Let's make it real, who you gonna vote for? It is either President Obama

[akbacchus_BC]

or mitt! Mitt is a clown, I will go for President Obama.

There, I said it. Obama for 2012!

We have our problems too, ignatieef or harper. the NDP never got to fuck canada yet! but man, the conservatives and the liberals have fucked us over and over!

[MNBrewer]

1. Fail... Unreal.

[rdking647]

37. who besides Obama can win for the Dems in 2012?

[cascadiance]

68. Vote in the primaries for someone that espouses what we want... If they lose Obama in the GE...

It sends a message.

Just this last election, I voted for Bill Bradbury for governor here in Oregon, because I wanted to send a message to Kitzhaber, who I knew would probably win, that I liked Bradbury's strong advocacy for an Oregon State Bank. When Kitzhaber won, I actually worked the phones for him to help him eek one out against Dudley thankfully.

And it looks like not only do we have Kitzhaber as governor now, but efforts have really moved forward to have Oregon become the second state after North Dakota to perhaps start a state bank, which I think is the move many states should do now to start shutting down the banksters' power!

http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110401/NEWS0107/104010358/1001/NEWS01&nav_category=NEWS01

I'd like to think that my vote as well as many others votes for Bradbury helped send a message to those at the top that this was an important thing for the party to push for in this state.

We should push Obama in the same way, and if the contender loses, work with Obama, and point out to those working for him how many people liked what the contender wanted and what that contender's message was, so that hopefully Obama's campaign gets the message of what the base is increasingly need to happen to be satisfied with him in charge.

[pnwmom]

100. Go ahead and write someone in if that will make you feel better.

But no Dem's going to challenge him in the primaries.

[cascadiance]

104. And unfortunately, that's why we continue to be taken for granted...

It might not be this election, but at some point we need to take a stand against the corporatists that try to corner and minimize our power within the party. I still wonder if John Edwards was "used" in last election to siphon away any kind of potential groundswell support from Dennis Kucinich so that one way or the other he could be pushed aside so that Hillary or Obama who were compromised by corporatist will would not have any kind of contention at the end. I know I felt used. Knowing what I know now, I would have voted for Kucinich in the primaries instead of Edwards.

[pnwmom]

105. Kucinich didn't have a prayer of winning, with or without Edwards.

He didn't have the ability to raise the funds necessary for a national campaign.

And he only appealed to a small sliver of Dems.

[cascadiance]

133. I thought so too. But knowing the character of the other Dems in the race...

If everyone knew the true character of each of them that they know now, I think that he'd get a lot more support now than he did then. I certainly would have put my support behind him then instead of Edwards.

[pnwmom]

142. So would I. Thank goodness Edwards didn't go farther than

he did. But Kucinich wouldn't have been able to beat McCain, and Obama did.

[defendandprotect]

141. At the least we need to move in democrats from outside the party ....

avoiding those who have been pre-selected, pre-bribed and pre-owned by corporations --

We need a humanist in the White House, not a corporatist!

And we need a plan B --

Certainly I am not going to vote for Obama and more of his wars, more of his back

room deals with business -- a new gendration of nukes for America -- and mroe BP and

drilling in the Gulf!

When was the last itme you heard Obama mention Global Warming?

Or the homeless in America?




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know - pass it along -- !!

[brooklynite]

145. A lazy response...

You're going to wait for the Primary and vote for some who matches you're philosophy...by which time it's going to be too late if you're being serious. You don't HAVE an alternative candidate, and I don't see anyone griping about the President's record lifting a ffinger from their keyboard to find a "real" Democrat who's willing to run.

[cascadiance]

148. I'm not saying we should work to help encourage the right one to enter a primary first...

I'd like to encourage candidates like Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold. I'm sure there are others that I could get behind as well.

I guess I was just saying that if there is someone running espousing what I want, I will have no qualms voting for him/her, and pushing on the candidate that wins (if its not that person) to pick up their stances, especially if they have a good turnout. I really would like a good progressive to at least PUSH Obama in the right direction if not win the nomination him/herself.

[defendandprotect]

99. Sen. Bernie Sanders -- for one -- and we need TWO anti-war candidates ....

certainly not Obama more nukes and more oil drilling Obama!!

and certainly not Biden who wants Israel to attack Iran!!

[pnwmom]

102. A pipedream, since he's already made it clear he's not interested. n/t

[defendandprotect]

136. We have tons of democrats who can run on the Dem ticket -- who aren't corporatists!!

but Obama and Biden need to go -- !!

