Yes. I admit it.
I voted for Barack Obama.
Yes. I admit it.
I voted for Barack Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/29/2012|
HAH! I see what you did there...
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/31/2010|
Dumbest. Thread. Ever.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||04/01/2010|
Then think of something better, R2
|by Anonymous||reply 3||04/01/2010|
Putting down OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||04/01/2010|
Oh, my sides. You're fucking hilarious, op.
Perhaps Sarah Palin would have been a better choice? You deserve a President like that.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||04/01/2010|
OP, you're beyond pathetic. You seem to be one of those simple minded fools who thinks that whoever you vote for is supposed to do everything your way or he's a turncoat. Things change, sometimes dramatically, after a campaign is over and the election is done. Things that were important during the campaign become far less important and vice versa. Things a candidate would have liked to do before he got elected become impossible after he's in office either because congress refuses to work with him or because the true condition only becomes apparent after he's in office and has better insight into the situation. And yes, sometimes candidates do fibb during the campaign. Unfortunately it's a necessity these days. If every candidate who is running for president told the 100% truth about everything he wanted to do and how he wanted to do it, none of them would get elected. Many voting Americans are incredibly stupid and they'd much prefer to be lied to than hear the truth.
So get off your high horse OP. Consider what life would be like now if McCain and that filthy Alaskan shewolf had won. I think your angst would be considerably higher.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||04/01/2010|
I'm not the OP, but I get OP's point, and I think it's a valid one.
I've gone from pretty middle-of-the-road Democrat to an extremist far-left liberal, without changing at all. The entire country has been shifting right-ward for the last 30 years to the point where a complete centrist moderate like Obama (definitely to the right of me), who in the 70's probably would have been in the mainstream of moderate Republican thought, is now considered a leftist/Socialist by over half the country.
On the HCR issue and the off-shore drilling issue, Obama has basically "threaded the needle" right down the center of the country, essentially pissing off both sides, but in reality providing an interesting and useful framework to move forward from.
I think it's a true statement that Obama is the best Republican President we've had since Clinton. The others have all been extremist right-wing fringe Presidents. The word "Republican" now means hateful ignorant sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic anti-government radical extremist. It didn't always mean that.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||04/01/2010|
Who cares? Vote for a republican? He doesn't care about you anyway, all he cares about is money and power.
Same thing with voting for a democrat.
Republicans stab you in the front, and democrats in the back. Either way, you're gonna get stabbed.
Point of my post: ALL politicians suck!
|by Anonymous||reply 8||04/01/2010|
[bold]The 2012 Presidential Election Ballot[/bold]
[bold][italic]ELECTORS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES[/italic][/bold]
[R - Radical Tea-Partiers] [bold]Sarah Palin[/bold] | [bold]Glenn Beck[/bold] [D - Diet Republicans] [bold]Barack Obama[/bold] | [bold]Joe Biden[/bold]
|by Anonymous||reply 9||04/01/2010|
[bold]The 2012 Presidential Election Ballot[/bold]
[bold][italic]ELECTORS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES[/italic][/bold]
[R - Radical Tea-Partiers] [bold]Sarah Palin[/bold] | [bold]Glenn Beck[/bold]
[D - Diet Republicans] [bold]Barack Obama[/bold] | [bold]Joe Biden[/bold]
|by Anonymous||reply 10||04/01/2010|
Remember when you cried that Hillary was too corporate friendly? That Hillary "voted for" the war and Obama didn't? (He wasn't in the senate and unable to). That Obama represented radical change from the Clintons and the Bushs?
YOU'RE A FOOL!
|by Anonymous||reply 11||04/01/2010|
Ever dawn on you that Hillary and Edwards would also lead like a [D - Diet Republican]?
Take your Hillary shit ... and fuck off.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||04/01/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 13||04/01/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 14||04/01/2010|
OP's post wasn't funny. But, watching the heads of Obomaniacs explode IS funny.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||04/01/2010|
Who the dykes on this board keep bringing up Hillary? The cunt fucking lost. Move the fuck on you racist fucking dykes.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||04/01/2010|
What's Helen Bedd's real name? Didn't we discover this and out him for a minute?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||04/01/2010|
r16 lacks simple education. It would explain his inability to articulate without resorting to profanity and infantile tantrum.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||04/01/2010|
Naw r18 just sick of the fucking dykes on this board who will not let the 2008 election die. Your cunt lost it - move on.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||04/01/2010|
It's always nice to know the mentally ill are still around. Thanks, OP.
