How would an expansion of this discussion be derailing a thread entitled "The Progressive Case Against Obama"
I addressed this in my previous response to your other post in this thread earlier today.
I'm not a liberal. But again, the thread is about the failings of Obama from the POV of progressives, which I thought was a subset of liberalism/leftism. I suppose my mistake was in assuming his supporters were all in that category, but at the same time, he is a Democrat, and for quite some time now Democrats have been pushing liberal agendas. Republicans are not pushing for gay marriage, expanded entitlements, legalization of marijuana, scaling back military efforts or clampdowns on big business. Aren't those central to the Democratic agenda? The whole point of the article/thread is, neither is Obama. So if you are for those things, he might not be the dude to vote for
That's not how the country works or how it's ever worked. If you make a checklist demanding that a President act accordingly on all your preferred issues, and only vote for someone who does, almost the whole population wouldn't be voting for anybody.
You are right, in 08 it was kind of a no brainer. But again, you don't like our presence in the ME, you dont like someone who continually waffles/delays on civil liberties issues, you dont like someone whose policies will expand the wealth/income gap, which are all somewhat leftish issues IMO, what mainstream pick do you have? Your claim is essentially that Obama supporters are better informed than Obama haters... I'm saying, based on the last 4 years, are you sure?
I didn't say Obama supporters are more informed than Obama haters. I'm saying the vast majority of voters period are not informed. I was responding to your mentioning of a hypothetical liberal which I saw as being a false equivalency to my example of an uninformed right-winger.
So if I don't like the duopoly parties, I have to vote for one of them anyway rather than a 3rd party pick because the electorate is stupid? This makes no sense.
The reason it seems to you like that doesn't make any sense is you seem to be simultaneously trying to argue both from a position of a liberal who is disaffected by Obama's presidency, and from someone who doesn't veer much to either pole and is disenchanted with both parties. Those are two different situations. You should stop doing that.
My comment was in response to the liberal who is disappointed with Obama. Yes, if a disappointed liberal who lives in a swing state votes for Jill Stein or some other far left 3rd party that is stupid as fukk and that person is basically shooting themself in the foot because they're essentially doing what amounts to helping Romney get elected.
So then what do you suggest someone who isn't hot on either party do? Vote for Obama? Not vote at all? Leave the country?
That person can do what they feel. I was speaking about disappointed liberal.
An informed electorate would be a huge boon, but you just proved MY point. People say the Dems are strong on civil liberties... an informed electorate would know about Obama's gross hypocrisy on marijuana laws for example. They would question his inaction on gay marriage. Dems are supposedly pro-peace, an informed electorate would know about the "disposition matrix". An informed electorate would not get on some "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE" shyt when a candidate's record/policies were questioned- they would encourage such discussion. Most importantly an informed electorate would not rule out any options as far as parties go. An informed electorate would be able to explain why they are choosing their candidate based on the candidate's record... not what the other side said or excuses like "they blocked him" and "things change when you get elected"
Now you're just going into hyperbole and silliness. You don't see me going into any "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE" shyt. I've made a case why Obama should be elected based on his record plenty of times and I've always criticized him fair and objectively here plenty of times...and on the podcast. On that episode you and Sly were on, the particular topic was race and how it pertains to obstruction, and there were two right-wingers on (Sly and Gundam), the latter being a loudmouth who didn't know what the hell he was talking about, as you know. You don't post as much as me and probably don't lurk as much, so you probably didn't peep all these referendum on Obama's presidency threads.
The problem when discussing his presidency here, is it's never rational, cool, and balanced. He's accomplished a lot and he's also left lacking in many areas (for me particularly the biggest black mark on his record is his handling of the banks and not taking care of the mortgage crisis while taking care of Geithner's Wall Street buddies). But I'm usually arguing against stupid strawmen arguments like "He's accomplished nothing" or "He's the same as Bush."
And as far as obstruction, of course that has to be mentioned. We can't just ignore that he dealt with a type of obstruction that is unprecedented in American history, where the bar was 60 votes to pass anything. And the fact that he entered office at the height of the Great Recession. That's all part of the context in which you assess any presidency. Just like it's stupid to just claim that Clinton made the economy boom while ignoring the tech boom Greenspan's free money Fed policy.
My point was, if people thought like you, in that things were the way they were and it was pointless to try and change it, things would have stayed the same. There would have been no grassroots movement, there would have been no political alliances formed to get our civil rights written into law. I understand the disillusionment with the current political process, but your reaction to it makes no sense.
Nonsense. Not only are you undercutting your own argument, but you're misrepresenting mine grossly. I never said things were pointless and we shouldn't try to change them. I've said the opposite, and I advocated a grassroots, organized approach akin to the Civil Rights movement in some respects to tackle problems today. And once again, if we followed you logic, black people would've just voted for 3rd parties then. And we would've had President Goldwater. Lot of good that would've done.
I simply said that voting for a liberal 3rd party is a misguided tactic because the country simply is not far left enough to have a President Stein or Nader, and voting for them, particularly if you live in a swing state, would do nothing but ensure a dynasty of right wing a$$holes. Putting your support behind a far left candidate because the center-left candidate isn't left wing enough makes no sense whatsoever and it's absolutely retarded because it will do nothing but ensure Republicans win every election. As someone left of center, I don't want nothing but Republican presidents. Call me crazy.
You acknowledge things are bad, but your solution is to keep perpetuating the things that are making it bad. Why?
What point in U. S. history were things ever "good" to your liking? If we follow your logic to its end, nobody of sound morals who values human rights and has empathy and a desire for competent leadership would've ever voted for anyone.
The best President of modern times for most liberals was FDR. Well he locked up the Japanese. One of the worst violations of civil rights in the country's history. LBJ was the last President with a progressive social agenda. He was a war criminal.