We need strong anti-war candidates --

We need a humanist in the White House -- NOT a corporatist -- !!

[pnwmom]

143. And none of them wants to run, or has the organization.

This isn't something that starts overnight.

[defendandprotect]

146. Have we asked them all?

[rdking647]

144. how many states do you really thing sanders could win?

id be willing to bet vermont and thats it.
nominating sanders would be as stupid as the right nominating bachman

[defendandprotect]

147. And you think voting for Obama ...

isn't stupid? It makes sense only if you want more of the same -- !!

We need to move to the left -- and move outside of the party --

[MNBrewer]

130. Real vs. hypothetical

Fail

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. false dichotomy

eom

[MH1]

7. claiming that it is not a dichotomy is what is false.

Like it or not, it is the system in this country.

Work for changing the election system to, for example, instant run-off voting, then you can have your non-dichotomous choice.

[Cronus Protagonist]

32. You are blinkered then

1/ We can run an alternative populist person, of which there are several possible candidates
2/ Write in candidates have won in the past and could also win in the future

Ergo, your premise is a false dichotomy.

[rdking647]

40. when did a write in win a major presidential election

except deleware which had a nutjob like odonnell

[Logical]

3. Anyone here not voting for Obama is helping the GOP destroy this country. n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

4. Agree with you. Finally convinced my dauthers to not vote Green,

Elizabeth May is a clown!

[Logical]

13. I see her point, but basically the vote is wasted. Which is bad. n-t

[akbacchus_BC]

159. I know, am trying to get them to vote Liberal for Federal, as much

as I dislike Ignatiief, I'll vote for him. Harper might come in with a majority and then we are fucked. The NDP was never a party of challenge except in BC!

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

5. But he's doing a pretty good job himself

[Logical]

11. I am not 100% happy either. But he is better than any GOP fool. n-t

[pnwmom]

101. He's not attacking unions and he pushed through health insurance.

He signed the repeal of DADT and he's held the line on the anti-women movement.

He's not like any of the Rethugs.

[warren pease]

107. On the other hand...

He's been sucking up to the insurance and financial "services" industries so enthusiastically that he might as well wear a giant "fuck the people" icon on the chest of his fashionable Saipan-made T-shirt.

Sarcasm aside, insurance "reform" was a pathetic exercise in capitulation and back-stabbing -- single-payer off the table from the outset and the so-called "public option" dealt away early on.

What we got was a huge cheer from the administration as they pretended to serve their human constituents while actually making good on the promises they made to their real "base:" corporate persons.

And those famous walkin' shoes -- the comfortable ones he said he'd wear on the pro-collective-bargaining picket lines -- must have been hiding in the closet while pro-labor activists organized millions around the country to protest this unprecedented assault on unions and working people in general.

Admittedly, "...he's not attacking unions..." but that's a far cry from supporting them.

Incredibly, the sectors that led the Obama election bribe-o-rama just happen to be insurance and financial services. Combined, the two slipped him nearly $40 million for his 2008 presidential run.

And got a nice return on their investments in Obama. This according to OpenSecrets.org, a notoriously reliable source for tracking the bribocracy.

OpenSecrets link here.

I liked him as a candidate; as a president, he leaves an awful lot to be desired; as a negotiator, he's painful to watch.


wp

[Paradoxical]

16. Bullshit.

[Logical]

24. Wow, what intelligence that took. I am awed! n-t

[Paradoxical]

28. What you said was so absurd that it necessitates no response.

It's stupidity is self-evident.

[Logical]

39. Again, awed! Nt

[Paradoxical]

50. Clearly you chose your screen-name as some sort of ironic symbol.

[Logical]

108. Your snarky tone and no facts prove you are just angry with no logic. n-t

[JTFrog]

109. Welcome to DU.

[Logical]

118. You disagree voting against Obama does not help the GOP? Nt

[JTFrog]

122. No.

I mis-replied.

I'm with you on this one.

:hi:

[Logical]

123. Ok, thanks! I appreciate your response! nt

[BzaDem]

41. While that could certainly be said about your post, the post you responded to is spot on. n/t

[Paradoxical]

51. Spot on to the few who believe in such childish nonsense.

Completely inaccurate both philosophically and practically to everyone else.

[BzaDem]

53. Fortunately, the number of people who vote for third parties is so negligable

that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that your "few" description is about as inaccurate is it could possibly be. (At least when applied to those with the point of view opposite yours -- it certainly does apply to those with your point of view.)

