Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   The case against casting a ballot for President Obama, even if you think he's better than Mitt Romney   ( theatlantic.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Mitt Romney, fantasy land, adulterers, North Waziristan, Darwinism, casting, imminent threat  
•       •       •

3699 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 11:44 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-09-26 02:39:07 PM  

TheOther: Here's an idea: if you want lefties to vote for your party, then be a lefty party. The centrist-right Democratic party can sod off, it is not entitled to my vote.


Then good luck with that. If you are more about ideology, than looking at realistic outcomes from the election, then go for it. Make that "conscionable" vote. It isn't really that, but you can console yourself afterwards I suppose...
 
2012-09-26 02:41:04 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Yes, Obama continued the "war on terror" which sucks, although if the choice is between drones and invading a country the drones will kill fewer people.


Because those are the only two options.
 
2012-09-26 02:44:57 PM  
Goddamn, no wonder we've got the two parties we do, seeing many of these replies. "Take what you're given because the alternative is worse!" or "Blame it all on Nader for having the audacity to run!"

This is why we can't have nice things. Too many people running around protecting a rotten status quo out of some fear that not doing so will destroy us all.
 
2012-09-26 02:46:05 PM  

hubiestubert: TheOther: Here's an idea: if you want lefties to vote for your party, then be a lefty party. The centrist-right Democratic party can sod off, it is not entitled to my vote.

Then good luck with that. If you are more about ideology, than looking at realistic outcomes from the election, then go for it. Make that "conscionable" vote. It isn't really that, but you can console yourself afterwards I suppose...


More shifting goal posts. The article promotes not voting for Obama based on ideology versus results, but you're promoting the opposite. Which is it?
 
2012-09-26 02:46:35 PM  
I will vote for Obama because FARK THE GOP IN THE ASSHOLE. I want to make them hurt and cry. The best way to do that? Vote for the man who unites their hate and insanity.

FARK THE GOP
 
2012-09-26 02:54:11 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: I will vote for Obama because FARK THE GOP IN THE ASSHOLE. I want to make them hurt and cry. The best way to do that? Vote for the man who unites their hate and insanity.

FARK THE GOP


THIS
 
2012-09-26 03:01:33 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: I will vote for Obama because FARK THE GOP IN THE ASSHOLE. I want to make them hurt and cry. The best way to do that? Vote for the man who unites their hate and insanity.

FARK THE GOP


QFT
 
2012-09-26 03:06:56 PM  

Somacandra: vpb: Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Nader got 97,488 if 538 (less than 1%) of them were drawn away from Gore

If you're going to be butthurt over 97,000 people of various stripes who voted 3rd party rather than the 300,000+ registered Democrats who voted for George W. Bush, the specific Republican opponent of the Democratic candidate then rational people are not going to take you seriously. I can't make it any plainer than that.


Wat? You're saying that it makes more sense to be upset with the people who were more likely to vote for the conservative candidate and not the people who went all hipster and voted for the *most liberal* instead of the *Liberal who could have won but wasn't quite awesome enough to "deserve" it*?

My 0.02 for the time being is to vote 2 party nationally, and diverge locally. Let those third and fourth parties gain prominence in your community/state and watch those parties get a real foothold nationally. Watch the impacts these votes have on your community/state and see if it makes sense nationally.

For the most part, these national only parties aren't serious. They target hot-button national issues that are simply not feasibly changed and garner their support from the groups who are passionate about those issues. That's not a way to govern, that's a way to campaign. Elect a green partier or a libertarian or a communist to your local government. You're not actually *DOING* anything with your national protest vote except giving yourself a smug sense of self satisfaction like some kind of political hipster.
 
2012-09-26 03:08:08 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: BeesNuts: Or a judge who supports legalization?

For the record, Gat is rabidly anti-legalisation and pro-prohibition.


For the most part, all I know about him is that he's rabidly ideological. And not at all pragmatic. Like. At all. Never heard of the word.

Good people and all, but god damn if that attitude doesn't confuse the hell outta me.
 
