicans and more democrats.

[tavalon]

394. And that, in an elegant nutshell, is what the OP did

He wasn't going to be able to vote for Obama without too large a hit to his soul. But he is a voting rights champion, so taking the focus off of the lesser evil and onto the disenfranchised voter, he is now able to vote for Obama. Reading comprehension would have shown that to you.

[sadbear]

399. Why do you insist on being insulting to everyone, even fellow DU'ers?

Yes, we are all mostly liberals and progressives. I get that. But this is Democratic Underground, not Progressive Underground. If it hits your soul to support a Democrat, perhaps you're in the wrong place.

[CreekDog]

516. I was wrong and self deleted, I'm sorry

I see now what the OP is trying to do and appreciate it.

[uponit7771]

67. They require congressional cooperation and YOU KNOW THAT

[Kelvin Mace]

352. Obama kept fighting for DOMA

then he stopped.

That did not require Congressional cooperation.

All I am asking is for him to STOP fighting for indefinite detention without trial.

It is just as easy as it was picking up the phone and telling Justice to STOP defending DOMA.

[sabrina 1]

85. Republicans did not choose his cabinet, he did. I hope this time he can find some

Progressives to put in his cabinet. They are not hard to find, yet, he chose people like the anti-Education, anti-Progressive, Rahm Emanuel, and a former member of Monsanto, not to mention his economic team.

We DO have brilliant Progressives in this country and a Democratic President should have been able to find a few of them to appoint to his Cabinet.

[sadbear]

129. President Obama did run on a somewhat "post-partisan" platform.

Do you not remember that? Healing the divide, and whatnot? One of the reasons he was elected. And now we're slamming him for it? This is the president we elected and we're delusional to think he's going to change now.

[sabrina 1]

175. He did NOT run on indefinite detention. He did not run on protecting War Criminals

or holding innocent people, such as the detainee in Gitmo who tragically died last week, for years even after they were declared innocent of any crimes.

He did NOT run on Bush's policies, yet he has continued and in some cases even expanded them. He did not run on Bush's Education program, and if we had known who he would have chosen for his education Secretary, I for one would not have been as enthusiastic as I was.

But who would have thought that Democrats, once they got the power, would continue some of Bush's worst policies, and worse, refuse to prosecute war criminals, making it necessary now for other countries to do it for us.

We are NOT blind, please do not insult the intelligence of Democrats here, save that for the willfully blind on the Right who will defend anyone with an R after their name.

Refusing to see the problems, giving blind allegiance to any party, is what will, and has, caused the deterioration of this country.

I paid close attention to what this president said during the campaign. This latest ploy you are using 'oh, but you must not have been paying attention', will be the exact same ploy used after THIS election, if this President does not begin to bring about the changes he promised, especially in the area of Civil Liberties and people again point it out.

Because making excuses for politicians appears to be more important to some people than doing what is right and letting them KNOW we will not tolerate any more shifting to the right.

[tavalon]

186. I'm with you all the way!

I've removed the blow torch from the Democrats feet for now. Come January, let's hope to see a sea change. If not, my blow torch comes back full force. He said he wanted me to hold his feet to the fire.

[tavalon]

185. He's actually going to have to

I hope that, without the next election cycle on his plate, he will do it of his own volition.

[tavalon]

184. Yep, if that slimy skunk or any of his ilk are involved in Obama's second term

I'm going to have really, really big problems with that.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. I am glad to see you will cast Obama

I understand that there is no true progressives to vote for. And if there were, they currently could not take out any establishment candidates.

As I have said before, we will be more likely see systemic changes that would allow this under Democratic leadership than Republican.

[Kelvin Mace]

57. I'm not so sure

but I am trying to be optimistic.

[immoderate]

7. I will vote for him, despite extreme misgivings...

Not the least of which is the dismantling of public education. I used to be a teacher. And this is only part of the favoritism he shows for corporations. So it extends to anti-environmentalism. I've got lots to complain about.

Romney will be worse. A lot worse. He'll dismantle the economy, destroy human rights, start wars, and appoint shit-stains to the Supreme Court. Since Nixon, I have said the Republicans can't get any worse, and they always do.

Romney takes it to a new level. His promised incompetence should raise an alarm that will be hard to ignore. The man is dysfunctional.

--imm

[Kelvin Mace]

32. I completely understand the pragamatic

arguments of the issue. But to me, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

However, I am offering a solution to the not insignificant number of people like myself who could not vote for Obama as a "lesser of evils" given the seriousness of his failings. This is the only way I can vote for him and look myself in the mirror.

[tavalon]

187. Yeah, had I not already done the mental gymnastics to be okay with this,

I would have jumped on this. So, thank you. I hope you've helped some of our other brethren who didn't sell their soul to pragmatism.

[Stuart G]

9. You got to read paragraph8, or is it 9?, so the guy will vote for Obama anyway..ok??

[JI7]

18. probably better if he just dind't vote than to spread this negative crap

and then at the end say "but i will vote for him" for those who take issue with what he said.

[Kelvin Mace]

33. Really?

Is that what you want? I am trying to help here, as I am NOT the only person with problems with Obama.

Do you want the votes or don't you? I am making a sincere effort to deal with a very troubling issue and you are dismissing it out of hand.

[otohara]

372. Who Needs Voter Disenfranchising

When there's so many in the Obama hasn't done shit crowd?

Who suffers when Dems don't vote?
Do you remember 2010?

[Kelvin Mace]

387. Yeah, I do!

Voted in that election too. Of course if Obama hadn't sold out the liberal wing of the party he wouldn't have depressed the vote so badly. People react badly to bad faith.

Also, my gripe isn't just "Obama ain't done shit", it is the things he has done, like expand Bush policies and legalize them.

[sabrina 1]

80. Why? Why are people on a Democratic board advocating that people just 'stfu and vote'?

Elections are about ISSUES, they are about the the PEOPLE. We do NOT live in a dictatorship.

I agree with the OP. It's a matter of conscience for a lot of people whether they can, in good conscience, vote for anyone who supports indefinite detention, who protects War Criminals from prosecution thus denying their victims any justice. If we were looking at this from outside this country, we would be outraged. Women who were raped, children sodomized, innocent people brutally tortured, some of them, to death. And still no justice for them, but worse, protection.

If your conscience doesn't trouble you at all, then that is your business, but to deny that those who did not lose their conscience once the letter after the name of the President changed, is refusing to face a fact. That this election presents a huge problem for them.

Telling them to shut up and ignore the suffering of other human beings is definitely not helping.

The OP has found a way to assuage his conscience and imo, it is convincing enough for me, who shares his concerns about torture and murder and extraordinary renditions and extra-judicial killings and indefinite detentions, to see a way to stop the Republicans by casting a vote for a President who has continued the horrific policies we were ALL so outraged over during the Bush years. To use the right to vote for those whose right is being taken away from them.

His solution is likely to get votes for this President as people of conscience need a way to be able to feel their vote for someone whose policies on all of the above stated issues, are extremely disturbing to say the least.

I do not wish to go down in history as the German people have, with future generations asking 'but why didn't the American people DO something, why did they not speak out'?

A detainee at Guantanamo Bay died last week. You should read his story which will go into the history books, and then tell us how any decent human being could not be outraged at what this country is doing to other, innocent human beings. And at the fact that not a single War Criminal has been prosecuted.

[Kelvin Mace]

123. Thank you for your eloquenrt summation

of my dilemma.

It baffles me that some people get angry when you give them what they ask for, because you don't choose to do it for THEIR reasons.

[tavalon]

189. I couldn't agree more

[sabrina 1]

318. Giving people a reason TO vote is 'negative crap'??

No, negative crap is telling people the only reason they should vote for this President is because the other guy is so bad you don't have a choice.

What the OP does is give people who in good conscience are finding it difficult to vote at all, a very good reason to vote for Obama. Fortunately people on the left are still capable of reading and understanding what the OP's point is. And I will say this, IF I were hesitant to vote for this President, the OP would be far more persuasive in getting me to do so, than all those who refuse to recognize why people might feel as they do.

He has made a very excellent case to vote FOR the president.

[Marrah_G]

488. LOL good thing you aren't working for the campaign

[brush]

10. Hah!

Don't do us any favors, buddy. Vote for Romney and side with all the repug obstructionists for all I care. The President of all the people will win anyway.

[Kelvin Mace]

58. I have never had an intention, desire or inclination to vote for Romney

My credentials as a hard-core liberal have been established beyond question on this site years ago.

I resent any insinuation that I support that corporate goon.

[sabrina 1]

321. The old 'if you oppose the Iraq War, you love Saddam' logic.

'Vote for Romney', Really? Is that really what you want people to do? I've always wondered about this tactic, it sure isn't a way to GOTV for Democrats

The OP has provided a reason for people who may have decided not to vote at all, with a very excellent reason TO vote for this President.

[brush]

330. Like I said

Yeah but it sounds like it's the absolute last thing he wants to do, and he'll be holding his nose while he does it.
With friends like that, who needs repugs.

[sabrina 1]

335. A vote is a vote.

If everyone who holds their nose to vote under our current system, took your advice rather than the OP's, Romney probably would win. I don't think we are in a position to tell those who are not terribly enthusiastic but will vote for this President anyway, that 'we don't need friends like that'.

It isn't about having friends. Voters are not looking for personal relationships with politicians, they are looking for reasons to vote FOR someone and the OP has given a not insignificant segment of the population a reason to do that. You otoh, seem to be discouraging people from voting. I'm not as confident as you are that we 'don't need friends like that'.

[unapatriciated]

532. Unfortunately there are many of us who will be voting with less enthusiasm this time.

Our enthusiasm level has to do with the things he has done that are within his control (regarding civil rights, drones and endless detention without trial) and not what he hasn't been able to accomplish due to the republicans in congress. We understand why he couldn't accomplish more, so our disillusions are not about getting everything we wanted.

To tell us to stay home or vote for mit is not a very good strategy to get out the vote.

It leaves me with the same feeling that I had after a phone call last night from DSCC. Half way into his spiel asking for a $250 donation, I stopped him and told we were active locally, donated locally and would be voting D. He ignored me and went on with his script asking for a lower amount. I again repeated that we donated locally and would not be giving him a donation. Instead of thanking me for my vote and local support, all I got was the sound of a click as he hung up on me. It left me feeling that all the DSCC cared about was my money and my vote was not needed or appreciated. That is not how you get more D's elected to the Senate. I phoned banked for Obama in 2008 and I wasn't rude to non-supporters let alone someone who supported and told me that they had already donated.

Disclaimer for those who think because my enthusiasm level is not high enough. Like the OP I had to do a lot of soul searching and rationalization, but I will be voting early and it will be for President Obama.

[leftstreet]

11. How do you know the purged voter would have voted for Obama?

I'm confused

Are there also people planning to proxy vote for potentially purged GOP voters?

[Zorra]

21. The odds are very high that a purged voter would vote for Obama.

Republicans may be generally stupid, but when it comes to cheating and lying, they are very experienced and skilful.

They may purge a very few of their own, and a few third party voters, but the overall benefit of their purge for them would be enormous.

Just vote for Obama, and we'll sort the rest out later.

[leftstreet]

24. Why weren't they purged in 2008?

Several gazillion people voted for Obama in 2008

Why wouldn't he have those same votes in 2012?

[JI7]

25. there have been new attempts to purge more voters

[Kelvin Mace]

34. If you check the link to the RMS

story, you will see this is a recent attempt.

It is happening nationwide.

[Tarheel_Dem]

163. Have you been in a cave? You do know what happened in the 2010 midterms, right?

We lost a ton a house seats, governorships, city councils, and state legislatures. Ever hear of ALEC? All because of assholes like the one described in the o.p., who were "disillusioned", and they're still spreading their suppressive bullshit under the guise of voting for "the lesser of two evils".

I'm not a member of the president's campaign team, but if I were, I'd tell folks like that exactly what they could with their "proxy".

[tavalon]

195. Oh, so you're saying none of us are disillusioned by what Obama promised and chose

not to pursue? Cute. I'm lying. It's not cute at all.

[KoKo]

408. Here's what "Kelvin Mace" did in NC...Worked for Verified Voting! INFO:

Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-09-06 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #253
260. I said "helped"

If I were Bev, I would have claimed to have done it all and smeared anyone who dared disagree.

If you assert that my statement is factually in error, then you are invited to contact NC Verified Voting and ask them. Their leader, Joyce McCloy was honored by the ACLU for her efforts (http://www.newsobserver.com/659/story/410538.html ) in getting S223 passed which outlawed paper-less voting, required disclosure of the source code, and required the CEO's of voting machine companies to sign sworn affidavits that the software used in the election was the same software as certified by the state. Violation of this provision is a FELONY.

Diebold withdrew from NC rather sign that statement.

The fact that Diebold has a manufacturing plant in Lexington, NC is irrelevant. They won't do business with NC because of that provision of the law.

What does that have to do with me?

I wrote that provision when I served on the Select Committee that drafted the law.

'Taint bragging if it is fact.

What has Bev done lately?

Oh yeah, Bev is against the only federal law which would require a VVPB.

Thanks Bev, way to help out.

And before you you even THINK of trashing Joyce, let's look at this news item:

Diebold v. North Carolina Board of Elections
and
McCloy v. North Carolina Board of Elections

State court litigation involving Diebold's attempt to be exempted from state law requirements to escrow all of its system source code on the grounds that it couldn't do so. EFF intervened in the case on behalf of local election integrity advocate Joyce McCloy and convinced the Superior Court to dismiss Diebold's complaint. The Board of Elections nonetheless certified Diebold to sell equipment in the state, despite a statutory requirement to review "all source code" prior to certifying any vendor. EFF filed suit on behalf of McCloy, asking the Court to force the Board to perform its duties. The Court denied EFF's motion, finding for the Board an exemption for the Board from having to inspect "third party software" although such an exemption does not exist in the statute. Nevertheless, Diebold was forced to drop out of the process as it could not escrow all of its code for possible future review.


http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting /

McCloy took Diebold to court on principle and prevaled. Bev took Diebold to court and pocketed $70K and sold out Steven Heller.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1125697&mesg_id=1144623Diebold v. North Carolina Board of Elections
and

-----------------------------------------
McCloy v. North Carolina Board of Elections

State court litigation involving Diebold's attempt to be exempted from state law requirements to escrow all of its system source code on the grounds that it couldn't do so. EFF intervened in the case on behalf of local election integrity advocate Joyce McCloy and convinced the Superior Court to dismiss Diebold's complaint. The Board of Elections nonetheless certified Diebold to sell equipment in the state, despite a statutory requirement to review "all source code" prior to certifying any vendor. EFF filed suit on behalf of McCloy, asking the Court to force the Board to perform its duties. The Court denied EFF's motion, finding for the Board an exemption for the Board from having to inspect "third party software" although such an exemption does not exist in the statute. Nevertheless, Diebold was forced to drop out of the process as it could not escrow all of its code for possible future review.


http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting /

McCloy took Diebold to court on principle and prevaled. Bev took Diebold to court and pocketed $70K and sold out Steven Heller.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1125697&mesg_id=1144623

North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting - www.ncvoter.net

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone [phone] - email Join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting websitewww.ncvoter.net
-------------------
Joyce McCloy Bio

A voting activist since 2003, Joyce McCloy worked for a new law, passed in August 2005, that requires paper records on all voting machines and random post election audits. The law also requires machine manufacturers to explain how their equipment works. McCloy later sued to enforce provisions of that law. In 2006, McCloy worked for and obtained additional legislation to ensure that post election audits would be conducted in a more transparent fashion. In 2007, McCloy worked with The Brennan Center for Justice and Project Vote to eliminate the "No Match No Vote" rule in North Carolina. That legislation was signed into law on August 29, 2007.

McCloy led a 100 county push to encourage the purchase of optical scan systems instead of touch-screen. This led in a decrease of touch-screen counties from 40 to 23. Because of her leadership in the field of election integrity, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina awarded McCloy its 2006 award “for a lifetime of contributions to civil liberties in North Carolina.”

McCloy founded the NC Coalition for Verified Voting in January 2004 and continues to lead the organization. She has authored reports on: The Efficacy of Vote Centers, Cost Study Analysis of North Carolina Voting Systems, Touch-Screen Paper Trail Failures and Problems in North Carolina, Instant Runoff Voting Values and Risks Report, “No Match No Vote in North Carolina - Voter Registration Database as an Administrative Barrier to Voting”, and “Removing Barriers to Voter Verified Paper Ballots - Ballot on Demand to Increase Flexibility of Paper Ballot Voting”. Opinion pieces by McCloy on electronic voting issues have been published by the Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News and Observer, the Asheville Citizen Times and the High Point Enterprise. In 2008 McCloy, assisted by the Brennan Center for Justice raised a statewide alert about straight ticket voting concerns, increasing media attention and direct voter education efforts statewide. McCloy edited a free national voting news letter covering news about election integrity issues, voting machines, election fraud, voter access and legislation in United States and internationally.

McCloy maintains the website www.ncvoter.net and an email list serve to provide information and education to the public about North Carolina voting issues. Additionally McCloy also operates a website www.instantrunoffvoting.us with the goal of educating and informing the public about problems with instant runoff voting. McCloy hold a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Administration from Bluefield State College, but has spent most of her working life in either business or banking operations.



----------------

rom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An expert on electronic voting, Joyce McCloy worked for a new law, passed in August 2005, that requires paper records on all voting machines and random post election audits. The law also requires machine manufacturers to explain how their equipment works. McCloy later sued to enforce provisions of that law. In 2006 McCloy worked for and obtained additional legislation to ensure that post election audits would be conducted in a more transparent fashion. In 2007 McCloy worked with The Brennan Center for Justice and Project Vote to eliminate the "No Match No Vote" rule in North Carolina. That legislation was signed into law on August 29, 07.

McCloy led a 100 county push to encourage the purchase of optical scan systems instead of touch-screen. This led in a decrease of touch-screen counties from 40 to 23. Because of her leadership in the field of election integrity, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina awarded McCloy its 2006 award “for a lifetime of contributions to civil liberties in North Carolina.”

McCloy founded the NC Coalition for Verified Voting in January 2004 and continues to lead the organization. She has authored reports on: The Efficacy of Vote Centers, Cost Study Analysis of North Carolina Voting Systems, Touch-Screen Paper Trail Failures and Problems in North Carolina, Instant Runoff Voting Values and Risks Report, “No Match No Vote in North Carolina - Voter Registration Database as an Administrative Barrier to Voting”, and “Removing Barriers to Voter Verified Paper Ballots - Ballot on Demand to Increase Flexibility of Paper Ballot Voting”. Opinion pieces by McCloy on electronic voting issues have been published by the Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News and Observer, the Asheville Citizen Times and the High Point Enterprise. McCloy also maintains the website www.ncvoter.net and an email list serve to provide information and education to the public.

McCloy hold a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Administration from Bluefield State College, but has spent most of her working life in either business or banking operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joyce_McCloy

[tavalon]

194. Uneducated

I do hope this road you're trying to go down ends soon. You're beginning to look foolish. If you aren't even aware of the massively larger attempts at voter purging this year, you have not been paying attention. Even the fictional Will McAvoy is better educated than you on this very, very important topic.

Kelvin Mace is far more educated than you or even me about this very topic though, so playing this game with the master is just not smart.

[tavalon]

192. You're funny

Oh, wait, you weren't joking, we're you? I would strongly suggest that you bone up on voter suppression. It isn't an equivalence game at all. Our side doesn't practice it. Republicans practice it rampantly. Voting while black, and all........

You've been here a long time, ergo, you cannot be this dumb. Everyone makes undefendable statements from time to time. You're not confused, just uneducated in this area. Actually, your third sentence shows that you aren't really confused, just being a jerk.

[leftstreet]

285. What's the Obama Admin doing about this suppression issue?

You're describing a crisis that could dramatically alter the election results. I defer to you here, as I admit I haven't been following this suppression story.

The OP is confusing. OP claims s/he can't vote in good conscience for Obama, but can proxy vote for a suppressed voter - thereby returning an administration to office that the OP can't in good conscience vote to return to office.....

[tavalon]

386. Nothing

The OP is well known as an activist for voting rights. This is an elegant way to make a statement, IMO. 98% of people could not have made such an elegant idea work, but given his history, this would be the one way he could find to be okay with voting for Obama. The OP is only confusing if you don't know or educate yourself on the OP's history. This man has done more to protect voting rights than many, if not most in this land of ours.

He's trying to help both disenfranchised and discouraged voters in one fell swoop. He is well aware that Obama is the lesser of two evils, far less with each passing day, but those of us who are highly idealistic (whistleblower personality) may not, even now, be able to find a way to vote for the lesser evil without too hard a hit to our idealism.

[Whovian]

12. So have you decided not to vote? Throwaway vote which means a vote for Romney?

As mentioned above, Congress has fought against him every step of the way making them the most inefficient Congress that I can recall.

Granted, I wanted Guantanamo closed, universal healthcare and us out of Afghanistan but I feel he compromised to get as much done as he could. He's the President, not the King and has to deal with the House and Senate to get things done as well as the monied interests (lobbyists) that are trying to protect the interests of banks, insurance companies, oil, etc.

He has my vote. With hope that he will go "balls out" in the next four years.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. Please read what I said

I made it quite plain what my intent was, and why I was going to such pains to write this post for others like me.

My disagreements with Obama involve issues completely divorced from Congressional involvement.

[Whisp]

114. it was not quite plain

and you know it.

you carved it out that way on purpose to get your dig in at the beginning and then to save your 'no vote' ass you 'confess' you will vote.

not as clever as you think.

[Kelvin Mace]

126. What part of

"With this in mind, I have decided that I shall cast a vote for President Obama..." was unclear?

[Whisp]

409. your title says something entirely different

don't play coy.

[RetroLounge]

419. You need to read better

don't play dumb



RL

[enlightenment]

362. What part of this was not clear?

With this in mind, I have decided that I shall cast a vote for President Obama as a proxy for some person who will be denied that right by corporate sponsored goons, religious zealots, and anti-democratic political groups.

"I shall cast a vote for President Obama . . ."

Was it the "shall" that threw you? It is the grammatically correct word to use in that sentence construction and it is abundantly clear that the OPs intends to vote for President Obama.

Couldn't get any clearer - and your attempt to invent some convoluted, illogical, and rude accusation is a complete failure.

[sabrina 1]

406. It was very plain to anyone who read the entire post.

Not everyone tries to be clever. There are actually truly principled and honest people who actually think about important issues, who are disillusioned with the direction this country has gone since the stolen election of 2000 and of how little fight there has been to stop the Democracy destroying policies of the unelected administration.

A vote is a vote. And every vote counts. I see a few people in this thread telling others to take 'your vote and shove it'. THAT is called suppressing votes and imo, makes me wonder exactly where they are coming from and/or what their real intentions are.

.

[tavalon]

196. Read to the end

The punchline is at the end. It could have saved you a lot of typing.

[HiPointDem]

13. "please be as strident in pressing the President back to doing what is right" = dream on.

"not now, not the right time"

[Kelvin Mace]

59. *sigh*

I know, but I can dream, can't I.