[Paradoxical]

56. "Fortunately"? So you're saying that you enjoy our corrupt two party system?

[BzaDem]

57. Enjoying recognition of reality is not the same as enjoying the substance of that reality.

For example, I am happy that the vast majority of Democrats acknowledge the existence of man-made Global warming. But that does not make me happy that global warming is occurring.

Similarly, I am happy that the vast majority of our party recognizes that we live in a two-party system, and votes accordingly. That does not make me happy about the system.

I would be elated if we had something like instant run-off voting (and no electoral college) that would allow 3rd party votes without enabling Republicans. But my hypothetical elation does not equal reality.

If you want to change the system, then work on changing the Constitution. But enabling Republicans in the voting booth does not change the system any more than putting one's fingers in one's ears and singling "la la la la la" changes the system.

[Paradoxical]

59. You just spent an entire post blaming the 2000 election on third party voting.

You're stumbling over your own words.

Yet, there's still a hysterical level of irony in your post


"putting one's fingers in one's ears and singling "la la la la la" changes the system."

Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing when you vote for a two party system. Congrats, you have successfully defeated your own arguments by yourself.

[BzaDem]

62. Yes, I did, because it is entirely true.

"Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing when you vote for a two party system."

I think this is where the logical breakdown of your argument lies. You claimed that I somehow "voted for a two party system."

But I did no such thing.

Sure, I recognized reality (which is always and everywhere a good thing), and voted WITHIN the two party system, but that IN NO WAY votes FOR the two party system.

The two party system exists whether one votes WITHIN it or not. The only thing choosing not to vote within the system does, is enable the greater of two evils within the system. It does not do a single smidge of damage to the system itself -- it just allows the already-existing system to be manipulated by fewer and fewer people.

The people who voted FOR the two party system were the people who voted for the ratification of our Constitution (even if they didn't know the logical consequences of the document at the time). I am not that old.

[Paradoxical]

64. The two party system exists because individuals allow it to exist.

You being one of them.

It's not as if the two party system is an independent, intelligent entity with the capacity to control it's own destiny. It is the product of human intervention. It exists only in the minds of those who perpetuate it.

You want to talk about logic? You're barking up the wrong tree. I've had this discussion so many times I've lost count. And every time the person who believes in the two party system looks like a fool. Because they realize that it's actually their fault the system exists in the first place.

How long will it take for you to realize that? I hope faster than the others.

[BzaDem]

67. Actually, the two party system exists WHETHER OR NOT you allow it to exist

(until the Constitution is changed).

"It is the product of human intervention."

Actually, that is entirely false. It is the product of PAST human intervention -- specifically, the ratification of our Constitution that created the electoral college.

As long as we have an electoral college that requires an absolute majority of electoral votes to win, we will live in a two party system. That is because the only way ANY candidate gets an absolute majority is if we live in a two party system. And if a candidate does not get an absolute majority, the election is thrown to the two-party House.

There do exist systems that are not two party in other parts of the world. But their charters of government are as far away from ours as you can imagine.

"How long will it take for you to realize that? I hope faster than the others."

Why would I want to "realize" something that is manifestly false? I would hope I don't "realize it," since if I were to "realize it," it would indicate I have lost my mental faculties.

In reality, eventually YOU will be the one to realize the obvious. I know this based on simple human behavior. If someone touches a hot stove enough, they will eventually stop doing it, no matter how much they might have wished to do so beforehand. Humans have evolved to adapt to reality, and to not be irrational for sustained periods of time. Eventually, people realize their actions have consequences.

[Paradoxical]

75. I said "human intervention". You said no that's false, it's "PAST human intervention".

You just proved my point entirely.

The two party system is the actualization of human intervention. It is not some uncontrollable entity with a consciousness of it's existence or future.

We as individuals control whether or not such a system continues to exist and in what capacity. You simply what to abandon all responsibility and stick your head in the sand.

I am not willing to do that.

[BzaDem]

76. No, you said the specific intervention of voting in a current election.

"Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing when you vote for a two party system."

And that is entirely false.

If you are simply saying that we can change the Constitution to remove the two party system, of course that is technically true. I would vote for state legislators to ratify such an amendment in a heartbeat.

Unfortunately, the original Constitution was designed to make a mere majority not sufficient to change it. You need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. There has to be nearly unanimous agreement (or a victory in the civil war) to make any substantive change.

