I cannot in good conscience VOTE for Obama

[NickCole]

^ 41 replies, 386 views so far

LOL

Passive aggressive.

 

[NickCole]

Regardless what some may think and post, a conscience decision to abstain is as valid as a registered vote.

Maybe.

But you've not defended that.

All you've done is announce you're going to abstain and you don't want to talk about it. (And then apparently enjoy that others are talking about it as a reponse to your announcing you won't discuss it. Passive aggressive.)

Pouting is for children. Making a decision about how to vote is for adults.

 

[NickCole]

I agree, I've decided NOT to vote for the Top of the ticket.

Yes I know.

The question is why?

What will your abstaining accomplish?

 

[beekman001]

I've decided NOT to vote for the Top of the ticket.

Does this mean you're choosing to abstain from complaining about whoever wins for the next 4 years?

Seriously, there are plenty of 3rd parties out there that will be on the ballot. If you dont like the platform of the Democrats or Republicans, look into them. I dont buy the argument that voting for a 3rd party is somehow 'throwing away' your vote. The logic being that since everyone else is voting for a major party candidate, and you're not your vote somehow wont be counted. I have only one response to this argument: If everyone else was voting to jump off a bridge would you? If you're of a conservative bent, check out the Libertarian and Constitution parties. If you're of a liberal mind, there's the Green Party and I'm sure there are others.

 

[wastingmymind]

As a voter, I actually applaud whiny non-voters. Elections are pushed into the faces of the people of my country every two years and I'm assuming it's the same from you guys. The media coverage of the election, et. al. becoming more about the competition while people don't get to research their candidate and the issues.

 

[MystikWizard]

Not true. I've questioned my opinions and point of view, and asked for posters to expand on reasoned assertions, learned here and changed my mind sometimes. You've never said anything that changed my mind, and neither have posters like Midnight77 or ICO7, and maybe that's all you see, but that's due to the quality of argument.

I don't expect to change your mind, any more than I hope you don't expect to change my mind over anything you write, due to the same "quality of argument". The bottom line is that you are not looking to have your mind changed.

When I respond to your posts, it is to simply show obvious hypocrisies, fallacies, and double standards that are demonstrated in them, for the rest of the board to see. And that was never more apparent in pretty much my longest post on the Forum, going point by point through an argument you made trying to deep dive into Obama's background that you questioned.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235009

... in which you never responded to.

Whenever you argue a point, I know what is motivating you to write the posts you do, and 9/10 times, one can relate any negative you attempt to attach to Obama with a similar Negative to Hillary Clinton.

My personal opinion is that I think it's simply ridiculous, as the Good General pointed out, that you and the PUMAs, for that matter, can't seem to move on from the Primaries. I know you said you did, but the content of your posts tell a different story. It is an ongoing daily bitch-fest ... nothing ever positive to say.

 

[chatolandia]

I actually plan to vote for President

and no, it won't be Obama, nor McCain




I am not thoroughly convinced on either

and I live in NY state, hardly a battleground state...

So, I chose a third party candidate, like I did in 2004

 

[MystikWizard]

I actually plan to vote for President

and no, it won't be Obama, nor McCain




I am not thoroughly convinced on either

and I live in NY state, hardly a battleground state...

So, I chose a third party candidate, like I did in 2004

Well, don't keep us all in the dark on this anonymous forum. Who are you voting for?

 

[Supernature]

^ and ^^, understood. But you well know that sometimes it's not just the answers but the way the answers are phrased that makes all the difference. If the accusation about Obama are easily answered (and not by a "What - you think McCain's any better?"), then they should be answered. In a simple "here's the facts" sort of way, rather than by calling the OP disingenious or a Hillary-whiner or whatever else. It takes just as much time, and it tends to make your answer a lot more appealing to a lot more people, I would think.

Lex

Granted. But it can't be lost on you either that accusations of "kool-aid drinkers", "sucking Obama's cock" or any other pejorative generalizing of Obama's supporters invites simple "here's the facts" answers. As always it takes two. The baiting goes both ways. And let's face it: there are some who are invested in just that sort of back and forth.

 

[Supernature]

Over time, which is the only reasonable way to assess this, I'm much more balanced than most here.

Overtime? Hmm...over what span of time would you consider "reasonable"? A century? I haven't been around that long, but in the time I've been reading your posts, any instances of balance you've exhibited have been few and fleeting.

I don't criticize McCain much because everybody else is doing that, what's the point. I criticize Obama because so few do and there's so much to criticize. Obama supporters don't acknowledge Obama's dirty tricks and lies, yet that doesn't get your nose out of joint. So your cry about balanced is plain disingenuous.

