Why I refuse to vote for Obama

99percenter said:

Yeah. I wonder if the hold the same opinion with gore and nader.

Click to expand...

I see Nader claimed Obama is a war criminal-worse than Bush

that was hilarious

TurtleDude said:

I see Nader claimed Obama is a war criminal-worse than Bush

that was hilarious

Click to expand...

He has been killing a lot of al qaeda member's. I really don't care. Vengeance at last. Finally we have a competent president who knows how to fight the war on terror the right way.

99percenter said:

He has been killing a lot of al qaeda member's. I really don't care. Vengeance at last. Finally we have a competent president who knows how to fight the war on terror the right way.

Click to expand...

He is killing a lot of innocents too. What bothers me is that many Democrats called Bush a murderer, but are giving Obama a pass on the same thing.

danarhea said:

He is killing a lot of innocents too. What bothers me is that many Democrats called Bush a murderer, but are giving Obama a pass on the same thing.

Click to expand...

The problem i have with bush was that he took his eye off of what needed to be done to catch the guys that attacked us. He was too busy fighting his war in iraq and we still dont know what that was even about. He wasted resources that could have been used to stimulate the economy. He also ruined our standing in the world by permitting torture.

99percenter said:

The problem i have with bush was that he took his eye off of what needed to be done to catch the guys that attacked us. He was too busy fighting his war in iraq and we still dont know what that was even about. He wasted resources that could have been used to stimulate the economy. He also ruined our standing in the world by permitting torture.

Click to expand...

And Gitmo is still around, and so is Bagram, where they say torture is still happening.

Thorgasm said:

There is nothing wrong with voting for a third party. I would like to see more participation in elections from third party candidates.

Click to expand...

No... there is absolutely nothing wrong with voting for a third party candidate...

But, that doesn't discount from the fact that doing so actually enables Obama's re-election, by dividing the base of the opposition representation...

So his point is still accurate... A vote for Johnson, is essentially a vote for Obama...

danarhea said:

And Gitmo is still around, and so is Bagram, where they say torture is still happening.

Click to expand...

If it is happening it is happening against the ordered that obama gave.

IndepCentristMA said:

No... there is absolutely nothing wrong with voting for a third party candidate...

But, that doesn't discount from the fact that doing so actually enables Obama's re-election, by dividing the base of the opposition representation...

So his point is still accurate... A vote for Johnson, is essentially a vote for Obama...

Click to expand...

Nope, that isn't necessarily true. I voted for Nader but that didn't hurt Gore.

99percenter said:

If it is happening it is happening against the ordered that obama gave.

Click to expand...

I don't accept excuses. Obama is commander in chief. Therefore, the buck stops at his desk.

danarhea said:

I don't accept excuses. Obama is commander in chief. Therefore, the buck stops at his desk.

Click to expand...

You're right. If it is going on its no excuse.

Thorgasm said:

Nope, that isn't necessarily true. I voted for Nader but that didn't hurt Gore.

Click to expand...

I voted for Nader, and it didn't hurt Gore as well... I live in MA... he won the state handily... although, I far would've prefered Bush to Gore...

Still, that was an entirely different election, to be judging this on...

1st off, there was no incumbent in the race, so there was no opposition vote to coalesce...

2ndly, both candidates were sort've lifelong eff ups... and neither of them had proven leadership experience... Gore was a lifelong talker, who had to resort to meeting focus groups on beaches before he could decide on a course of action, while Bush was a good ole boy, waiting to install his good ole boy network to shake hands and look people in the eye to find out if they had the fear of god in them to see if they could be counted on... Whereas in this election, Obama isn't a complete eff up... just he's not a true leader, and is proving to be outgamed on many occasions, and can't get anything done... essentially a lame duck for the last 2 years... whereas Romney has been largely successful in every single executive roll he's ever been in... and we have a leadership vaccuum that needs to be filled...

3rdly, the nation is far more divisive than it has been in some time, and we got a guy in the white house who points fingers, plays the blame game, and hasn't been able to get anything done without complete control of congress, nor will he again... whereas Romney has been able to work with an opposition party before and still accomplish a lot... So the effectiveness of the government is at stake...