The above is the reality of the situation -- and that is FAR different than what you claim (i.e. that voting in a regularly scheduled election is somehow enabling the system, in a way that would not enable it without such a vote).

[Paradoxical]

79. "...voting in a regularly scheduled election is somehow enabling the system"

It actually is. By participating in a corrupt system, who's validation comes in the continuation of it's function, you are perpetuating said system.

Like I said before, if you want to stick your head in the sand, enjoy. I actually give a shit.

But the very least you could do is stop wasting my time and the time of others by spewing your illogical bullshit all over the place. The rest of us are left to clean up your mess.

[BzaDem]

81. "who's validation comes in the continuation of it's function"

Actually, its function will happily (for those involved) continue even if turnout is cut in half.

That is where your argument breaks down. You think that a vote within a system does something to enable or disable the system, when back in reality, it does no such thing. If a President won an election with 30% turnout, they are no less the President than if they won with 60% turnout.

[Paradoxical]

84. "You think that a vote within a system does something to enable or disable the system"

"when back in reality, it does no such thing."

This coming from the same person who believes third party voting is the reason why Bush became president. And I assume you probably believe third party voting got him relelected.

Those fucking green-peace bastards. They may be negligible in numbers, but goddamnit they have destroyed this country.

:rofl:

Seriously, please stop.

[BzaDem]

85. Yes actually. Third party voting did NOTHING to disable the system. It did EVERYTHING to elect the

greater of two evils WITHIN The system.

Thank you for so artfully articulating my point. :rofl:

[Paradoxical]

86. Pardon me for asking, but how old are you?

[BzaDem]

87. Not old enough to have voted to ratify the Constitution in 1789. Beyond that

I am not going to disclose on an Internet message board.

[Paradoxical]

89. You're afraid to disclose your age on a message board?

Any particular reason why?

[BzaDem]

90. Same reason most people don't disclose their age. n/t

[Paradoxical]

91. That's not an answer. I'm wondering why you don't want to disclose your age.

[BzaDem]

92. Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#Privacy_and_the_Internet

[Paradoxical]

93. Again, not an answer. I already know you want it private. I want to know why.

Hence, when I ask you why you are keeping it private I am asking you and you alone.

[BzaDem]

94. Because I feel like it?

Not sure what this has to do with the conversation at hand.

[Paradoxical]

95. Because your age and length of political participation likely weighs heavily on your "opinion".

I'm attempting to understand your world here.

[BzaDem]

96. Surely though if there was something wrong with my argument or "worldview"

that something could be articulated by criticizing the substance of my argument, rather than trying to use some proxy information about the person making the argument.

[Paradoxical]

97. My critique of your argument is done. That's been done for a while.

Your unwillingness to accept that critique is the product of your own personal short-comings.

What I am now doing is attempting to understand where you're coming from. More of an interest in the bizarre than anything else.

[akbacchus_BC]

162. BS is thy name, STFU!

[markpkessinger]

33. And so is any progressive . . .

. . .who is not willing to endure the pain of losing an election cycle or two in order to build a coalition that better represents progressive values!

[BzaDem]

42. But that assumes that losing an election cycle or two will ACTUALLY help you achieve your goals.

When in reality, it will just make you as far away from achieving your goal as possible.

Democrats will happily move right if they lose, since it is much easier to get a rational independent to switch (which increases their margin by 2) than to get an irrational purported progressive to switch (which only increases their margin by 1).

So if you want to make the country as conservative as possible in the short but particularly the long term, your strategy is the one.

[markpkessinger]

46. The reality is we won't know until we try . . .

. . . But we DO know where continuing to accept the "lesser of two evils" paradigm takes us.

[BzaDem]

52. Are you kidding me? They tried exactly your strategy in 2000. Didn't work out very well now did it?

If no one shared your strategy in 2000, there would never have been Bush tax cuts, never have been an Iraq war, would never have been Alito (which means there would never have been Citizens United), etc etc etc.

Meanwhile, how did Democrats respond in 2004? By moving to the right. Kerry enthusiastically embraced the Iraq war -- since he knew he had to offset any potential losses from irrational purported progressives with centrist independents (who at the time supported the war).

How much worse does the country permanently have to become before you realize that the strategy is a failure?

[Paradoxical]

55. You've swallowed a bunch of nonsense. The Supreme Court and corruption cost us the 2000 election.

[BzaDem]

58. ... and they would not have been able to, had the strategy of the above poster not been used.