Yes a Republican would have appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
A Republican would have signed the hate crimes bill authorizing federal penalties for sexual orientation bias.
A Republican would have sacrificed political capital to do ANYTHING about health care other than tax credit.
A Republican would have the EPA place more stringent controls on greenhouse gases.
A Republican would have begun the end of DADT.
Yeah. You voted "Republican." Thanks for your vote!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||04/01/2010|
Someone named Helen is a him?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||04/01/2010|
I knew you were going to get flamed OP but ITA with you and I say the same thing all the time. Turns out the only time in my life in fact the only time anyone in my family for generations ever voted for a Republican was my vote for Obama.
From now on no matter how many say it won't count and will help the Republicans I'm only voting for real and proven liberals, 3rd or Green Party. No more Republicrats for me.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||04/01/2010|
r20 wins and essentially shuts down this thread. OP is full of shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||04/01/2010|
Here's a picture for you r22:
|by Anonymous||reply 24||04/01/2010|
r19, again, you've shown what a low class fag that fag that you are.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||04/01/2010|
R21 and r24, is that you, Rahm?
Oh, the sense of entitlement the corporate Dems have: they think they own liberal voters and that liberal voters are not entitled to disagree with them.
Obama the corporatist is a profound disappointment. We knew Hillary was a corporatist. What other choice did we have?
This year, I too will be supporting and voting for only proven liberals but not for any Democratic corporate hacks.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||04/01/2010|
Lovely strategy, R26. That's exactly what gave us the George W. Bush Administration -- the tax cuts that plunged our deficits into trillions of dollars, gave us the Iraq war, and --- oh yes -- facilitated the furor of trades of ARMs and subprime mortgages that threw our national economy into the toilet.
You think you're going to send a message to anyone to go left?
This is a country that the founders could not have foreseen -- giving massive power in the form of two senators for states with minimal populations.
It's a country full of religious fanatics and greedy wealth seekers. They do not want any reform they have to pay for, and their insane views play a role in this country.
We call that democracy.
If you don't see that the Democrats from Kennedy to Carter to Clinton to Obama have all led this country progressively into the future, you're an idiot.
Is it slower than YOU want? I'm sure, but guess what? It's not YOUR country. You share it with 200 million people.
And the Democratic party is ALL that stands in the way of complete destruction of the environment and our civil liberties, not to mention any hope of progress for gay people.
Keep selling us out.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||04/01/2010|
OP... I don't thing one should boast about mental illness.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||04/01/2010|
There was a big difference between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000
There really is no difference between Obama and the republicans today
|by Anonymous||reply 29||04/01/2010|
R29 has a point.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||04/01/2010|
The same freeper has bumped this thread about 15 times.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||04/01/2010|
R29, you're so full of shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||04/01/2010|
Total bullshit, r29.
You really think there's no difference between a party whose titular head is Barack Obama versus one whose head is Sarah Palin?
You're a complete ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||04/01/2010|
[quote]There really is no difference between Obama and the republicans today
That's true in many instances. When we voted for Obama, it was usually with the thought that we could believe what he was telling us. We're smarter now and become more aware of his broken promises every day.
We know that the Pubblies do not want equal rights for gays and that they're very open about it. We are now aware that Obama has no interest in moving gays toward equal rights but he'll pretend he's on our side in order to gain votes from gays.
Though I'll never vote for a Pubbie, I will not vote for an anti-gay candidate of any party --- and there is no longer any doubt that Obame is anti-gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||04/02/2010|
Diane Rehm just read an e-mail from a listener who voted for Obama but promises never to vote for him again. More and more people are moving away from this man of broken promises.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||04/02/2010|
I am so damn sick of the "Obama promised he'd be a huge liberal, and now he's turning out to be a centrist" shit. Weren't any of you listening to the campaign? Obama ALWAYS made it clear that he was a centrist. One of his signature lines during the campaign was that "There are no blue states or red states, only the United States." He said many times that he believed in bipartisanship and even said he might name a Republican to his Cabinet. He said he admired Reagan's ability to unite people of both parties.
You can bash Obama all you want, but the only reason he was able to win states like Indiana or Virginia was by moving to the center. If Obama hadn't been a centrist, we might be looking at President McCain and Vice President Palin.
And then, of course, there's the "Hillary would have been so much better" bullshit. Obama was a centrist, and Hillary was a centrist, and neither one made any apologies about it. Anyone who was paying attention knew this from the start of the campaign, and it's the reason why a lot of the liberal blogs started out supporting Edwards (but thank God that didn't happen). It's amusing to see DataLoungers draw such huge distinctions between Hillary and Obama, when the truth is that they're about 99% alike.