4th, the divide between Bush and Gore during that election was very minimal... extremely minimal... really centering on what to do with the projected surplus, which never materialized as the dotcom bubble burst during the election, and it never panned out that way... or the normal 50/50 social issues which don't change either way from election to election... Whereas, in this election the divide between Obama and Romney is significant on a whole host of issues, and methods of operating...

I'm sure there are numerous others to list... ut i don't care to at the moment...

For me the greatest one is the necessity to cut spending... which Romney would do... Obama instead would take a majority victory as a mandate from the people to go on spending more and more... as the debt is up over $16T already...

So we need to get Obama out of the White House... and we need every single anti-Obama vote behind Romney, for that very reason... and in that case, every vote for a candidate that is not Romney, is a vote Obama can appreciate as assistance...

danarhea said:

I don't accept excuses. Obama is commander in chief. Therefore, the buck stops at his desk.

Click to expand...

99percenter said:

You're right. If it is going on its no excuse.

Click to expand...

Congrats guys... I think that's the first time I've seen two people in a discussion on this site actually come to agreement at the end of it...

IndepCentristMA said:

I voted for Nader, and it didn't hurt Gore as well... I live in MA... he won the state handily... although, I far would've prefered Bush to Gore...

Still, that was an entirely different election, to be judging this on...

1st off, there was no incumbent in the race, so there was no opposition vote to coalesce...

2ndly, both candidates were sort've lifelong eff ups... and neither of them had proven leadership experience... Gore was a lifelong talker, who had to resort to meeting focus groups on beaches before he could decide on a course of action, while Bush was a good ole boy, waiting to install his good ole boy network to shake hands and look people in the eye to find out if they had the fear of god in them to see if they could be counted on... Whereas in this election, Obama isn't a complete eff up... just he's not a true leader, and is proving to be outgamed on many occasions, and can't get anything done... essentially a lame duck for the last 2 years... whereas Romney has been largely successful in every single executive roll he's ever been in... and we have a leadership vaccuum that needs to be filled...

3rdly, the nation is far more divisive than it has been in some time, and we got a guy in the white house who points fingers, plays the blame game, and hasn't been able to get anything done without complete control of congress, nor will he again... whereas Romney has been able to work with an opposition party before and still accomplish a lot... So the effectiveness of the government is at stake...

4th, the divide between Bush and Gore during that election was very minimal... extremely minimal... really centering on what to do with the projected surplus, which never materialized as the dotcom bubble burst during the election, and it never panned out that way... or the normal 50/50 social issues which don't change either way from election to election... Whereas, in this election the divide between Obama and Romney is significant on a whole host of issues, and methods of operating...

I'm sure there are numerous others to list... ut i don't care to at the moment...

For me the greatest one is the necessity to cut spending... which Romney would do... Obama instead would take a majority victory as a mandate from the people to go on spending more and more... as the debt is up over $16T already...

So we need to get Obama out of the White House... and we need every single anti-Obama vote behind Romney, for that very reason... and in that case, every vote for a candidate that is not Romney, is a vote Obama can appreciate as assistance...

Click to expand...

I'll be frank. I am going to vote for Gary Johnson, and if Obama ends up winning, I don't give a damn. I don't whore out my vote. If the GOP wants my vote, they are going to have to earn it. I will vote Republican again when the fruitcakes have left the party, and sane people have taken it back.

IndepCentristMA said:

I voted for Nader, and it didn't hurt Gore as well... I live in MA... he won the state handily... although, I far would've prefered Bush to Gore...

Still, that was an entirely different election, to be judging this on...

1st off, there was no incumbent in the race, so there was no opposition vote to coalesce...

2ndly, both candidates were sort've lifelong eff ups... and neither of them had proven leadership experience... Gore was a lifelong talker, who had to resort to meeting focus groups on beaches before he could decide on a course of action, while Bush was a good ole boy, waiting to install his good ole boy network to shake hands and look people in the eye to find out if they had the fear of god in them to see if they could be counted on... Whereas in this election, Obama isn't a complete eff up... just he's not a true leader, and is proving to be outgamed on many occasions, and can't get anything done... essentially a lame duck for the last 2 years... whereas Romney has been largely successful in every single executive roll he's ever been in... and we have a leadership vaccuum that needs to be filled...