It is really amazing though, how on the one hand, you say "we need to show the Democrats that they can't take our votes for granted, even if that results in the election of a Republican President"

but then, on the other hand, say that "OH, FOLLOWING MY STRATEGY COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY ELECTED BUSH!" (Even when it unquestionably did, and even when you yourself acknowledge that such an outcome is what occurs when your strategy succeeds.)

[Paradoxical]

61. Why don't you nail down a coherent argument and then get back to me.

[BzaDem]

63. If you don't understand my argument, that is your problem (not mine). It is not complicated. n/t

[Paradoxical]

66. Don't flatter yourself. You're argument is convoluted because it's contradictory.

[BzaDem]

69. Says the person who can't name a single contradiction. n/t

[Paradoxical]

70. How about the one where you said a negligible amount of people vote third party.

While at the same time blaming the 2000 election on third party voting.

Need I make that any clearer to you?

[BzaDem]

71. That isn't a contradiction at all. An election can EASILY hinge on a negligable margin.

Heck, an election can hinge on a 1 vote margin. But that doesn't mean that 1 vote isn't negligible as a proportion of the party, since one out of 300 million is is negligible (at least when you are using terms like "few" and "many" to identify a proportion).

Small amounts can occasionally have big impacts.

[Paradoxical]

73. It is actually a massive contradiction. Unless you are willing to redefine negligible.

neg·li·gi·ble adj \ˈne-gli-jə-bəl\
Definition of NEGLIGIBLE

: so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention : trifling <a negligible error>

If it has influence (especially if the accusation is that it cost us an entire presidential election), it is no longer negligible. If it is negligible, it no longer has influence. That's how words work. You cannot simply redefine them at your whim.

[BzaDem]

74. Let's put it this way -- such a small group has negligable influence in pushing the country to the

left.

They can at times have TREMENDOUS influence in pushing the country as far right as possible. So with that type of "influence," they are not negligible in a close election. If they want to make the country as conservative as they can possibly make it, they absolutely have the power to do so.

But in terms of pushing the country to the left (short and long term), they are quite negligible.

[Paradoxical]

77. So they have negligible influence on politics other than costing us entire elections.

Yes, certainly that is clear in logic and free of contradiction.

:sarcasm:

And you know what's really funny? I haven't said a single word on third party voting other than to say that it's absurd to blame the 2000 election on third party voters.

The election was lost because of voter fraud and an unethical ruling by our Supreme Court. That has nothing at all to do with third party voting. Nothing.

[BzaDem]

78. They have negligible influence in pushing the country to the left, but significant influence in

pushing the country to the right.

That is only a contradiction to someone who either can't or chooses not to understand basic English words.

[Paradoxical]

80. You are grasping at some mighty fine straws.

First you said that a negligible number of people vote third party. Then you blamed the 2000 election on said negligible amount. Then you said they are negligible in their political influence but somehow still manage to be the deciding factor in presidential elections.

Finally, you are now arguing that third party voting is only negligible for the left. It is actually influential on the right.

Like I said earlier, pick a coherent argument and get back to me.

[BzaDem]

82. That is my argument (regardless of how hard you try not to understand it out of convenience).

Because if you had to acknowledge your understanding of such an easy-to-understand argument, you would have to explain why the argument is false. But of course you can't do that, because it isn't false.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. And anyone voting for Obama is helping the Corporadems destroy this country.

What the fuck is the difference?

[BzaDem]

54. The difference is that your proposition is false, whereas the proposition you responded to is true.

If a person votes for the best viable candidate, they are not "helping destroy this country," since in the absence of their action, the country would be destroyed even MORE.

"Helping destroy this country" implies that the opposite action would destroy this country less.

That is not true at all in the case of your proposition. But it is 100% true in the case of the proposition of the person you replied to.

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. The one does not negate the other.

Corporatists run both parties, and either will destroy US democracy.

the only real difference is the Democratic party is slightly more amenable to throwing off the corporatist yoke, and is not quite as much infiltrated by theocrats.

But not by much.

Obama is to the right of Eisenhower. He is to the right of Nixon. If he is left of Reagan, it's only by a hair. He's certainly to the right of Carter and Clinton.

We've just been sitting in this hot water so long we don't notice it coming to a boil.

[BzaDem]

65. But that isn't what you said -- you said voting for Obama somehow hurts the country.

But it unquestionably does not, since the alternative makes the country EVEN WORSE (not better).