You don't even want to stop and take a quick objective look at Obama's record- you just want everyone to accept that he has done well as a foregone conclusion. You complain about uninformed voters but you don't want to have an honest discussion about Obama. You are part of the problem brae
That's complete bullshyt. I've had plenty of honest discussions about Obama and criticized him harshly. Many people here can't seem to separate a sober critique of his presidency from these emotional-driven discussions about whether we should vote for him again or not. It's something reflexive and anti-intellectual present among a lot of HL posters....this whole "If you vote for Obama you're a blind dikkrider" thing. I've never noticed you to be in this category, but if that's the position you take, you're not really looking for an honest discussion about his presidency.
Civic engagement is important, but at the end of the day it IS pointless if it doesn't translate to action in the political scale. I can get all the petitions signed and stage all the rallies I want... but at the end of the day if that doesn't translate to action on the political stage, what does it matter? If I know my rights and currency are going to be eroded away, and all I do is whine about it, am I really any better off than anyone who doesn't have a clue???
Civic engagement is never pointless. The goal of awareness and engagement is to shift the political center so that it's more grounded a reasonable position. That's why the Civil Rights movement was about, and many of the abolition, labor, agricultural, and consumer protests throughout this nation's history were about. You're mistaken if you think you can vote your way to substantive social change via fringe candidates.
I am not cosigning the TP, but they demonstrate how political change is supposed to happen. Not that bullshyt OWS "change from the outside" garbage. To effect change you have to flex power. You have to play the game. Either get one of the power players to commit to your views (which protests might have done 50 years ago but are completely ineffective now), or get people who represent you to replace people you don't. You know, like by voting for a third party candidate, if you feel that neither party has anyone for you.
What? The tea party was nothing more than corporate front groups organizing misguided white middle American angst into making electoral gains that are favorable to their policy. The whole thing was a farce. It was a movement for Koch Brothers to keep their tax loopholes. That's not an example of how any social change occurs.
OWS ended up being a flop, but the spirit of it was right. Once again, if you feel voting for a 3rd party is the way to go in the future, it might be, but it seems you're arguing from a generalized "go 3rd party!" position devoid of context. I'm saying that a liberal in a swing state voting for a far left candidate in the 2012 presidential election is doing a very stupid thing.
The worst of the two? That is your opinion
And again, if enough people vote 3rd party it will make a difference. All a 3rd party candidate needs is 5% of the vote to participate in the presidential debates. You don't think that's significant???
See the above paragraph.
Voting for anyone in a non-swing state is retarded. The problems of our election system are a separate but relevant issue, in the context of the perpetuation of the duopoly.
I agree.
So what does someone who is unhappy with the "only choices that matter" do in the meantime?
Do what you feel. There's a difference between asking this from your perspective and the perspective of a liberal.
Again, if enough people vote for Jill Stein for example, she would get a place on the national stage to call out Obama's liberal failures in front of everybody. THAT would "shake up the duopoly" and "light up a fire". As is there is ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY for anyone in the federal govt. At the minimum a 3rd party candidate on the political stage could call out the lies and failures of the two major parties. You don't think thats significant?
That's nothing but a bunch of inconsequential fluff. She'll get on stage and call out Obama's liberal failures and then...what? "Shake up the duopoly?" More like split the liberal vote and guarantee the Repub a win.
I think there's credence to the argument that a 3rd party can work to rearrange the electoral map and the platform of the parties. But that would work better for some maybe more libertarian or unorthodox candidate like a Jesse Ventura. A Jill Stein or Ralph Nader would do nothing but bleed votes from the Democrat and give the Republicans a permanent seat in the Oval office.
Thats not my argument at all. Each party should have its agendas and be open about them. Not house the rhetoric of lesser parties when they get a wave. Thats the definition of dishonesty + disingenuity. One of my biggest gripes with the duopoly is what they say they are about isn't what they are actually about once they get into power. Obama is a clear case of this. You can blame it on filibustering, you can blame it on the economy, you can blame it on aliens, but at the end of the day he had some lofty goals, but he also had some pretty low hanging fruit that he either didn't accomplish or completely reversed on. Which is why I want to dig into his record over the last 4 years, and probably why you want to run from it.
I don't want to run from. I've talked about it 48750237540395270349572309 times here. I'm burned out talking about it. Now here you come demanding that I go into again.
Say what you want about Bush, but he got A LOT of the shyt he wanted, Democratic congress or not. In the context of his campaign speeches, Obama is either unable to execute, or more likely lying. You cant get at Romney for flip flopping, and then give Obama a pass for it.
Yeah, and the fact that Bush didn't have a Congress that literally set out to sabotage his presidency from day one and filibustered every down to staffing positions in the Treasury and ambassadors and was working with the tide of corporate America at his back during a normal economic period as opposed to trying to work against corporate America via regulations and entitlements while at the same time bartering with them during the worst economic crisis since the GD doesn't get mentioned here.
You assess every President within context of their situation politically, geopolitically, and economically.. Clinton and Reagan got lucky. Carter, Bush I, and Obama got handed piles of shyt...especially Obama. Bush II was a walking, talking, fukk up.
Of course he flip flopped, particularly on civil liberties. If you asked me in a vacuum what I thought about that and many other things there might be a civil discussion with a lot of agreement. You're equating voting for him again with "giving him a pass." If you want to be technical every voter gives everybody a pass for shyt every time they vote. That's American democracy.
This is the most pitiful and decadent post I ever read on this site from a non-white person
that after 8 years of Bush people are still using this faulty logic. It's mostly people under 30. You're going to vote how you feel, but to see another progressive voting for a liberal 3rd party in Florida AGAIN 12 years later is very, very disheartening.