The Progressive Case Against Obama

[feelosofer]

So let me get this straight, as a progressive I should vote for Romney as opposed to Obama because his policies are moderately Republican (which is bullshyt mind you Clinton was far more conservative than Obama on a lot of issues). We need the Republican party to lose this election because I don't know if people are seeing this, but behind closed doors the party has to rebrand itself over the next four years, perhaps opening the door for a 3rd party.











2012 is really the era of smart-dumb n1ggas

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

So let me get this straight, as a progressive I should vote for Romney as opposed to Obama because his policies are moderately Republican (which is bullshyt mind you Clinton was far more conservative than Obama on a lot of issues). We need the Republican party to lose this election because I don't know if people are seeing this, but behind closed doors the party has to rebrand itself over the next four years, perhaps opening the door for a 3rd party.











2012 is really the era of smart-dumb n1ggas

Lol...is that what historians will look back and brand the early part of the 21st century? The Smart Dumb nikka Era?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

So let me get this straight, as a progressive I should vote for Romney as opposed to Obama because his policies are moderately Republican (which is bullshyt mind you Clinton was far more conservative than Obama on a lot of issues). We need the Republican party to lose this election because I don't know if people are seeing this, but behind closed doors the party has to rebrand itself over the next four years, perhaps opening the door for a 3rd party.











2012 is really the era of smart-dumb n1ggas

You didnt read the article.

 

[feelosofer]

You didnt read the article.

I didn't say this article was stating that even implicitly (it kind of was though), I was really commenting on the general vibe of the things people have been saying over the past few months and taking this article into consideration. Obama is not the liberal that I and a lot of people have hoped he would be, but to make it seem like Romney is a remotely viable option is laughable at best. This article is a big reason why the Democrats are so fukking weak right now. Let a conservative writer say some shyt like that about Romney, and they would strip the man of all his credentials. Does this guy realize that under the next 4 years, Congress and House seats are in contention and at least 2 new Supreme Court Justices will be appointed, your are talking about shaping policy for at least the next decade, at minimum, so would you want Obama or Romney making that choice.

The dude is basing his assumptions on the idea that we would hate Romney so much that we would scrutinize his presidency more closely, which is ass-backward, imo. If you want to be the instrument of real change, it starts from the citizen and goes up from there not from the Presidency on down, so again please miss me with this I didn't read the article stuff. This is part of the reason Gore/Kerry didn't win their elections. Democrats/Progressives are so fukking self-destructive, they always want to sacrifice victory/control for idealistic integrity, while the house burns down anyway.

also if I don't vote for Obama by not voting at all or going 3rd party, I am giving a vote to Romney, no?

 

[thekingsmen]

Sadly alot of supporters of Obama don't know his policies and none of them are progressive for the people.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

also if I don't vote for Obama by not voting at all or going 3rd party, I am giving a vote to Romney, no?

No. If you are in a non-swing state, your vote doesn't matter. The electoral college has cast your ballot for you, which is a whole other issue. If you are in a swing state, your vote counts. A vote for 3rd party is a vote for the 3rd party. If you want to vote for Obama, why would you not vote at all? If you don't support any of the candidates, not voting is not "throwing a vote away". This makes no sense.

I didn't say this article was stating that even implicitly (it kind of was though), I was really commenting on the general vibe of the things people have been saying over the past few months and taking this article into consideration. Obama is not the liberal that I and a lot of people have hoped he would be, but to make it seem like Romney is a remotely viable option is laughable at best. This article is a big reason why the Democrats are so fukking weak right now. Let a conservative writer say some shyt like that about Romney, and they would strip the man of all his credentials. Does this guy realize that under the next 4 years, Congress and House seats are in contention and at least 2 new Supreme Court Justices will be appointed, your are talking about shaping policy for at least the next decade, at minimum, so would you want Obama or Romney making that choice.

The takeaway I got was not to vote for Romney or Obama, but to vote 3rd party to drive a wedge and effect change.

Again, which is why your suggestion that voting for Romney is bogus... is bogus. Nobody said anything about voting for Romney, which is why I said you didn't read the article.