[SaveAmerica]

121. Yes, release your inner Pollyana! It's helped me...

Pollyana came to me and suggested that Obama made the choices he did to set his campaign up to be as strong as possible to get re-elected. He peppered in enough conservative 'bits' to keep negative campaign commercials to a minimum (if you watch what's out there, the commercials are tinged with made-up stuff that's fairly insane; if he'd come out charging with a progressive flair they would have had much more ammunition to use against him, possibly making him lose the election and the result would have been worse).

[treestar]

14. Obamacare is a significant change IMO

So are the end of Iraq and the near-end of Afghanistan.

Torture is not used any more and no new people are put in Gitmo, and Gitmo we be closed if not for Congress

There is a major change in how we are seen in the rest of the world, for the better.

We still have a right wing, we had 2010, we have the filibuster used on everything - considering on that the President is a success.

[panzerfaust]

436. Obamacare is not what was promised: It is a windfall for the insurance compaines

"Torture is not used any more..." The evidence you have for this assertion is?

However if, in fact, America is no longer torturing people - why not? If it is because torture is immoral, illegal and despicable, then why have those who admittedly performed it been given immunity from prosecution by the current administration?

"Gitmo we be closed if not for Congress" the president's plan was, at root, simply a plan to move GITMO to the US. The prisoners would not be freed, they would not have their right of Habeas Corpus recognized. They would have remained the disappeared.

What counts as ending the wars - the eternal occupation as envisioned by the current administration?

One can go on and criticize Obama for his assertion of the right to murder people (even American citizens) anywhere in the world at the whim of the American president, the shredding of the Fourth Amendment, the lack of any meaningful action against those whole stole the economy ... etc etc

At least when the Republicans were in charge, the Democrats were willing to criticize these totalitarian abuses of power - now that we are in charge, our lips are sealed.

Truly, I do not know how I can ethically vote for Obama.



OP's thought - that one could consider it a proxy vote for those disenfranchised - is the best rationale which I have heard. I just do not know that I can do it.

[treestar]

440. You see things in such a negative way

There has been huge improvement over the Bush years. Thanks to your staying home in 2010 there was no more that it was possible to do. And you aren't supposed to be advocating not voting for Democrats at this point.

[Tarheel_Dem]

475. "I just do not know that I can do it".

Sounds to me like you and the o.p. are in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Some of us have an election to win, and we don't need this suppressive bullshit only weeks away from a major election. Neither of you are slick or clever at all. Everyone reading these comments knows exactly what you're up to, it's called "S-U-P-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N".

"Truly, I do not know how I can ethically vote for Obama."

"OP's thought - that one could consider it a proxy vote for those disenfranchised - is the best rationale which I have heard. I just do not know that I can do it."

One can't help but wonder why you guys are still hanging out here, on a board whose mission is to "elect Democrats". I really wish Skinner would drop the hammer on this shit for the next few weeks.

[randome]

15. I don't need to read your 'letter'.

If you're looking for Utopia, you're looking in the wrong place.

Obama has done some good. He has not done 100% of what anyone would want him to do.

Big surprise, isn't it, that you don't get everything on your list for Christmas!

[Kelvin Mace]

38. NO, I am not looking for Utopia

Just a country which does not torture people, murder people or imprison them without trial for life.

It is fascinating that I have gone to considerable effort to create an ethical reason to vote for Obama, yet some people here seem find this offensive.

Why do you choose to demean my efforts with snark and dismissal?

[leftstreet]

41. It's just confusing

You're essentially saying you can't in good conscience vote for a President that allows torture, murder and imprisonment without trial - but you'll proxy vote for someone who WOULD vote for a President that allows torture, murder and imprisonment without trial, but may have his/her right to vote restricted in some way.

By your own reasoning, you could be responsible for 4 more years of an Administration that that allows torture, murder and imprisonment without trial.

Not seeing how this eases your mind

[Kelvin Mace]

60. Same as if I mailed a ballot

for someone.

It's that simple.

I am not judging other people who wish to make their vote based on pragmatism (lesser of two evils). I hold this opinion, but I could certainly be wrong. I think I am on safe ground doing my best to prevent voter suppression by proxy. 'Tis an imperfect world.

I certainly can't please everyone. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

[randome]

48. My point is that no one is perfect.

You seem to be saying that you're disappointed that Obama isn't perfect.

I understand your reservations about the things you mention but that's certainly no reason to even CONSIDER letting someone else take the Presidency.

[Kelvin Mace]

130. Please, point to the part where I say

I expected Obama to be perfect.

No, I just expected him to end Bush's policies, not expand them.

For me, to vote for Obama would be to sanction the expansion of these policies. I understand the "lesser of two evils" argument, but it doesn't sway me. When the ship of state is already under the waves plunging to the bottom, the speed at which it hits the sea floor is kind of irrelevant.

[randome]

231. "Ship of state is already under the waves".

You see, that's not a statistic or observation. That's an evaluation. One you seem predisposed to make. In fact, it sounds like something someone would say who's depressed.

I can't tell you that Obama -or any other politician, for that matter- will right the wrongs you list. Hell, why do we still have starving children in the world? All those things you mention pale in comparison to that, IMO.

You could just as easily ask why YOU aren't seeing that these wrongs are righted. It's easy to say a politician should see to it for you. As long as you spend five minutes on a computer posting on DU, you don't really think those things are important. You think it's important that a politician think they're important.

We are all guilty of that.

I don't like to advocate 'trusting' anyone, especially a politician. I prefer to judge everyone by what they do or say NOW. But my personal evaluation is that Obama will do best for this country. I want the things you listed to be addressed, too. But if anyone stands a snowball's chance in hell of doing that during the next four years, it's Obama.

You work with what you got.

[sabrina 1]

528. Well if Utopia means simply not killing any more people in foreign countries, or

locking people up for the rest of their lives until they commit suicide or die of old age, without charges and without trials. If it means ending torture and maybe applying the rule of law to War Criminals and Wall Street criminals as vigilently as it is applied to put smokers, that would a start on the long road to Utopia.

I guess the bar for Utopia is so low now, that just ending those Bush policies and just going back to the pre-Bush era, which wasn't that great, but it sure looks like Utopia now.

However since Democrats have embraced all of the Bush policies we were so opposed to now, we are not even close to starting on the road to Utopia. More like going in the opposite direction.

I'd be happy if you were just headed in the right direction.

So, maybe you should consider giving up the use of that ancient talking point, attacking people who are simply asking for a country that doesn't act like a brutal Empire, by telling them they are 'looking for Utopia'.

That is just plain ridiculous. Are you satisfied to be living in a country that was created by Bush/Cheney & Company? Who could have imagined that people on the so-called Left would become so accepting of what once the Left was so vocally opposed to.

[scheming daemons]

16. What did you want from Obama that he hasn't delivered? Serious question....

If you are LGBT... he has been the most LGBT-friendly President in this nation's history.

If you are anti-war... he has ended the Iraq war, and is on track to end the Afghanistan war soon. Maybe neither of those things is as fast as you want it, but they are light years further along than they would've been with another President.

If you are out of work... you are in that position because of the GOP and the President has done everything he can to get the unemployment rate down and he is being blocked at every turn.


Like someone else said... he is not a king. But he has advanced the ball for progressives more than it would have been had he lost in 2008. Maybe he hasn't advanced it where you want it to be, but it is further along.

[Kelvin Mace]

39. I posted a link above for the people who keep asking me "why"

Despite my expressing that I wasn't here to argue the issue, I am being asked (and in some cases demanded) to explain myself.

If you seriously wish to know why I have a problem with Obama, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1124&pid=3447

I am trying to provide a solution for people who find themselves with my dilemma.

[WiffenPoof]

404. Kelvin - I Went To Your Link...

...and read your list. I couldn't agree with you more. But of course, you and I would be considered "radical" when all along, we thought of ourselves as merely Democrats.

-PLA

[Kelvin Mace]

442. I've always just viewed myself as a liberal

The term Democrat includes the likes of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

[Mz Pip]

20. A vote is a vote

A vote cast grudgingly is worth the same as one cast with enthusiasm.

[jsmirman]

22. I will say that their voter suppression efforts pulled me off the sidelines

you want to get me involved?

Suppress the vote. Assholes.

[tavalon]

197. Since I know this guys history,

I know that's what pulled him off the sidelines too.

It's a shame that too few people here know the effort he has put into election fraud issues and even got defrauded himself in the process. I'm surprised he can still find a reason to keep up the effort.

[Fresh_Start]

23. I appreciate what you are doing

as another person who is far more liberal than Obama, I too will be casting my vote for him.
But I didn't have an issue of conscience in doing so.
I'd say a year ago I was much more disappointed in Obama than I am now.
So I can say not only am I voting against Romney, I am in fact voting for Obama.

[Kelvin Mace]

78. Yeah, the closer the election got

the further Left he drifted.

Dum spiro spreo!

[tavalon]

198. Now, we just need to keep him there

I definitely prefer Candidate Obama to President Obama, at least version 1.0. Hopefully, 2.0 will be better, with fewer pragmatic, corporate, craven, back room negotiating crapolas.

[nanabugg]

28. I think you are a wise and honest person. Hat's off to you!! nt

[Kelvin Mace]

40. Thank you

glad to know some people understand I am trying to help.

[sabrina 1]

90. I also appreciate your honesty. I am sick to death of the pretentious, dishonest system

I have discovered we live under and the fact that each election season, the usual admonitions to not even think, but just accept the status quo without uttering a word of objection, has been one of the main contributing factors to why things are only getting worse.

I agree with every word you said and share your conscientious objections to the policies that WE THOUGHT we were voting against when we so naively and enthusiastically worked to get this President elected and to give him a Democratic congress.

People are no longer so naive. We are where we are because of the political operatives who try each election season to shut down all dissent. Although it's getting harder and harder for them to do this.

I will never remain silent about torture and extra-judicial killings and all the other Bush policies that some appear to have embraced now that Bush is no longer in the WH.

You have provided a conscientious solution for those who found it difficult to support those policies.

Yes, he is better than Romney on so many levels. We don't have a choice which is not a good feeling.

So, I appreciate your giving us a cause to vote FOR, people's right to vote, rather than simply voting AGAINST Romney.

[MuseRider]

99. I will join sabrina

thanking you for saying all of this. I agree with everything you said. Although I never expected Obama to do much of anything I was hoping for (he did some of them though) I have still been disappointed and I anticipate that will be the way things are from now until I cast my final vote. Some are tolerable though. Still it is my choice to deal with. You should never have to tell anyone, much less a website who you are voting for.

This is the kind of discussion we should be having rather than "you are a such and such" or "grow up" and all kinds of attempts to shut down the discussion.

It always cracks me up when people jump all over a post like this without reading to the end, realizing how much thought you have put into the post or the personal crisis this kind of thing causes. It would be so much easier to just say, YAY TEAM and vote without thought.

Some people will be thrilled with him because he is just what they want. Some will be thrilled because he is on their team. Some will not be happy and not vote for him and some will not be happy and they will vote for him.

I don't understand the reason to piss all over a thread like this.

Thank you.

[Thinkingabout]

29. I would hope you would vote for Obama, he is the best

We have great visions and sometimes you are unable to do everything you want and in this case the do nothing House for the past two years has blocked intelligent decisions and then the filibuster Senate was unable to do other things. Obama is not a failure, yeh repubs wanted him to look bad but they look bad themselves. Come on back into the Democrat fold and vote for best man.

[Kelvin Mace]

54. I am a liberal, not a Democrat

As I keep explaining, my problems with the President involve issues of morality and ethics within his powers and do not involve Congress.

[CanonRay]

31. Its a vote...I'll take it.

[ibegurpard]

37. I hear you on being disappointed on MAJOR issues

nevertheless I will be casting my vote for Obama ENTHUSIASTICALLY...not just because the Republicans are worse than I have ever seen in my 20 plus years of following politics but because I do feel like he is on the right side of many issues important to me.

[Kelvin Mace]

79. And I am glad you are happy with your vote

Seriously, I hope to be very wrong and see Obama go paleolithic on their asses.

I just want to see him on the LEFT side of more issues.

[trof]

42. K&R Kevin. I see what you're doing.

Giving a way for those disappointed with Obama's first term lack of miracles a rational reason to come out and vote for him anyway.
Well done.

[Kelvin Mace]

81. Thanks, that is precisely what I am trying to achieve

I WANT to believe, but I have been disappointed so many times, and found myself with only dark choices.

I really wish the folks in this thread being so dismissive and snarky would understand what I am trying to do.

[MariaM83]

43. whatever you think about Obama - SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT nt

[Kelvin Mace]

82. This argument has been brought up many times

The SCOTUS is already a lost cause. We lost it in 05-06 when the Dems refused to filibuster Alito and Roberts.

Also, even if he wins, the GOP is NOT going to allow Obama to appoint any other judges PERIOD.

[longship]

227. Whoa! Hold on there!

Also, even if he wins, the GOP is NOT going to allow Obama to appoint any other judges PERIOD.

Scenerio: two months into Obama's second term a Supreme suddenly dies, for whatever reason.

Are you actually claiming that the GOP would hold up a SCOTUS nomination for four years?

There is a phrase for such a scenerio. It is called a Constitutional Crisis. The last one happened in the years 1973-1974, beginning with the Saturday Night Massacre which single-handedly triggered the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation targeting President Nixon.

If you actually suggesting such a thing, I am flabbergasted and would like to read how you rationalize such an opinion to yourself. It sounds almost delusional.

I was reading this thread and generally supportive of both your OP and your responses in spite of my general disagreement on several points. I was not going to respond at all but I cannot let this claim to go unchallenged.

I am sorry about this. I support your post until this (in spite of my disagreement).

[Pab Sungenis]

230. The Supreme Court

Are you actually claiming that the GOP would hold up a SCOTUS nomination for four years?

In a word, yes. In fact, they don't need to hold it up for four years, just two since nominations die with the swearing in of a new Congress after the midterms. Of course, nothing would stop Obama from renominating the same person, but remember what Einstein said about insanity.

And why would they necessarily filibuster his Supreme Court nominees? He's already replaced two of the four liberals on the Court with people to the right of who they replaced, why should we expect him to do different if Ginsburg and Breyer retire as expected? They might see the possibility of allowing the move to the right to continue to be a slow drift instead of a steady march, until they can get a President more to their liking in.

[longship]

241. In other words, you are suggesting that Republicans will trigger a Constitutional crisis.

I am sorry. You've lost my support here.

No party would dare do what you are suggesting, even for merely two years.

Anyway, I suspect that Harry Reid may very well pull the Senatorial nuclear trigger when Congress convenes in January (depending on the outcome in November). So there may not even be a filibuster to filibuster.

[Pab Sungenis]

248. "In other words, you are suggesting that Republicans will trigger a Constitutional crisis."

They already have. They destroyed the country's credit rating with their debt ceiling bullshit. They've shown over and over again that they will do anything to oppose Obama.

I pray Harry Reid will continue to grow a spine like he's apparently been doing the past year or so. But I wish he had done it back in 2009 when it would have done us some good.

[longship]

260. Okay. Understand that I still wish to be with you here.

I disagree but have sympathy for your general position. (No, I would prefer not to go into minutia on that.)

Maybe you weren't politically aware in Ictober, 1973. But this is how the mainstream media handles a Constitutional crisis:

Good evening. The country tonight is in the midst of what may be the most serious constitutional crisis in its history. The president has fired... The special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox, and he has sent FBI agents to the office of the special prosecution staff and to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and the President ordered the FBI to seal off those offices. Because of the President's action, the Attorney General has resigned.

Elliot Richardson, who was appointed Attorney General only last May in the midst of the Watergate scandal, has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, Mr. William Ruckelshaus, has been fired. Ruckelshaus refused in a moment of constitutional drama to obey a presidential order to fire the special Watergate prosecutor. The President has abolished the special Watergate prosecutor Cox's office and duties and turned the prosecution of Watergate crimes over to the Justice Department.

...

In my career as a correspondent, I never thought I'd be announcing these things.

John Chancellor, Oct 21, 1973. At that time, a 25 year journalist veteran.

That, my friend, is what a constitutional crisis looks like. Within a week, the House Judiciary Committee convened to consider impeachment of the President.

And please do not argue about today's lame media. If another thing such as this happened again, it would be huge news. Stopping all SCOTUS nominees for months, years would do the same. It cuts to the core of division of powers, which is the main characteristic of these things.

I know there are other analogues today. But stopping all SCOTUS nominees would be front page news and cuts to the core of Constitutional powers.

[Pab Sungenis]

267. The question remains, would the Republicans do that?

I argue that their actions these past four years suggest they would.

[longship]

270. That's a tall claim.

You arent even the DUer I addressed my post to. He/She is notably silent on the issue.

I am done in this thread.

[Kelvin Mace]

333. We have been in crisis

since Bush v. Gore in 2000 when the SCOTUS appointed Bush president.

Again, I assert, the SCOTUS is a lost cause.

I would also point out that if Nixon were in office today, his actions would have been legalized as they were when Bush did pretty much the same thing Nixon did (illegal wire taps).

[Kelvin Mace]

332. Hope you are right

I genuinely do. But I have seen too much in the last decade to have much faith left.

I'll believe the Democrats will carry out threat X, when they do in fact carry it out.

[Kelvin Mace]

331. Honestly?

Are you actually claiming that the GOP would hold up a SCOTUS nomination for four years?

Yes. I do.

My reasoning is pretty straightforward:

The Congress has reached historical levels of dysfunction. It has spent almost four years of constant escalation, and I see no reason for it to stop. Every day the GOP becomes more and more disconnected from reality and delusional. I really don't see this ending.

Might I point out that we are currently prosecuting soldiers for planning a military coup?

But, let us assume that they do allow a nominee to go through. The trend since about 1970 has been that every new appointee is to the right of the justice he/she replaced. The court is SO far tro the right now that Kennedy is considered a "centrist". But assume that we see the second coming of Thurgood Marshall. The court would still be 5-4 hard right. The Scalito Five are going to be around a long time, and we are already in the process of imploding thanks to the Citizens United decision.

What will happen when indefinite detention without trial is legalized (a position Obama SUPPORTS I might add)?

[Panasonic]

45. I know three David Allens now.

One is a friend, and the other is you and Skinner.

Just wondering if you are the same David Allen from the old Plan 9 Publishing who used to publish hysterical BOFH series...

(and a few other good old geek books too)

In any case, I've decided that Romney is worse, and I happen to live in a battleground state like you do, and even though Obama's DOJ offends me greatly (in both ways - the bank screwing continues, and one that hit close to home as a MMJ patient). One of my pet issue of legalizing marijuana is on the ballot, and even though I am not as thrilled (but starting to warm up again) about Obama on those issues, Romney is way worse.

Worst part - my father is still anti-Obama even though he has seen improvements in his life from the past 4 years - he got Medicare and SS early after his lymphoma went into remission, but he is still bitter about having to pay heavy insurance costs to cover both him and my mom - I already have my SSDI and Medicare, and continue to work for my dad. Right now, only my mother has to cover for her insurance for another six more months, then she'll get her benefits at 65. Mom is secretly voting for Obama, though to cancel Dad's vote out - and will get +2 Obama votes (wife is voting absentee).

[Kelvin Mace]

83. Yes, I am that David Allen

The publisher guy.

[Panasonic]

106. Did your publishing business fold because of the * years?

Any chance of restarting it?

I might have a few ideas, including writing a novel, but just need to find a publisher.

[Kelvin Mace]

125. Two things sank me

The economic implosion and a lot of time and money I spent on the e-voting issue.

No chance at this time of starting it back up, as the market has changed rapidly since then. I certainly don't mind offering advice and encouragement for your effort. Drop me a message if you want to discuss it.

[tavalon]

199. I figured that had something to do with it.

I'm so glad that my senior brain can no longer conjure up that fucking ^$%%#^'s name.

[hootinholler]

256. OMFG! I bow before you

As one of the ancients, I loved BOFH!

Oh, I'm totally with you here. It was also e-voting (evil-voting I'm in Md) that got me into wonkdom.

[mnhtnbb]

46. Fellow resident of NC--never was enchanted with Obama--but I don't need an excuse

to vote for him.

As others have said...the choice is obvious. NOT voting gives Romney an edge in NC and I would NEVER
vote for Romney.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. I intended to vote in all races

except the presidency.

With these vile attempts at voter suppression, I vote as a proxy and hope for the best.

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. Just like Senator Sanders said this very day (paraphrasing) "Vote for President Obama because

there is no sane choice and work like hell from November 7th onward to make him do what needs to be done".

I'm completely agree with you on this. The President has failed on so many fronts and has pursued straight-up republican policies where the welfare of the people is concerned that I cannot vote for him, but he gets my vote against Rmoney.

[renate]

53. I was going to post something like this because I heard him too

He handled the question (from the Green Party voter, right?) very well, I thought, and he's right IMO. (I can be persuaded of just about anything if Bernie Sanders says it. There is nobody I trust more.) A vote for anybody other than Obama is a vote for Romney. The day after Election Day, not the day itself, is the right time to pressure the President to do what needs to be done.

[Egalitarian Thug]

104. 534 clones of Bernie Sanders, please. What the hell happened to us?

Peace.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. I think that you're very naive

Obama never actually claimed to be a progressive. His record and his campaign gave no indication that he would be governing from the left; if you feel betrayed and disappointed it's because you saw what you wanted to see instead of what was actually there. Obama is a centre-right moderate; I have not been especially disappointed by his actions in office because I didn't have false expectations. And I'm not exactly sure how you expect him to've enacted 'progressive' policies without the votes in Congress to pass them; imposing an agenda you happen to approve of by presidential fiat and completely ignoring the Constitution and separation of powers is just the sort of thing that you'd be screaming blue murder over if a Republican were doing it.

As to your laundry list of various complaints about Obama:

1) The prisoners at Guantanamo not getting fair trials, or trials all.

This is within the scope of existing law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

You may disagree with the law (I do, personally), but expecting something different to happen without sufficient political will to overturn the act (either by the Supreme Court or by an act of Congress) is frankly, well, naive. As the Military Commissions Act is an act of Congress it's not within the President's authority to act contrary to the law by saying "well no actually we won't follow the procedure set out here".

2) People upset over Obama appointing a Monsanto exec as senior advisor to the FDA.

Which is different to a president appointing a GM executive to the Department of Commerce or a former JP Morgan banker to the Treasury how, exactly?

3) People who continue to lose jobs because of the "free trade deals" Obama champions.

See Paul Krugman on free trade and comparative advantage, here: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm This amounts to "I don't understand economics".

4) Innocent people murdered by drones.

One's view on this largely depends on whether you accept the argument that the drones are being used to target "enemy combatants" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like it or not, the US is at war in Afghanistan against an insurgent enemy. Whether you think we should be there or not (I don't) some level of collateral damage is unavoidable and targeting with drones means fewer American casualties.

5) People upset over the continuation and EXPANSION of Bush domestic spying policies.

Which is disappointing but then the expansion of the national security state tends to go in one direction; it's not any different to the use of domestic wiretaps of civil rights organisers by the FBI under JFK.

6) The complete failure of Obama to investigate war crimes.