3rdly, the nation is far more divisive than it has been in some time, and we got a guy in the white house who points fingers, plays the blame game, and hasn't been able to get anything done without complete control of congress, nor will he again... whereas Romney has been able to work with an opposition party before and still accomplish a lot... So the effectiveness of the government is at stake...

4th, the divide between Bush and Gore during that election was very minimal... extremely minimal... really centering on what to do with the projected surplus, which never materialized as the dotcom bubble burst during the election, and it never panned out that way... or the normal 50/50 social issues which don't change either way from election to election... Whereas, in this election the divide between Obama and Romney is significant on a whole host of issues, and methods of operating...

I'm sure there are numerous others to list... ut i don't care to at the moment...

For me the greatest one is the necessity to cut spending... which Romney would do... Obama instead would take a majority victory as a mandate from the people to go on spending more and more... as the debt is up over $16T already...

So we need to get Obama out of the White House... and we need every single anti-Obama vote behind Romney, for that very reason... and in that case, every vote for a candidate that is not Romney, is a vote Obama can appreciate as assistance...

Click to expand...

When you say cut spending, I'm assuming you mean with a goal of reducing the deficit. There is no way in Hell what Romney has proposed so far is going to do that. Yes, he will cut non defense discretionary spending making life even harder on those with the least but it will be more than offset by further big tax cuts to the rich and businesses. If the deficit was truly the most important issue to conservatives, instead of a bogeyman they try to scare the public with, there is no way they could support Romney. Please note that the following source goes out of its way to assume generally favorable circumstances for what Romney has proposed and it still doesn't work.

How Romney's Plan Will Affect The Debt - Business Insider

danarhea said:

I'll be frank. I am going to vote for Gary Johnson, and if Obama ends up winning, I don't give a damn. I don't whore out my vote. If the GOP wants my vote, they are going to have to earn it. I will vote Republican again when the fruitcakes have left the party, and sane people have taken it back.

Click to expand...

LMFAO... idgaf if the GOP gets your vote... I want Obama out... and Romney in... Regardless of whether the GOP spontaneously combusts or not...

From my own personal experience, Romney was able to lead effectively as a conservative in liberal MA... and if he could do it here, he could certainly do it at the national level...

The fact that you would consider someone who turned a $3B deficit into a $2B surplus in 2 years without raising income taxes, took a 30 year boondoggle construction project got it completed and recovered costs from it, found numerous ways to cut spending, and cut the size of the state workforce a "fruitcake" tells me tells me you're probably the one the party would be glad to be rid of...

The largest problem we face nationally today comes from the massive expansion of the entitlement programs and the spending increase they're going to thrust upon us unless something is done about them in the next 4 years... Obama has increased entitlement spending and has no plans to revise existing programs... Therefore it is imperative to get Obama out and get Romney in...

So if you can't see that, or are too concerned with overhauling the image of the Republican Party over, than to look out for America's best interests speaks to a self-centeredness that will only serve to contribute to the problem...

Loki97 said:

When you say cut spending, I'm assuming you mean with a goal of reducing the deficit. There is no way in Hell what Romney has proposed so far is going to do that. Yes, he will cut non defense discretionary spending making life even harder on those with the least but it will be more than offset by further big tax cuts to the rich and businesses. If the deficit was truly the most important issue to conservatives, instead of a bogeyman they try to scare the public with, there is no way they could support Romney. Please note that the following source goes out of its way to assume generally favorable circumstances for what Romney has proposed and it still doesn't work.

How Romney's Plan Will Affect The Debt - Business Insider

Click to expand...

This comes from the same people who say they havent seen what Romney's plan is... yet they're performing an economic analysis of it... sounds very valid doesn't it... :roll:

Romney used the same approach in MA, and it worked to close a $3B deficit in his first year, which grew to a $2B surplus by the end of his 2nd year...

I'll take the results of what really occured under Romney, than some projected analysis from a partial knowledge of what Romney's plan is...

IndepCentristMA said:

This comes from the same people who say they havent seen what Romney's plan is... yet they're performing an economic analysis of it... sounds very valid doesn't it... :roll:

Romney used the same approach in MA, and it worked to close a $3B deficit in his first year, which grew to a $2B surplus by the end of his 2nd year...