I see many Obama supporters (including myself) at times criticize or express disappointment with Obama. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of one that doesn't (Lostlover, Marley, Midnight, ICO7 etc. certainly have in their time). That they don't seem to do so to your satisfaction (or with your zeal) hardly signifies.

If you don't like my style, don't read my posts. I liked Chance as a person but I didn't like his writing style so I stopped reading his posts. If Spenced didn't run after me like a pathetic puppy, yapping at virtually every one of my posts for attention I'd ignore him because his moronic LOL style is so far beneath me, but I feel sorry for the little pup and his desperate need for attention. That's the way it goes; each of us like some styles better than others, and we read or respond to different posts for different reasons. So if you don't like mine, don't read my posts. You're right that I'm righteous, arrogant and impatient too, but "uninhibited disingenuousness"? Nonsense.

I will certainly take this under advisement. The charge of uninhibited disingenuousness still stands though.

It's true I'm dismissive of fools and foolishness but I'm not divisive. Who have I divided from whom?

More disingenousness, but I'm happy to elucidate: When you persist in making generalizations like "typical of Obama supporters" or "All Obama supporters are..." etc., you are fostering an environment where Obama supporters are on one side and anyone else is on the other. This of course baits even those Obama supporters who might agree with whatever criticism you are making and is, thus, divisive. Doing this at a time when the Democratic Party (and the posters here who number among them) is striving for unity after a bitter primary is also divisive. There are ways to question and criticize without going there. You call others out when they're doing it, but you do it yourself vigorously and often.

Not true. I've questioned my opinions and point of view, and asked for posters to expand on reasoned assertions, learned here and changed my mind sometimes. You've never said anything that changed my mind, and neither have posters like Midnight77 or ICO7, and maybe that's all you see, but that's due to the quality of argument.

I count myself in good company then. And you need only look to the example Midnight has cited in his recent post to see how you answer poster's efforts to "expand on reasoned assertions". That old thread is still open. I look forward to your response.

Sometimes it's feeling, sometimes fact. I say so when it's feeling. I've been very open about my not trusting Obama being based on facts, which I've listed many times and they've not been refuted (dismissed, sure, but not proved wrong) and feeling, and my sense that he'll be as bad a President as Bush - in different ways - as a feeling that's the same feeling I felt in 2000. But facts are my main thing, and I substantiate them.

Possibly the reason I many have never changed your mind (as you took care to tell me earlier), is that I have no investment, emotional or otherwise, in changing the way you feel about Obama. It's clear from your past statements about Obama's "dangerously seductive charm" or your willingness to compare him to either Bush or Hitler, that any "facts" you bring to the table are really only vain attempts to dignify your feelings toward him. You neither like nor trust him and I completely accept that as your subjective opinion. Honestly, you lost me when you insisted Gen. Colin Powell --- after his admirably clear-eyed, grounded, and comprehensive reasons for his endorsement of Obama -- did so only because Obama was black. Really, how do you argue with something like that? The answer is: you don't. Just as it is pointless to argue with someone like Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Kurn]

I'll input a rather difficult insight into a few words:

We all need to remember that the quadrennial politics orgy is an industry.
If it didn't happen there would be families that couldn't put food on the table.
Think of a lot of things that are said as the equivalent of an ingenious Halloween costume. [but a lot of times, not so ingenious, of course].

It happens, please remember, out of respect for the economics of rah-raw-rah!
It often has no more real, honorable human sense, often, than a New Orleans crewe float, for the serious purposes of politics.
Furthermore! A lot of the industrial rhetoric is LEFT-OVER STUFF that's being used way past its expiration date and should never have children exposed to it. Seriously. Highly rhetorical, but seriously! Rhetoric of dubious truth-value based on a previous generation's dubious rhetoric. You don't want to build a bridge with that!!

That goes for a lot of the stuff that's been said about Senator Obama.
Senator Obama is a principled statesman that we would be lucky to have as President.
How do I know? I simply listen to the guy. Plus I've read about a hundred pages of what he's written. He's as American as Henry Ford or Thomas Edison or Davy Crockett. This is to say, socialist he is not. He is smart enough to peruse and select from the socialist playbook. Mr. Obama's intention is to restore what America does very, very well, something that the fundamentalist conservatives DO NOT understand. Very bluntly: They DO NOT understand social morality. They DO NOT understand 21st Century Global Politics.
But the politics industry demands that their opinions be re-circulated.
The world has changed since 1991. In 1991 the Web was in its infancy. Still more than 10 years away from YouTube.