No US president is going to investigate putative war crimes that may have been committed by his predecessor or by American troops. The most that might happen is a few token trials of individual soldiers for specific actions without any recognition that those actions were due to any official policy.

7) The lack of prosecution for Wall Street fraud that have cost the U.S. tax payer $1 trillion plus and counting.

"Fraud" is by and large an overstatement. There was a lot of money lost in questionable investments in the financial crisis; the actions that led to that money being lost were all perfectly legal thanks to deregulation of the financial sector.

8) People mad about continued "secret" loans to banks by the Fed with no transparency.

Because not ensuring liquidity and the overall stability of the banking system would be a much better option.

9) Appointing the people most responsible for the Great Recession to clean it up.

You know who FDR appointed to head the Securities and Exchange Commission? Joe Kennedy.

10) Letting the insurance industry call the shots on health care reform, resulting in a sweet deal for them and crumbs for us.

The votes weren't there for single payer, and the ACA was the best option available. Sometimes you have to be a pragmatic incrementalist.


It's great that you've reconsidered your position, although considering the state of American politics generally, I would seriously have to ask you: do you have any viable options? Your ideal candidate would be someone who'd never get elected. So your choice is: someone who does a lot of things you don't like, but who nonetheless manages to do some good and arguably even 'progressive' things, or someone whose ideology you oppose completely whose administration would be reactionary and would do nothing at all that could be described as progressive. The lesser of two evils may not be what you want but it's better than the alternative.

[randome]

52. Damn! Thanks for laying it all out like that!

[Blue_Roses]

61. This is one of the best post on DU that I've seen

in the ten years I've been here! A down-to-earth realistic view of a president-- not a god, king, or Santa Claus.

No, president will give us everything we want. But, as you so eloquently stated:

Your ideal candidate would be someone who'd never get elected. So your choice is: someone who does a lot of things you don't like, but who nonetheless manages to do some good and arguably even 'progressive' things, or someone whose ideology you oppose completely whose administration would be reactionary and would do nothing at all that could be described as progressive. The lesser of two evils may not be what you want but it's better than the alternative.

Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you!

[Tennessee Gal]

62. Absolutely right. Thanks for summarizing it so succinctly.

If we were to wait for a candidate who met every single one of the ideals we hold sacred, we would never vote for anyone.

There is no perfect politician or candidate. There never has been and there never will be.

The author of the OP is expecting far too much, in my opinion.

Still going to vote for Obama, but is only do so by using some convoluted logic and a weak explanation for it is quite silly.

Vote for Obama because he embodies the best candidate that meets the majority of the criteria you have set. Don't come up with some lame excuse for it.

If you can't do that, then don't vote. It pains me to say that, but that is the way I feel.

[SunsetDreams]

87. Wish I could Rec a reply! AWESOME!

[RiffRandell]

392. Same here!

Terrific response. Thank you, SJ.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

95. Thank you!! Obama will go down as one of the greatest presidents of ALL time!!

Give him another term. Give the man a chance. He has face unprecedented obstruction and adversity on every side.

You gave Clinton a chance and he is MORE conservative and corporatist than Obama. Why not give Obama once more chance?

[Kelvin Mace]

327. Actually...

You gave Clinton a chance and he is MORE conservative and corporatist than Obama. Why not give Obama once more chance?

I was quite critical of Clinton, and I didn't give a rat's ass about his personal life.

Give him another term. Give the man a chance.

I thought that was what I was doing. This is why I am puzzled as to why people are so pissed that I am doing it.

He has face unprecedented obstruction and adversity on every side.

As I outlined above, my objections involved areas totally with the jurisdiction of the executive branch. I have not blamed him for anything involving Congressional obstruction.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

396. Well, that's good news. I'm glad you're onboard. I haven't been happy with everything,

and I would be concerned if a person agreed with EVERYTHING *any* politician does.

But I believe that if we work to give this man a Congress that he can work with and because he's no longer politically vulnerable since it'll be his second term, he'll likely be more progressive than he's been. HOWEVER...we must give him the Congress he needs in order to get more progressive legislation done.

[bluestate10]

152. If I had your patience. You completely de-constructed bullshit and showed it for what it is. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

325. So, unless I vote

for Obama for reasons you and Spider approve of, my post is "bullshit".

My, how enlightened.

[tavalon]

200. Idealistic was the word you were looking for

The OP is not naive. Not by a long shot.

[Vinnie From Indy]

290. Oh the irony - it burns!

I am in awe of the sublime disconnect between your post and the quote in your sig line!

Cheers!

[Kelvin Mace]

324. Yeah, you caught that...

I was going to comment, but I written enough in response to him.

[Union Scribe]

449. A lot of people seem to have that syndrome in this thread

There's a poster further down that is so mad at the OP they tell him to "keep his vote," and in the sig is a line about respecting the opinions of those who disagree with him. Lol.

[Kelvin Mace]

323. In repsonse

Please note that I said my OP that I didn't want to have this argument, I simply wanted to explain why, despite my objections, I would in fact vote for Obama. The point of the post was to help people who had similar objections by giving them an ethical justification to vote "for" rather than "against".

But people refused to accept this. They demanded to know WHY I held my view, and then they decided to tell me why I was "wrong" as you are doing here when I explained why. Apparently, my vote is not wanted unless I worship at the Obama Altar without question.

A number of people in this thread did see my point and will now vote for Obama. I would think this would make Obama supporters happy, but it doesn't for some strange reason.

So, on to your rebuttal:

Obama never actually claimed to be a progressive

Never claimed he did. Obama is definitely right of center. I recall making this point when he ran in 2008, and got a lot of similar abuse.

You may disagree with the law (I do, personally), but expecting something different to happen without sufficient political will to overturn the act (either by the Supreme Court or by an act of Congress) is frankly, well, naive.

Actually, what he has to do is simple: Nothing. He needs to STOP appealing court decisions that say he does not have the right to hold people forever without trial. He is fighting to keep people at Guantanamo. All I ask that he do is STOP THAT. Take the court ruling and say, well, the judge said we (actually Bush) were wrong.

Not an unreasonable expectation. He actually did do precisely this with DOMA. Why can't he do it with illegal detention?

Which is different to a president appointing a GM executive to the Department of Commerce or a former JP Morgan banker to the Treasury how, exactly?

You will have to give me some context for this. Who did the appointing? Just off the top of my head the answer would be that there is no difference and it would be just as wrong which is why he should not do it.

See Paul Krugman on free trade and comparative advantage, here: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm This amounts to "I don't understand economics".

I do believe that Krugman does make distinctions between "free trade" as practiced, and "fair trade" which is the better solution, but hell you can have this one.

One's view on this largely depends on whether you accept the argument that the drones are being used to target "enemy combatants" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like it or not, the US is at war in Afghanistan against an insurgent enemy. Whether you think we should be there or not (I don't) some level of collateral damage is unavoidable and targeting with drones means fewer American casualties.

I have heard these kinds of legalistic arguments before. Didn't buy them from John Woo, don't buy them from Obama. As I recall, they didn't accept these arguments at Nuremberg either.

Which is disappointing but then the expansion of the national security state tends to go in one direction; it's not any different to the use of domestic wiretaps of civil rights organisers by the FBI under JFK.

Which in no way obviates Obama from refraining from the practice. The "everybody else did it" justification is very first grade-ish.

No US president is going to investigate putative war crimes that may have been committed by his predecessor or by American troops. The most that might happen is a few token trials of individual soldiers for specific actions without any recognition that those actions were due to any official policy.

I seem to recall soldiers in Vietnam being tried for waterboarding Vietnamese back in the 60s, so this is simply not true. I am sorry, so very sorry, that Obama is a moral coward on this issue, as he opens the way for more and worse abuses in the future.

"Fraud" is by and large an overstatement. There was a lot of money lost in questionable investments in the financial crisis; the actions that led to that money being lost were all perfectly legal thanks to deregulation of the financial sector.

A number of financial reporters such as Matt Taibbi beg to differ. Also, when individual states' AGs began criminal investigations, the Obama "Justice" department did everything in its power to thwart them, and persuade them to take civil settlements instead.

Because not ensuring liquidity and the overall stability of the banking system would be a much better option.

In Iceland, they refused to bail out the banks, and they prosecuted the bankers. Their economy seems to be coming along swimmingly. Currently, the top 25 banks (assets $11 trillion) are sitting on "derivatives" (wild ass bets) equal to $233 trillion. Are we to pay for that when it blows up as well?

You know who FDR appointed to head the Securities and Exchange Commission? Joe Kennedy.

You have a point there. It takes a thief to catch a thief. Trouble is, Geitner, et al, don't want to catch anyone or reform the system. Somehow, FDR got reform with Joe Kennedy.

The votes weren't there for single payer, and the ACA was the best option available. Sometimes you have to be a pragmatic incrementalist.

And Obama made ZERO attempts to fight for it when he had the political capital. Also, once you invite the insurance industry to write the law, you can be DAMNED sure the votes won't be there since "single payer" won't be there.

It's great that you've reconsidered your position, although considering the state of American politics generally, I would seriously have to ask you: do you have any viable options?

No.

And we never will as long as "pragmatists" keep telling us it can't be done.

OK, you have the vote. May I suggest you quit while you are ahead?

[Spider Jerusalem]

374. And your response is fairly inadequate, really

Actually, what he has to do is simple: Nothing. He needs to STOP appealing court decisions that say he does not have the right to hold people forever without trial. He is fighting to keep people at Guantanamo. All I ask that he do is STOP THAT. Take the court ruling and say, well, the judge said we (actually Bush) were wrong.

Military commissions aren't civilian trials but they take the place of them under the law we have. Indefinite detention as such is authorised under the National Defense Authorization Act:

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).

see here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Note that the authorisation of indefinite detention is "pursuant to the laws of war" and such persons deemed to be enemy combatants are detained until cessation of hostilities. This is an altogether normal procedure for prisoners of war. If you accept that the US is "at war" with Al Qaeda then these provisions are perfectly standard. (And US citizens who take up arms against the US are probably luckier to be treated as enemy combatants considering that the penalty for treason is still death.) The distinction seems to mostly be in the argument of whether one accepts that the US is "at war" with Al Qaeda, and whether Al Qaeda operatives should be treated as prisoners of war, or as common criminals. The US government at present maintains the former postion, and all of the laws passed by the US Congress relating to detention of enemy combatants re the war on terror adhere to that view as well. It's an unfortunate political reality but it is nonetheless a political reality. Would I like to see it changed? Yes; do I think it will be? Not unless the votes magically appear in Congress to repeal the existing detention laws.

And the argument for drones is not Nuremberg; it's Dresden. Or Hamburg. Legitimate military targets; collateral damage. Unfortunate, but an action that nonetheless materially injures the enemy's capacity to wage war. Targeted execution of Al Qaeda fighters by drone strikes is if anything considerably less deadly than the WWII mass bombings.

And your example of "soldiers in Vietnam being tried for waterboarding" just proves my point. Show trials. One or two examples. Few bad apples, that's all, it's not the whole system that's rotten, nothing to see here, move along.

Re Iceland: I would like to invite you to compare the relative size of the financial sector in Iceland and in the US. And the average level of individual debt in Iceland and the US. Iceland's recovery has more to do with an amnesty for private debts, which were officially retired, than it does with letting the banks fail. Iceland's economy contracted by 10% due to the economic crisis, and it hasn't yet recovered to 2007 levels. The US economic contraction, in terms of GDP? 3%. The difference? Quantitative easing. And Iceland has fewer people than a medium-sized US city. You can't really compare what works economically in a country with three hundred thousand people to what would work in a country of three hundred million with a vastly more diversified economy and significantly higher levels of personal debt.

Re healthcare, political capital doesn't translate into votes. Were the votes ever there for single payer? No, they were not. Are you old enough to remember Clinton's healthcare reform? I am. Do you know how that turned out? It didn't.

[Kelvin Mace]

375. Again, you got the vote for your guy

Why do you insist on arguing the issue?

Given your sig line, your response to my post is rather rich.

[sabrina 1]

365. So basically you have just given up on all these issues. You have rationalized everything

that has helped towards the detioration ofthis country and are now saying we should never even try to, eg, get War and Economic Criminals prosecuted!

Who said 'no president is ever going to prosecute War criminals'?? Do you actually accept this as a US policy?

You know that the victims do not go away and that they are extremely active all over the world attempting to get the justice they deserve. And if the US fails to do its duty, then someone outside of the US will do it for us.

The lesser of two evils may not be what you want but it's better than the alternative.

You are actually promoting the 'lesser of two evils'???

Sorry, I do not, and apparently neither do an awful lot of people, share your pessimistic view of this country. What a sad post, honestly. To just give up and let the criminals off the hook. If I believed what you just wrote, which I do not, I would leave this country and go somewhere else.

[Spider Jerusalem]

377. Being realistic doesn't mean "giving up"

and I think it's profoundly unrealistic to assume that any American president would endorse the trial of one of his predecessors for war crimes, which seems to be what's being advocated. Sending Bush to the Hague for the Iraq war sets a precedent that no American president regardless of policy is going to tolerate; that's a simple fact.

Other simple facts: a president is not an omnipotent god-emperor; he is constrained in action by the Constitution, by the Congress, and by the inertia of policies put in place and set in motion before he took office. If you want a good example of that look at LBJ and Vietnam; the "domino theory" and escalation of US involvement was the policy of JFK's national security team, the "best and brightest", Macnamara and Bundy, and Johnson was dragged along by the tide of events beyond his control. Or for that matter look at JFK and the Bay of Pigs (a product of the Eisenhower CIA).

I don't really think that having an awareness of political realities and the actual workings of government, and the limits they place on any president's sphere of action, is pessimistic at all. Cynical, perhaps, but not pessimistic (there's a difference).

[sabrina 1]

379. But none of this stopped the Republicans when THEY decided to prosecute a US President

NOT for War Crimes, true, but for having an affair. Why is they never worry about what anyone else thinks? The got Clinton impeached, and nearly convicted.

And Congress did go after Nixon also, had he not resigned, he most likely would have been impeached.

Everything you say may have become true, and that is all the more reason to change it. Nothing could be worse imho, than to be a country that knowingly allows War Criminals go unpunished. We have lost the moral authority to be able to be what we once claimed to be, the example to others on Human Rights. Now, whenever the US points a finger at other nasty, abusive regimes, someone, such as China eg, responds by listing the crimes of the Bush administration and tells us to clean up our own mess before telling anyone else what to do.

This weakens a country, losing the respect of the rest of the world. So, if it is true that it is policy to refuse to punish law breakers now, then it is even more imperative to start changing that.

'No one is above the law'. I believe that. What we need is a Congress filled with members who also believe it.

Edited to ask, as others have pointed out your sigline, but do you believe that sigline? I know I do but your posts in this thread seem to contradict it completely.

[WiffenPoof]

403. I Understand That...

...you believe that Obama did not campaign as a "Progressive." I would take considerable issue with that. How anybody can watch and listen to his campaign speeches and not conclude that he was coming from a Progressive point of view is completely baffling to me. As a Biden supporter, I remember telling my wife during the campaign that Obama was laying out progressive goals that I didn't feel he was going to be able to achieve. As time went on, I actually began to believe in what he was saying...hope and change started to mean something to me. Maybe he is the real thing. I not only became a big supporter of President Obama, I actually started believing that he could pull it off. I am a Democrat...(now known as a Progressive, I guess). I know when I hear "progressive" speeches...I was not in denial and I didn't hear only what I wanted to hear. He campaigned as a Progressive and has governed as a moderate.

-PLA

[louis c]

63. I'm a Union Guy

and I deal with your type of frustration in my ranks all the time, every day.

This is a "choice" election, as so many others are.

The choice is between a candidate (and a party) that all too frequently, disappoints us. On the other hand, the choice of the alternative candidate and party are people who have made it their political ambition to destroy us.

To me the choice is clear. I will never, ever make the awful decision of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Pisces]

64. Whatever, take your tripe and faux outrage somewhere else.

[Kelvin Mace]

88. I shall post what I wish, when I wish, and how I wish

I was not rude to you, why do you feel the right to be rude to me?

If my posts upset you so, you have tools at your disposal which allow you never to see my name again.

[Major Nikon]

107. And occassionally you might get away with it due to the jury system

However, please don't try to claim that you are in accordance with the TOS.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

(emphasis mine)

So the time for you to post this garbage is well past. So if you can't comply with the TOS, you might be better off posting this shit on another forum. You might call this being rude, I call it complying with the rules, which I don't think is too much to ask.

[Kelvin Mace]

131. I am not in violation of the TOS

The whole point of this post is to make the argument by which people who have major objections to Obama can ethically and morally vote for him.

At NO point have I told ANYONE not to vote for him. In fact, I have gone OUT OF MY WAY to explain that people have the right to vote FOR him.

Also, I have made it quite plain that I intend to vote for other LIBERAL candidates down ballot (I do not consider Democrat synonymous with liberal) Sorry, but I refuse to vote for Joe Lieberman types just because they stick a "D" after their name.

READ what I say, not what you want to think I say.

[Major Nikon]

139. Please don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining

I read your soapbox rant and you were very clearly bashing Obama, which definitely is a violation of the TOS during election season to anyone who is reasonably literate.

[dionysus]

319. sure thing pal.

[Walk away]

165. +1000!

[Union Scribe]

117. You know what, fuck that response.

(not fuck you, but big time fuck your response)

We all know, including the OP, that Obama has to win and that Rmoney is one of the most unbelievably irretrievably horrible people to ever run for the White House. The OP is voting Obama, I'm voting Obama, you're voting Obama. But fuck this nonsense where people are told that they can't have problems with this administration, where they're told to shut up and go elsewhere. Fuck that a million times. That is the most toxic, undemocratic and anti-Democratic attitude possible and it happens far, far too often. This OP is not some troll, and neither is anyone else here who is voting for Obama but doesn't like some of the things that have gone down. Half of you are acting like, if you aren't voting with a smile while whistling "America, Fuck Yeah!" then you're just a no-good crybaby who wants a dictator. The dismissiveness and arrogance of that approach to people here is pathetic.

[Kelvin Mace]

133. I am greatful some folks understand

what I am saying.

Jeebus, you give people what they want and they still aren't happy.

Thanks for your forceful defense of principle.

[Major Nikon]

141. Fuck your response too

If you have a problem with this administration, the time to air that is prior to the nomination. If someone can't hold their tongue for the 2 months between the convention and the election, they should find another forum where such things are NOT in violation of the terms they agreed to when they signed up.

[Kelvin Mace]

145. If it were a violation, I would be gone

Not my first rodeo as the man said.

[Major Nikon]

150. Not sure how you figure that

DU3 means community standards are enforced through the jury system. So as long as you can rely on DU jurors' basic ignorance of the TOS and you can thinly veil your bashing within your rhetoric, there's no reason to suspect you can't continue. However, I'd be surprised if you weren't on the radar right now. I'm not going to do it, but I suspect a few have already passed messages on to MIRT about it.

[IndyJones]

168. How is the OP violating the TOS? Is there some rule saying that valid concerns can't be raised

during the two months prior to the election? Why not support the discussion and help the OP see your POV and take it as an opportunity to educate or talk through the issues rather than attempt to supress valid concerns from those within your party?

[Major Nikon]

174. Do I need to draw you a picture?

If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[tavalon]

202. He is doing none of those

If I were on the jury, his post would stand.

[Major Nikon]

210. So you want to piss on my other shoe and tell me it's raining also

[tavalon]

226. I've got no interest in your shoes,

and quite a bit less in this back and forth with you.

[Vinnie From Indy]

286. Bravo!

Cheers!

[Union Scribe]

448. How about the people telling him not to vote for Obama?

The ones yelling that they don't want his vote? That he should "keep it"? Those are explicit violations of the TOS, far worse than anything the OP wrote. Are you kicking up dust about them, too?

[Major Nikon]

451. I call 'em as I see 'em

If you find something worse, point it out. Looks like you already did.

[Pab Sungenis]

234. I love how some here have been resorting to the old

"STFDASTFU" rejoinder. I'd like to welcome the rest of the progressive world to what we in the LGBT*.* community have been experiencing since 5 minutes after Obama was elected.

We don't win by further fracturing our base, we win by bringing people together. We don't win by demanding blind obedience and loyalty unto death, we win by making our case and convincing those that are wavering.

If you're going to tell a Democrat to hold their tongue then you might as well cross the aisle because that's the side of the debate that blind obedience belongs on.

[Major Nikon]

237. I love those who keep trying desperately to make this into something it isn't

If you want to bash Obama, feel free to do it outside of the election season. That's what the TOS says and it just isn't that hard to figure out nor is it a bad idea regardless of what you think.

[randome]

239. There's so much love between you two!

You should really get together some time.

[Pab Sungenis]

242. Criticism is not bashing.

I've said before I'm voting for Obama. I won't donate to him or work the phones for his campaign, but I'm voting for him and encourage others to do so because the alternative is worse.

If I really thought that Romney was better I would have logged off this board and gone to work for his campaign. Instead, I'm holding my nose to vote for a Democratic President who I have major problems with. I'm also working downticket races that are perhaps more important than the Presidency this time around.

Stop demanding purity and start accepting begrudging support. That's how elections are won.

[DainBramaged]

65. I'm going to say to you what I said to my friend who tried (like you) to keep me from voting Obama

Would you rather have Romney and the Fuckpublicans running things? I'm PRO-Democracy, not PRO-Obama.



Your negativism simply sucks. It doesn't belong here, maybe you'll have a friendlier audience where they hate Obama, like the 34% who think he wasn't born here, try that block of cretins.


You fucking insult me. 10 years here, and this shit still gets posted.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

68. You'd look smarter if you actually read the entire OP

[DainBramaged]

76. You'd look smarter if you minded your own business

[RetroLounge]

86. Still can't read yet, huh?

RL

[DainBramaged]

108. Pot shots, still trying aren't ya?

[RetroLounge]

279. I love when someone obviously did not read the entire OP and then gets offended

when their lack of reading comprehension is pointed out, so they double down and look even more unhinged.

pot shot?



RL

[DainBramaged]

356. I did, I STILL got offended

sorry to disappoint

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021393644

[tavalon]

203. Thank you for saving me the trouble

Reading Comprehension 101.

[DainBramaged]

359. Is this fucking pile on 101, Go Merrry Christmas your tree

[Kelvin Mace]

89. I am sorry you feel insulted

No, I would not rather have Romney, and I wish people would come up with a more nuanced argument than "if you are not for me, you are against me."

I have been here almost as long as you, and I still read stuff I disagree with.

[DainBramaged]

109. It has NOTING to do with for me/against me holy shit

This is the election which could mean the beginning of the end of the Conservative Supreme Court for a generation, and you want us to say, nah, not Obama, he's the one who bailed out wall street while the housing market went to shit, or prosecuted those of us who smoke medical marijuana, or a hundred other broken promises.


You run with what ya brung son, and if you don't like the choice, go vote for the other guy. Or sit home on your hands.


We're done here.

[Kelvin Mace]

134. The SCOTUS is a lost cause for the next 20 years

That ship sailed in 2005-2006.

Also, what part of "I wasn't going to be able to vote for Obama, but now I can" is pissing you off so much? Do you think I am the only person on this board who feels this way?