2012-09-26 03:12:12 PM  

swahnhennessy: Goddamn, no wonder we've got the two parties we do, seeing many of these replies. "Take what you're given because the alternative is worse!" or "Blame it all on Nader for having the audacity to run!"

This is why we can't have nice things. Too many people running around protecting a rotten status quo out of some fear that not doing so will destroy us all.


No, I blame it on political neophytes who do not understand that real-world pragmatism calls for compromises. Do you want a viable 3rd party? Then WORK FOR IT, don't demand to be handed a perfect candidate on a platter every 4 years without getting involved.

Building a genuine voter base takes time and effort. You have to try to win local races in city councils and mayoralty elections. You have to get people motivated to go out and canvass. You have to build networks.

But none of you purer-than-thou hipsters are willing to put any sweat into that. Instead, you decide that Obama isn't quite left enough so you vote for some amateur on a 3rd party ticket, splitting the vote and handing victory to some genuinely evil motherfarkers.

Vote Green, you get Romney. You might pat yourself on the back that you voted your conscience, but the real-world practical effect is that you are helping Romney and the GOP, just like Nader and his fans handed victory to Bush.

If you want war with Iran and Wall Street Crash II: Electoral Boogaloo, then vote Green.

/ How you sleep at night mystifies me.
//slashies are fun
 
2012-09-26 03:12:53 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: I need to hire a new receptionist at the office, and I've narrowed the candidates down to two.

One is kind of young but fairly smart and has 4 years of experience on the job. The other has a bit of an attitude, unreasonable salary demands and was fired from her last gig for gross incompetence.

So my decision? I'm just going to send a job offer to Mary Tyler Moore. That's right, Mary Tyler Moore. Because I just really like Mary Tyler Moore, and it doesn't matter to me who gets the job here as long as I keep feeling good about myself... and about Mary Tyler Moore.


you sound old.
 
2012-09-26 03:14:24 PM  

swahnhennessy: Goddamn, no wonder we've got the two parties we do, seeing many of these replies. "Take what you're given because the alternative is worse!" or "Blame it all on Nader for having the audacity to run!"

This is why we can't have nice things. Too many people running around protecting a rotten status quo out of some fear that not doing so will destroy us all.


Dude if the 3rd party was viable in any capacity, it would get votes. But they aren't. No voting base to form enough of a discernible platform from the democratic ticket and I doubt that many are swayed from the ideology of the Republican banner. All this in regards to the presidential race, of course. I reiterate, in '08, all votes that went for ANYONE that was neither the Democratic ticket or the Republican Ticket came to 1.48% of ALL votes (presidential). Tiddly winks. Slowly, you can work your way in at a state and representative and senatorial level, sure. President this year/ 2016/ 2020? No farking way.
 
2012-09-26 03:16:46 PM  

TheOther: Here's an idea: if you want lefties to vote for your party, then be a lefty party. The centrist-right Democratic party can sod off, it is not entitled to my vote.


That worked wonders for us in 2000.
 
2012-09-26 03:19:47 PM  

BorgiaGinz: Do you want a viable 3rd party? Then WORK FOR IT, don't demand to be handed a perfect candidate on a platter every 4 years without getting involved.

Building a genuine voter base takes time and effort. You have to try to win local races in city councils and mayoralty elections. You have to get people motivated to go out and canvass. You have to build networks.

But none of you purer-than-thou hipsters are willing to put any sweat into that. Instead, you decide that Obama isn't quite left enough so you vote for some amateur on a 3rd party ticket, splitting the vote and handing victory to some genuinely evil motherfarkers.



There aren't enough bears to repeat. This is it.

That there are farking LIBERTARIANS who don't understand this makes me want to blow my brains out.
 
2012-09-26 03:28:22 PM  
If I may summarize the article:

If Obama is the closest match to your personal politics but there's a single issue that both sides are bad on, it's best to pout and not vote for Obama.
 
2012-09-26 03:30:03 PM  

FlashHarry: vartian: You didn't read a damn thing I wrote.

i read everything you wrote. and you're correct; you of course have the right to vote your conscience.

but you need to understand that if you live in a swing state (unlike the author), if you vote for anyone other than obama - or if you don't vote at all - you are literally voting for romney and all he stands for.