I'll take the results of what really occured under Romney, than some projected analysis from a partial knowledge of what Romney's plan is...

Click to expand...

In MA he had to balance the budget. As president he will be able to print money which i fully expect him too.

IndepCentristMA said:

LMFAO... idgaf if the GOP gets your vote... I want Obama out... and Romney in... Regardless of whether the GOP spontaneously combusts or not...

From my own personal experience, Romney was able to lead effectively as a conservative in liberal MA... and if he could do it here, he could certainly do it at the national level...

The fact that you would consider someone who turned a $3B deficit into a $2B surplus in 2 years without raising income taxes, took a 30 year boondoggle construction project got it completed and recovered costs from it, found numerous ways to cut spending, and cut the size of the state workforce a "fruitcake" tells me tells me you're probably the one the party would be glad to be rid of...

The largest problem we face nationally today comes from the massive expansion of the entitlement programs and the spending increase they're going to thrust upon us unless something is done about them in the next 4 years... Obama has increased entitlement spending and has no plans to revise existing programs... Therefore it is imperative to get Obama out and get Romney in...

So if you can't see that, or are too concerned with overhauling the image of the Republican Party over, than to look out for America's best interests speaks to a self-centeredness that will only serve to contribute to the problem...

Click to expand...

You will find out in about 6 weeks that I am not the only one who was driven from the Republican party. Like I keep saying, if you want my vote, and the votes of others who feel the same way I do, you are going to have to earn it. Ignore us, then prepare to keep losing.

IndepCentristMA said:

This comes from the same people who say they havent seen what Romney's plan is... yet they're performing an economic analysis of it... sounds very valid doesn't it... :roll:

Romney used the same approach in MA, and it worked to close a $3B deficit in his first year, which grew to a $2B surplus by the end of his 2nd year...

I'll take the results of what really occured under Romney, than some projected analysis from a partial knowledge of what Romney's plan is...

Click to expand...

I see. When it comes to a health care plan we can't use MA as an example because what worked there might not work in someplace like Wyoming but we can apply an economic policy to the vastly larger and more complex U.S. economy that originates there. You conservatives spin in circles so much I'm surprised you can stand up. Why not just admit all you care about is getting more tax cuts and be done with it? BTW, the article mentions that it is somewhat difficult to predict the results of Romney's actions because there are so many unexplained " A wizard did it" aspects to his plan. That's why they looked at multiple scenarios none of them worst case. If Obama was hiding behind this kind a vague proposition the right would be all over him for essentially saying "Elect me and then I'll explain it".

I don't agree with everything in the article but....

Drone attacks - IF what has been described IS the truth, then making civilians live under a hail of drones is really inhumane. Sure, we want to kill Taliban etc. but there's no shortage of them and if we're just creating more of them....why?
Killing Of Terrorists - Hey, I love to read books about spies and high tech assassination and of course I can understand the desire to whack an American terrorist. But we never had laws like this before because it's abusable. That's why we don't have National ID. We don't trust a government to do as they please. Good idea. Bad law.
Libya - Actually, I don't fault the execution of Libya. I'm actually happier that Gaddafi died than that Saddam died. He owed us for Pan Am. We got in and out without getting hurt.


But...but....I sound like a supporter. But there are too many other things that have not been done as I wished. I can only judge from my own POV.

Peter King said:

I saw a few points this person brings to the table and I disagree with him.

1. drone attacks on Pakistan. Now, I am not a big fan for weapons like this but they meet a need that cannot be fulfilled by other means. Terrorists and people who are planning to attack coalition troops in Afghanistan need to be stopped. You cannot fly in with troops and kill or capture these people but if there is a credible source and with the technology of this day and age I would hope in many cases there is evidence to back up those credible sources, I think it would be foolhardy not to strike against them with drones. Sure, like with any bomb sometimes innocents get hurt or killed. This should be tried to be prevented at all times but still nothing is full proof.