Do you want the votes or don't you?

[limpyhobbler]

101. Seems like you posted without reading the original post. nt.

[tavalon]

204. Many, many did.

I usually think of DUers as being of above average intelligence. Some days it becomes harder to believe that.

[Nye Bevan]

69. Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but it's a 2 party system.

I don't get this "good conscience" stuff. There are two candidates. You vote for the one out of the two you like better. It is highly improbable that you will agree with the guy you vote for on every issue, but if you don't vote for him, you are helping the other guy. So you should vote for the guy you agree with on more stuff than the other guy.

Or am I dumbing this down too much?

[GreenPartyVoter]

73. Only by default. It was not originally designed to work this way.

[Kelvin Mace]

91. Black and white choices for a grey world

The devil you know, is still the devil.

[limpyhobbler]

103. That is simplifying it a little maybe.

Some people think things keep getting worse with choosing the lesser of two evils.

For those people, they have to ask themselves "how long are we going to keep doing this?" How long can we keep choosing between two parties that agree on so many important issues, when things keep getting worse, and both parties are committed to implementing slightly different versions of the same policies? Why are there so many urgent issues that are not discussed at all in mainstream politics.

If someone is really convinced that both the Democrats and Republicans will screw the people, one slightly worse than the other, at some point it could make sense to start working outside the two-party system. This could be to try to scare one of the two major parties into representing those issues better.

[OnionPatch]

147. I've always looked at it that way, too.

There doesn't seem to be much other choice in this system. The odds are pretty small of any candidate mirroring my beliefs on every issue, or anyone else's. Until they come up with a system to please 100% of us, I vote for the best of the two and work to change public opinion on the issues that matter most to me. Public opinion drives politicians, not the other way around.

[tavalon]

205. No, actually, you've just made a fine argument

for convening a Constitutional Convention. It's well past time to dismantle this two party lock system.

[MineralMan]

71. So, you're going to vote for Obama in spite of yourself.

OK. As long as you vote for Obama, that's just fine.

I have to say, though, that you're missing some important points here. But, I won't trouble you any further with those. As long as you're voting for Obama for whatever reason, I can't argue against that, for sure.

I'm really not sure, though, what this is in aid of.

[Kelvin Mace]

92. I am hardly the only person with problems voting for Obama

I have seen some very nasty and heated arguments over the issue, and have seen people leave as well.

My point is to offer those people who share my objections an ethical solution to a problem that bothers them more than it obviously bothers other people.

[tavalon]

206. It is in aid of those of us who couldn't, when the chips were down,

go pragmatic. I have, and a tiny piece of my soul is the gold I pay for that. I've already done it, so it's too late for me. But for others who were going to sit it out because their idealism (boy, do I know that idealism intimately) just couldn't allow them to vote for another four years that might be just like the last four years, he gives them a patriotic out. Lend a hand to the disenfranchised.

Simple, elegant and beautiful. And since I seem to be the only person on this website who remembers exactly who this David Allen is and how damn patriotic he is, I'm not at all surprised that this is the solution he came up with for himself and offers to others.

I would have loved to have seen this three months ago. I haven't found a way yet to buy back the little pieces of my soul that this life requires. This could have saved me yet another piece.

[GreenPartyVoter]

72. I respect your choice and reasoning. Peace, brother!

[Kelvin Mace]

93. Thank you

I think you are about one of four people who seem to get what I am trying to do.

[tavalon]

207. Five

[unapatriciated]

533. six

[smokey nj]

229. I get it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

94. OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!!!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

96. You live in the USA what do you expect

Just vote for Obama or stay at home you have the choice

[Kelvin Mace]

135. No, my choice was still voting

just not in the presidential race.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

97. I hear what you're saying, but I hope you vote for the president.

[stlsaxman]

98. well it's mighty big of you- voting for someone else- but...

THAT'S NOT WHAT A VOTE IS ABOUT!!!!

Your vote is YOURS- vote for yourself.

(and- i don't give a f*ck who you vote for- it's none of my damned business.)

[Cleita]

100. I was never behind Obama nor Hillary for that matter. I knew he was a conserva-Dem,

as is Hillary, which is why I originally supported Dennis Kucinich and then John Edwards. I'm not at all disappointed in what his policies are because it's what I expected. However, setting all that aside, the crucial issue in this election is the appointment of future Supreme Court judges. In that respect I am confident he will make the right choices. Otherwise I will eat my words if his second term is any different from his first and he starts channeling FDR.

[mshasta]

102. is your right

to have your own ideas ...we all learn from eachother

[cr8tvlde]

105. How many more like Scalia and Thomas as SCOTUS would you recommend?

...that's the choice. Everything else pales. It's for their lives...and they all live a very long time. (Good health care, and all)

[Pab Sungenis]

238. How many more Elena Kagans would YOU recommend?

Anti-4th-Amendment, anti-gay. This is supposedly a DEMOCRAT we're talking about, replacing one of the Court's liberal bastions and the most solidly pro-civil rights Justices since Thurgood Marshall.

I reconciled myself to there being no hope of saving the Court the day the Senate confirmed Kagan. And I have no evidence that Obama will nominate anyone better to replace Ginsburg and Breyer next term. We know that Scalia and Thomas won't retire while Obama is in office so he will never have a chance to replace a conservative and he's shown twice now that he won't replace a liberal with another liberal.

[WinkyDink]

110. Terms of Service : when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees

That's a quote.

[DainBramaged]

111. People don't give a shit, they think it's OK and spew with impunity

while silly shit gets people alerted on.

Fucking double standard

[99Forever]

120. Chill out, bud.

The OP stated quite clearly that he would cast a vote for Obama. What is it about that you don't get?

[Kelvin Mace]

146. Apparently,

I am supposed to dance the Macarena while doing so.

[bluestate10]

153. NO. YOu're supposed to pull your head out of the sand.

Have you been alive with clear ears and eyes for the last fore years? Aim your outrage at republicans.

[Kelvin Mace]

308. Hmmm...

Dems doing what Republicans did, but that is OK, just blame Republicans and ignore Democrats violations of the law.

Gotcha!

[DainBramaged]

363. I'm not your bud, chill this

it's shit stirring plain and simple. Just like any Draconian Puke trick before any election, it's shit stirring to make an overly inflated ego explode.

[Major Nikon]

155. This shit did get alerted on

I knew it already had been, but I alerted again just to see what the jury came up with and it was 2-4. I guess not enough people bother to actually read the TOS or like you say all anyone seems to give a shit about is hiding posts that have PG sexual innuendo while garbage like this stands. Might as well hang out in freeperland.

[Union Scribe]

162. Or, maybe they aren't all eager to become

such a desolate and lifeless echo chamber that even an Obama voter would be silenced for not being 100% enamored of his policies. It is a shitty and cold forum you desire.

[Major Nikon]

173. I don't have a problem with it

The thousands of people here who actually are complying with the rules don't seem to have a problem with it. If the Obama bashers can't stand the thought of "a shitty and cold forum" for 2 months, then go somewhere else. It's not that complicated.

[Pab Sungenis]

240. So now those of us who don't like Obama but are supporting him anyway aren't welcome?

I think a post like the OP makes a much more convincing case for "hold your nose and vote" than telling someone who is supporting you with reservations to go somewhere else.

The Obama Administration has been disastrous for civil liberties, has advanced the cause of corporate conglomerates over the needs of the average person, and has further entrenched the war in Afghanistan rather than end it the way it should have been in July of 2009.

The simple truth is, however, that the alternative would be much worse and many of us are voting for Obama solely because we know things would be worse with Romney in the Oval. A good number of us are contributing to and volunteering for local and Congressional candidates as well. Would you rather that we stop those efforts and go away just because we don't agree with your perception that Obama is perfect and anyone who criticizes him is evil? That's how we lost in 2010: the liberals stayed home. Don't flush the 2012 Congressional races the same way.

[randome]

244. I think you're right on your first point but wrong on the others.

The 'disastrous on civil liberties' part especially does not ring true for me.

But I think you have the right to point out the way you see it.

[Pab Sungenis]

247. "The 'disastrous on civil liberties' part especially does not ring true for me."

Keeping Guantanamo open, renewing the Patriot Act, not only keeping but expanding Bush's warrantless wiretap policy? Indefinite Preventive Detention?

The difference is that Romney would end up doubling and tripling down on Obama's doubling down on Bush's policies. By re-electing Obama we can at least hope that things won't get worse than they are.

[Kelvin Mace]

309. Legalizing domestic spying

Ignoring Habeus, life imprisonment without trial, trial by military tribunal, these are NOT civil liberty disasters to you?

They were when Bush was doing it.

[randome]

314. All things that need to be addressed.

On the other side of the coin are:
Supporting same-sex marriage.
Ending the war in Iraq.
Helping foster the Arab Spring.
Advocating for more equatable taxation policies.

Your list of negatives would have more resonance, I suspect, if you also mentioned positive things to congratulate the administration on.

I just don't see it as a philosophical toss-up between Obama and Romney. Keep up the fight to right the wrongs you mentioned but also recognize the administration for the right things they have done.

[Major Nikon]

245. Once again you pretend this is something it's not

If you think 'I can't in good conscience vote for Obama' 'but I'm going to anyway' makes sense, then I'm not sure we have much to discuss and since you have to make false accusations and put words in my mouth to make your arguments, I have zero interest in doing so. Furthermore I'm not going to keep responding just so you can use it as an excuse to post more Obama bashing bullshit. I'm just going to invite you to find another playmate.

Cheers!

[Pab Sungenis]

258. "You pretend this is something it's not"

then go somewhere else. It's not that complicated.

How is this anything other than telling reluctant supporters to get lost?

[tavalon]

209. Hmmm, calling out a fellow member

I think that's a violation of the TOS. But then, there's been a lot of that on this thread, so I'm inclined to let yours slide.

[Major Nikon]

220. So where does it say that, exactly?

And assuming you can find this (which I have no confidence you can), what exactly do you think a call out is?

Your objectivity on this subject isn't impressing me.

[tavalon]

225. I'm heading to bed in a few minutes so I'm not going to comb through now

When I get up, if I still have an irk in my belly around your game, I'll find it. You called him a troll. Not directly. And, while I have alerted on one post in this whole thread, yours was not the lucky one. I don't care enough about the game you're playing to bother.

I'm not objective on this subject! I had to hand over a piece of my soul to pragmata. That fucking hurts. I would have jumped on this as a way not to have done that if it had been posted a few months ago. I'm grateful to David Allen, a man I've considered a hero for years (I consider Skinner a hero, too) for putting this out there, now, when it is coming down to the wire. Too late for me, but he's convinced at least two other people to use this method to be able to vote for Obama without a sell out.

[Major Nikon]

233. The TOS takes up one page

If you haven't found it already, you ain't gonna find it. So now you want to pull something else right out of your ass and make false accusations of troll calling to support your non-objective BS.

I've had as much of this as I'm going to take. I don't try to reason with people who are clearly unreasonable and as you have far exceeded my quota for absurdity, I'm going to have to invite you to find a new playmate because I have zero interest in continuing this discussion with you. Feel free to have the last word if such things are important to you, but I won't be reading it and I won't be responding.

Cheers!

[tavalon]

395. Considering that I went to bed just a bit after speaking to you

and woke up just about 30 minutes ago, I actually haven't looked it up, and I find I don't care enough about your POV to bother. You know what you did.

[WinkyDink]

232. Provide a link or a quote.

[stevenleser]

249. MN, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think the best reaction to this OP is...

"Thank you for deciding to vote for Obama and giving some of those folks who rightly or wrongly feel disappointed with Obama another reason to vote for him and lets save our disagreements for after the horror that is Romney/Ryan is defeated."

I get what you are saying and I disagree with most if not all of the reasons to be unhappy with Obama from a Liberal perspective, but if these folks are going to pull the lever for us, I say lets hash all that out after election day.

[Kelvin Mace]

315. If you are ever in my town

(High Point, NC) drop me a line and I'll buy you your favorite beverage.

[Kelvin Mace]

271. They read it

They seem to not see the violation you see.

Again, point to one place where I have told people not to vote for Obama. The whole point of the post is that I AM voting for Obama, you just don't like my reason and think that unless I agree with you, I should be banned.

[sabrina 1]

322. Or maybe the Jury actually read the OP and understood that Democrats will need

every vote they can get. It's pretty sad when someone actually gives people a reason to vote FOR the president, that there are actually people here who disagree.

[Union Scribe]

119. The OP is voting for him!

Does that mean we have to pretend like there weren't problems with Obama's first term? Am I in violation by saying I DON'T support his free trade policies?

[Kelvin Mace]

143. Gosh, and what exactly do you think I am doing?

You folks don't seem to know how to take "yes" for an answer.

[ohheckyeah]

158. Actually it's the title of the OP that's the problem.

Anyone who doesn't read the OP only knows what the thread says. I personally think it should be changed or removed.

[Kelvin Mace]

306. If folks are going to judge the entire post

by a headline without actually reading the post, not much I can do.

[ohheckyeah]

320. Yes, there is....

change the title.

[WinkyDink]

235. There is actually a difference between "support" and your now-disingenuous denial of your premise.

[Kelvin Mace]

312. My words are plain

I am sorry I haven't made them plain enough.

Bottom line, I'm voting for your guy. If my reasons for doing so piss you off, not my problem.

[RandiFan1290]

201. Say what?

Remember this guy?

[tavalon]

208. And he just showed people who might not otherwise be able to,

a way to do just that.

[WinkyDink]

236. Oh, wow. A mentor.

[99Forever]

115. Thank you, sir.

You have given me the solution to something that has troubled me deeply.

[Kelvin Mace]

144. Good to hear

Some folks in this thread seem to think I am some sort of unique creature in my views.

Thanks!

[akbacchus_BC]

116. You are entitled to say what you want, it is called free speech!

What is the alternative, Romney, who ever moves from being a democrat to vote for that loser, is your choice. Obama is not the better of two evils! He is real and the majority of Americans know that he is on their side.

If I could vote in the US. President Obama will get my vote.

May your rant die really hard!

[tavalon]

211. I don't know if you've noticed

but it wasn't a rant and it's not dying.

[Kelvin Mace]

311. If you see my post as a "rant"

you are projecting.

The sum purpose of the post was to propose to folks like myself a reason to vote for Obama despite severe moral misgivings. If you are such a purist that unless the voters are mindless cheerleaders for Obama then you don't want their vote, then that would seem counter-productive to me.

Do you want your man to win or don't you? Do you want my and others votes or don't you?

If the answer is "yes" to both questions, what's the problem.

[SaveAmerica]

118. On behalf of the Military in NC who I hope will be saved from deployment

should your vote aid in a win for Obama, thank you so very much.

Obama hasn't done all that I hoped he would, but when I look at what he did do with so many fighting to keep him from doing *anything* I am thankful for the things he was able to get through.

The alternative (if we don't vote) if Romney were to win would be so much worse (staying in Afghanistan longer, starting something elsewhere in the Middle East - we really can't take that risk!).

Did you do work with Black Box Voting? And the changes that have come to NC by way of better voting machines? Your name is so familiar from the days I was more active here. If I'm remembering correctly, you are one of the people I watched work so diligently to make a difference for us who take voting seriously in NC. And, If I'm remembering correctly, I actually thought of you very recently. Every time I've voted since laws were changed in NC to remove the variety pack of voting machines I have felt so much more confident that my vote counts.

Thanks again; on your vote for Obama and your work for clean voting (and I had no idea about the voter purge here in NC, I will look for deadlines for voter registration and get a message out on Facebook to get everyone to check that there has been no change in their registration.

[Kelvin Mace]

140. Yeah, I'm that guy

I served on the NC Select Committee on e-Voting back in 2005 and we wrote the current law which drove Diebold out of the state. Nice to know that some folks remember and know that I take voting rights very seriously.

I worked with Joyce McCloy who deserves the lion's share of the credit for the war against paperless voting. I worked on the BBV issue from the start in 2002 with a woman who shall remain nameless, since like Voldemort, people get stirred up when they hear her name.

This fight here is big enough.

[SaveAmerica]

400. 1000 times - thank you!! Yes, I remember, I wanted you to be cloned

and the same effort made in every state so all voters could feel confidence on election day.

I was so upset after the theft in 2000 and when I found you and your posts here was so relieved to see someone actually doing something about it and really making a difference!! When I first came to NC I voted in Gastonia and thought how 'forward' of the county to have computers for voting. This was Gore and Bush in '00, imagine my shock a couple years later to find out about those computers and especially the BoE gang in Gaston County.

So, when I see people in NC pushing the RW meme that Obama is going to steal the election, I can assure them that it's just not so!

[tavalon]

212. Finally, someone else who knows what this David Allen has done!

Both of the David Allens on this site are heroes. And they both take a boatload of crap and still fight.

[SaveAmerica]

398. Yes, I was watching and learning, and am really appreciative!

[DonCoquixote]

122. Thank you

This vote will not be the surgery the country needs, but it will count as battlefield triage meant to get the wounded to that point.

[stevenleser]

128. I for one am not going to argue with someone who is doing what I want them to do

I'll leave the disagreements for after.the election

[Kelvin Mace]

138. It has never been harder giving people

what they ask for. They want me to put on a silk gown and genuflect as well.

Thanks for getting the point.

[aikoaiko]

132. OK. It doesn't matter to me why you're voting for Obama.

I think your rationale for not wanting to vote for Obama is benighted, but voting for Obama is what matters on election day.

[Kelvin Mace]

136. At this point

I'll take what graciousness I can.

[Politicub]

137. Wtf is this?

If you seriously don't see the different visions of our future based on electing Obama or Romney, I don't think I can help you.

[Kelvin Mace]

142. I don't recall requesting your help

If you can't understand why people have problems voting for Obama I can't help you.

But as the whole point of this post is that I AM voting for him, why must everyone insist that there is something wrong with me for having moral and ethical qualms about it?

I would think people would be happy to know they have another vote and that they have an argument to make for people who find themselves in my predicament. Instead, it seems I am not only supposed to vote for the man, but I'm supposed to wear ruby slippers and a big smile while doing it.

[Politicub]

149. Try your moral and ethical qualms in the shoes of lgbt Americans

or African Americans, the disabled, vets, or senior citizens. It's a clear choice for me.

I just don't understand why it wasn't for you.

[tavalon]

215. If you have any qualms about the humans being held at Guantanamo,

try walking in those shoes. It becomes easier to see that there can be more than one form of idealism.

[Pab Sungenis]

246. "Try your moral and ethical qualms in the shoes of lgbt Americans"

I don't know whether to laugh or scream.

We've documented here and elsewhere just what we LGBT*.* people have been through with the Obama Administration. From before Obama was even elected until after we lost the House in the 2010 midterms, we endured insult after insult by and on behalf of the President. Our concerns were belittled and we had to endure insults from people like Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren with Barack Obama's imprimatur on them. He gave us some eyewash like giving a posthumous medal to Harvey Milk to distract us from his Justice Department filing a brief in favor of DOMA which compared our relationships to bestiality and incest. When we had an overwhelming majority in the House and for a brief while a 60 vote majority in the Senate we begged for ENDA and we were told "they invited some lesbians to the Easter Egg roll, what more do you want?" And he replaced the most gay-friendly Justice ever with a woman who says that there is no Constitutional right to marriage, a statement that if it had been made about privacy or abortion would have resulted in her nomination being yanked so quickly that there would have been a sonic boom.

Finally, after 15% of the LGBT*.* vote swung away from the Democrats helping lead to the loss of the House in 2010, some Democrats finally forced the President's hand on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the first real victory for LGBT*.* under his Presidency. Then things started to improve. We were told he was "evolving" on gay marriage but were still told that we should be happy with the back-of-the-bus option of Civil Unions that have been proven not to work. We finally got some real movement on immigration issues. And then he had to go flush all that goodwill by inviting Cardinal Fucking Dolan to close out the Democratic National Convention! That was an insult we definitely didn't need.

That any LGBT*.* person would even think about voting for Obama is a testament to just how bad Romney is as an alternative. That we're voting for him despite all of our problems is one of the best arguments you can make for re-electing the man. We're on your side but don't demand that we be happy about it.

[Politicub]

253. If you want to expedite DOMA repeal and the passage of ENDA

It's clear to me what the choice is.

I believe your experience and opinion is held by only a small slice of the lgbt community.

Being on this planet for 35+ years, I've had a front row seat to the evolution of American attitudes on the subject. President Obama's administration has moved the ball forward toward full equality.

The positive things you leave out of your post that happened or how you frame significant moments for gay liberation - Harvey Milk, repeal of DADT, many others - doesn't accurately reflect the strides we've made as a society.

If you would have been paying attention rather than pouting in order to try and get attention, you would have noticed that President Obama has said he's the president of everyone. And he lives up to that ideal.

[Kelvin Mace]

293. Not that I've noticed

You cannot expand Bush's illegal policies and claim to be the president of everyone.

[stevenleser]

254. I don't hear similar sounding comments from most LGBT folks I know IRL or here on DU

In fact, most LGBT folks I encounter are some of the most enthusiastic Obama supporters I come across.

They would probably agree with some of your points about things that were disappointing, but their overall tenor is extremely positive about wanting him re-elected. They certainly do not feel he is the lesser of two evils as far as the LGBT community is concerned.

[Pab Sungenis]

259. "I don't hear similar sounding comments from most LGBT folks...on DU"

I won't presume to say anything about LGBT*.* you know in real life, but here on DU most of the people who were unhappy with Obama were driven away long ago: some in the "great gay purge of 2009" and others by the constant belittling of some in the rah-rah brigade on here.

These four years have been marked by wasted opportunity, but there is at least some hope that we can push Obama further down the right path. That won't happen with Romney.

[Kelvin Mace]

294. Actually, I want to push him down the left path

Yeah, it seems to aggravate people when you won't join the cheerleading squad.

[sabrina 1]

423. The President's 'evolvement' on LGBT issues happened because people refused

to stop pushing him, despite the insults, as we are now seeing regarding Civil Liberties. He not only did not push for ending DADT, his DOJ went to court to overturn the court ruling that was achieved, not by Democrats, by a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, striking it down.

I remember it well, I wrote about it here and was met with the same kind of opposition I see in this thread, when I said that he COULD do it. I researched and found a law under which he could, as CIC have ended it in Jan. 2009. The 'opposition' here even tried to argue against that law.

But I am happy that people refused to be quiet, that he realized in the end he was on the wrong side of history and finally did the right thing re DADT. This all happened because of people who refused to be silenced by others, such as those in this thread, now trying to silence people on Civil Liberties.

The good thing is he did change his mind. A Republican would never have done so even if the individual wanted to because their Party would not tolerate it. The Dem Party did as it should.

Now we are obliged to push once again, on the issue of Civil Liberties and Human Rights and no matter how the same people who tried to silence people on LGBT rights, are once again, busy doing the same thing. We will ignore them.

And IF this President in his second term changes his mind on these most important issues, those same people will forget their own opposition to those changes, just as they now forget their opposition to pushing for Gay Rights. But we will not forget because it is a lesson learned. Never listen to anyone who tries to silence you on the Civil Rights of anyone. Those people are suspect and should never be listened to.