I voted for Obama. I don't regret it for a minute. I knew he was a centrist when I voted for him because I actually paid attention to the campaign. Am I disappointed in some of Obama's decisions since becoming president? Yes. Am I surprised? Not at all. As much as I'd love to have a true liberal as president, I also am smart enough to realize that running a true liberal in today's polarized political climate would be a sure-fire path to defeat. Look at the electoral map. The math doesn't add up for true liberals.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||04/02/2010|
"Obama ALWAYS made it clear that he was a centrist."
Anyone with a brain knows this r36. The OP and his troll friends are just playing their usual games.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||04/02/2010|
I thought we'd dispensed with silly political threads.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||04/02/2010|
The notion that there's no difference between Obama and today's republicans is just completely absurd. It's like saying there's no difference between Einstein and Rush Limbaugh.
Many of Obama's policies are quite centrist in nature. None of them are "right-wing". He might have some policies in common with 60's Republicans (like Goldwater... hell, Nixon created the EPA!), but he has NOTHING in common with the ignorant racist sexist rabid frothing ad the mouth idiocy and hatred of today's Republican Party. Period.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||04/02/2010|
What a ridiculous observation in that the Democratics and the Republicans have never been as dramatically opposed in policy, or on so many issues, as they are at the present moment.
Or haven't you noticed how bitterly divided the country is or how insane Republican opinion is at present?
If indeed you voted for a "Republican" in choosing Obama, you voted for someone far to the the left of a great many right wing obstructionists in his own party, for someone who is so much of a "Republican" that he is routinely accused, albeit idiotically, of being a Socialist, and for someone over a rival who can truly be called a "Fascist."
This is the playing field on which Obama is governing.
And all things considering, he's doing a hell of a good job.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||04/02/2010|
R40 and others... the point OP is making is that in, say 1969, Obama would likely have been considered, based solely on policy (and ignoring his race), a Goldwater Republican.
The OP was making a comment about how far to the right the political conversation has skewed in this country.
I didn't read it as a personal attack on Obama at all. But it's a simple truth that those who are truly liberal or progressive really don't have a party at the moment. The Democrats are covering the center, and the Republicans are way out on the right-fringe extreme.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||04/02/2010|
That's exactly it, r41. The Republicans have surrendered the center to the Democrats. They are exploiting that stupidity.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||04/02/2010|
She was more honest and more realistic.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||04/02/2010|
Was he lying about being different, or just too naive to know what would happen?
|by Anonymous||reply 44||04/02/2010|
I think "left" and "right" are too subjective. I think candidate obama was ideologically progressive but politically moderate. President Obama has been moderate in both ways with much thanks to the political climate right now.
I'm pretty left wing and, yes, Obama has disappointed me in many ways. I'm not going to make apologies for things he has fallen short of (DADT, jobs bill, stimulus money, HCR w/ a public options) or where he's been completely wrong (off shore drilling, spending freeze) and the myriad of way where he and I disagree (environmental policy, progressive taxation, tax cuts, foreign policy).
So yes, criticism of Obama from the left is both legitimate and necessary. Much progress can come from healthy, fruitful debate. I don't even really mind if people choose to vote 3rd party. I've always said it wasn't people who voted for Nader who got GWB elected, it was the people who voted for GWB. But I think it's intellectually dishonest to just criticize Obama and not acknowledge his achievements. That makes YOU sound like the Republican, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||04/02/2010|
[quote]I've always said it wasn't people who voted for Nader who got GWB elected, it was the people who voted for GWB
Then you don't understand how plurality voting works, that it utterly fails in cases where there are more than two options, and you are unaware of the concept of "splitting the majority" and "spoiler candidates". Theres' a reason the GOP funded Nader's run. THEY understand. Why are liberals so ignorant (or is it just arrogant)? If you want the least desired candidate over-all to 'win', then go ahead and vote third party in general elections.
The place to make your statement via your vote is in primaries. In generals, it's your civic duty to not allow the worst possible candidate to win and end up destroying the country in the process. That is a cost too high for your 'ideal' that you should vote third party rather than strategically.
Advocate and push for true voting reform (using a Condorcet voting method instead of a plurality voting method), and once that is done, then you can be free to vote your conscience and be as pure in your vote as you are in your beliefs.
But not before.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||04/02/2010|
Good lord, r46. Your preferred method sounds like a goofy mess.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||04/02/2010|
There are many methods of condorcet voting, and there's nothing goofy or messy about it. You simply rank the candidates in order of preference. What's so goofy or messy about that?