2. killing of American terrorists outside of the US.
I have a very different view as you seem to have (even though I am a social democrat). If it is possible or viable to extract American terrorists hiding in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan or any of these terrorist hideout countries, then yes, it would be preferable to arrest and try them. But if US intelligence finds out where an American terrorist is right now, who could move on to the next camp or potentially be on the verge of attacking US troops or interests/on his way to try and come back to the US to commit acts of terrorism like 9/11, then please, bomb away and kill this terrorist and as much of his foul brethren as you can.
IMHO, an American that has sided with the enemy, has lost some of his civil rights and liberties. He/she has joined an anti-American terrorist organization and should be treated like any other terrorist threat to the US or it's allies. If he/she can be captured, tried and jailed for life, then yes, please do that but if not he/she has to pay the prize for siding with the enemy.

3.
The UN had made a resolution that was intended to stop the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Libya. I think it was the right thing to do due to the clear and present danger to the people there. I am not sure whether the president needs approval for all military actions abroad because this was not a war IMHO but a no-fly zone enforcement and a UN resolution enforcement.

But I agree with the original poster, nobody has the right to force him to choose Obama or Romney.

Click to expand...

I am not american so I can not vote.... but if I was.... I would never vote for an Islamist American President.

I do not like Obama secret agenda.... That is how I feel I am speaking the truth of what I feel,

specklebang said:

This article sums up how I feel and explains why I'm voting for Gary Johnson. This article is from the "left leaning" Atlantic.

Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

Click to expand...

I would consider casting a vote for a third party but Mitt Scares the hell out of me. yeah, I know obama is a politician and you don't get to be president without some crazy bull****. I would love to see a good candidate instead of just voting for the lesser of two evils. At first i thought romney and obama were just two pretty equal turds....i mean politicians. Now i actually am not willing to risk losing a bland turd to a flaming pile of toxic dung. If Mitt was the person i thought he was in April I would go third party. Maybe something would happen or change if they showed well. Not now, i have to vote for obama because mitt is really a slimy ****ing sleazebag. He makes newt gingrich and nixon look better.

maybe that is the new tactic to keep the third party down. Last election Palin scared the hell out of me. Don't get me wrong I love hearing he talk sort of like how people like watching the jersey shore, but no way was i going to vote with her as a backup. Other than that I considered mcCain and obama about the same. When we get back to elections between to fairly similar piles of **** I will start thinking third party again.

Loki97 said:

I see. When it comes to a health care plan we can't use MA as an example because what worked there might not work in someplace like Wyoming but we can apply an economic policy to the vastly larger and more complex U.S. economy that originates there. You conservatives spin in circles so much I'm surprised you can stand up. Why not just admit all you care about is getting more tax cuts and be done with it? BTW, the article mentions that it is somewhat difficult to predict the results of Romney's actions because there are so many unexplained " A wizard did it" aspects to his plan. That's why they looked at multiple scenarios none of them worst case. If Obama was hiding behind this kind a vague proposition the right would be all over him for essentially saying "Elect me and then I'll explain it".

Click to expand...

LMFAO... that's because economies are economies...

You realize the reason MA healthcare model made sense for MA right?

You probably aren't aware of this, but MA healthcare plan was in reaction to a specific problem MA had, that was going into effect if they did nothing... MA was slated to lose $400M dollars it was getting from the federal government, if they didnt find a way to overhaul their uncompensated care pool, and use the funds they were recieving from Medicare in a more responsible way... So they had to do something, to prevent a tripling of MA healthcare expenditures at a time when they were just recovering from a $3B deficit, the largest in state history...

What they came up with is a plan which would increase coverage to nearly all, and decrease spending on healthcare by the state...

However, in order for that to be the case, it required a low number of uninsured, and for people to be working, and recieving their own plans from their employers, or buying into pool coverage, and hospitals and private insurance companies in place that were willing to offer those plans...

MA had 92/93% insured prior to Romney's plan... and 97/98% insured after Romney's plan... and 4.7% unemployment at the time Romney's plan was instituted... We also have the hospitals and insurance companies that were willing to create plans to facilitate this... Tufts, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim... you know, small companies you may or may not have heard about that are based in MA... and have large city hospitals theyre associated with...


If you look at the other states... they don't necesarily have that...

Here is a map, that breaks up states by the % of uninsured they have...



