The Uncredible Hallq
Philosophy, atheism, killer robots
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Via Facebook :
Unfortunately, my policy against voting for a presidential candidate who thinks the president should have the power to order his own citizens killed or detained forever without trial still stands.
But Obama’s an atheist! (Just ask Richard Dawkins.)
Not voting for Obama is voting against health care for my daughter. I committed the Republican crime of giving birth to a child who I knew was going to be born with a pre-existing condition. I’m far from thrilled with Obama, probably for all the same reasons as you. Please vote for Jojo and Kyla, not for the abuse of power.
“Not voting for Obama is voting against health care for my daughter.”
No it’s not. To illustrate: if there were a referendum in 2012 to forbid repeal of Obamacare for the next four years, I would happily vote for that measure.
Unfortunately, our choices are a lot shittier than that.
What makes you think that Romney won’t do the same thing, now that Obama has set the precedent?
Oh, I’m sure as hell not voting for Romney either.
But if too many Democrat voters withhold their vote from Obama because they disapprove of one aspect of his policy, then they give the election to Romney.
So, you’re not voting then? Because there’s really *no* alternative.
There are alternatives. There’s the Libertarian Party candidate, there’s Rocky Anderson, and the Green Party will come up with a candidate.
Obama makes me real happy I don’t live in a swing state. Rocky Anderson 2012!
Damn. Is he like the Sanest Politician In America pageant or something?
Not voting for Obama because of the reason you list is completely illogical. You are increasing the chance that another candidate and his party that have been hundreds of times worst on this respect come into power. Not to mention the other candidate will do its best to repeal the legislation that led to this post.
The other day a colleague asked me, as I am a foreigner, what I thought of democracy in the US.
I told her that it would be a good idea.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.” Attributed to Winston Churchill.
I doubt that you could find a U.S. President from Truman onwards whose policies and actions hadn’t violated the human rights of some group or other. Look, for example, at the support for repressive third-world dictators from Vietnam to Latin America, including Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.
The difference is that those human rights violations — including detention without trial, execution without trial, and torture — happened to foreigners, so presumably they were okay.
You only notice the moral evil when it eventually comes home.
Noam Chomsky on war crimes committed by US presidents
“his own citizens”
He doesn’t own me.
The phrase “his own citizens” doesn’t imply presidents own their citizens, any more than “Romulus killed his own brother” implies people own their brothers.
I object to the idea of “citizens”. I’m a person, not cattle.
Also, when you say “blah blah his own people”, it makes it sound like it would perfectly fine to do it to some *other* people.
I was going to join the chorus about the necessity of voting, but realized that in our bent system that only matters if you’re registered in a swing state.
If we lived in a rational country, not voting for Obama or Democrats would be a rational decision. Losing the base vote in a rational country would drive a rational party back to its foundational principles.
Unfortunately, we don’t like in a rational country with rational political parties. We live in a country where the Democrats are convinced that the correct position is somewhere between the two parties, and the most desirable voters are “centrist” or “independent”. On the other hand the Republicans are convinced that the correct position is always further to the right of whatever position the Democrats take. So if Obama wins, the Democrats move to the right because they believe that the “middle way” is why they won. If Obama loses, the Republicans move the whole country to the right, and the Democrats move EVEN FURTHER to the right because they think they lose elections by being too “liberal”.
There are issues on which I disagree with Obama or think he is not doing a good job. But on none of those issues do I believe that the Mittster would do better. And then there’s the Supreme Court. Therefore, I plan to be pragmatic and vote for Obama.
When no viable option of who is going to represent me in Parliament presents itself, I spoil my ballot.
The way I see it, if I don’t vote at all, I don’t feel that I have a right to complain, since I wasn’t part of the decision-making process. However, to quote Rush, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
You got it backwards. If you vote, then you give up your right to complain, because by participating in the system you accepted it as legitimate.
Once again: Less than 1000 people voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 in Florida made George Bush president. If you live in anything remotely resembling a swing state, please think about that.
It’s not a matter of having to vote for the lesser of two evils some of the time, it’s most of the time. That’s sad but its the way it is.
When the first past the post voting system is replaced with something more reasonable, then I will stop voting for the lesser of two evils. Until then, I will vote for someone while disapproving of him, because the alternative is worse.
my policy against voting for a presidential candidate who thinks the president should have the power to order his own citizens killed or detained forever without trial still stands
As for Anwar Al-Awlaki, it seem to me that a “citizen” who’s voluntarily left this country and, of his own free will, chosen not only to give aid and comfort to its enemies but actively fight alongside them, has forfeited his citizenship. Clearly he didn’t want his citizenship; I’m fine with respecting his wishes.
Except he was never tried and found guilty of the things you accuse him of. How do you like the idea of Obama being able to declare you a terrorist and having you shot, and then when anyone complains he says, “But Delphi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy (a fact which you’ll just have to take my word for)!”
And WTF does leaving your country have to do with it? I currently live in South Korea, does that mean the government should be able to have me shot without trial?
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.