At some point soon, we will face yet another moment where the elites say, “Do what we want or there will be a meltdown.” Do we have enough people on our side willing to collectively say “do what we want or there will be a global meldown”? This election is a good mechanism to train people in the willingness to say that and mean it. That is, the reason to advocate for a third-party candidate is to build the civic muscles willing to say no to the establishment in a crisis moment we all know is coming. Right now, the liberal establishment is teaching its people that letting malevolent political elites do what they want is not only the right path, it is the only path. Anything other than that is dubbed an affront to common decency. Just telling the truth is considered beyond rude.

We need to build a different model of politics, one in which people who want a different society are willing to actually bargain and back up their threats, rather than just aesthetically argue for shifts around the margin.

The dude is basing his assumptions on the idea that we would hate Romney so much that we would scrutinize his presidency more closely, which is ass-backward, imo.

If the left scrutinized Obama like they did GWB, he would not be up for re-election. Much of what they gave Bush hell for they give Obama a pass for. Voting for Obama is not the answer.

Democrats/Progressives are so fukking self-destructive, they always want to sacrifice victory/control for idealistic integrity, while the house burns down anyway.

Which begs the question, why vote for a Democrat? As Obama has demonstrated, they are too p*ssy to stand up for what they believe in. Republicans believe in the wrong things. Neither are the avenues through which we can effect change. Supporters of both sides is so blind they don't see that.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Just read the article. His criticisms of he Obama administration were all salient and valid. Then when he got to the part about why liberals shouldn't vote for him, it turned into a bunch of fluff.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Well Vic, why should liberals vote for Obama?

 

[Blackking]

Again, the failure of Obama does not lie with his lack of action, it lies with the pussified nature of our electorate.

Agreed. I mean you can write for 20 days and still not list off everything he could have did right or progressive, but he is one man.

Change takes more than the ideas of one corny man, and day one in office he must have realized that large banks ran this nation and there isn't sh1t he could do about it as long as the public remained so clueless.

Obama speaks liberal and acts moderate so that he can get the support of people that don't know one thing about any policy. It's the nature of US politics and it's pretty pointless to blame him for playing the game.

Would we rather the alternatives? (I mean GOP, not the fantasy of 3rd party prospects).

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Well Vic, why should liberals vote for Obama?

Because he's better of the two options we have for someone of liberal political persuasion. It's that simple.

People like the writer of the article seem to live in a hypothetical world of academic debate and ideological purity. Only liberals are dumb enough to actually not vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. The Republican base HATES Romney, just listen to talk radio. But best believe every single one of them will vote for him and every Republican. That's part of how they stay winning on policy (and also that they have more big money on their side) and liberals getting shytted on and bytching like scorned, nagging girlfriends.

The world we have is the world we have. We can't sprinkle magic liberal dust and make people more progressive in their viewpoints. We can talk to people, engage in debate, organize, protest, network, and the whole 9, but at the end of the day, if Joe sixpack in Ohio still votes Republican because he loves 'Merica and doesn't want his tax dollars going to "the blacks," it is what it is.

The country is not going to elect Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, or Dennis Kucinich. And I would like to see someone a platform like them be President But it's not going to happen. If people can't live with that, then this country is probably not for them

Now that doesn't mean people should not care about any issues the left is concerned with. If someone feels strongly about the immorality of drone bombings, or has issues with civil liberties, or letting the banks off the hook, they should speak out.

The problem is in today's world for some reason, all talk of political activism, particularly on issues that concern the left side of the spectrum seemed to get bogged down in pro- or anti-Obama discussions. This is pretty new and unique to the Obama presidency. I recall people protesting and decrying NAFTA, globalization, neoliberal economic policies in the 90's without it being all about Clinton. For example, on this site, you can't even talk about drone bombings or NDAA or TARP/Fed policy without instantaneous eruptions of "You're an Obama dikkrider!" and it turning into a referendum on whether or not people should vote for Obama. I guess that's because a lot of people somehow thought Obama was going to be this revolutionary agent of progressive change because they naive enough to believe "hope and change" campaign rhetoric from a guy whose biggest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs and raised more money from Wall Street than any President in history. Well he's not...and he never was.