A John McCain presidency might not be the end of it all for the USofA but I'm not willing to risk America on another patriot who is blinded by his own ideologically-filtered experience.

 

[NickCole]

Overtime? Hmm...over what span of time would you consider "reasonable"? A century?

Four years.

I've been here four years.

Over the span of those four years I've been very critical of Republicans and very supportive of Democrats, very critical of a few Democrats and the DNC, supportive of a few Republicans, critical of the media both left and right, supportive of good reporting (which I link to), supportive of liberal ideals involving, for instance, environmental concerns, equal access to and accountability for laws, and equal access to opportunity through instruments like good education, and a few conservative ideals like smaller government, fiscal responsibility and right to privacy.

I'm one of the most balanced, here, in terms of political support/opposition. BushRepublicans and ObamaDemocrats have been by far the least balanced and the least reasonable.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kurn, that was very well written!

 

[chatolandia]

Well, don't keep us all in the dark on this anonymous forum. Who are you voting for?

\

McKinney


I had made my decision before I took this survey on the issues and it turned out that she was the second closest to my concerns.

The first one is Ralph Nader, but I don't want to vote for him...


Hey she is an African-American Woman, it's like voting for Clinton and Obama together!

 

[Kulindahr]

^^
gc, I think there's a serious chunk of truth in your analysis. I'd say that with the elections, those aspects of Nick's writing have gotten amplified, and worse.

 

[cumtasteit]

Regarding this thread: The last eight years were the scariest I've lived through. Enough said. XXX

 

[Kulindahr]

Regarding this thread: The last eight years were the scariest I've lived through. Enough said. XXX

I'm not sure about that, but they were scary enough that some friends and I were having moments of wondering if it was Second Amendment time.

 

[smelter]

Exactly. Obama wud have been better served to admit it, and explain that as an African-American it is understandable that some blacks have a gripe with America. He evaded it in true manipulative Obama fashion. Seems Obama has this internal pro-american, anti-american struggle. I'm alright with it but Im not ok with his attempts to hide it. He is deceptive.

CnAnPB resurrecting this soggy old post serves no purpose. We get it, you didn't vote for Obama and frankly it didn't seem to matter one lick. Obama answered the Rev. Wright controversy, you guys just can't accept his explanation. We get that also, so its time to [STRIKE]moveon.org[/STRIKE] move on, donchathink!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30wed1.html

 

[fireside]

at the time i didnt want to get into debating the far right wing radio talking points against Obama.

however, obama's rev. wright problem was the tipping point for me not voting for him.

either obama was a moron, opportunist and/or liar when it came to rev wright. no way one can sit in the same church for 20yrs and not know the theology, philosophy or world view of the pastor. obama claiming he "didn't know" was 100% bullshit. then throwing wright under the bus after obama was 'shocked' to find out what wright stood for was typical sleaze politics. this 'hiden' side of obama IMHO is showing up already in his admin selections vs what he ran on, CHANGE.

i hope him & us the best, i really do

I sat in the same church for 20 years and came out perfectly atheist.

 

[Passion4Muzik]

at the time i didnt want to get into debating the far right wing radio talking points against Obama.

however, obama's rev. wright problem was the tipping point for me not voting for him.

either obama was a moron, opportunist and/or liar when it came to rev wright. no way one can sit in the same church for 20yrs and not know the theology, philosophy or world view of the pastor. obama claiming he "didn't know" was 100% bullshit. then throwing wright under the bus after obama was 'shocked' to find out what wright stood for was typical sleaze politics. this 'hiden' side of obama IMHO is showing up already in his admin selections vs what he ran on, CHANGE.

i hope him & us the best, i really do

In order for Obama to be fairly criticized, it must be determined that he did something wrong. I'm going to list a few facts and then I have questions.

1. Obama did not attend the church every day church was in session.
2. The church had more than one preacher.
3. The infamous Rev. Wright sermon on the net (the only one I know of) was post 9/11/2001.
4. Obama did not throw Wright under the bus. At first, Obama did a speech about race and said he could not/would not disown Wright. Only when Wright began talking to the media in a seemingly deliberate attempt to make Obama look bad did Obama distance himself from Wright.

QUESTIONS:

1. A. What was so bad about what Wright said? B. Why does that have anything to do with Obama?

2. When we know people, are we responsible for what they say/do?

3. If we disagree with people on strong issues, do we have to automatically disown them?