The OP of this thread is a fighter. He has done more for the rights of people to vote than all of his detractors in this thread put together. It is shameful to see what has become of DU frankly. I am very suspicious of people who attack someone who is thinking of ways to get people to vote. I wonder what THEIR motives are.

[randome]

255. You see, you say you worked hard to bring about the changes you wanted.

And then you get some of them, you complain because of Cardinal Dolan. It sounds to me like you're predisposed to find something to be unhappy about.

We are nowhere near where gay rights need to be but progress has been made because of the Obama administration. Keep up the fight but at least recognize reality at the same time.

[Pab Sungenis]

257. "at least recognize reality at the same time."

I do. I don't want to see Romney elected because then the few gains we've made will be lost.

Obama has been a disappointment for me and a lot of other LGBT*.* people I know, but we're voting for him anyhow.

[randome]

262. I was going to let this go but...

...if you say Obama has been a disappointment to you, why not at least admit that Obama has also been a success for LGTB rights?

It seems to me that it all depends on whether you want to focus on the positive or the negative and you seem focused on the latter.

Like I said, the fight isn't over but at least admit that it's Obama who has made progress on this front. No one else.

[Pab Sungenis]

266. I have.

DADT was a big milestone. There were some other things he did that will have an impact. But there's a hell of a lot on the negative side.

Trust me, if I thought it was nothing but negatives I wouldn't be here right now. I'd be out canvassing for Jill Stein or someone else.

This entire thread has been about rationalizing votes for Obama despite our dissatisfaction. A number of good reasons have been presented for doing so.

[randome]

269. Kudos, then!

[Kelvin Mace]

292. Agreed. I have expressed my displeasure

for Obama abandoning the LGBT community many times over the last three years on the issues of gay marriage, DADT and equal hate crimes legislation. Obama pretty much had to be dragged into fighting against DADT. And it was only after folks like John Aravosis and Pam Spaulding told him they were cutting off the money stream did he suddenly remember what side of the issue he was on.

[Kelvin Mace]

289. Couple of things...

1) If this is so cut and dried for you, why does it matter what my reasons are for voting for Obama?

2) I am concerned about people being tortured and murdered in our name, and that is JUST as important as the groups you mention.

3) I am concerned about the gross expansion of Bush policies rather than their repudiation and prosecution. When Bush ran the country, we were outraged by violations of the rule of law and the gross human rights abuses being committed.

Now we have a guy with a "D" after his name and everything just hunky dory?

4) And one more time, since I AM voting for Obama, why do you care why?

[tavalon]

213. If you can't have better reading comprehension than that,

I don't think we can help you.

[SIDURI]

164. Thank you, grantcart

Amen.

You put it so much better (by being calmer) than I could have. A lifetime ago I looked around me and concluded that those that don't participate in the political process by -- at a bare minimum -- voting, don't have any right to bitch about the results. The older I get, the more inclined I am to put it more harshly, so thanks for your well-spoken and well-reasoned response.

Siduri

[sabrina 1]

424. "those that don't participate in the political process"

Since you are new here, you probably have no idea of the OP's history. I will simply say this, no one here has participated more in the political process than the OP of this thread. And since voting rights were what he fought for, his solution offered in this OP to those who are having difficulty participating, are the best I have seen from anyone.

It is those who are attacking the OP for actually finding a way to encourage people to vote, that I am suspicious of. I wonder what their agenda is. They are basically telling people to take their votes and shove them. That doesn't like any Democrat to me.

[SIDURI]

445. I'm glad the OP has such stout defenders as yourself...

... but I think I understood what he was saying in the moment, and took it at face value.

And I disagree.

I live here in the muck and mire of this world, and he lives somewhere purer. I'm not saying he's a bad person for that, just that I disagree.

Siduri

[sabrina 1]

471. I'm glad that there are people like the OP, without whom an awful lot of people

might have lost their right to vote completely. You're new here, maybe you should learn a little about the OP before jumping to conclusions. Put it this way, I am willing to bet a whole lot of money, that not one person in this thread, or on DU for that matter, has done more to ensure that American citizens are not cheated out of their votes than this OP.

Which might be part of the reason why so many people have a lot more respect for him than all of the detractors in this thread put together. Someone who has walked the walk tends to have a little more clout than those who sit around hurling mindless insults from behind their computers, simply because they do not like what they say.

[tavalon]

216. grantcart, I respect you greatly.

That said, you totally missed the point of the OP and wasted a lot of words in the process.

[grantcart]

313. Let's try it again.

There are times to argue passionately about policy.


This is not one of those times.


This is the time for organization and amassing political power.


People who feel that they are above that basic reality have a boutique view of politics that doesn't exist in the real world. Anyone who basically supports the Democratic Party in general but can't support it in particular is approaching the voting with a narcississtic view of their role in the political process.

Now is the time to get people to stand in line and count how many are on one side and how many are on the other side. If any person feels that their individual beliefs are too sacred, or too principled then they are sabotaging the accumulation of political power for the general interests that they share.

Its time to be counted. Stand up and raise your hand. Love to argue policy, principles and everything else on November 7th. Now if any person states that they won't be voting (for whatever reason) then I have zero interest in whatever comes after that. Its not relevent. In the middle of the last quarter they were needed but they went to the locker room. Hard to score points in the locker room.

This is the time to stand up and be counted, to help others get registered and counted, and others get to the poll and get counted. It is particularly galling in an election where the opposition is doing its best to keep people from the polls that anyone would stand up and say I could go, I basically agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I will not vote. Sorry I have no interest in anyone who is that self absorbed.

[tavalon]

381. He is idealistic

I am idealistic. He found an elegant way to get around his conscience. I unfortunately did not, but instead gave in to pragmatism. Each time I do that, I lose a little of my soul. To be called a boutique voter strikes me as an eloquent way to slam another as ignorant of the pragmatics. Neither I nor the OP are ignorant of anything.

[Kelvin Mace]

300. Well since I picked the same column you did

why are you so pissed?

It is really amusing how mad some folks are getting because I am voting with them, but refuse to do so for the reasons they think I should.

By my count, about a dozen or so people with similar objections to Obama have read my post and now say that they can vote for him using the logic I suggested.

But for some reason, this really irks folks like you who demand absolute obedience to orthodoxy.

I would think you would be happy with the extra votes, but apparently not.

[grantcart]

310. Column what column? Didn't read it. All I read was that someone was taking themselves out of the

battle in the middle of the election and wasn't going to have their opinion counted.


End of story.

Not interested in people who aren't going to stand up and be counted.


Either its about getting the team with as big a score and as much power now (and argue policy and strategy later) or its about self indulgence in putting personal profiles above the group.


This isn't tennis where individual points count its about accumulating enough political mass so that power can be divided. You have decided that your personal stature is more important than accumulating political mass.


All you did was take yourself out of the game. You can't score points from the locker room.

[blaze]

411. No! He's keeping himself IN the game and voting for Obama!

And in the process, he's helped a number of other DUers overcome their own reluctance and so, has gained even more votes for Obama.

[brush]

402. Yes, yes

Give 'em hell, grantcart. Your rejoinder rocks with logic and truth.

[bluestate10]

151. If Obama loses, in 8 years your ilk will be running to the next great democratic hope.

Please get a clue. I am tired of taking three steps forward only to have your ilk get us 9 feet deep in a hole.

[tavalon]

217. Do a little research on his specific ilk.

He's probably in Wikipedia. If not, he should be. When you're done, I'm pretty sure he will accept your humble apology. I might not, but then, I think he's a bigger person than I am.

[Kelvin Mace]

305. My entry comes and goes

I am still mentioned here and their in relation to BBV, but certain partisans edit me out on occasion.

At the moment, the only mention is the 2nd graf of the BBV entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_voting

But, the old web site is still up:

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/authors/1-David-Allen

And there are still news bits here and there:

http://www.ncvoter.net/opinion.html
http://www.ncvoter.net/JSCreport.html

And some of Kim Zetter's Wired! articles:

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_6032.shtml
http://www.oilempire.us/ballot.html


And our report is still on line:

http://lawlib.unc.edu/2008040846.pdf

And at DailyKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/75786/1467698#c2

My favorite part of the whole fight:

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/177-Secret-meeting-of-the-Black-Box-Yakuza.html

[KoKo]

366. +1.....

some don't know and don't care to know..

[Kelvin Mace]

384. Yeah, I love how I am being lectured on voting

and why it is critically important.

[tavalon]

382. Damn, the term BBV reminded me of the name of she who shall not be named

That's part of the history I really, really want to not remember.

[KoKo]

407. This is what NC DU'ers Kelvin Mace, Joyce McCloy, other DU'ers Did for Verified Voting!

Diebold v. North Carolina Board of Elections
and
McCloy v. North Carolina Board of Elections

State court litigation involving Diebold's attempt to be exempted from state law requirements to escrow all of its system source code on the grounds that it couldn't do so. EFF intervened in the case on behalf of local election integrity advocate Joyce McCloy and convinced the Superior Court to dismiss Diebold's complaint. The Board of Elections nonetheless certified Diebold to sell equipment in the state, despite a statutory requirement to review "all source code" prior to certifying any vendor. EFF filed suit on behalf of McCloy, asking the Court to force the Board to perform its duties. The Court denied EFF's motion, finding for the Board an exemption for the Board from having to inspect "third party software" although such an exemption does not exist in the statute. Nevertheless, Diebold was forced to drop out of the process as it could not escrow all of its code for possible future review.


http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting /

McCloy took Diebold to court on principle and prevaled. Bev took Diebold to court and pocketed $70K and sold out Steven Heller.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1125697&mesg_id=1144623

-------------


North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting - www.ncvoter.net

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone [phone] - email Join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting websitewww.ncvoter.net

Joyce McCloy Bio

A voting activist since 2003, Joyce McCloy worked for a new law, passed in August 2005, that requires paper records on all voting machines and random post election audits. The law also requires machine manufacturers to explain how their equipment works. McCloy later sued to enforce provisions of that law. In 2006, McCloy worked for and obtained additional legislation to ensure that post election audits would be conducted in a more transparent fashion. In 2007, McCloy worked with The Brennan Center for Justice and Project Vote to eliminate the "No Match No Vote" rule in North Carolina. That legislation was signed into law on August 29, 2007.

McCloy led a 100 county push to encourage the purchase of optical scan systems instead of touch-screen. This led in a decrease of touch-screen counties from 40 to 23. Because of her leadership in the field of election integrity, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina awarded McCloy its 2006 award “for a lifetime of contributions to civil liberties in North Carolina.”

McCloy founded the NC Coalition for Verified Voting in January 2004 and continues to lead the organization. She has authored reports on: The Efficacy of Vote Centers, Cost Study Analysis of North Carolina Voting Systems, Touch-Screen Paper Trail Failures and Problems in North Carolina, Instant Runoff Voting Values and Risks Report, “No Match No Vote in North Carolina - Voter Registration Database as an Administrative Barrier to Voting”, and “Removing Barriers to Voter Verified Paper Ballots - Ballot on Demand to Increase Flexibility of Paper Ballot Voting”. Opinion pieces by McCloy on electronic voting issues have been published by the Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News and Observer, the Asheville Citizen Times and the High Point Enterprise. In 2008 McCloy, assisted by the Brennan Center for Justice raised a statewide alert about straight ticket voting concerns, increasing media attention and direct voter education efforts statewide. McCloy edited a free national voting news letter covering news about election integrity issues, voting machines, election fraud, voter access and legislation in United States and internationally.

McCloy maintains the website www.ncvoter.net and an email list serve to provide information and education to the public about North Carolina voting issues. Additionally McCloy also operates a website www.instantrunoffvoting.us with the goal of educating and informing the public about problems with instant runoff voting. McCloy hold a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Administration from Bluefield State College, but has spent most of her working life in either business or banking operations.



----------------

rom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An expert on electronic voting, Joyce McCloy worked for a new law, passed in August 2005, that requires paper records on all voting machines and random post election audits. The law also requires machine manufacturers to explain how their equipment works. McCloy later sued to enforce provisions of that law. In 2006 McCloy worked for and obtained additional legislation to ensure that post election audits would be conducted in a more transparent fashion. In 2007 McCloy worked with The Brennan Center for Justice and Project Vote to eliminate the "No Match No Vote" rule in North Carolina. That legislation was signed into law on August 29, 07.

McCloy led a 100 county push to encourage the purchase of optical scan systems instead of touch-screen. This led in a decrease of touch-screen counties from 40 to 23. Because of her leadership in the field of election integrity, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina awarded McCloy its 2006 award “for a lifetime of contributions to civil liberties in North Carolina.”

McCloy founded the NC Coalition for Verified Voting in January 2004 and continues to lead the organization. She has authored reports on: The Efficacy of Vote Centers, Cost Study Analysis of North Carolina Voting Systems, Touch-Screen Paper Trail Failures and Problems in North Carolina, Instant Runoff Voting Values and Risks Report, “No Match No Vote in North Carolina - Voter Registration Database as an Administrative Barrier to Voting”, and “Removing Barriers to Voter Verified Paper Ballots - Ballot on Demand to Increase Flexibility of Paper Ballot Voting”. Opinion pieces by McCloy on electronic voting issues have been published by the Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News and Observer, the Asheville Citizen Times and the High Point Enterprise. McCloy also maintains the website www.ncvoter.net and an email list serve to provide information and education to the public.

McCloy hold a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Administration from Bluefield State College, but has spent most of her working life in either business or banking operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joyce_McCloy

[tavalon]

410. The person who made herself infamous with the BBV issue is not McCloy.

What they did in North Carolina is a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, with the imposter's "help", we have lost more battles than won.

[KoKo]

413. What the break off did in NC still stands and it was an achievement

I wasn't looking to bring up Bev Harris... But, also remember the good things Andy Stevenson did And bringing attention to the ability to manipulate these machines (which still exists all over the US today But, NC was a successful achievement. Remember Obama carried NC which was a Red State in the last election.

Please don't take away from that achievement because of what happened with Bev. This was separate.

[tavalon]

432. Oh, I wholly concur

I was working somewhat peripherally in BBV issues before she screwed over Andy and so I was a fan of hers. I got over that darn quick but never forgot the work that was done by the OP.

[Kelvin Mace]

302. I have a clue

just not a clue why it hacks you off that my reason for voting for the man doesn't meet your requirements.

The net result of this post by my reading is more people will be voting for Obama who were not going to before my post.

Why does this irk your ilk?

[WI_DEM]

154. Who cares?

[tavalon]

218. A number of people do, actually

Thanks for the thoroughly unsubstantial comment.

[MFM008]

156. look

I dont like a number of things BO has done or is doing. I get it. However, what the GOP would do is much worse.
Neo-cons crawling in the works again , ugh.
I will vote for O/B even if I have to put myself in a trance to do it.
Perhaps this is what he counted on all along. The gop being so henious he could do whatever he wants.... well hell , he IS smarter than me...

[johnlucas]

157. Dismiss him if you want. But his view is valid

I only came back on board for Obama mainly because I knew it would destroy the Republican Party on the national scene if he got his 2nd term.
I am determined to help have the Southern Strategy destroyed once & for all.

We can make excuses for Obama all we want.
But he is THE MAN.
He is THE BOSS.

That's why Presidents meet with world leaders while Congressmen don't.
You can't see 100s of heads & see a leader.
You see 1 person as a leader.
It is in our DNA.
There's always that one bird that leads the flock during flight.

We know how our system is setup & that Presidents don't have ABSOLUTE power.
But they DO have power.
They DO have the power of the bully pulpit.
And they DO have the power of the Veto.

When a bad law is passed by the Congress, the President can shut it down with a Veto.
If it somehow goes around him, at least the people know that the President didn't approve of the measure.

I believe that Obama is the right man for the job based on his background. Where he came from & what we went through.
But I wonder if he's getting lost in the political gamesmanship forgetting about the MORAL imperative of why he wanted to run for office.
When this conflicts I & a lot of other people get disappointed.
It's not that he hasn't gotten everything done yet. We're patient with him on that.
It's that he championed the WRONG things.

NDAA needs to be struck down by the courts. This triangle system we got will check Obama when he does what is wrong.

I went all the way around the world & back again before I decided to look at the macro picture of ridding America of the Regressive Republican Party & its Retarding Conservative Philosophy.
That's how I got back on board with Obama despite himself.
I sat out of the 2010 elections myself because of the Democrats' weakness.
Those 1st 2 years (2009-2010) should have been the change we're expecting to come after 2012.
I also like Michelle & hope that she influences Barack to make the right decisions.

There is no other choice for me this election than Obama.
But I understand those who can't vote for him due to the things he has done.
In his 2nd term, he needs to atone for his wasted opportunities of his 1st term.

Yeah he got a lot done despite Republican obstruction.
But the fact is he can get even more done than THAT.
He is THE ONE. Yeah, he's Neo.
He is on the level of Abraham Lincoln & Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
He HAS the power to transform the entire nation in the time of his Presidency.
He's the game-changer President.
We feel this & we're already seeing this even when he goes halfway & half-assed.

When his views "evolved" (yeah right. he was always gonna do this) about gay marriage, what happened?
The Muppets dropped out of Chick Fil-A in protest of Chick Fil-A's anti-gay stance.
Obama spoke & the culture supported him.
See that power? He can do more to switch people's views with that power.
The Democrats are no longer seen as weak on defense with the takeout of Osama Bin Laden.
He has milquetoast Harry Reid talking big bad & bold about Mitt Romney's taxes & actually going on the ATTACK!
He has the richest (known) man in the world, Warren Buffett, saying that rich people need to be taxed MORE for the good of the country.
Now Richie Rich candidates like Mitt Romney can't pull those same routines without more people reacting negatively.

He's barely tapping in to his power & the country is changing.
He needs to stop holding back & unleash the full force.
I want him to change the Democrats into that strong force for Social & Economic Justice they were since FDR.
I want him to get back to the Second Bill of Rights.
And HE is the ONLY ONE who can do it.
This is Destiny.

So no more half-stepping, Barack.
You do what's right & you win back people like Kelvin Mace.
Give him something to vote FOR instead of AGAINST.
John Lucas

[tavalon]

219. Well spoken John Lucas

[stevenleser]

252. The problem with all of that is...

you think he could have done more or gone farther. I don't think so. I think the Republican reaction, and the support the Republican response has gotten, to the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus and the attempts to promote green energy sources show how easy it is for the Republicans to provoke a strong backlash to attempts at progressive legislation among the populace.

And that is just in the short term.

Sometimes the backlash to progressive legislation and progressive movements builds slowly over time and festers. IMHO, the 1960's movements by the left and the great society provoked the Nixon and Reagan Presidencies as a backlash. In fact, had Nixon not done watergate and had to resign in a disgrace that tarnished the Republican party, I wonder how long it would have taken for us to elect another Democratic President after Nixon.

[johnlucas]

336. I don't buy that

The voters INCLUDING Republicans pissed at what Bush did to the country voted Obama to be JUST THAT KIND of Reformer.
The Democrats didn't have the perfect lock on the Congress but they had a good majority.
People act like Republicans are so formidable.
Republicans are clowns & have always been clowns since 1964.

The only reason they get away with that clownishness is because the Democrats have become a weak party that rolls over for everything they do.
The Affordable Care Act is Romney's plan.
We're trying to shine that crap up like it's gold.
I'm thankful we AT LEAST set the precedent that there should BE a National Health Care Plan but everybody knows Single Payer was a no-brainer. They didn't even fight for it.

People including demoralized Republicans gave the Democrats their shot at turning back Bush's crap/Republicans' crap.
They had 2 years to prove their worth & when they did that same old droolmouth bubbalip stuff they always do, voters put those idiotic Republicans back in. At LEAST the Republicans hold their ground & get what's on their agenda done.

We got one more shot with this election to fix this.
The Republicans overplayed their hand again & the Democrats can come in & clean house.
You gotta quit being scared of these regressive fools.
As much as they squawk & flap their feathers, no voter REALLY wants to get rid of Social Security & Medicare.
That's why Ryan was a lead anchor for Romney with his stupid plan.

Every piece of progressive legislation passed made the country BETTER.
There will always be those regressive obstacle folks but once you push through them, there ain't no going back.
That's what those obstacle folks are for: to push through & to push past.

Democrats have been weakened since the assassination of Robert Francis Kennedy in 1968.
They pretty much lost their bite right then & there.
And since Reagan got in they REALLY have been weak.

Obama has Mic Skills.
Oratory power & an ability to reach everyday people.
His public statement on the gay marriage issue on ABC with Robin Roberts KILLED the issue.
I haven't heard one Republican try to seriously challenge him on that.

The only reason we even entertain this regressive crap is because it's a BIG OL' Block of Bigots that have betrayed the solidarity set by FDR's New Deal legacy. All because they hate the Black people (& any other people trying to gain equality).
It's time to erode the island these dinosaurs reside on.
Push the Republicans to the margins & the bigots have no solid political platform to organize behind.
They can remain bigots (it's a free country) but their bigotry will no longer have effect on policy.

The Republican Party picked up those bigots because FDR's Democrats were knocking home runs out of the park. If they didn't get a reliable voting block to pad the elite millionaires/billionaires, they would begin Whigging out if ya smell what I'm cookin'.
Elite means few so they needed numbers, energetic numbers.
By marrying themselves to the Dixiecrats after 1964 (Civl Rights Act), they made a Deal With The Devil that was ALWAYS going to send them to their doom.
And that coalition has been prolonged ONLY because the Democrats forgot how to fight.

So we had to see it burn itself out during Dubya's reign 40 years later.
The result was the election of Barack Hussein Obama II.
That first term should have been legendary but Obama punted instead of running for the touchdown.
He has a second chance & THIS time he needs to lead the Democratic Party into being the ones who FIGHT for what is RIGHT.
Stiff arm those Republican players & run the ball all the way down the field.
Intercept a throw & make a surprise touchdown.
Cause them to fumble, pick it up & make another.
And when you're done embarrassing the competition, run the clock down on 'em.

The Republicans have NEVER been hard to defeat.
They're a mean-spirited, greedy, destructive party that appeals to people's base instincts, the lowest common denominator.
Remind these people in their 60s, 70s, & 80s who put together Social Security & Medicare.
Remind them WHY these programs were put together.
Quit running away from who you are.
When you do that & show your track record, the Republicans can only look like fools.

It's time to turn the Republicans into the Whigs. Put 'em out of business once & for all.
Lincoln's party died in 1877. These are imposters running around with the Republican name.
Quit being scared of the big bad Republicans, put out STRONG Progressive policies, & watch how the Republicans end up looking not so big bad.

This scared crap is why I stopped calling myself a Democrat.
I don't give a damn what name the political gang wants to go by—The Duracell Evereadys, The Pizza Hut Meat Lovers, The Bed Bath and Beyond Fragranteers, The Jello Cosbys, The Sesame Street Grouches, The Ron Jeremy Hedgehogs, The On Like Donkey Kongs, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, WHATEVER!