Solving these problems is the responsibility of civic society as a whole, not just which politician you vote for. I like OWS in theory if not action because at least it was intended to be centered around political grievances while not actively pushing for one candidate or party. If you look at the civil rights movement as a model, it was about awareness and changing hearts and minds and was successful. It wasn't about whether or not you should vote a certain candidate. But if you spoke about need for equality and civil rights and you were voting for JFK, the postmodern smart dumb nikka response would be "You're a JFK dikkrider! I'm writing in Stokely Carmichael!" because JFK was reticent about supporting civil rights and spent a lot of time trying to placate southern Democratic Senators.

 

[feelosofer]

No. If you are in a non-swing state, your vote doesn't matter. The electoral college has cast your ballot for you, which is a whole other issue. If you are in a swing state, your vote counts. A vote for 3rd party is a vote for the 3rd party. If you want to vote for Obama, why would you not vote at all? If you don't support any of the candidates, not voting is not "throwing a vote away". This makes no sense.



The takeaway I got was not to vote for Romney or Obama, but to vote 3rd party to drive a wedge and effect change.

Again, which is why your suggestion that voting for Romney is bogus... is bogus. Nobody said anything about voting for Romney, which is why I said you didn't read the article.





If the left scrutinized Obama like they did GWB, he would not be up for re-election. Much of what they gave Bush hell for they give Obama a pass for. Voting for Obama is not the answer.


Which begs the question, why vote for a Democrat? As Obama has demonstrated, they are too p*ssy to stand up for what they believe in. Republicans believe in the wrong things. Neither are the avenues through which we can effect change. Supporters of both sides is so blind they don't see that.

The guy is suggesting that we vote 3rd Party or don't vote at all, and that is indirectly a vote for Romney. Now I agree with the criticism of Obama and yes he is getting some passes for doing the same thing Bush has done under his presidency, I think that this may speak to the military having too much power more than anything. If you want to go 3rd party, you would have way more success affecting change at the state/local level. Putting one in for President is just an idealistic exercise, nothing more. Not saying you should do any of these things, it's just what the system is for the time being, especially with the electoral college set up the way it is. All I'm saying is despite Obama's faults, he is a far better choice than Romney at this stage of the game. But honestly we are the best instrument for change, not Presidents. I would rather we be more active in local politics and work our way up.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Because he's better of the two options we have for someone of liberal political persuasion. It's that simple.

What has he accomplished for liberals during his term?

People like the writer of the article seem to live in a hypothetical world of academic debate and ideological purity. Only liberals are dumb enough to actually not vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. The Republican base HATES Romney, just listen to talk radio. But best believe every single one of them will vote for him and every Republican. That's part of how they stay winning on policy (and also that they have more big money on their side) and liberals getting shytted on and bytching like scorned, nagging girlfriends.

And you live in a world of cynicism + defeatism. If you are a liberal, it doesnt make much sense to me to vote for someone who has demonstrated they don't care about your ideals, even if they are on your ticket. What good is a "liberal" candidate who has demonstrated he doesn't care about the liberal agenda? And just cause Republicans are essentially doing that doesn't mean its a good idea, they are just as stupid to support candidates who are not 100% in line with their agendas. Note, I'm not supporting either agenda, just speaking practically.

The world we have is the world we have. We can't sprinkle magic liberal dust and make people more progressive in their viewpoints. We can talk to people, engage in debate, organize, protest, network, and the whole 9, but at the end of the day, if Joe sixpack in Ohio still votes Republican because he loves 'Merica and doesn't want his tax dollars going to "the blacks," it is what it is.

Likewise if Libby Stein votes Democratic because the Republicans are "ignorant imperialist racists", despite the fact that Obama has intensified many of the racist + imperialist programs they villified Bush for, shes not doing much good for the progressive agenda either, despite identifying as a progressive. Theres no excuse for this gross hypocrisy. People are more concerned w/rhetoric than results.