Indeed. Stepping into the voting booth for a national election is too late to start effectively supporting third-party candidates. If you care about a third party, you need to support them for local and state elections for a longgg time first.
 
2012-09-26 03:33:08 PM  

BorgiaGinz:
Building a genuine voter base takes time and effort. You have to try to win local races in city councils and mayoralty elections. You have to get people motivated to go out and canvass. You have to build networks.

But none of you purer-than-thou hipsters are willing to put any sweat into that. Instead, you decide that Obama isn't quite left enough so you vote for some amateur on a 3rd party ticket, splitting the vote


SO This.

/ You won't catch a heli right to the top of the mountain. Gotta put your time in and MAKE me believe you can do it.

// Say "Ticket Splitters Split Tickets" 5 times fast.
 
2012-09-26 03:42:08 PM  

Geotpf: Gore would have won the election had Nader not run for office. Full stop, stop arguing about it.


And, on the other paw, Bush would have won if Perot hadn't run.
 
2012-09-26 03:42:36 PM  

HighOnCraic: Late to the party, but has anybody pointed out what a farking joke of a politician Gary Johnson is?

[cache.gawker.com image 640x360]

Link

Has any political candidate in modern history done something as stupid as this on television?

Oh wait . . .

[static01.mediaite.com image 320x232]

Link

Seriously, what kind of politician would think that debating an impersonator is a good idea and makes him look presidential?


Well to many GOP voters all black people look alike and probably think alike too.
 
2012-09-26 03:49:21 PM  

Citrate1007: HighOnCraic: Late to the party, but has anybody pointed out what a farking joke of a politician Gary Johnson is?

[cache.gawker.com image 640x360]

Link

Has any political candidate in modern history done something as stupid as this on television?

Oh wait . . .

[static01.mediaite.com image 320x232]

Link

Seriously, what kind of politician would think that debating an impersonator is a good idea and makes him look presidential?

Well to many GOP voters all black people look alike and probably think alike too.


It's shocking that no one employed by Gary Johnson or Ron Paul would say, "You know, this might not be such a great idea. In fact, a lot of people are going to make fun of you for doing this. I'm only saying this because I believe in your ideas, and I want your campaign to succeed. Seriously, don't do this."

/Of course there's always the possibility that they were told that it was a bad idea, and they did it anyway...
 
2012-09-26 04:09:06 PM  

venerant: hubiestubert: TheOther: Here's an idea: if you want lefties to vote for your party, then be a lefty party. The centrist-right Democratic party can sod off, it is not entitled to my vote.

Then good luck with that. If you are more about ideology, than looking at realistic outcomes from the election, then go for it. Make that "conscionable" vote. It isn't really that, but you can console yourself afterwards I suppose...

More shifting goal posts. The article promotes not voting for Obama based on ideology versus results, but you're promoting the opposite. Which is it?


It's an issue that folks have to decide upon themselves. It's not a black or white issue. It's not an Either/Or argument. Voting has to take a bunch of factors into account, and that is the hard thing for most folks to fathom, and the media REALLY hates, because it's not reducible to sound bites...

If pondering on the issues is "moving the goalposts" then fine, I'll cop to it, but the world isn't just Us/Them, and if it were, it would be a lot easier.
 
2012-09-26 04:13:34 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Yes, Obama continued the "war on terror" which sucks, although if the choice is between drones and invading a country the drones will kill fewer people.

On the other hand, Gary Johnson is like a less crazy Ron Paul. I generally agree with his positions on social issues and foreign policy, but he wants to cut a ridiculous amount from social programs. To me, domestic policy is more important than foreign policy, so I wouldn't vote for him.


Cool, I think Afghan and Pakistani children should die every once and a while so that windmills will continue to be subsidized, too!
 
2012-09-26 04:17:41 PM  

BorgiaGinz: No, I blame it on political neophytes who do not understand that real-world pragmatism calls for compromises. Do you want a viable 3rd party? Then WORK FOR IT, don't demand to be handed a perfect candidate on a platter every 4 years without getting involved.

