Support NeoGAF

[GaimeGuy]

That said, when indefinite detention was challenged in court and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Obama had the ruling appealed. So regardless of your stance on NDAA, he owns at least that much of it.

I think because that would basically mean the administration would have no choice but to release the inmates at Guantanemo.

Congress has forbidden the administration from transferring the prisoners to the court system for trial.

So on one side you have congress telling the administration they can't provide the detainees a trial.

On the other side you have the courts telling the administration they can't keep them detained if they don't provide them a trial.

That leaves release as the only option.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

The administration has no duty to defend what it feels is unconstitutional legislation. See: doma

Which leaves opportunity for a subsequent administration to re-argue it. Stare decisis from SCOTUS is much more difficult to overcome.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

You're wrong. The drone attacks are well received by the American public as a much more clean tactic of a larger 'war on terror'. This isn't because a Democrat is in office, it's because it IS a better way to take out targets.

No, it's less precise and creates a much larger chance for innocents to be killed. Consider the loosely defined 'all military aged males', if they're precise enough to be the smarter choice why isn't it just 'militant forces'?

 

[marrec]

I don't think it's that it's a better way of taking out terrorists. They're not incredibly effective. Rather, I think the public approves of them because they're tired of our troops dying "over there" when a lot of people are tired of constant fighting.

No, it's less precise and creates a much larger chance for innocents to be killed. Consider the loosely defined 'all military aged males', if they're precise enough to be the smarter choice why isn't it just 'militant forces'?

Excuse my misuse of language, I should have kept the original use of 'Cleaner' or 'More clean'. I am in no way saying that drone strikes are terribly effective, because I don't think anyone here or on blogs or in the media can say for sure whether or not they are effective. The only ones who CAN say for sure are those who have all the information about the attacks. Namely the US government. And since the attacks have been increasing in frequency recently then at the very least we know that THEY find them effective.

The Patriot Act has been use on people in the inner cities to basically give them much worse sentences for crimes than they would've had before. People that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Basically? Can you expand on this?

 

[elrechazado]

Which leaves opportunity for a subsequent administration to re-argue it. Stare decisis from SCOTUS is much more difficult to overcome.

So? Apply that same logic to my example. Admin is making choices. Clearly their choice is to defend these actions. Period.

 

[Volimar]

I think because that would basically mean the administration would have no choice but to release the inmates at Guantanemo.

Congress has forbidden the administration from transferring the prisoners to the court system for trial.

So on one side you have congress telling the administration they can't provide the detainees a trial.

On the other side you have the courts telling the administration they can't keep them detained if they don't provide them a trial.

That leaves release as the only option.

This is what I think as well. I don't claim to know what the administration is thinking, but I'd love an answer on this. Sadly, it's kind of a policy for the president to not talk about ongoing JD actions. I also wonder if the Supreme Court takes up the case and strikes it down, if it will open the way for the president to put more pressure on Congress to allow for civilian trials. If they refuse, then it's the republicans that would be painted as the ones responsible for letting the detainees go free without any kind of trial...

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Excuse my misuse of language, I should have kept the original use of 'Cleaner' or 'More clean'. I am in no way saying that drone strikes are terribly effective, because I don't think anyone here or on blogs or in the media can say for sure whether or not they are effective. The only ones who CAN say for sure are those who have all the information about the attacks. Namely the US government. And since the attacks have been increasing in frequency recently then at the very least we know that THEY find them effective.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html

I entirely disagree with the idea that only the government can decide if they're effective enough to use. Since when does our government practice grace and empathy in regards to foreign affairs?

 

[GaimeGuy]

This is what I think as well. I don't claim to know what the administration is thinking, but I'd love an answer on this. Sadly, it's kind of a policy for the president to not talk about ongoing JD actions. I also wonder if the Supreme Court takes up the case and strikes it down, if it will open the way for the president to put more pressure on Congress to allow for civilian trials. If they refuse, then it's the republicans that would be painted as the ones responsible for letting the detainees go free without any kind of trial...

Fat chance, because it's the executive department that detains, holds, and releases them. The blame would fall squarely on the executive branch.

 

[antonz]

Drone Attacks are so popular because you have a whole generation growing up being told how awesome the shit is via their video games etc.

Anyone killed in a drone attack innocent or not is deemed a terrorists just because they were in the strike zone. The reality of drone strikes is its more convenient for Obama and crew because if you kill them don't have to deal with them.

 

[Deified Data]

Green Party folks should work within the Democratic party to get their policies adopted. Start a grass roots campaign, get your candidates elected in primaries, get them elected into office. Sham movement or not, that's what people who believe in the Tea Party and voted in all of those representatives two years ago did.

The benefit of the two party system is that is curtails radicalism and forces people to work together within the auspices of one of the two parties to get their policies adopted. The American government system was designed to make it difficult to do anything. It moves slow. But that's part of the reason it has been such a stable democracy thus far.

Our primary disagreement is that I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit a stability for a bit of change, though I more than understand how easy it is to get caught up in the notion of trading social progress for safety.

Drone Attacks are so popular because you have a whole generation growing up being told how awesome the shit is via their video games etc.