The country is not going to elect Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, or Dennis Kucinich. And I would like to see someone a platform like them be President But it's not going to happen. If people can't live with that, then this country is probably not for them

If people had this attitude during... say... the Civil Rights era, we'd still be living as second class citizens. As long as you think something is impossible, it is. We have supported this political duopoly for decades to no positive effect. The only way forward is out.

Now that doesn't mean people should not care about any issues the left is concerned with. If someone feels strongly about the immorality of drone bombings, or has issues with civil liberties, or letting the banks off the hook, they should speak out.

Speak out? What is that going to do? Obama doesn't even stick to what he himself said during his '08 run... what makes you think he cares what you have to say? If you aren't in a swing state you don't exist. But you want to "speak out" lol.

The problem is in today's world for some reason, all talk of political activism, particularly on issues that concern the left side of the spectrum seemed to get bogged down in pro- or anti-Obama discussions. This is pretty new and unique to the Obama presidency. I recall people protesting and decrying NAFTA, globalization, neoliberal economic policies in the 90's without it being all about Clinton. For example, on this site, you can't even talk about drone bombings or NDAA or TARP/Fed policy without instantaneous eruptions of "You're an Obama dikkrider!" and it turning into a referendum on whether or not people should vote for Obama. I guess that's because a lot of people somehow thought Obama was going to be this revolutionary agent of progressive change because they naive enough to believe "hope and change" campaign rhetoric from a guy whose biggest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs and raised more money from Wall Street than any President in history. Well he's not...and he never was.

Solving these problems is the responsibility of civic society as a whole, not just which politician you vote for. I like OWS in theory if not action because at least it was intended to be centered around political grievances while not actively pushing for one candidate or party. If you look at the civil rights movement as a model, it was about awareness and changing hearts and minds and was successful. It wasn't about whether or not you should vote a certain candidate. But if you spoke about need for equality and civil rights and you were voting for JFK, the postmodern smart dumb nikka response would be "You're a JFK dikkrider! I'm writing in Stokely Carmichael!" because JFK was reticent about supporting civil rights and spent a lot of time trying to placate southern Democratic Senators.

As long as the country supports this duopoly, things will only change for the worse. These guys have demonstrated time and time again they don't care about their constituents or the claimed ideologies of their parties. Its all about consolidating power and maintaining the status quo. Getting through the next election cycle. We have to fight with the only weapon we have... the third party.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

The guy is suggesting that we vote 3rd Party or don't vote at all, and that is indirectly a vote for Romney. Now I agree with the criticism of Obama and yes he is getting some passes for doing the same thing Bush has done under his presidency, I think that this may speak to the military having too much power more than anything. If you want to go 3rd party, you would have way more success affecting change at the state/local level. Putting one in for President is just an idealistic exercise, nothing more. Not saying you should do any of these things, it's just what the system is for the time being, especially with the electoral college set up the way it is. All I'm saying is despite Obama's faults, he is a far better choice than Romney at this stage of the game. But honestly we are the best instrument for change, not Presidents. I would rather we be more active in local politics and work our way up.

Again you are stuck in this "this or that" duopoly mode. If enough people vote third party, NEITHER Romney NOR Obama will win, and depending on the candidate, liberal ideals will actually have a fighting chance.

Plus you claim a third party president is nothing more than an idealistic exercise. In the context of liberalism, that's still better than electing one of two candidates who have explicitly displayed a complete lack of commitment to the liberal agenda. How would Obama be any better for the liberal agenda than a Green Party candidate, for example? You have been conned into thinking Democrats have a monopoly over liberalism.

 

[Mike Otherz]

obama has my vote, easily. but lets keep it real, he is not gonna stand up to Israel,. and we probably going to war with iran.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

obama has my vote, easily. but lets keep it real, he is not gonna stand up to Israel,. and we probably going to war with iran.

What is Obama going to do for you?

Not on some "buy you a TV" shyt, but on some doing what you believe shyt? You just admitted he is going to fail on foreign policy. What is he going to pass on?