Building a genuine voter base takes time and effort. You have to try to win local races in city councils and mayoralty elections. You have to get people motivated to go out and canvass. You have to build networks.

But none of you purer-than-thou hipsters are willing to put any sweat into that. Instead, you decide that Obama isn't quite left enough so you vote for some amateur on a 3rd party ticket, splitting the vote and handing victory to some genuinely evil motherfarkers.

Vote Green, you get Romney. You might pat yourself on the back that you voted your conscience, but the real-world practical effect is that you are helping Romney and the GOP, just like Nader and his fans handed victory to Bush.

If you want war with Iran and Wall Street Crash II: Electoral Boogaloo, then vote Green.

/ How you sleep at night mystifies me.
//slashies are fun


I was actually arguing for reform of Democrats, not a 3rd party. Heck, if Obama were half the president he claims to be as a campaigner, I'd be good. I thought we'd caught a break in 2008. I honestly did not realize we had another Clinton on our hands, albeit one with Bush-era powers to abuse. But thanks to you calling a man who is quite possibly older than you - and certainly no lamb when it comes to politics - a "neophyte" and a "hipster", I suddenly realize how naive it was of me to expect better from my vote and to take what I can get because the other option is worse. As it will be in 2016. And 2020. And so on until we stop being "pragmatic" and demand real change. I mean, what we've got as an establishment left in the country is to the right of Nixon and still being pulled to starboard. At what point do we stop that drift?
 
2012-09-26 04:22:25 PM  

FlashHarry: this is asinine. if you are in a swing state and you don't vote for obama because you don't think he's liberal enough, you are effectively voting for mitt romney - a man who is a rightwing extremist who will make president obama look like dennis kucinich.

this is florida 2000 all over again. if everyone who voted nader in florida in november 2000 had voted gore, history would be very different. you can argue whether or not 9/11 would have happened, but it's highly unlikely we'd have invaded iraq and spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on that bullshiat elective war. we also wouldn't have john roberts or samuel alito on the court - and that means no citizens united.

and with several aging liberal justices on the court - your vote against obama is a vote to overturn roe v. wade and more.

again, this is asinine.


Once again, THIS. Until the Green party can elect a governor and have success on the lower federal level, 2000 reminded us that voting your ideology got George W Bush elected. I have not heard a peep from the Greens ever since.
 
2012-09-26 04:27:51 PM  

swahnhennessy: I was actually arguing for reform of Democrats, not a 3rd party.


No you weren't. We can see what you wrote dude:

swahnhennessy: Goddamn, no wonder we've got the two parties we do, seeing many of these replies. "Take what you're given because the alternative is worse!" or "Blame it all on Nader for having the audacity to run!"

This is why we can't have nice things. Too many people running around protecting a rotten status quo out of some fear that not doing so will destroy us all.



swahnhennessy: I mean, what we've got as an establishment left in the country is to the right of Nixon and still being pulled to starboard. At what point do we stop that drift?


While I agree with you, the place to voice this specific opinion is the primary election, not the general election. In the general election you're a complete moran if your problem is the (D)s aren't far enough left, and you think the solution is to vote for someone else or don't vote at all.
 
2012-09-26 04:30:08 PM  
hubiestubert:

If pondering on the issues is "moving the goalposts" then fine, I'll cop to it, but the world isn't just Us/Them, and if it were, it would be a lot easier.

You: "If being right is wrong, then I don't wanna be right." 

This article comes down to "so vote Republican," anyway. You talk about realistic outcomes versus ideology, well how about making sure the person that actually put some laws into place I like in spite of massive opposition versus passively allowing whatever will happen happen? It is, in fact, an either-or when there are two likely outcomes and pushing towards anything else is akin to throwing away my vote.
 
2012-09-26 04:38:13 PM  

lennavan: No you weren't. We can see what you wrote dude:


You can believe what I say or believe what you think I was saying. I don't really care.
 
2012-09-26 04:41:16 PM  

swahnhennessy: lennavan: No you weren't. We can see what you wrote dude:

You can believe what I say or believe what you think I was saying. I don't really care.