Just as long as they FIGHT for what is RIGHT & get Progressive society-advancing policies passed & approved.
No more of this weak crap! GET IT DONE!
John Lucas

[stevenleser]

339. You are dancing around my main points and asserting things for which you offered no proof

For the purposes of my point, it doesnt matter how perfect or imperfect the legislation is, the Republicans are experts at getting the public to be upset about it. You can call it Romney's legislation or centrist, or not quite left enough, or whatever else. That is besides the point.

In fact, its probably even more impressive that they can essentially get the public to forget or ignore the fact that much of the Affordable Care act originated in Republican circles and be angry solely at Obama and the Democrats for it.

It's fun and easy to assert that the Democrats have no spine, I get that. But that doesnt make it true. What you interpret as 'not fighting hard enough for...' generally has very strong and sound reasons for doing so. Those reasons are related to why someone like Elizabeth Warren isnt walking all over Scott Brown in a very liberal state. Those reasons are related to why Dennis Kucinich could never make any headway in a race for President. In other words, the country is not nearly as accepting of progressive ideas as you seem to want to believe that it is.

Sure, I get that you will not accept what I am writing, not because it isnt correct, but because it is simply not what you WANT to believe. That is the difference between how you and I see the situation and Democrats and Obama. I see how it is, and you see what you want to see.

[johnlucas]

357. The Republicans this & the Republicans that. Sounds scared to me

The Republicans are not experts. Their base is BIGOTS.
That's why their routine works.

The demographics of the country is AGAINST them. It was always going to be.
So what if their base of bigots make a big deal out of it.
Once the benefits of a plan take effect nobody will cop to all their phony outrage.

You wanna know the reason WHY the uninformed don't have an ear to Progressive policies?
It's because the Democrats don't know how to control the MESSAGE.
How did we let Republicans redefine Social Security & Medicare as 'entitlements'?
Nobody challenged them on that phony phrase???
You let those fools define the terms & then play within their definition.

Anything Obama does is evil evil to these bigots simply because he's Black.
You really need to take this reality into consideration.
They see Obama RIGHTFULLY as the end of their sway on politics.
He IS.

Nothing scared these bigots more than the 1st Black President.
Not just the 1st Black President but a Black President who's not a Tom like Alan Keyes or Herman Cain, a Black President who worked within The Struggle when he went to those poverty-stricken Chicago streets.
He's not just Black, he's politically Black.

That's what The Party of No is REALLY all about. That's why he couldn't get his bipartisanship crap accomplished.
If Obama succeeds, that's the end of the Southern Strategy.
That's the end of dog whistles. That's the end of the euphemisms of bigotry that hide behind the catchphrase Conservative.
If Obama not only succeeds but has a historic Presidency like FDR, it's the end of the Republican Party altogether.

No, stevenleser, the Republicans are not experts. Never were. They just had a sizeable group of bigoted fools willing to make themselves pawns for greedy rich man's games.
The Southern Strategy is at the root of every regressive stupid ignorant policy that has passed within the last 48 years.
Why do you think the NRA has strong roots in the South & Southwest (which came from the South)?
What's REALLY behind this border crap with the Mexicans? Isn't Canada another wide open border?
How did welfare become such a dirty word? Isn't that word in the Constitution "provide for the general welfare"?
How do you think the Southern Baptists not have influence in that Moral Majority scheme that keeps all this talk about abortion (pro-life), gay marriage (one woman, one man), etc. in the news?

Everything that comes under the Republican platform is about "Gotta get them N*ggers/J*ps/W**backs/Muzzies/etc." or "Gotta keep them N*ggers/J*ps/W**backs/Muzzies/etc. from getting XYZ"
It's either Attack the 'Slur' or Prevent the 'Slur' from getting whatever.
Xenophobic monkey-brained BS. That's all it ever was.

Once the money guys (the core of the Republican Party) get their base riled up with this nonsense they seek to roll back a little more of the New Deal's progressive legacy. FDR taxed those guys at a maximum of 94%. Reagan came in fueled by the Southern Strategy reduced this to 25% by the end of his time in office.
The old money guys HATED FDR for selling his own rich dudes down the river by forcing them to invest in the infrastructure in the 1930s & 1940s.
The grudge is as fresh as ever & they use the bigots for the numbers to get policies favorable to them passed.
They throw a bone to the bigots from time to time like this Arizona Mexican ID thing.

The country isn't as accepting of progressive ideas?
My ASS they ain't.
Look at what happened when Obama got the world's (known) richest man up there saying that the rich are not taxed ENOUGH.
Look at what happened when Obama said tax cuts for everybody UNDER $250,000 a year.
Who argues with that? The polls show people overwhelmingly in favor of that.

Here's some messaging for you.
The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. I-95 & all that jazz. Without heavy investment in the infrastructure from those hefty tax rates on the rich, that Interstate could never EXIST. And without the Interstate, commerce & job opportunities in this country would have never developed the way they did. Put together by a Republican who didn't DARE to challenge FDR's tax codes.

Another one.
"Taxpayer".
This dumb line that supposed to separate "the hard worker" from "the lazy welfare bum".
EVERYBODY is a taxpayer. That homeless man who collected enough money to buy a pack of crackers from the store pays sales tax. Poor workers pay out payroll tax through F.I.C.A. The homeless man receives an unofficial tax called the Life Tax through those harsh days & nights living on the streets.

What "taxpayer" REALLY is is "bigot". Because all this talk about 'how I pay so many taxes while this welfare queen collects benefits' is all about the Black & Brown people they don't like their tax money supporting—Blacks & Hispanics. The REAL welfare queens are the rich cats. These "taxpayers" worrying about somebody getting a few hundred dollars a month never factor in the corporate welfare queen who gets hundreds of millions.

No, BIGOTS aren't in favor of Progressive ideas & their numbers are eroding.
They're Regressive by definition. The time is right to flush them out of the national dialogue.
THEN you will see just how favorable the people are to Progressive policies.
Remember, the rich guys own the mass media outlets too.
The brainwashing is there but it's undo-able. No big whoop.

Won't get there if you're scared though.
John Lucas

[unapatriciated]

534. Thank you for your posts in this thread. I have been saying the same things for years.

Only to be told that the majority don't agree and that is not true the majority has always agreed on those issues. The D's have been letting the bigots frame the debate far too long. We have a second chance to get this right and hopefully we will. After this election if I hear the same rhetoric I heard in 2009 (to be quiet don't rock the boat we have to get more D's elected), it would push me totally away from the political process. That's pretty hard to do since I have been voting involved for almost forty years.

[johnlucas]

536. You're welcome & thank you for the compliments!

Weakness.
It's just embedded in the Democratic Party now.
Scared little weeping willows.
Worrywarts.
Too shook.
Scared of their own shadow.
Wimpy ass.

You ain't gonna get nowhere with that coward crap.
"Oh oh oh...the voter fraud. I'm scared of the Republicans trying to steal the vote..."
What the hell?
EXPOSE those losers & put the spotlight on those cockroaches for God's sake!
They only steal it if you let 'em, wimp.

"Oh oh oh...we can't get too complacent because the Republicans might have a surprise for Obama before the election..."
What the fuck?
Mitt Romney is gonna get his ass whooped! He's gonna get his ass LANDSLIDED!
You're winning. ACT like it!

"Oh oh oh...it's too close to call. The Republicans are gonna put all their money in ads in the swing states..."
What the damn?
Let those bums waste their money. It ain't too close to call. It's too far to make up...for THEM.
Romney has lost Ohio. His 2008 "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed sealed his fate.
Romney has lost Florida. Paul Ryan scares the shit out of the old folks with his 'gut Medicare & Social Security' plans.
They're DONE. They BEEN done!

"Oh oh oh...the country doesn't believe in Progressive policies..."
What the WHAT?
Ain't nobody getting rid of Social Security & Medicare without the country ready to take it to the streets like Greece.
Socialism. It's right there in the word "Social Security".
You gotta have socialism for a society. Duh.

Oh my God how I'm tired of hearing that wet blanket bullshit on Democratic Underground.
We were derailed by the Southern bigots & their allies after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
When they quit getting caught up in this xenophobic nonsense solidarity will be restored & we will have a society that makes sure to look after ALL of the people not just the rich folks.

Either those bigots adjust to reality or we push them out of policy influence until they are ready to adjust.
Not gonna get there with all this weak scared talk.
Obama's 2nd term better be Progressive. STRONG Progressive.
Eliminate the Bigots NOW.
John Lucas

[mmonk]

159. Great public service announcement.

The right to vote should be rigorously defended. Like you, I have misgivings on this President's performance but I will vote if for no other reason than as a defensive measure. Romney/Ryan plus tea party members of Congress would do us much more harm.

[donheld]

160. White male privilege.

[Tarheel_Dem]

169. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

[tavalon]

221. Boy, you're gonna look kind of silly if Reply #169 gets shut down by jury, huh?

[sadbear]

265. Why would a jury ever shoot down reply #169?

[tavalon]

391. It's bigotry

Reverse bigotry, but bigotry nonetheless. Jury disagreed with me, though, so it stands.

[sadbear]

401. Do you have a link to the jury results?

I'd love to see it.

[tavalon]

405. Sure, I don't see your point, but whatever

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=inbox&view=523598

[sabrina 1]

425. So you don't want people to vote for this President? Then what are you doing on DU?

[joshcryer]

428. Yep. For the privileged it can be a "lesser evil." For the downtrodden, it is a necessity.

[lovemydog]

166. Thanks for your post.

The reasons you do things are your own - I'm not anyone to give unsolicited advice.

I respect how you came to your decision, and wish you all the best.

[Walk away]

167. I don't understand how this thread is continuing. Is this DU or the Brietbart Report?

Obama/Biden 2012 ..... in case we forget the point of all this.

[sabrina 1]

177. Yes, it is DU, where people can think and discuss issues, even more so when elections

are coming up, unless you think elections are not about issues.

It is NOT FR where people who can think and discuss their opinions like adults about elections, get banned.

Surely you are not advocating we turn into a mindless, moronic site like FR?

Maybe you should read the OP and really think about it. Or maybe you don't really care if people do not vote for Obama/Biden?

I've always wondered about this effort to suppress the vote, by telling people to 'shut up and vote'.

There is no surer way to lose votes for any politician than that.

[Walk away]

251. Oh, Please. That OP is what you needed to vote for President Obama...

against Mitt Romney? It's incredible to me that anyone would consider throwing away their vote.

I guess if you have to pretend you are someone else in order to vote for the Democratic candidate for President it's still a vote. I suppose it seems nobler than saying that you'll hold your nose and pull the lever.

[Kelvin Mace]

287. And this pisses you off

why exactly?

[Walk away]

341. Did I say I was pissed off? Is this what is meant by projecting?

I simply think it's odd that in order to vote for a candidate you need to pretend someone else is actually doing it or that you are some sort of surrogate. You can't own your own actions.

I suppose it seems constructive to you to post your unwillingness to vote for the top Democrat on the ticket on a site called Democratic Underground. To me it is not. I am hardly pissed off, just amazed that it passes as a post that supports our candidate for President.

[sabrina 1]

326. I see you did not read what is right in front of you.

What I actually wrote was an acknowledgement of a FACT, a fact some people appear to be in denial about. There ARE people, (note the word 'people' which is not the same as 'me' or 'I') who need a reason to go out and vote, and this OP has provided such people with that reason.

If you think Democrats don't need every vote they can get, then we disagree. Every single vote is going to be necessary to defeat Republicans. It's amazing to me to see the absolute denial of facts here.

[Walk away]

345. Denial?

Can't vote for the leader of your supposed party...pretend it's someone else's vote.
I have to leave this thread before I start using the "smilies"!

[sabrina 1]

350. Not everyone is a Democrat. If the election depended only on Democrats

then voting 'for the leader' might be enough to win. The fact is, which as I said, some people appear to be in denial about, that in order to win this election Democrats need Independents and as we saw in 2010, they did not show up in the same numbers as they did in 2008.

The OP has given those who have no allegiance to the leaders of either party, a reason to vote for the Democrat. I fail to see why this would bother anyone who wants to see this president win.

I could use the 'smilies' also, but I don't tend to get so upset that I would have to resort to doing that, just because of a difference of opinion. You simply cannot force people to agree with everything you say and people need to learn to accept that.

[tavalon]

222. Walk away

Walk away.

[Kelvin Mace]

284. Again, I ask the question....

You accuse me of being Andrew Breitbart (an accusation right up their with being a child molester in my view) because I refuse to vote for Obama for the reasons you think I should vote for Obama?

[tavalon]

176. Wow,

these last few months have made me adamantly against Romney and that has made it easier to accept Obama and to hope that he will go for a legacy greater than being the first black President. This is certainly another way to vote for him while maintaining that he has been a disappointment.

[sabrina 1]

181. It definitely has helped resolve a troubling decision for me. To vote for someone who

is being deprived of a vote. It's brilliant really. I always ask myself how history will view the American people who continued to elect politicians who refuse to prosecute War Crimes, who refuse to allow any kind of justice for the victims.

This idea makes it easier as it is now possible to vote FOR something, rather than against something.

I am sure there are many people who could be persuaded by this.

[Kelvin Mace]

281. Despite my misgiving about Obama in 2008

I was genuinely proud that my country elected him. Unfortunately, the bitter racism that didn't manifest itself before the election did so with a vengeance after the election.

[tama]

329. You are aware

that being proud that US elected a black president is still a sign of racism in the society at large - a sign towards healing, but still a sign of racism. Just like me being happy that my country coming close to electing a gay (Green candidate) as president was still a sign of sexism our of society at large.

These are symbolic actions reflecting our values and need for change, and the day will come when we can concentrate on discussing and deciding together about our lives instead of these symbolic actions of alienation and desire to reconnect with whole.

[Kelvin Mace]

393. I was proud that America

seemed to have been putting that ugliness behind it.

Sadly, I was wrong.

[NNN0LHI]

180. Thanks for the tripe Mitt

[Kelvin Mace]

282. Seriously?

That is the best you can do? That is the sum of your understanding? If I don't vote for Obama for the reasons you think I should vote for Obama, then I must be Mitt Romney?

Or did you even bother to read to the part where I say I am voting FOR Obama?

Wow.

Just wow.

[cali]

188. Of course you're exhorting others to do what you're doing.

you may not see that but by posting this missive you are doing it. Also, you're wrong. Romney could win the election.

Oh, and if it's not an exhortation why are you calling it a proposal?

I don't think you're being honest with yourself.

[HiPointDem]

191. did you read the whole post? he's voting for obama.

[cali]

214. I read the whole post and my impression is that he left out

the word not. It's the only way the post makes contextual sense to me.

[HiPointDem]

224. he said he's voting for obama in the place of those likely to be purged from voting rolls.

i think you didn't read it.

[Kelvin Mace]

280. Then I respectfully request you read it again

as I am quite plain in my intent.

I was in a position of morally being unable to vote for Obama. However, due to voter suppression tactics going on in the country I WILL vote for him as a PROXY for disenfranchised voters.

[tavalon]

223. He's exhorting people to use his way to be able to vote for Obama, if they, like him,

couldn't be pragmatic.

It's quite the public service, actually. He's influenced a number of people. He's being brutally honest with himself and with us.

[Kelvin Mace]

277. Why is this so hard for folks to see?

My wife read over these posts and she's appalled. I've invited her to join up in the past and she just told me flat out, "Never, if that is how they treat people whose views differ one iota from their own."

By my count from people's comments 3-4 people alerted on this and are PISSED that I wasn't tombstoned and the thread deleted.

[tavalon]

390. This group does tend to get myopic during election times

It's weird because at other times, the very same people can have such nuanced and interesting POVs.

[Kelvin Mace]

278. Uh,

I am exhorting people who have the same moral/ethical qualms that I do to VOTE FOR Obama for the reason I delineate.

How is this unclear?

[Laurajr]

228. Read SHOWDOWN by David Corn

And see what our President is up against every single day and you will gain understanding and a profound respect for our President. One day he will be considered one of the best. He has vision, he really does serve 100% of this country.

[Kelvin Mace]

274. One more time with feeling...

My problems with Obama stem from issues DIRECTLY in his power.

[WinkyDink]

243. The title is grammatically clear, if not to the OP. Line 2 = "pro-Obama folk," clearly NOT the OP.

If I wrote, "I cannot in good conscience eat peas," should anyone credit ANYTHING that I would then write that claimed that, why, yes, under certain circumstances I really WILL eat peas?

This common idiom does NOT carry the implication of, "But I WILL do so, in BAD conscience, for the following reasons."

Definition #4: http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/in%20good%20conscience/in%20all%20conscience

So basically, the OP is saying he's going to hold his nose and vote "D". Yay.

[gateley]

261. Look, we disagree on the "in good conscience" thing because

I usually feel that's a selfish, self-important attitude. But your action indicates you are sincerely troubled by Obama's action (or non-actions) yet understand the bigger picture and want to do what's right. Casting a vote for one of those who will be denied their right is a beautiful gift. And I hope you get a wee bit of satisfaction knowing it is one more vote to keep the GOP from taking total control.

Sincerely, thank you for your vote.

[Kelvin Mace]

273. I appreciate your thoughtful reading of my post

Yes, it does bother me.

Apparently the fact that it bothers me seems to upset a some people who want me (and others like me) to just shut up and vote.

[gateley]

307. I think you present a solution to those who feel as you do, but are rightly concerned that

the Republicans might seize power. We've heard stories from people who have been voting for years but may not be able to this time because of the ID requirements (mission accomplished!). It's a valid explanation on your part -- because we know just who those disenfranchised people would vote for -- to essentially cast their vote for them. I wish there was some way you could let one of those people know what you're doing, and knowing how you personally feel, I think that would mean he world to him/her. I was serious when I said it was a gift -- to that person you're helping have a voice, and ultimately, to all of us.

[SidDithers]

264. It's your vote. You're casting it....

you can rationalize however you want, but it's still your vote to use or not.

The President thanks you for your vote.

Sid

[Kelvin Mace]

272. If only some of the other people in this thread

could be happy about it.

[RevStPatrick]

268. This is just silly.

"I'm not going to vote for Obama, but I'm going to vote for him anyway."

Yeah, whatever...

[twins.fan]

275. I did the same thing back in 2001, exchanging my vote with someone in Georgia

Now North Carolina is a toss-up state. WOW! Things have changed. This is going to be a landslide.

[eomer]

276. I worked through the same dilemma and came to the same bottom line but with a different rationale.

I understand and respect your personal solution but can't manage the mental self-manipulation that it seems to require. I too will vote for President Obama but because I must, because there is so much at stake and his reelection is the necessary step at this time.

In other words, I eventually resolved to the conclusion that the seemingly more principled position (of refusing to vote for someone who orders extra-judicial killing and other things that are unconscionable) is only such when looked at narrowly. When I step back and consider the wider predicament in all its disturbing detail, I'm convinced, finally, that the principled choice is the pragmatic vote, the vote that will have the greater chance of moving us toward a principled world, the vote to reelect President Obama.

Offered in the same spirit as your OP - that it may help someone else struggling with the same choice.

[Kelvin Mace]

295. We both want people to have something to vote FOR

rather than AGAINST.

[Vinnie From Indy]

283. Well Done!

You write beautifully!

Cheers!

[DrewFlorida]

288. While I understand your logic (although I disagree), I think it is only one half of the whole story.

The other half of the story is, what would happen to America if Mitt Romney were to be elected. We can look to all of the lies and fabrications of the Republican party and Mitt Romney himself for a hint at what might happen, or we could look at the failed policies of the most recent republican presidential administration. Either way it is abundantly clear, if Mitt Romney becomes president it will be a disaster for America in virtually every sphere. If you are concerned because you feel Obama did not fulfill every expected want or need you can look to the Senate, Congress and the Supreme Court for your answers. We need to win majorities in the Senate and Congress to right many of the wrongs, including Citizens United.

I give you credit for your ultimate decision of making your vote count for something / someone, because no vote is not an answer to our problems.

[Kelvin Mace]

297. The way I see it

The ship is sinking, it is just a question of how fast.

The ultimate destination is the bottom of the sea no matter who the captain is.

[Pab Sungenis]

463. But if we can slow down the rate of sinking

then maybe we will have time to get to the lifeboats.

The real fight now is the 2016 primaries. We have to start laying groundwork there. And that job will be easier with Obama still in office than Romney.

[upi402]

291. SAME; but Supreme Court & hopes of a 4 year "Rope-A-Dope"

Hoping the Chicago community organizer makes a come back and plays the old LL Cool J tune for the neocons;

[Kelvin Mace]

298. Gosh, I didn't think

objecting to murder, torture, domestic spying, and indefinite detention without trial made me a puritanical.

[Kelvin Mace]

337. Your interpretation, not mine

As long as people keep making excuses for the behaviour and excoriating people who point it out, we are pretty much screwed.

And yes, I have voted for candidates all my life. As I have grown older and the system has drifted further to the right it has gotten much harder. Soon it will be impossible.

Again, this seems to boil down to you being angry that I am not voting for Obama for reasons you approve of. You seem to feel I am judging you, or at least that is what I am picking up.

For the record, I am not. The post was written specifically for the people who find themselves in the moral quandary I did. I am trying to help the situation, but this help (garnering more votes for Obama) seems unwelcome.

Anyone who sees judgment in my post is projecting.

If you go back and read my post, I specifically, deliberately said I DIN NOT WANT TO ARGUE the reasons I objected to Obama. Yet, this was unacceptable for some reason. Folks wanted a fight, and they wanted it NOW.

I don't see how this is helping get more votes for your guy.

[sabrina 1]

426. The same people made the same arguments against us speaking out against the

President's policies on LGBT rights. We didn't listen to them then, and he finally got the message, and no one is going to listen to them now, and hopefully with perseverance, the Democrats will find a way to stand up against Bush policies also.

They are always on the wrong side of history but tell you that they are FOR Civil Liberties and Human Rights and FOR the rights of minorities, they just can't stand up for them NOW.. Well, that is BS, there is no bad time to stand up for what is right, and the very BEST time to get the attention of politicians is DURING election season.

Best to ignore them, they are always the same group and if things were left up to them, this country would NEVER move in the right direction because they always have a reason for not standing up, but get angry at those who do.

I don't believe them frankly which I'm sure is of no consequence, but it's the truth. I believe the people who were standing up for LGBT rights when this same group was slamming them. When I see them just once, object to the brutal policies that are still in place, just one time, I will change my opinion. Until then, I stand by my opinion.

[Kelvin Mace]

524. People keep telling me this is just this complex game of

11 dimension chess and Obama will change in the second term.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[CreekDog]

521. No, you're right

and actually, I don't think people should justify bad policies, even for people they are voting for.

I'm far more liberal than Obama and have different opinions on a number of issues, and probably hold more common ground with you.

But my vote is a political decision in addition to a moral one. While I don't want to work against my values either, voting for Obama does more to protect the things I care about and even where he has undesirable positions, in almost every case, they are far less egregious than Romney's and an empowered Republican party's would be.

So I await the day when I can vote for a social democrat, but the meantime, I vote for Obama because he is my best choice for 2012 --and he has done many things that I truly am proud of, even if I'm not pleased with his entire record.

Again, sorry for the way I originally responded.

[Kelvin Mace]

523. By all means, apology accepted

and thank you.

I really wish to work WITH people, not against. Though I will admit, this is nothing compared to the last "fight" I was in. That one raged for about six years.