Now, you might be correct, IF we lived in a proportional representation system, and someone to the left of Obama might have a chance of running the government in a coalition with Obama (or enough for a win outright). But that is not our system. Voting for Obama does not logically make the country worse than not voting for Obama would make it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. You claim there are but two alternatives - Obama and Not Obama.

That's like saying you can be shot in the leg, or shot in the guts - they BOTH fucking hurt.

Is it any wonder some opt to walk away from the fight?

[phasma ex machina]

47. The banksters are destroying this country and TARP proves that they own both parties. nt

[defendandprotect]

138. It is Obama destroying the nation with more oil drilling and more nukes for America!!

And pressing a corporatist agenda --

Most of it in back room deals with big corporations -- from Big Pharma to

the private h/c industry!

How many times are you willing to be fooled before you seek to end this

downward spiral?




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know - pass it along -- !!

[Terra Alta]

6. I will vote for Obama

But it won't be an enthusiastic vote like in 2008.. Obama is far from perfect, but he is better than anyone the GOP has to offer.

[akbacchus_BC]

8. Lesser of two evils they say! But we have no choice now! Vote for Obama

or the rethugs take over, I am for Obama!

[freshwest]

21. Love your sig!

[jab105]

9. I will vote for him...but not enthusiastically...

I will not donate money, I will not convince other people to vote for him...and I will have to hold my nose to even vote for him at all...

Last time, I was so proud to vote for him that I had tears falling down my cheeks as I did so...
I dont feel that way any more...

[akbacchus_BC]

10. I understand, even if you do not donate, vote for him. I am sure that he

will make a difference in his election. He got shit to deal with!

[Skink]

12. He is about to do something Presidential.

[uponit7771]

14. How many of these are you guys gonna post per day now? Thx

[Union Scribe]

83. No shit. It's gonna be a long election season.

[JoePhilly]

115. It seems to be far fewer than the "Obama bad" OPs.

[Paradoxical]

15. Every time a stupid thread like this comes up, I feel less motivated to vote for Obama.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[akbacchus_BC]

154. Who gives a shit about how you feel not voting for President Obama,

go fly a kite!

[akbacchus_BC]

161. Who cares, why did you need to kick this thread?

[H2O Man]

17. silly

[akbacchus_BC]

152. Silly, why? n/t

[walldude]

19. I'll be sure to vote for the best candidate...

So you'll have someone to blame if Obama loses.

[Joyce78]

20. This is not worthy of a response ...

apparently, history is not being taught. Pay attention to what happened to Carter when Teddy Kennedy challenged a Democratic imcumbent President. President Obama is our elected (not appointed) President and, as such, we will support his re-election. Old-time Dems such as myself and my husband aren't paying attention to the weak field that the GOP is trying to wave in front of the TeaBags ... and let's be honest here ... the TeaParty flaunted teabags, hung them from their strawhats, until someone made them aware of what a teabagger is as defined in the dictionary.

[sendero]

22. You make it sound.

.... like talk is valuable. The only difference between Obama and a typical Repug is talk. There is absolutely no action behind it. So who the fuck cares?

I'd rather have a Repug than a Dem who is destroying the Democratic brand with his Repuke policies.

[bigwillq]

23. I always like to keep my options open.

In every election for every office.

[Autumn]

25. I want to vote for Elizabeth May

whoever the fuck she is.:silly:

[HughBeaumont]

26. Republican, Fundamentalpatient, Wasted Vote.

The menu here sucks.

[kenny blankenship]

36. But the portions are huge!

[HughBeaumont]

117. Huge and stupid. The way shit's DONE in Murka!

[Edweird]

27. I'm part of a miniscule fringe element. How I choose to vote (IF I choose to vote) does not matter.

I have been reminded of that daily here.

[freshwest]

29. Don't care about any GOP candidate. I never give them any encouragement...

And not voting would do that. Sure did it in 2010.

That's why I ignore those who stayed away from the polls, saying there was no difference.

No difference, huh?

Would there have been all these cuts and going after women with a Dem majority?

Would the Dem's want to eliminate NPR and all social programs?

The country was handed over to the Randian GOP on a silver platter and people are mad at Obama?

If there is no difference, why does the GOP have such a record voter fraud, shutting down get out the vote campaigns like ACORN, trying to disenfranchise people in every state as we type?

Let's not forget the incredible shenanigans they pulled in the 2000 and 2004. Or we can go back to the Iran hostage situation to get Reagan in office and the Watergate hotel before that, too.