Where the Uninsured Live - Jobs & Economy - The Atlantic Cities

"Nationwide, 17.1 percent of Americans lacked health insurance in 2011, according to the Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index, which also produced the map below. But there are stark differences between the states. More than one in five people are uninsured in roughly a dozen states, starting with Texas (27.6 percent), Mississippi (23.5 percent), Florida (22.9 percent), Oklahoma (22.1 percent), California (22.0 percent), and Nevada (21.9 percent). Compare those figures with Massachusetts, which boasts the lowest rate of uninsured people in the nation, at less than five percent. Massachusetts, of course, already has an individual mandate thanks to the health-care reform efforts of former governor Mitt Romney."


Other similar maps are here on these sites...
The Uninsured: Rates By State And Congressional District : NPR

The Map Scroll: Where the Uninsured Are


Compare that map, and those states which high amount of uninsured, with this map of the states with high unemployment rates...




Map: LA

Alabama - 8.5
Alaska - 7.8
Arizona - 8.3
Arkansas - 7.3
California - 10.6
Colorado - 8.2
Connecticut - 9.0
Delaware - 6.9
District of Columbia - 8.8
Florida - 8.8
Georgia - 9.2
Hawaii - 6.1
Idaho - 7.4
Illinois - 9.1
Indiana - 8.3
Iowa - 5.5
Kansas - 6.2
Kentucky - 8.5
Louisiana - 7.4
Maine - 7.6
Maryland - 7.1
Massachusetts - 6.3
Michigan - 9.4
Minnesota - 5.9
Mississippi - 9.1
Missouri - 7.2
Montana - 6.3
Nebraska - 4.0
Nevada - 12.1
New Hampshire - 5.7
New Jersey - 9.9
New Mexico - 6.5
New York - 9.1
North Carolina - 9.7
North Dakota - 3.0
Ohio - 7.2
Oklahoma - 5.1
Oregon - 8.9
Pennsylvania - 8.1
Rhode Island - 10.7
South Carolina - 9.6
South Dakota - 4.5
Tennessee - 8.5
Texas - 7.1
Utah - 5.8
Vermont - 5.3
Virginia - 5.9
Washington - 8.6
West Virginia - 7.5
Wisconsin - 7.5
Wyoming - 5.7


You can go down that list, and find several of the states with high amounts of uninsured, that also have high amounts of unemployment right now…

Also, many states aren’t receiving the funds from the government as MA is… So it would further complicate the issue…

Additionally, many states in the South and Southwest also have high numbers of elderly people, who don’t work, don’t contribute, but do have high rates of medical dependencies…

Then there is the access to the care, with the hospitals who can cover those patients, and the large insurance companies that can create those pool plans that they expect losses on, and the associations those companies already have in place with those hospitals, and the doctors within those networks, that agree to work for those rates, etc.


So you can see, that Romney's plan would likely work well up in the northeast... but awfully in the Southeast and Southwest...


Romney’s plan truly was meant for a MA only problem… and could work in other states, but should not be applied to the nation as a whole…

Furthermore, Obama’s plan isn’t Romney’s plan… Obama’s plan is far worse, in terms of the steepness of the penalties on both individuals who don’t get health insurance and companies that don’t provide it… The employee requirement in MA is 100 employees (for much larger companies only), whereas Obama’s is on companies with 50 employees… far too low, and prevents small businesses that truly can’t afford to provide health insurance from expanding… There are also far too many government administrators in ObamaCare, Romney vetoed those provisions out of the bill… it was the Demorcrats in the legislature that added those provisions back into CommonwealthCare, adding to its costs… Also, Obama didn't do the work to set up the connector or to find the private companies that are willing to create these pool coverages for the low income people... So we don't even know that its going to be able to work that way... Whereas, Romney brought those companies into the establishment of the plan, and to make sure they were in place and the connector was, before the plan would go into effect... It all ran smoothly... With ObamaCare, it's going into effect shortly, and most of that is still up in the air...

Mya said:

I am not american so I can not vote.... but if I was.... I would never vote for an Islamist American President.

I do not like Obama secret agenda.... That is how I feel I am speaking the truth of what I feel,

Click to expand...

You do realize that while they attack him for being a muslim they also attack him because he is a christian in a church for black people.

please stop drinking the kool aid, it causes brain damage.

Thorgasm said:

There is nothing wrong with voting for a third party. I would like to see more participation in elections from third party candidates.

Click to expand...

I agree. I love it when the Right and the Far Right both have candidates for President.