[CreekDog]

518. I'm sorry. Embarrassingly, I didn't read your full post before hastily responding...

to what I thought it said.

sorry. I appreciate what you are trying to do.

[Kelvin Mace]

526. I understand

made a few of those mistakes myself

Hopefully we'll get to pass a more pleasant time on another thread in November celebrating Romney's loss.

[TBF]

316. A two party system is obviously not going to please

those of us on the far ends of the spectrum (or many in-between for that matter). It tends to represent wealthy folks trying to sway voters one way or the other. In this election I find that I will vote in the interest of preserving the right of poor women to have health care, their reproductive rights respected, their social security benefits secured as they age, and hopefully supreme court justices selected who will consider the least fortunate in our society.

I will give that vote to Barack Obama. I also am very interested in Jill Stein as a candidate but in this election I can't risk what will happen to women by taking a vote away from Obama and risking a very reactionary Romney/Ryan team in the white house.

Thanks for your OP - I think it will resonate with many.

[limpyhobbler]

441. Speaking of Jill Stein....I wouldn't risk voting her her in a battleground state.

Or any third party. No sense throwing the election to Romney.

But if voting in a safe state like New York or Oklahoma or whatever, I don't see any harm in it.

[TBF]

453. If it's a safe state like NY you can probably feel comfortable making a statement -

I won't do it here in TX. Romney is expected to win this state, but we are getting closer in some counties with the latino vote and I want to see those trends continue. I don't want the vote depressed in any way or for folks to think we're not making progress, so I will be voting for Obama. I'd encourage those in Oklahoma to do the same.

[Pab Sungenis]

461. But where is the "far end" of the spectrum?

In 1972 both Presidential candidates were far to the left of what we would consider "liberal" today. Even Nixon! He bragged about cutting defense spending to historic lows, created the EPA, signed the Clean Air Act, imposed price controls, initiated detente with the Soviet Union, recognized "Red China," and on and on.

Today any Democrat who proposed defense cuts to the degree that Nixon did, suggested price controls for even vital commodities like gasoline, or made overtures to North Korea or Cuba (the only remaining communist states) would be considered a bomb throwing radical and hounded out of our party like happened to Dennis Kucinich.

The goalposts have moved because we've allowed them to move. As the Republicans drifted rightward after 1988 we should have held our ground. If we had, then the center would still be where it is and the Republicans would be classified by the terms we used to call people who held their opinions: Birchers, fascists, reactionaries. Instead, we've allowed them to market their ideas as just being on the right edge of mainstream.

This is why the "third way" nonsense has to stop, and we need to reclaim our party in 2014 and 2016.

[TBF]

494. I hear you -

actually I was thinking of those of us with socialist tendencies who aren't going to be happy with any of these pro-free market candidates. We pick the least objectionable, hoping it will at least not take more away from the working class, and keep working.

The "third way" is just more of the same Imperialistic nonsense we've faced from capital historically ...

[MineralMan]

317. You're attempting to rationalize voting for Obama?

Well, here's the deal: It won't be a disenfranchised voter who votes for Obama. It will be you. You will mark the ballot. Your hand will do the marking. Your brain will control your hand. Bottom line is that you, and you alone, will mark your ballot.

All that you've said in an attempt to divorce yourself from that action has no effect whatsoever. I'm glad you will vote and that you will vote for President Obama. That's your best choice. But you will not be voting as a proxy for anyone else. You will be voting. You can't fool yourself, and you will know who voted when you mark the ballot.

If you are concerned about the disenfranchised, there are ways you can help get them enfranchised, but time is short. Your vote does nothing for the disenfranchised. It is merely your vote, however you vote.

[Kelvin Mace]

338. You assume I am doing nothing to stop voter suppression

Since you do not know me, you have no idea how wrong you are. I came to this site in 2003 fighting for honest, transparent elections.

You claim to be glad I am voting for Obama, but seemed very determined to denigrate me in the process because you don't like my reasons.

I do not see how this helps your cause.

[MineralMan]

434. No, I do not know you.

This is, I believe, the first I've seen of you. So, no, I do not know what you are doing to stop voter suppression. I know what you wrote in this OP.

[Kelvin Mace]

444. You might try the archives of the election forum

A couple of people on this thread remember me and what I have worked on for voting rights:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5675040

[MineralMan]

454. That's OK. I'll take your word for it.

I'm dealing with 2012 these days.

[Kelvin Mace]

456. As am I

by giving people prepared to not vote for Obama a reason to vote and by starting to dig into the backgrounds of suppression groups in my state.

[sabrina 1]

415. You don't know much about the OP, do you?

If ANYONE on this board has done something about the disenfranchised, it is this OP. But you would need to be familiar with the issue of disenfranchisement on DU and elsewhere to know that.

No one on DU has more right than this OP to speak about disenfranchisement.

As for his vote and where it goes and who he is representing, that is for HIM to decide.

He is casting a vote for someone who is going to be deprived of their vote. That means he is doing exactly as he says he is doing.

And I hope this excellent idea catches on and others do the same thing. I can't think of a better way to foil the anti-Democratic criminals who would deprive people of their right to vote.

I suggest you learn a little about this OP before posting your opinions again.

[mvd]

328. Rec

Some of it is Obama's bipartisan philosophy, some of it is working too much on the inside, and some is a more centrist stand than he once had. But he is light years better than Romney. The President has my vote, too.

[brush]

334. Shit stirring

This post is nothing but a distraction. You've got us all arguing with each other over whether the President didn't do enough or didn't do this or that when we all should know, if we've been watching at all, that the repug obstructionists blocked much of the President's and the Dem party's agenda during the last 3 1/2 years. In my opinion, at this critical time during the election season (only 45 days left), we don't need this kind of bicker-inducing crap being posted. Get busy helping the President get re-elected, or if you prefer, get busy helping to keep that tax-dodging rich boy and his lying running mate out of office.

[Kelvin Mace]

340. You didn't read the post

My point was to address a group of voters who were having serious problems voting for Obama (for issues well within his powers, not for legislation obstructed by Congress).

Some of us have a VERY hard time overlooking Obama's expansion of Bush policies. Worse, some of us are getting tired of people who keep excusing blatantly illegal and immoral behavior, which simply leads to more blatantly illegal and immoral behavior.

Long and short: I am voting for your man. I am presenting an argument to others like me (and if you look around the thread you will find a number of these people, thus a number of votes) to vote for the man.

Do you want all the votes you can get, or only those votes you approve of?

[DainBramaged]

361. BULLSHIT we all read it it's bullshit

Jesus Christ how the fuck can you (or any of you) keep saying we didn't read it? It's bullshit, pabulum, tripe, dreamland.


Quit thinking you're smarter than the rest of us, you aren't.

[Kelvin Mace]

385. Never said I was, but apparently

even what I MIGHT think upsets you.

Things are not bullshit just because you say they are. There people who disagree with you, and this seem to really, really hack you off.

[DainBramaged]

389. Ignore this

It doesn't hack me off. You come here and spew shit from your high horse claiming to be so wonderful in your opinion that everyone should praise you.

It's bullshit.


We have one President, if you don't like it change parties.

You're ignored. Pound salt.

[RetroLounge]

421. You obviously didn't UNDERSTAND it after you didn't actually read it

RL

[randome]

351. In the end, we agree -no candidate is perfect.

So your vote, by that definition, is ALWAYS made by 'holding your nose', so to speak.

If you had posted about the issues instead of tying those issues to your own personal feelings, I think this thread would have been a lot more instructive for everyone.

I think you're guilty of over-thinking.

[Kelvin Mace]

353. Look at the Abu Ghraib

photos and tell me I am "over-thinking"

People were murdered there and no one was held to account.

Look at the photos of innocent people killed by "Predator" drones, including children, and tell me I am "over-thinking".

Why does it piss off some many people in this thread that I, and others like me, read these stories, saw these photos and were very upset by them? Why are they angry that we just can't "get over it", "be pragmatic", or "stop being naive".

I have addressed the issues, and I was shouted down then as well.

[randome]

355. I don't think anyone is saying that murder isn't upsetting.

Unfortunately, because of Bush Jr. and a complacent Congress, the concept of 'war' has become much more muddled than it used to be.

More innocent civilians die from invasions than have in drone attacks. That's my perspective, anyway. I am not in any way, shape or form advocating the continued use of drones or even war itself.

But I am saying that the idea that we are at war with a large portion of the world drives many of the things you -and most of us- object to.

I don't think you're naive. And emotions definitely have a place in all considerations, political or otherwise.

But as I said, we will never have a perfect political candidate so why lament that you will vote for a non-perfect candidate?

Obama did not put these policies into place. He is wrong to continue them. I think most of us agree on that. But I don't think voting should be that easy to justify or dismiss. Policies are policies. Voting for the best candidate is ALWAYS the option that matters most.

[Surya Gayatri]

354. Kelvin, this is perhaps the most self-aggrandizing, specious, sophistic codswallop I've seen on DU.

[Kelvin Mace]

360. And I love you too...

[Jake2413]

358. I understand and respect your position

and agree with all your points but for me the decision is in not voting what the alternative would be. We can continue working on and pressuring President Obama to do the right thing were we would have no hope with a President Romney. So thanks for finding a way to vote.

[mt1000]

364. Chris Floyd said it well also

Bonfire of the Vanities: Robert Parry and the Red Mist of Partisanship

his brilliant essay
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2272-bonfire-of-the-vanities-robert-parry-and-the-red-mist-of-partisanship.html

(snip) . . . . Yes, I know the United States in 2012 is not the USSR or Hitler’s Germany. And Parry would doubtless say, “Of course they were right to disassociate themselves from such monstrous systems.” But where do you draw the line? How much evil is acceptable? Is there a certain number of victims that a system must reach before one is allowed to disengage from it honorably and morally? To murder six million in death camps or millions in purges is obviously unacceptable; but to kill 500,000 children – is that OK? A million innocent people in a war of aggression – is that beyond the pale? Or can you work with that, can you accommodate that, should you swallow these mountains of dead, washing them down with a big swig of moral ambiguity?

[cr8tvlde]

367. Thank you #354 ... A Legend in His/Her Own Mind. Poppycock. Santa didn't come. Deal with it.

As a mother and an elementary teacher, I've watched generations of young 'uns transition from Santa Claus coming down the chimney to bring the goodies (along with lemming-hunting in the South...y'all know what I'm talking about) to the dawning of a certain level of maturity. That didn't make them idiots at 7 and wise at 8.

Yes, we dutifully set out the Cookies and Milk on the hearth, along with the disappearance of them by daybreak on Christmas Day. Can't remember why, but one year we just didn't do the act anymore. As I recall, it was the discovery of a WalMart or Sears tag we missed!!!! We held out breath ... he just looked, and proceeded to rip off the paper. LOL. And he was not scarred, in fact, it became like a badge of honor and he'd participate in his "all-knowing" role.

Same at school. Same in the late-night "lemming hunts". Same in politics. It's a Rite of Passage.

Oh, and between real Liberals, it's immaturity or the equivalent to "Santa didn't come". No issue. Not. Even. A. Bit.

[robinlynne]

369. You rock!

[rucky]

370. Thanks Kelvin

if you're thinking of others, you can always find a reason to vote.

[DeSwiss]

371. K&R

- ''Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes.....''

[Whisp]

380. Romney has had his ass beaten into the dirt these last couple weeks

and most of us here were crying out in happy glee and feeling things may go in the right direction for the President's re-election after all the efforts by some to make it not so.

The timing of this post of yours is really, really bad. It's like busting balloons we don't often get and here you are, reminding us that Obama is so awful.

Just one lousy assed downer OP. But I guess that was the purpose.

[brush]

397. Amazing

Last edited Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

It amazes me every time I read or hear one of these "I can't vote with good conscience for Obama" screeds. Where do you think we live? This is not the "Socialist Republic of Utopia." We live in THE most capitalistic country in the world that, to be frank, stole land from Native Americans and labor from African Americans for centuries. We also, for over a century beginning with Hawaii (Dole), used our military to either just take over and annex countries or impose dictators on and prop them up so that our corporations could exploit their natural resources, the latest example being Iraq (oil), which is certainly not ancient history. We don't have clean hands here and we can't expect a president in office for 3 1/2 years to change everything about how the country has operated for over a century. Hell I would imagine that every time a new president is inaugurated he is "briefed" by corporate and military honchos about how things actually work. I'm thinking that if the President had tried to jail Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rove/Rumsfeld he would have been warned that the country could not take that kind of wrenching internal examination without flying apart at the seams and be reminded subtly but not so subtly, if he persisted, about what happened to JFK? We are who we are even though many chose to forget it or don't know much of the country's history. The current Democratic party has been the one responsible for most of the incremental improvements for worker and civil rights (FDR, Kennedy/Johnson etc.) so I say lets keep them in office and hope for more incremental changes because that's probably the best we can expect. The repug route is the short cut to total fascism as they've been trying to get rid of FDR's New Deal laws (Social Security, Collective Bargaining, Unemployment Insurance, Wall Street Regulation, etc.) since the 30s.

[outsideworld]

412. what an exhausting

thread this is . I really hope to see what candidate in the future will be to do some of the things you stated

[Alduin]

414. I am on Democratic Underground, correct?

WTF is this steaming pile?

[sabrina 1]

416. It is an excellent way to foil those who would deprive people of their right to vote.

Not sure what your little smiley thing means, but does it mean you object to people voting for this president? Because that is what the OP is about.

[trumad]

433. This OP is not about that.

[Rowdyboy]

417. Nauseating...I'm really sad you're allowed to spread your filth, but it is "Democratic Underground"

We apparently have decided to let anything stay, regardless of the obvious intention of the poster to depress Democratic turnout in November. Its a pretty pathetic attempt and I'm glad its getting the response it deserves.

[sabrina 1]

427. So you too are against encouraging people to vote for Obama? What is going on here?

Do people not read, or understand or do they just not want votes for this President?

You call it 'filth' to give people a reason to vote for a Democratic President?

Unbelievable.

[Rowdyboy]

437. My reading comprehension is fine-and I understand exactly what the OP is trying to do....

[JI7]

418. get over yourself

and i already said i don't want your vote.

[RetroLounge]

422. Then it's a good thing YOU'RE not on the ballot

RL

[Union Scribe]

447. Please stay away from the voters

if your message is really "i don't want your vote" if I don't like your Democratic stripes.

[Autumn]

531. What office are you running for? I know you can't be Obama because

he would know how to write a sentence properly, you know with capitol letters and stuff like that.

[joshcryer]

429. "I'll cast my vote for the disenfranchised despite that they're not as enlightened as me."

Thanks for your paternalism.

[Kolesar]

430. "Promises from Candidate Obama about hope and change"--You sound like a GOP candidate

Yes, I read the entire post and the url of lugubrious malaise that you posted.
Your claims about promises the President made is extrapolated fantasy.

[RBInMaine]

431. You're a non-reality glass-half-empty purist who doesn't understand the real world.

Last edited Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:23 AM - Edit history (1)

[Pab Sungenis]

460. If we were purists

we'd be voting for Jill Stein or someone similar. Or we'd be staying home. We accept that the progressives lost this election cycle and now all we can do is minimize the damage.

But the party's leadership needs to know that our votes aren't a mandate for more "third way" bullshit.

[Jennicut]

435. President Obama is not enough to the left for you. I get that.

I don't get your by proxy voting. Rather, why not just vote to hold back going more the right then you want? President Obama is probably seen as a centrist to you. Romney is to the right and loves big money more then Bush did. Expect huge tax cuts to the rich not to mention Paul Ryan wants to dismantle medicare. And of course on women's rights and gay rights there are all kinds of minefields to face with them being in office. Think of the Supreme Court.
I think we learned from 2000 what happens when we try to vote for the perfect candidate we want. This is mostly a two party system so therefore you will never totally be satisfied. But if you are a true left wing progressive, Repubs should scare the hell out of you. They scare the living bejesus out of me.

[Pab Sungenis]

459. The problem with this attitude is

that when progressives toe the line for conservative Democrats, our party and our country move further to the right.

When we don't, the Republicans win, and the Democrats move even further to the right to "triangulate" them.

Romney scares me enough to let me hold my nose and vote for Obama again; there's no way a sane person wouldn't. But at some point we have to start drawing a line. We have to finally put our foot down and say "no" to conservatives in the party of FDR. And that day better come soon or there will be no hope for our party at all.

Vote for Obama this time, but let the powers that be know this is the last time we accept the lesser of two evils.

[Jennicut]

466. The country is not shifting to the right.

In 2010 many people stayed home. Older voters over age 45 went out in droves and voted. But the future big block of voters is not nearly as conservative. So I would say voting Obama in did not lead to an conservative shift in the country. The older voters vote more but they are getting older by the minute.

[Kelvin Mace]

474. Sorry, but the country has been shifting right for some time

Now, you are correct that the demographics are on our side, and we should eventually begin shifting left in the future. But it will be very hard and very ugly, and the shift may happen after it is far too late.

The election of Obama in 2008 continued a leftward shift of the Democratic Party that arguably started after Jimmy Carter, our last ethical president. You can chart the Dems shift right by simply looking at the top tax bracket. 70% under Carter, 35% today. Today welfare benefits are smaller, and the burden on the poor to qualify for them is much greater than in Carter's day. SCOTUS appointments by Dems have always been to the right of the people they replaced.

People stayed home in 2010 (I was not one of them) because they felt betrayed by Obama for his expansion of Bush era policies and his refusal to even mount a minimal fight for the public option. They were also disheartened to see him appoint the very people from BushCo that CAUSED The Great Recession to "fix" it.

Personally, I wish Gore had run in 2008 (Gore version 2002, not Gore version 2000).

[Kelvin Mace]

477. Is the reason WHY I vote for Obama germane to

anyone who was going to vote for him anyway?

My post was addressed to people like myself who were not going to vote for him, or were undecided. These people certainly had no intention of voting for Romney, since if they did they would be over in Freeperville, not here.

Obama is not a centrist, he is VERY right of center. The problem is one of perception. The center as been moved so far right, people have problems correctly placing political ideology. This is very much illustrated by the fact that Nixon and Reagan, radical conservatives of their day, could NEVER win the GOP nomination today, as they would be deemed "liberals".

Where is Obama in the political spectrum?

Go here:

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

The results are based on the Political Compass test (which you can take yourself here: http://politicalcompass.org/test ) and the politicians are scored based on their policies, statements, and actions.

(For the record I am deep in Left field around -7/-7 on the axis).

See how you compare to the current political field.

[ElboRuum]

438. You know what?

Don't do me any favors. Keep your vote. Your pomposity is ripe, stinking, and offensive. You claim to want to "resolve" issues between yourself and some of your fellow liberals, and by those fellow liberals I can only assume from the rank tone of your post those you consider less enlightened or forthright, yet you go out of your way to tell us of the size of the clothespin you'll have to put over nose to vote for what you appear to believe is such a clearly unqualified candidate. 'I'm doing it for the poor disenfranchised voters everywhere...' So, what then? You'll solve the problem by doubling down on the arrogance? Good plan. You must be one of those people of the school of thought that the proper place to bury the hatchet is in the person of those beneath your enlightened views and lacking your pristinely true north moral compass.

Well, speaking as a "fellow" liberal, let me extract your hatchet, gauze the wound, and speak for a moment on the concept of "fellow" liberals. I have met many liberals in my life, both in person and online here, if only to their disembodied words. And let me tell you emphatically that not all of them I consider my "fellows". Some have a very narrow view of what being liberal or progressive means. Some of narrow view have this nasty habit of seeing their own views as unitary and unassailable, beyond reproach. They fancy themselves as exemplars, the de facto spiritual leaders of a pure movement. And from these individuals, I get the distinct impression of a bubble they live in that affords them the situational benefit of being precisely unitary and unbending. Bully for them. The rest of us live in the real world.

And I, for one who lives in that very real world, am tired of listening to people of this kind backhandedly degrade people who are in some measure attempting to right our ship of state, restore fairness to our economic system, and foment social progress in this time very hostile to all of these initiatives. Whether it is these flawed Democratic candidates and incumbents or the ones who somehow manage to vote for them without the benefit of nasally mounted clothespins of ridiculous size, flawed people of good intent are always a better bet and of greater value in my opinion than people of implied perfection and pure intent.

Most respectfully proposed? Yes, saying it is so must make it so, right? Well as a "distraught fellow progressive" (what a joke) I suppose I should be thankful for that. Should be thankful, I say, because my grotesquely limited moral and intellectual fiber is somehow preventing it.

[Whisp]

439. Will you marry me?

[Kelvin Mace]

472. And when you do get married

do I get to invite myself to a wedding that does not concern me in the same way that ElboRuum has inserted himself into a post that does not concern him?

The point of this post was to talk to people who had moral reservations about voting for Obama and offering an argument in favor of VOTING FOR Obama.

I assume you and ElboRuum are voting for Obama, so as this post did not affect you. I am mystified by all of the abuse.

[Bobbie Jo]

443. Thread over.

Bravo!

Thank you.

[Kelvin Mace]

469. Not really...

I get to cast my vote whether ElboRuum wants it or not.

[Bobbie Jo]

476. If this is the only piece of his

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

post that resonated with you, then you continue to demonstrate his point.

It was a good post, and I responded in appreciation and agreement. I get to express my opinion whether you want it or not.

AFAIC....thread over, he nailed it.

[Kelvin Mace]

480. I have read Elbo's posts

in response to my OP of his thread. He is telling me to "keep my vote" because my reason for voting for Obama offends him. He makes quite plain by his comments that I should not vote for Obama, and you are telling me you agree with and appreciate his post.

Well, that is certainly your opinion (and his) and you are entitled to it, but neither of you get to decide whether my vote is worthy or not. I respectfully suggest that that part of the thread isn't over.

[Union Scribe]

446. "Keep your vote."

Curious, you rail about purity, but if a voter is not pure enough in devotion you tell them not to vote for Obama.

[JI7]

450. the poster said nothing about devotion to Obama

the poster is talking about the attitude towards other voters, particularly liberals.

the op wants his ass kissed, acting like he is doing some great favor. fuck that shit.

[Kelvin Mace]

467. Can you point out where I ask for my "ass to be kissed"?

As I point out above, this post was addressed to people with problems voting for Obama, and offered a reason to do so.

People who intend to vote for Obama are not affected, were not invited, and frankly should be happy that someone is attempting to bring in more votes they would otherwise not have.

Any inference of judgement of other people's motives is entirely of your own creation.

[Kelvin Mace]

457. Really?

Could your point to a single post on this entire web site were I have ever instructed anyone to "not vote for Obama".

Please do not misquote my words to support you talking points.

[ElboRuum]

520. Nope.

Never said, never implied. But if a voter can't do so because they are the better candidate or do so in good conscience (as the OP is basically saying), I'd hardly consider that a "purity test". Seems to me to be the most basic reasons to vote for someone.

Yes, I should be happy with our intrepid OP 'deigning to grace us with his vote and impeccable moral support'. My bad, let's give him a trophy.

[MineralMan]

455. + a brazillian.

[Kelvin Mace]

468. You are agreeing that ElboRuum is correct in telling me

to "keep my vote"?