My apologies, you were arguing for (D) reform in a really farking retarded manner that any reasonable person would have taken it (and indeed multiple people did) as an argument for support of a 3rd party.

I'm actually complementing you here, not arguing for how farking retarded your argument was. You can believe what I say or believe what you think I'm saying, I don't really care.
 
2012-09-26 04:41:24 PM  

venerant: hubiestubert:

If pondering on the issues is "moving the goalposts" then fine, I'll cop to it, but the world isn't just Us/Them, and if it were, it would be a lot easier.

You: "If being right is wrong, then I don't wanna be right." 

This article comes down to "so vote Republican," anyway. You talk about realistic outcomes versus ideology, well how about making sure the person that actually put some laws into place I like in spite of massive opposition versus passively allowing whatever will happen happen? It is, in fact, an either-or when there are two likely outcomes and pushing towards anything else is akin to throwing away my vote.


Then vote for a third party candidate. In my case, I am voting against the candidate that I think will do the most harm, with the candidate that I think will do the least harm. There is no one I am enthusiastic about this go around, but was the same as the last go around as well. And the time before that. Realistically, that is what we have to do, until we can advance a candidate that we ARE enthusiastic about, and right now, the political climate doesn't favor any third party, and the one Center-Right candidate we can put into office happens to be the Democrat. Which IS sort of sad...
 
2012-09-26 04:46:47 PM  

cman: FlashHarry: vartian: This is such a bullshiat argument, on both sides (so vote Republican? Wait a minute...) If you want to vote for a third party candidate, vote for them. No one owns your vote. If your most pressing concern is keeping the MittBott out of the oval office, fantastic...you have your motivation to vote. If you want to cast your vote for a Green candidate knowing they will not win but hoping that increased turnouts each election will help build momentum for the party, cast away. That's your right. Don't let anyone browbeat you about it.

are you saying presidents don't appoint supreme court justices? because it seems like that's what you're saying.

i'll say it again: if you vote against obama in a swing state, you are voting FOR romney. and that means you're voting to overturn roe. you're voting for citizens united. you're voting for war with iran.

it's farking MATH.

You are with us or you are with the terrorists argument is old and outdated


Problem is that the electoral college is, by law, bound to vote either D or R. So even if no one except them voted...well, they're still gonna vote, that's their job.

A vote for any party other than D or R legally does not matter. And you know, it's certainly good to be worried about how Obama seriously is farking over Pakistan--honestly, I wish he'd get called on it more--but wasting your votes so that you can pretend you're more moral than other people? Yeah, right now, that will not have a good cumulative effect. It'll spur on a group of people who are insane at the level of near-clinical symptoms. If you want to do the right thing, sometimes you have to settle.

/Life sucks, but, well...that's life.
 
2012-09-26 04:57:22 PM  

lennavan: I'm actually complementing you here, not arguing for how farking retarded your argument was


You're complementing me quite nicely, I might add.
 
2012-09-26 05:24:03 PM  

hubiestubert: venerant: hubiestubert:

Then vote for a third party candidate. In my case, I am voting against the candidate that I think will do the most harm, with the candidate that I think will do the least harm.


In two sentences, you advised me to do what you said you weren't going to do. I'm not trolling, just sayin....
 
2012-09-26 05:41:11 PM  
To paraphrase Paul Ryan, "Do you want Mitt Romney to be elected?"

Most Democrats that I know have no more love for Obama than Republicans have for Romney, but as Douglas Adams put it, if you don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might win.
 
2012-09-26 05:44:15 PM  

Lando Lincoln: TheOther: Here's an idea: if you want lefties to vote for your party, then be a lefty party. The centrist-right Democratic party can sod off, it is not entitled to my vote.

That worked wonders for us in 2000.


I'm not one of your 'us', especially since you seem to absolve Al 'Big Stiff' Gore of responsibility for losing to an idiot during a relatively strong economy with a budget surplus.
Or maybe the Democrats should have run more to the left and picked up more of those Green party voters?
 
2012-09-26 06:36:16 PM  

vpb: kbronsito: It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment.

