"For liberals?" He's made significant accomplishments for the country during his term and failed in significant areas too. I don't feel like derailing the thread and running through a laundry list again, but if you follow politics you should know.
How would an expansion of this discussion be derailing a thread entitled "The Progressive Case Against Obama"
No, I live in a world of reality. The nation we have is the nation we have. What I said is true. This country will not elect a far left wing President because it isn't a far left wing country. You can only try your best to foster an environment where the country becomes more educated and the political center moves to a position more rooted in reason and sanity.
I don't give a shyt about the "liberal" label, I only want someone who I think will be the best option for the country. I'm not sure why you keep talking about what liberals should do or want, when you don't even consider yourself liberal (I don't think). It seems to be a bit of a disingenuous position to argue from.
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
I don't see your point all. This just seems to like false equivalency to prove....I don't know what exactly. I described a scenario of someone being in the dark and voting against their own interest, and you counter with an example of an imaginary person who votes for the lesser of two evils in her view. Obama would still be the better of the two options based on the beliefs of your hypothetical liberal.
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?
My point was that we have ignorant, ill-informed electorate and that along with big monied influence is the roots of the problem with our political system...not liberalism, or conservatism, or anything else. You're not going to remedy shyt by voting for a liberal 3rd party if the electorate is not only dumb as fukk, but not where the positions of that liberal 3rd party candidate is.
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.
I just saw a sign on a busy road today with Obama's face that said "End socialism on Nov. 6th." This is the level of political discourse in this country. Until people become more educated and aware, this is what we have. You can't close your eyes and throw some hail mary pass to some 3rd party candidate who nobody gives a fukk about and think that will change anything.
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?
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"
I'm not sure why you would mention the Civil Rights era because that's a horrible example to try and support your argument. The Civil Rights movement was a grassroots movement of people power that was centered around goals and speaking moral truth to power. They obviously overwhelmingly voted Democrat, but it wasn't about electing a certain candidate. You're making my case for me by mentioning that. If they took your advice, they would've said JFK and LBJ don't give a damn about them and voted for 3rd parties. That's the type of awareness and civic engagement that could prove fruitful today as opposed to getting scorned about whether candidate A or B supports a certain issue enough.
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. You acknowledge things are bad, but your solution is to keep perpetuating the things that are making it bad. Why? 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
What's that going to do? Uh, this is how participatory politics in this nation has worked in this country since day one, bruh. You don't see a role for any sort of civic engagement outside of voting for one president over another? People organized and raised awareness of issues, try to get initiatives on ballots and change the political dialogue not only so that the politicians have to acknowledge their concerns, but so that the citizenry at large start to care about those issues. That's how you move shift the political center to where you want it to be.
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???
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 is voting for a 3rd party candidates who nobody gives a fukk about and will garner less than 1% of the vote going to do other than possibly guarantee an election for the worst of the two candidates who actually have a chance at winning?
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???
If you mean a weapon that backfires and blows your face off, yeah.
Voting for a 3rd party in this election is retarded if you live in a swing state. None of them are going to win. None of them have a movement with any momentum behind it to build anything for the future. All a liberal in a swing state voting for a 3rd party in this election would be doing is helping to hand over a state to Romney.
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.
If a viable 3rd party candidate does emerge with the potential to shake up the duopoly, you'll know it when you see it. They will catch a fire, their message will resonate with people and you will see it reflected in the polls. There is no one like that in this election...Not Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein, or any of them. If you want to try and argue that it's just the media holding them back, that's as illogical as underground rap fans who try and say Immortal Technique or MF Doom would blow up if they just got airplay. Nobody cares about Immortal Technique and nobody cares about Jill Stein. If there is a viable 3rd party candidate, it will be undeniable especially in the social media age, and you will see it reflected in the polls.
So what does someone who is unhappy with the "only choices that matter" do in the meantime?
I'm not sure what you think voting for a 3rd party will actually accomplish. All 3rd parties are not the same first of all. But since we're talking about liberals, if a significant number of liberals started to vote for say Jill Stein en masse, all that would do is split the liberal vote and guarantee a dynasty of Republican a$$holes. Where is logic in that?
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?
If your argument is "Well then the Democrats would have to absorb some of the 3rd parties ideas since they lost," well that's already proven to be bullshyt. We already have a test case scenario for that. It's called the 2000 presidential election. Ralph Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. Even if they wouldn't have all went to Gore, surely more than 537 would have, which would've been enough to win. Well that sure did a helluva a job of moving the Democratic Party to the left, didn't it?
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. 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.
You talking about improvement? Really? Either we live on different planets or the words you use have lost all meaning.