Seems a very counterproductive thing to to tell someone when you want your candidate to win?

Why does it matter WHY I vote for Obama? My comments were addressed to those with moral objections to voting for him, this would seem not to include you or any of the other people raising hell about my post.

Fortunately, as I point out to ElboRuum, he doesn't get to decide whether my vote is worthy of Obama.

[sadbear]

470. "Why does it matter WHY I vote for Obama?"

Isn't that what your OP is all about?

[Kelvin Mace]

479. Uh, yes, my post is for people who had my reservations about voting for Obama, such as myself

Why it matters to people who always intended to vote for him not matter what is the part that puzzles me. Why these people feel compelled to get on this thread and insult me, impugn my motives and in some cases tell me to "keep my vote" as it is not worthy of having, is what puzzles me.

[MineralMan]

486. No, I do hope you will vote for Obama.

I'm agreeing with other parts of the post. In every Presidential election I've voted in, and that's been quite a few now, I have voted for the best choice of the two candidates who have any chance of winning. In every one, that has been the Democrat. The best choice is not always, or even often, the perfect choice. But, it is the choice presented, so my vote goes to the one who is the better of the two.

That's the system we find ourselves in. I wish for a better one, and do what I can to help create a better one. But, every four years, there's an election, and it comes down to a choice between two candidates. I vote for the one who comes closest to what I hope for. I don't vote for a third party candidate who comes even closer, because there is no chance that candidate can become the President. I vote for the best choice who can become the President. Sometimes the candidate I vote for wins, and sometimes that candidate loses, but I give it my best shot.

There has NEVER in my life been a candidate with whom I agreed 100%. Not once. And I don't expect ever to see one in the rest of my life. At age 67, I have no idea how many more presidential elections I will vote in.

I do not vote for any reason but to try to elect the better choice of the two major party candidates I am presented with, and I work hard to help my choice get elected. I also work to get Democrats elected at every legislative level. I don't do it to provide a vote for anyone but myself. I vote for the candidate I believe will do the best job in moving toward my goals. That candidate has always been a Democrat.

You will vote however you vote, and for whatever reasons. I can't do anything about that. But, as I said earlier, your vote remains your vote, and cannot substitute for anyone else's vote. Telling us that you'll be holding your nose and voting for Obama to cast your ballot for someone who has been disenfranchised is meaningless. You will vote for Obama, and that's a good thing. Trashing the candidate you are voting for here is of little value, either. He doesn't meet my criteria as a perfect candidate, either. But he is the best choice in this election. So, he gets my vote. Not for anyone else, but for me. It is my vote, and I will cast it enthusiastically, and I will campaign to get others to do the same. That's what I do, in the hopes that we will move along the better path.

But, you will do what you wish. There's no reason to tell us why. Just vote for Obama and that'll be a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. You needn't run the candidate down and then tell us you'll vote for him anyway. You needn't even try to get others to do as you do. Just vote for the better choice for President. That's what we're all doing here.

[Kelvin Mace]

489. The only reason I chose to explain "why" I was in my post

is that I have read many posts by people in a similar quandary (they also suffered much abuse for their views) and I hoped to offer them a reason to vote FOR Obama, rather than someone else (or to abstain). These are people not swayed by "lesser of two evils argument", so I offered another choice. Not a perfect choice, mind you, but as perfect a one as I could come up with. I then presented it to people in my situation who would find the argument relative.

If you read through the thread, you will find a number of people who did see my solution as useful. The only people who got upset about it, were those folks who didn't like the fact that I dared differ from their orthodoxy.

So, they "why" was germane to the people I addressed the post to, and irrelevant to those who had always intended to vote for Obama regardless (BTW, I work in a very blue collar, conservative company and spend quite a bit of my time explaining to folks why it is NOT in their best interest to vote for Romney, no matter how much they hate Obama. I also spend a lot of time dismantling unjust lies about Obama they pick up from the usual sources).

I agree with you that we have only two choices in America elections, and we must hope that those choices will result for incremental change for the better. But the choices have not been between "better" or "worse" but between "bad" and "worse" for some time now. If we were making any aggregate move back to the left, that would be one thing, but we continue to move right, with the only choice being one of how fast.

To vote for a conservative Democrat is to vote for a conservative. If I am attending a wedding party in Iraq and and see my family slaughtered by a Predator drone, whether the person who ordered the attack is named Bush or Obama is really not important to me.

If I am sitting in Guantanamo for 11 years without a trial, does it really matter that Bush put me in there, if Obama keeps me there?

If my husband was murdered in Abu Ghraib, is their a difference in guilt between the person who murdered him and the person who covered it up?

Yes, this is the real world as some many people take great pains to point out to me. But I tend to hear this argument when being told why I MUST vote for someone, or I am a fool/traitor, but the arguments of reality are absent once I start looking to hold accountable those with blood on their hands. THEN I am being "unrealistic".

In the end this thread has run over 400 posts. A cursory perusal of the thread finds about a dozen people expressing support for my view and/or an intent to vote for Obama which was absent or questionable before reading my post. So, by your own metric, did my action result in a better outcome than would have occurred if I had not written the post?

[MineralMan]

490. You will hold whatever opinion you hold.

That's your thing. I have a different opinion. When you express yours, I will feel free to express mine. One choice of presidential candidates is better than the other. Those are the choices. I choose the better candidate.

What you do is your thing. If you tell us, you'll get comments. It's DU, after all.

[Kelvin Mace]

493. Comments are one thing

abusive insults another.

I appreciate your civility in our discussion (and to be clear, I am sincere, not sarcastic).

Thanks for taking the time to express your views.

[Pab Sungenis]

458. Let me get this straight.

Are you really telling us that if we can't vote for Obama out of pure worship that we shouldn't vote at all?

[Kelvin Mace]

465. Seems to be the vibe I am getting from a LOT of people who object to this post.

They seem to feel I am judging them, so they rush to make it plain we are not worthy of their attention by posting a 100 remarks explaining we don't matter.

For "pragmatists" living in the "real world" they seem to not understand what those words mean..

[ElboRuum]

512. No.

If you come on here expecting unanimous support and plaudits for voting for Obama despite serious moral obligations to do otherwise, especially if claiming that if it weren't for serious attempts at voter disenfranchisement, you wouldn't, you're a fool. I understand people having issues with Obama, but if you can't vote for him in at least good conscience (no one said a thing about "pure worship" nor was it even remotely implied), then do what you like, but maybe expect the reception you get and think about why it was necessary to say such things here.

[Kelvin Mace]

464. Gosh, who appointed you Obama's arbiter of votes?

Do I get to see the nifty way-cool badge you have that allows you to tell me to "keep" my vote?

1) My post was addressed SPECIFICALLY to people who had moral objections to voting for Obama. Since you are apparently voting for him, this would NOT include you.

2) Since you were not addressed by my post, there was no chance of you being "backhandedly degrade[d]". So far, no one who expressed agreement with my post, and thus a willingness to now vote for Obama expressed this view to me. If you feel "judged" by my post, then that is something between you and your mirror.

If there is any "degrading" of people going on it would seem to be this post where you heap scorn and derision on myself who intends to vote as you do, but not for reasons you approve of.

3) Your description of "flawed people of good intent" is your own view of the issue and you are certainly entitled to it. Some people, however, have a problem of "good intent" when murder, torture, and other moral bright lines are crossed. We also tend to view politicians who overlook such bright lines, for whatever reason, as not acting with "good intent".

My first impulse upon reading your remarks was to ask, " Do you want my vote or don't you?", but then I remembered you actually answered that question.

But, as you point out, this is the "real world" and I also reside in it. So, here it is in short:

YOU.DON'T.GET.TO.DECIDE.WHO'S.VOTE.IS.WORTHY!

Not now.

Not ever.

Thank you for your opinion though.

[ElboRuum]

508. You posted an open forum. You know what that means?

Yes, I have a way-cool badge that allows me to tell you to keep your vote. It's round, has a smiley face on it, and says "Free Human" which gives me all the rights and privileges necessary to tell you to keep your vote.

1. I don't give a flying fart in space who your post was addressed to. Since this is not your own personal message board, I'll respond to whatever post I wish for whatever reason suits.

2. Meaningless because of #1.

3. Well, gee whiz, whose else would it be but mine? We'll continue when you're done wringing your hands about the crossing of the "moral bright lines"... there, you finished?

I told you pretty specifically that you, as far as I was concerned, could keep your damn vote. I am affirming your right and responsibility to vote your conscience and if you are as morally conflicted for voting this November for Barack Obama as you claim, then you absolutely should not. You claim that murder, torture, and other moral bright lines have been crossed, so please, explain to me how your moral view permits such equivocation even in the face of mass voter disenfranchisement. I suppose if I conflated murder and torture with Barack Obama's Presidency in the way that you have, I too would have some serious trepidations. But I don't. You apparently do, so please explain what possible rationale could justify your position to vote for such a man?

I'm not deciding your vote is worthy. I'm deciding your opinion, qualms, and the self-important ego trip you are on for posting such a pile of dreck aren't worthy of anything but my scorn. I'm quite sick of these solipsistic, moralistic, "hold-my-nose" tirades full of noise and bombast, signifying nothing, and have been for some time, but I have been tolerant of them up to this point.

I've lost my patience for your type of "support". Your "reasons" for that "support" be damned. You don't live in the real world, or at least you have no concept of what that entails, otherwise you would have already realized that people who act contemptuously of others or condescendingly of others, even if they see their intention as noble, will eventually wear out their welcome with people as you have here with me.

The attention-pleading, the lack of support for the candidate but "I'll hold my nose and do it anyway" backpedal, yes, I've seen it way too damn often before. It is a refrain as old as the hills, as boring and trite as the day is long, and ever so loaded to the gills with "earnest concern"... and in my opinion it doesn't get rebuffed nearly enough around here. Well, here's my little contribution.

Be well.

[Tarheel_Dem]

511. I don't know your gender, and I don't even care, but if things don't work out with Whisp.....

will you marry me?

[unapatriciated]

535. Your comment "as far as I was concerned, could keep your damn vote"

will not keep those of us who have been voting for decades away from the voting booth. We understand the importance of that right and are not so easily discouraged. But there are many young voters who are new to the political process who are just as upset with some of President Obama's policies for the same moral reasons as I and the OP have. I believe it was the new voters that stayed home in 2010 because of their disappointment. You might want to think about those new young voters before telling others their vote is not needed if they do not unconditionally support all of President Obama's policies.

I live in the real world and have four grown children who were energized than disillusioned over the last four year years. It is that group of voters we need to energize again. You shouting for those who have moral dilemmas regarding this election to keep their votes doesn't help.

[ElboRuum]

537. With all due respect...

I didn't tell the OP anything of what you ascribe to me.

Truthfully, I don't care who he votes for or why. Disillusionment is one thing. That I can understand. But if the OP can't in good conscience vote for the man without the need of the disenfranchisement of voters to somehow justify it, then he doesn't support the President at all. Not in the slightest. It isn't a question of unconditionally supporting all of his policies, and NOWHERE DID I SUGGEST THIS. But if we take the OP at his word, had it not been for the disenfranchisement, he'd have either stayed home or voted for someone else. If he needs reasons to vote for him more than what he's already done, and looking at what's at stake, there is no support there, and worse, there is no REASON there.

People of reason push through their disillusionment, weigh the facts and the options, and make the best decision they can. They do not dwell on disappointment when there is real work to be done and big consequences at stake. Believe me, you think you're disillusioned now? Wait for the 4 years of Romney/Ryan should we fail to elect Obama and let's compare notes then.

Young voters need to hear this most of all because this will affect them the most. They must stop indulging in their disillusionment and disappointment and get their heads back in the game. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will bury this country in a world of shit and they, more than any other generation, will be neck deep in it. And quite honestly, the stakes are THAT HIGH. This is a fight for the very future of this country and what it will be for them.

So you will pardon me for getting a little enraged when confronted with some solipsistic, self-serving cry for attention from a person who appears to want us to clap and cheer that he found it in his heart and soul to make the right choice. I don't have time for that. I'm fresh out of gold stars to give him. I can't help those who still can't see reason and still need reasons. The choice is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to this country for the past 30 years, that this OP still requires more is both bewildering and offensive.

[Tarheel_Dem]

509. Oooh, that's bound to leave a blister.

[Marrah_G]

462. I'm sorry you are getting jumped all over for this

[Kelvin Mace]

473. It is amazing how many people

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

think they get to decide whose vote is worthy of having.

I know a few alerted on me and were really vexed when I wasn't banned or my post deleted.

I also enjoy all these people who have decided they know better than I do what my own words mean.

[WinkyDink]

482. That would be "know." And that would be yours truly. And you would still be wrong in your idiom

usage.

To say "I cannot in good conscience" do X, Y, or Z, and then go on to state that you WILL do X, Y, or Z, MEANS, IN PLAIN ENGLISH, that you actually HAVE NO CONSCIENCE.

Or are you Humpty-Dumpty?

[Kelvin Mace]

485. Thank you for calling my attention to my grammar error

As to your other point:

Are you voting for Obama?

[peace13]

478. I like that you have found a way to support the President.

I too have been frustrated over the years. It has not all gone my way with Obama but I will say that he seems to play a great game of chess and if we hang in there some of those things that have been eating us may be resolved. I fear that not voting for the President will result in immediate grave damage to what is left of our country!

[Kelvin Mace]

484. I am hoping that some of the folk giving me grief

on this thread will apply the same effort to pressing Obama back to the left in a second term, rather than continue to make excuses for him. If they don't then we are just prolonging the inevitable end.

[hello larry]

481. So let's cut to the chase, dear:

you ended up drinking the Kool-Aid after all...

[Kelvin Mace]

498. Are you voting for Obama?

[Green_Lantern]

483. most complaints about Obama are based on things people think he did...

And can be challenged with facts.

[Marrah_G]

487. I think there are differences between complaints coming from the right

and complaints coming from the left.

I know a number of people to the left of Obama that are, as an example, very upset about issues pertaining to torture, rendition, gitmo, arrest without due process, spying etc. They were upset before Obama and are upset that things like that continue.

I think that jumping on them, insulting them, telling them their vote isn't needed, berating them for not loving the President enough, etc is the WRONG way to gather every single vote we can. This just makes people want to throw up their hands and say fuck it. What we need to be doing is giving people as many reasons as possible to vote for Obama despite their disagreements with him on some issues.

A vote AGAINST Romney is still a vote AGAINST Romney.

Some people just get there on a different path, so to speak.

Frankly, I am not thrilled with what is happening in DC on all levels. But the thought of a Romney presidency is what will get me to the polls.

I wonder what the Obama campaign would tell someone like me. Would they say "fuck you, we don't want your vote" or would they be glad I was casting my vote for him regardless of the reasons why? Somehow, I think they appreciate every vote they can get.

[Green_Lantern]

492. I'm just saying even the criticisms from the left seem to assume...

1.) The President can unilaterally just do things

2.) On issues such as foreign policy and national security he has access to info we can't even imagine

3.) We are the only people he must satisfy

[Kelvin Mace]

497. In response

1) My list of problems with Obama has nothing to do with any power outside the Executive. I am not blaming him for laws he can't get passed due to Republican obstruction.

2) I have heard this argument many times in history. When the "real facts" come out, they generally do NOT support the justification. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. Either the writ of habeus corpus is in force, or it is not.

3) Who are you including with the pronoun "we"?

[Kelvin Mace]

496. He is currently

fighting to detain people without review by the courts.

Tell me how this is factually incorrect.

[Blue_Tires]

491. um...OK?

Whatever...Spare me the moralizing as long as you plan to vote for Obama...

[Kelvin Mace]

495. As you apparently plan to vote for Obama

want Obama to win, and I am advocating for people who have ethical/moral concerns about voting for him to vote for him, why do wish to join the list of people insulting me?

Why is concern for morality and ethics held in such contempt by so many people on this board. Immoral actions do not become moral because the president changed the "R" at the end of his name to a "D".

[Blue_Tires]

499. I'm just saying this whole thing could have been avoided...

You could have stopped your post at "I'm voting for Obama"...I'm pretty sure next to no one here gives a damn about the "why" -part...

And I'll let you in on a secret: EVERYBODY has unique personal reasons on why they plan to vote for Obama, if you asked them...I'm just saying don't think yours is special or better than anyone else's...

[Kelvin Mace]

500. As the people I was trying to have a discussion with were those

who did not plan to vote for Obama, titling the post "I am voting for Obama" would not have engaged them.

Again, this is not about folks like you who intended to vote for Obama, so why go to the trouble to express scorn for me for doing something you, presumably, want me to do?

The common thread in this thread of people angry at me is that I am voting for Obama for reasons THEY DON'T approve of. As I did not seek their approval, did not invite them into the discussion, and AM voting for Obama, I don't see a valid reason for the anger or the insults.

[darkangel218]

501. Please forgive my ignorance

But I dont think there is anyone on this Forum Board who plans to vote for Romney.

That being said, who were you adressing to? the trolls? the web crowlers who might stumble upon your OP?

I personally find your post not very well thought.

[Kelvin Mace]

504. I certainly had no intention of voting for ROmney

nor did I believe anyone else at DU would. The point of my post was addressing those like myself who were contemplating noting voting in the presidential race, or simply writing someone in.

I apologize that my post is apparently lacking to your eye, but again, the intended audience was not anyone planning on voting for Obama regardless.

[girl gone mad]

502. Fortunately for me, I do not have to make this decision.

I don't live in a swing state so I get to vote my conscience.

[msanthrope]

505. Who are you voting for, then? nt

[DonCoquixote]

503. wow

The fact that this has 500 threads shows that we have an act to get together.

To the people slamming the OP because he is finally voting for Obama, after sayign he would not, grow up! He is finally doing what some of us have begged him to do for a long time, and yet he gets slammed for it by the very same people who should be thanking him? Part of the whole reason we have been begging people to vote for Obama is because we have shot ourselves in the foot with infighting, much to the delight of the Koches and the Limbaughs. Do we really want that last pound of flesh, really? Who is dumber, PUMAS?, or Obama voters that act like Pumas?

To the people slamming him as a sellout because he is not sticking to his earlier idea of not voting, I will sya this, while I can respect your ideals, the future will show that whatever good we got was not due to folk like you, but folks like us that kept the enemy out of power, just like the FDR Democrats kept FDR in power, despute the howls of the far left, you know, the same folks that act offended when they were asked how they felt about Uncle Joe Stalin when they found out he really WAS the monster Trotsky made him out to be.

There is no compromise. As awful as Mitt is, there is still a chance Mitt can steal this, especially as the Media wants to prove they can crown a king, since the billionaires are willing to shovel billions to do just that. Yes, the very Wednesday after that tuesday, right when Michelle and Obama aresipping their Coffee, we need to make sure we drag Obama to the right, to make sure that he listens more to the Liz Warrens than the Rahm Emmanuels, but until that very wednesday, or whenever Mitt finally concedes, we will not be at that point to apply pressure. Furthermore, if we do not get to that point, the influence of the left as a whole will wither, as in 2016 Hillary will do what Clintons do best: punch hippies enough that the right becomes the left, and vice versa.

No one said Democracy was easy.

[Kelvin Mace]

506. Thank you!

I appreciate that some people are getting my intent.

Though you may want to edit your post. I think you meant to say "We need to make sure we drag Obama to the LEFT", not the "right".

[DonCoquixote]

514. freudian slip

and indeed, he can be dragged there, once the maggots like rahm are told to stfu.

[Kelvin Mace]

515. I was very concerned that Rahmn was going to really screw up the Chicago

teachers strike and give Romney ammunition.

[DonCoquixote]

527. I am concerned about him period

As I honestly think much of the lost oppritunities of O's admin were Rahm going in and trying to torpedo anything radical,especially since he admits he begged Obama not to tackle health reform. I hate to say this, but he is one of a few people whose poltical career I would glaldy see plummet before he could do any more damage.

[Kelvin Mace]

529. I knew that the chances of Obama keeping any promises

to the liberal wing of the party took a nose dive when he picked Rahm as his chief of staff.

[heaven05]

507. !!

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)

It is your right as an american to make an informed choice of who you will or will not vote for. My opinion is that our present POTUS has faced an immense amount of repug thuggery and skullduggery. He had a 20 day window in having a democratic majority. With the bluedogs fighting him also he faced an immense uphill battle. I was let down myself at first. but on learning of the repug-thug plan to deny him,with their filibuster ANY victory for the american people, I got angry. The racism, stupidity and ignorance displayed by the repug-thugs and their tea party, yes little t, little p, cronies, says it all to me. If you abstain, you're just hurting yourself and millions of others. If mitt the dips... wins you're screwed. Period. At least with the current POTUS and hopefully a majority democratic legislature you have a chance to enjoy a real human being in the white house who I think cares about all american people. So you have to do what you have to do, but you don't have my respect. No voting and you're a democrat? That's kind of cowardly to me.


okay after spending the last hour reading the responses you generated. You are voting, got it.

[Kelvin Mace]

522. Once again, I am not a Democrat, I am a liberal

Zell Miller was a Democrat. Joe Lieberman was a Democrat.

Neither would be welcome here.

The name choice of Democratic

Underground

as the name of this site kind of makes that point. It is unfortunate that people still equate "liberal" with "Democrat". In my opinion, the last genuine liberal president was Carter.

I am saddened that I would not had your respect had I not be able to find an ethical reason to vote for Obama. The fact that I am getting such much abuse from some people for not having a "correct" reason for voting for Obama is rather depressing.

I do appreciate you stating your disapproval politely.

[Thrill]

510. Justice Ginsberg will likely be retiring in the next couple yrs. You can't in good conscience NOT

for President Obama.

I'll be completely honest. All the other stuff is important but the thought of a conservative like Alito or Scalia replacing her, scares the shit out of me. We've seen what they've done with just a narrow margin.

[Kelvin Mace]

517. As I keep telling folks who bring up this issue

The SCOTUS is a lost cause for the next decade or two. It has been a lost cause since it pulled Bush v. Gore and no one was impeached. It was lost when the Dems allowed Alito and Roberts on the bench.

IF Obama is ALLOWED to appoint another justice, then like every justice since about 1970, the replacement justice will be to the RIGHT of justice replaced.

And even if we somehow manage to get Thurgood Marshall's clone, the court will still be 5-4 hard right. People like Scalia and Thomas will not leave the court until they require burying.

[Thrill]

519. Thats nonsense

[Kelvin Mace]

525. No, hard reality

Once the Scalia Five got away with appointing the president, the SCOTUS stopped being a judicial entity and became a political one. What happened in 2000 should have resulted in the impeachment of all five justices, instead, the Dems (and the American) people shrugged and moved on.

Now we have the entire country for sale thanks to Citizens United, which is the law of the land and has almost ZERO chance of being annulled. We might survive the attempt to buy this election this year, but probably not in 2014.

I welcome the chance to be wrong, but I'm not optimistic.

Hell, all this may be moot in 50 years, since the planet is getting ready to scratch us off the tenant list.

[quinnox]

513. whoa, this is a monster thread

congrats on making an obviously big hit in terms of a discussion.

I feel everyone should vote their conscience, and it is a private matter.