Even if our drones were not killing innocent people in those tribal areas, they would be keeping girls out of school and women would be cowering in the homes because they are not allowed out on their own and any man who feels slighted by them can throw acid in their faces. At least our drones make both men and women live in fear, which is a more equitable distribution of terror.

I don't get the obsession with drones. It's just a type of plane. We used to do the same thing with manned aircraft, except that we used 2000lb bombs and blew up entire neighborhoods instead of individual houses.


I agree entirely. To me, an unmanned drone is the new-tech equivalent of a heavily armed sniper targeting an individual, and it involves no risk to U.S. military personnel. What's wrong with that?
 
2012-09-26 06:53:51 PM  
I have heard this kind of sh*t before from members of my own family back in 2000. They told me that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, that a vote for Nader wasn't a waste, and they made the standard arguments attacking Gore from the "left" that you heard in those days. I voted for Gore anyway. After Bush invaded Iraq, I was sorely tempted to contact my family members--one of whom is an Arab-American--and ask them how those votes for Nader were working out for them now. But I resisted the temptation.
 
2012-09-26 09:25:53 PM  
The vast majority of self-described liberals are only anti-war if there's an R next to the name of the guy stirring up violence.

Until anti-war liberals grow the balls to say, "Yes, we will 'spoil' your campaign by voting third party until you stop," then the Democratic party is going to continue to elect presidents whose only difference is *which* countries they choose to bomb, rather than *whether* we choose to bomb other countries.

Considering how the Democratic propaganda machine did a pretty good job of blaming Bush's actions on Nader voters, despite their own party representatives happily enabling Bush's wars, I'm not hopeful for the future of this country.
 
2012-09-26 10:32:01 PM  
Elections have consequences. You want to punish Obama? You can't. He's set for life. You can only deliberately choose the lessor candidate (or the lessor party) and punish the country. Even if you think, minus campaign spin, there is little substantive difference between Obama and Romney, you can bet their appointments throughout the executive and judicial branches will be different and consequential. Appointments are when the president rewards those on his team who got him where he is. Vote for Romney and the new, right-wing Supreme Court justice you're complaining about for the next 30 years is your fault.
 
2012-09-26 11:08:02 PM  
It never ceases to amaze me how far the 0bama apologists will go to defend his actions. Never more so than now.

The biggest one for me is how they persistently claim that 0bama will not lead us in to war with Iran. The fools don't realize he doesn't have to. If Israel had their way they'd already have bombed the hell out of their bunkers long ago. They WILL do this, it's just a matter of time. The war drums are beating, and the peace prize winner will end up heeding the call, like a good puppet.
 
2012-09-26 11:57:30 PM  
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to praise Obama's actions. A few neuron firings to keyboard and away we go. Let's see, with the help of the American people we have...

Began the reform of health care
repealed DADT
jobs being created through stimulus
less government employees per capita

Yes our road is longer, but we built it together.
 
2012-09-27 12:20:14 AM  

TheOther: I'm not one of your 'us',


So you're not an American citizen?
 
2012-09-27 01:13:01 AM  
Hmm...

"I'm not a purist."

+

Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

Huh?

That may go down as the only completely successful minor foreign intervention in U.S. history. You have to be a purist to oppose Obama as a result of his choice there. Even then, you're on shaky ground. It was the right thing to do, it didn't put boots on the ground, and it was wildly successful--with long-lasting positive impact for U.S.-Libyan relations.
 
2012-09-27 02:14:40 AM  

NuttierThanEver: Dear Green party member.

Try winning something other than drain commisioner, Mayor the middle of nowhere or dog catcher on a consistent basis before trying to delude yourself that you can do anything at the Presidential level. Even if your guy wins the election he's going to need people in the house and senate to work with.


THIS

You can't build a pyramid from the top down.

The presidential race is to select the leader of the government out of a pool of candidates whose parties have legislative presence. Selecting a rogue candidate most likely means you're not paying attention and you failed your civics courses.
 
2012-09-27 02:36:54 AM  
If your state is already going the way you want, then vote 3rd party. That helps get them into the next debates if they get enough votes.