And MOST countries have transitioned to this form of voting, because of the huge flaws and problems with plurality voting.
There are plenty of obvious examples of how condorcet voting makes things work, but here's a perfect one using the Gore/Nader/Bush election in 2000: In Plurality voting, the Nader votes were essentially thrown away, even though those voters would by and large have prefered Gore to Bush. The effect was that their votes were "taken" from Gore and thrown away, allowing Bush to have such a close margin that he could claim to have won (in spite of losing the popular vote, let's not go there). However, in Condorcent voting, since Nader wasn't in the running to win, Nader voters' votes would have been applied to thier second choice: Gore. And Gore would have easily carried Florida, and thus would have won.
The will of the people is more closely reflected by condorcet voting than plurality voting.
Google the flaws inherent in plurality voting. It's eye-opening.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||04/02/2010|
I respectfully agree and disagree with you r46.
I'm a registered Democrat and have always voted for a Democrat. And it's often a frustrating thing considering that I'm almost always to the left of the person I'm casting a vote for yet I do so because of reasons you cited.
However, I understand that some people believe differently in terms of political strategy, especially when issues they care about the most is virtually absent from the Democratic party's platform (eg-animal rights). While these voters understand the risk in not supporting the lesser of the two evils but would rather take that risk than have their votes be taken for granted. In other words, having the Democratic party adhere to the concerns of their base.
Again, I don't think that strategy worked. GWB was elected and the Dems continue to seemingly ignore the left wingers. lol. That's why like you, I continue to suck it up and vote for Democrats. But I do not think it is fair to deem other people's rationale for voting to be foolish, unless it's of course tea party related.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||04/02/2010|
My favorite line from r44's link:
Folks saying anything to get elected. That's part of what we need to change.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||04/02/2010|
"There really is no difference between Obama and the republicans today"
So how come the Republicans can't stand him?
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/02/2010|
Because he's black, R51. Duh.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||04/02/2010|
R51 - It's for show.
What bothers the "Republicans" is that they do not currently have control. Not of the House. Not of the Senate. Especially not of the White House.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||04/02/2010|
America has 2 Republican Parties, one of them calls themselves the "Democrats"
|by Anonymous||reply 54||04/02/2010|
r54, tell me about it. So I'm looking for someone who will fight for liberals causes... who do I turn to?
The conservatives have their people. Who is mine?
|by Anonymous||reply 55||04/02/2010|
[quote]But I do not think it is fair to deem other people's rationale for voting to be foolish, unless it's of course tea party related.
It's fair to deem other people's rationale for voting to be foolish if it INVARIABLY results in the opposite of what they want. It's called stupidity when your actions lead directly to the opposite outcome you truly want.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||04/02/2010|
"I've always said it wasn't people who voted for Nader who got GWB elected, it was the people who voted for GWB"
The end. What if the Nader voters had simply not voted? Assuming Nader voters somehow "caused" GWB's election assumes that those voters somehow "belonged" to the Democrats, or that their vote was solely AGAINST Bush, rather than for a candidate that they preferred to EITHER major party candidate. That's the real ignorance and arrogance that r49 doesn't seem to recognize, and the real flaw of plurality voting--it rewards voting AGAINST rather than for. You can argue that Nader voter chose the wrong candidate of those available to choose them; but GWB won because of those who voted for him and because of DEMOCRATS who didn't vote at all, and the Democrats have to take the hit on that one for not sufficiently motivating THEIR base. Assuming that some other party's supporters have an obligation to vote for your party in order to prevent yet a third candidate from winning is presumptuous and wrong-headed, and the Democrats are not going to sustain their current edge if they rely on such an assumption. There always have been and always will be third party candidates, and there will always be an even bigger pool of non-voters.
And oh yeah--Republican donors contributed MORE to the Democrats than they did to Nader--so there goes the goes the "Nader was the Republican's spoiler" trope.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||04/02/2010|
Thanks for demonstrating that you clearly don't get it, R57. There's ignorance, and then there's willfull ignorance and willfull blindness.
You'd rather rant than be right.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||04/02/2010|
I don't like everything he does but honestly, have you looked at the God damn Republicans? They're nuts.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||04/02/2010|
There is no one more liberal than I am. I can support him because I am completely scared to death of the right wing.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||04/02/2010|
And he knows it, r60.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||04/02/2010|
OP, along with half of this thread, doesn't understand the difference between "Republican" and "conservative"
|by Anonymous||reply 62||04/02/2010|
And how did you vote this time?
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/29/2012|