Every one of those cases had the GOP stamp of approval.

Who is it begs us to vote, or who is who does every possible thing to stop us voting because they know we'll vote Democrat?

Just that alone should tell folks who it is that wants people to stay home and vote. Fine, stay home and give the Tea Party power to do even more harm than they have.

Voting is like gambling in a way, you place you bets and see how the numbers come out. Don't vote, and you didn't even try to win. If you don't vote, don't kid yourself the GOP won't cheer.

I'll vote Democratic in 2012 because I don't want these Ayn Rand psychopaths to assume that I agree or that I'll roll over for them.

[rug]

30. No. I can vote for the expansion of war or not vote for the expansion of war.

How does that go? Oh yeah, something about paying attention.

[mitchtv]

31. as a Dem for 40+ yrs

I will probably vote for Obama, but I pray for a primary, he deserves it

[markpkessinger]

34. In the words of the late Ted Kenney. . .

"If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose — and deserve to lose. The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

And running for cover has been what Democrats have been doing since the aftermath of the '94 midterms.

[kath]

49. +a brazillion!

[Raine]

106. Truer words were never spoken

THANKS for the reminder! :thumbsup:

[Johnny Harpo]

35. I'll Vote For The Democrat Who Gets The Nomination...Whoever It Is

[TheKentuckian]

38. Seriously consider writing in Jesse Jackson.

[rdking647]

43. why????

writing in JJ is as bad as staying home..

If you dont vote for a viable candidate your wasting your vote and helping the repukes... which it looks like a lot here want to do

[TheKentuckian]

131. Obama has turned out to be what I expected from Romney so I'll write in a Democrat

that has a real track record of standing with the poor and disenfranchised.

Somebody that speaks out for the unions and the 99ers. Somebody with an agenda that isn't best carried out by the likes of Timmeh, Lar-Dawg Summers, and Bush boy Bernake.

Viable is a nonsense justification. A candidate is not only viable but wins by getting the votes. If someone isn't viable, then make them so. Obama wasn't viable that long ago either but dumbasses like me rallied around him and made him "viable" even in the face of the dominant organization in our party.

Don't give me "viable". If a young black man with not only an African sounding name but Hussein as a middle name, with virtually no time on the national stage, no huge following, no family coattails, little personal wealth, very little legislative accomplishments, and no post college administrative experience can not only become viable but take down and assimilate the Clintons then others can be "viable" too with the application of elbow grease and a refuse to lose attitude.

We make our own paths, we don't have to be told by party bosses and the media who is a legitimate candidate because we can make it so and if we can't then the game is rigged past the point of democracy and must be brought down by any means necessary.

[mmonk]

45. I doubt it will be Romney on the Republican side. But if it is,

how much different will the policies be? Can you lay it out for me? They seem close on healthcare,on budget cutting and deregulation. Supreme Court maybe? I have no clue on foreign policy. Is Romney neoconservative or neoliberal in that regard?

[tekisui]

48. This belongs in GDP.

[Bobbie Jo]

126. Why?

Should all OP's that focus on Obama be relegated to GDP?

Or.... just those you don't like.

I know it was intended as snark, but please share the logic behind your declaration.

[Modern_Matthew]

72. Why can't they just put corporations on the ballots and stop with this charade? nt

[franzia99]

88. I'm planning to vote for Obama

He's not perfect, but look at Governor Scott Walker if you want to get a sense of the alternative.

[defendandprotect]

98. False, fear-based non-choices if you're for the status quo -- if you want change ...

you're going to have to show some gumption !!

Does the right wing walk around frightened of us all the time --

basing everything they do on what we might say or do about it?

As far as I can see, they are full steam ahead -- to the RIGHT --

in every illegal and immoral -- and violent way -- they can do it --

including stolen elections!!

It's the only way they can rise -- !!

[LooseWilly]

103. With Obama having stolen Mitt-care... and Obama cutting spending, what's the difference again?

Mitt vs. Barack... who really gives a shit?

I'll vote for Weiner... or myself...

[TurningPointTime]

110. Donald Trump

Crazy as it sounds if he's serious he maybe the front runner at this point. Think about it the guy after the primary could just go oh ya I was just using that birther stuff to rile up the base, of course I know it's bullshit. Wouldn't surprise me and with his anti-China policies he could actually win it.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rpannier]

112. Me!

In all seriousness I'm gonna try to get through 2011 then get ready for 2012.
Who knows the world may end in 2012 and it won't matter -- Jon Stewart showed us how

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[creon]

116. I have no problem

I have no problem voting for Obama.