If your state is close, vote for one of the 2 candidates.

It's not that hard, people.

Voting against Obama if you are a liberal is just like voting for Romney. That's how America works.
 
2012-09-27 02:38:47 AM  

Elbarfo: It never ceases to amaze me how far the 0bama apologists will go to defend his actions. Never more so than now.

The biggest one for me is how they persistently claim that 0bama will not lead us in to war with Iran. The fools don't realize he doesn't have to. If Israel had their way they'd already have bombed the hell out of their bunkers long ago. They WILL do this, it's just a matter of time. The war drums are beating, and the peace prize winner will end up heeding the call, like a good puppet.



Saudi Arabia LOVES it when you blame American foreign policy on the Jews.
 
2012-09-27 07:53:13 AM  

brukmann: with long-lasting positive impact for U.S.-Libyan relations.


It hasn't even been a year for Libya. Let's not go calling it Vermont just yet.

vpb: That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?


Too farking bad Al Gore ran a shiat campaign.

vpb: TFA makes it clear that the author thinks that Obama is a pale imitation of a Republican"


TFA only makes it clear that both parties covet power.

Ishkur: Want to vote for Romney? ....WHY!?


One reason would be if you thought the Democrats were going to re-take the House and get to 60 in the Senate, and you wanted a check on that particular brand of stupid. (The flip side of this was the best reason to vote for Kerry in 2004.)

schubie: The Military Industrial Complex will never stop.


There is also a health-care-industrial complex, a drug-war/prison industrial complex, an agribusiness-industrial complex, a fossil-fuel-industrial complex, and so forth...wherever there is sufficient federal spending, a whole new power center will spring up to perpetuate the spending, whether or not it's warranted.

To get more directly to the point: whatever Obama and Romney are saying now is the most potent form of market-tested bullshiat their handlers can conjure. The immense and increasing power one of them will have come 2013 is going to change them, and not for the better. Power corrupts.

We've seen it corrupt Obama. It certainly corrupted Bush 43. Even the saintly Jimmy Carter strolled into office issuing pieties about how human rights was going to be the soul of his foreign policy. A year later he was fawning over Nicolae Ceausescu, who was pound-for-pound the single foulest European leader of the 20th century this side of Hitler.

And power seems likely enough to corrupt Romney.

So what you're looking for basically is somebody who wants to toss the Ring into Mount Doom and not use it for themselves - somebody who wants the presidency but once elected will seek to scale back the central government's power.

Gary Johnson seems closest to that goal, as he's the only one who's had executive power and willingly cut back on it. Trouble is he only had that power in New Mexico, so who knows what he'd do given exponentially greater power in DC.

Best you can do is vote for somebody while realizing that you are trusting them for exactly one day in November every four years, and that all future support is by no means a given.
 
2012-09-27 08:11:17 AM  

Lando Lincoln: TheOther: I'm not one of your 'us',

So you're not an American citizen?


You think W was good for citizens of any country?
 
2012-09-27 09:18:12 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: I will vote for Obama because FARK THE GOP IN THE ASSHOLE. I want to make them hurt and cry. The best way to do that? Vote for the man who unites their hate and insanity.

FARK THE GOP


What if they like getting farked in the asshole?

/just sayin'
 
2012-09-27 03:37:48 PM  

lohphat: PC LOAD LETTER: I will vote for Obama because FARK THE GOP IN THE ASSHOLE. I want to make them hurt and cry. The best way to do that? Vote for the man who unites their hate and insanity.

FARK THE GOP

What if they like getting farked in the asshole?

/just sayin'


Getting farked in the ass with a few cocktails, some kissing and cuddling and gentle, easy strokes is wonderful.

The GOP version is heaving your head rammed into a wall and then getting gang raped by a pack of HIV+ Klansmen without lube.
 
2012-09-27 04:52:21 PM  

intelligent comment below:

Saudi Arabia LOVES it when you blame American foreign policy on the Jews.


They love it even more when the Jews do their nasty work for them. It won't be Saudi planes that drop the new and improved bunker busters we so conveniently recently delivered to them. But I'm sure they'll let them use their airspace.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report