There is no good reason for me to have a problem with Obama. He is one of the few responsible adults in the Washington political class.


Obama is not the problem. Congress is the problem.

The 111th Congress was weak; the 112th is black comedy.

[gkhouston]

119. Let's make it real, this sort of argument is a lousy way to get votes.

If that's all the President has left to offer, he's in deep shit.

[Logical]

120. I have not seen one post countering you yet! n-t

[StarburstClock]

121. Thanks for framing that so narrowly, I don't even have to think now!

We all know how hard thinking is huh?

[Bobbie Jo]

127. No worries....

There are plenty of others around here who tell you what to think on a daily basis.

[mdmc]

124. my electoral vote to obama..

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

128. Probably the best poop flinging post I have read outside the

presidential forum. LOL

:popcorn:

[LWolf]

129. When I get my ballot,

I will vote for the non-neoliberal that is the farthest to the left on the ballot. If there isn't a non-neoliberal, I will write one in.

[L0oniX]

132. Unrec ...epic fail.

[Zorra]

134. Hey, don't rub it in our faces, OK? We're less fucked with Obama than with a republican.

But we are still royally fucked.

[TBF]

140. Really, with Obama cutting social security you think we're "less fucked" with a republican?

Show me evidence. Eisenhower, for example, made it possible for many more people to collect social security.

So now we've all been paying in for years to this program and they are going to arbitrarily cut it? Tell me how that's not being fucked.

[BzaDem]

149. Do you think any Republican's replacement for Justice Kennedy WONT strike down future progressive

legislation as long as he is alive? (This goes well beyond overturning Roe v. Wade or upholding Citizens United -- this means that your future dream Presidential Candidate that is somehow more liberal than Obama won't even be able to enact the legislation they want.)

If you are so optimistic that the 5 hard right Republicans that would be on the court wouldn't do that, care to explain the source of your optimism?

[TBF]

150. I'm not convinced that Obama's replacement for Justice Kennedy

won't do the same. That is the problem. I have no dream candidate - the answer many of us are looking for most certainly does not involve electoral politics.

[BzaDem]

151. Really? Do you think Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor would do so in the future, even though

they have not done so thus far? Do you think they are "stealth conservatives," waiting for some future moment to start striking down progressive laws?

How far are you going to push the "parties are the same meme?" Are you actually going to go so far as to say Kagan and Sotomayor are conservatives, in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas? I would really love an answer to that one (though I doubt you will have the guts to respond).

[TBF]

164. I guess it depends upon perspective -

to the wealthy the nuances are important, and there are very big differences, particularly on cultural issues. For the poor, not so much. Do you think our everyday life changes very much based on who is on the court?

[TBF]

137. Unrec for lack of choice -

do you really think voting is our only option?

[akbacchus_BC]

153. Then you all have to elect someone who will be on your side, these

suckers have health care and they do no care about the working class. Vote someone in who really cares.

Lots of Dems voted against single payer and you blaming Obama!

[Chris_Texas]

139. Obama will NOT get my vote unless Palin is the nominee.

Whether it is Romeny or Obama, they both work for and report to the exact same group of billionaire businessmen and multinatioonals. Palin, on the other hand, believes that she is the annointed candidate of "god". That we might not survive.

[akbacchus_BC]

156. That is so not true. President Obama inherited a recession and he

tried his best. Guess it is a waste of time trying to convince anyone now. It is all up to you if you want a Democrat in office or a republican.

Kinda sad though, President Obama tried and am not saying I agree with everything he does but he is trying. What you want him to do when even Dems voted against single payer for healthcare. What you all need to do is elect dems who identify with working class people!

[akbacchus_BC]

158. Guess he should be primaried, whom do you have in sight?

[killbotfactory]

155. After 8 years of Bush and blind republican obstructionism for the past 2 years

People still convince themselves there is no difference between the political parties?

Un-fucking-real.

Either a bunch of disrupter's, trolls, or fools.

[akbacchus_BC]

157. I understand, seems so surreal that the world was with Obama, he

had so much political clout coming into office, why did he squandered it? That we will never know, as for sure bipartisan is not working and I cannot understand why he cannot realise that!

Perhaps, he is still functioning as a community organiser rather than a leader, just my opinion!

[akbacchus_BC]

160. Hey, am not a troll!

[akbacchus_BC]

163. Mods, please lock this. Thanks!