Anyone killed in a drone attack innocent or not is deemed a terrorists just because they were in the strike zone. The reality of drone strikes is its more convenient for Obama and crew because if you kill them don't have to deal with them.

Just the "military-aged males", whatever the hell that means. Still makes it very convenient for corpse-counters.

 

[Angry Fork]

I've already said all I had to say about this, hopefully Obama gets more pressure about this stuff in his 2nd term but there's no doubt in my mind he's not going to change anything. He will expand this stuff and if a republican majority comes into office in 2016 they will have tons of goodies to play with on American citizens.

This is why you cannot have such massive unaccountable state power, because the other side can and will use it even if you think Obama is a nice responsible guy he won't be controlling things forever. Hopefully a 3rd party gets enough votes for government funding and can get their voices out more in 2014/2016.

 

[GaimeGuy]

No, but he signed it. Albeit with a veto proof majority.

And he made a statement disagreeing with it. But he still does the things he disagrees with.

The NDAA was an appropriations act. National Defense Approprations Act. It funds the military for the year.

There is no way that the Commander in Chief could in good faith forbid the treasury from distributing funds to the departments of defense, homeland security, and energy, to essentially bring the military to a grinding halt.

He issued a (non-binding) signing statement outlining his opposition to the indefinite detention provisions, but also declaring his need to pass the bill as the chief executive and the commander of the miltary, since the bill's primary purpose was to appropriate funds for the military. He claimed that his administration would not enforce the indefinite detention provisions (and to my knowledge, they haven't). Actually, originally, the provisions would have required the administration to use indefinite detention as a matter of standard operating procedure, but the administration was able to get congress to make it optional (but not remove the provision outright). Even so, the option was already there according to the courts thanks to powers granted under the Patriot Act, so the weakened form of the indefinite detention provisions that ended up being passed are essentially a no-op to the US Code.

I can't believe people fail to even realize that the provisions in question actually re-affirm powers the government already had, or that the bill is an appropriations act, or that the bill had no effect on the powers available to the executive branch with regards to indefinitive detention. Again, they simply affirmed powers that the 2001 AUMF already granted


It's almost like no one bothers to read the signing statement

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then.

Now, he didn't have to sign it OR veto it. In which case it automatically becomes law after 13 in-session days of congress IIRC. And he wouldn't have been able to attach a signing statement giving his thoughts on the matter in that case.

 

[krypt0nian]

Want third party change? Campaign against the electoral college.

Until then you are throwing your vote away, feel-good protest or not. There is no viable argument against that.

 

[Vicetrailia]

The NDAA was an appropriations act. National Defense Approprations Act. It funds the military for the year.

There is no way that the Commander in Chief could in good faith forbid the treasury from distributing funds to the departments of defense, homeland security, and energy, to essentially bring the military to a grinding halt.

He issued a (non-binding) signing statement outlining his opposition to the indefinite detention provisions, but also declaring his need to pass the bill as the chief executive and the commander of the miltary, since the bill's primary purpose was to appropriate funds for the military. He claimed that his administration would not enforce the indefinite detention provisions (and to my knowledge, they haven't). Actually, originally, the provisions would have required the administration to use indefinite detention as a matter of standard operating procedure, but the administration was able to get congress to make it optional (but not remove the provision outright). Even so, the option was already there according to the courts thanks to powers granted under the Patriot Act, so the weakened form of the indefinite detention provisions that ended up being passed are essentially a no-op to the US Code.

I can't believe people fail to even realize that the provisions in question actually re-affirm powers the government already had, or that the bill is an appropriations act, or that the bill had no effect on the powers available to the executive branch with regards to indefinitive detention. Again, they simply affirmed powers that the 2001 AUMF already granted


It's almost like no one bothers to read the signing statement





Now, he didn't have to sign it OR veto it. In which case it automatically becomes law after 13 in-session days of congress IIRC. And he wouldn't have been able to attach a signing statement giving his thoughts on the matter in that case.

Good information, thanks.

 

[elrechazado]

It's almost like no one bothers to read the signing statement

But obama told us signing statements for this purpose were evil. I'm so confused now.

oh that's just my bullshit detector going off for the last 12 years with these terrible presidents.

 

[Angry Fork]

.

This does not explain Obama administration appealing the ruling by a manhattan judge blocking indefinite detention.

And next thing you know someone will say dropping bombs in autonomous countries was made legal in some obscure document from 1997 therefore Obama's not in the wrong for doing it, or something.

 

[VALIS]

Yes, some things about Obama are terrible. But some things are good.

And I want to vote.

But I don't want to waste it on a 3rd party, I want to keep the GOP out of power.

Not a big mystery.

 

[Karma Kramer]

You're wrong. The drone attacks are well received by the American public as a much more clean tactic of a larger 'war on terror'. This isn't because a Democrat is in office, it's because it IS a better way to take out targets.

The Patriot Act will, at this point, be a staple of governmental power. No President will be in a position to do anything about it because in addition to empowering the Federal Branch it also grants some pretty appealing powers to the Congressional Branch. In practice, the Patriot Act has very little impact on individual American's lives and will continue to have very little impact.

NDAA, while scary sounding, is just an extension of the powers granted in the Patriot Act and were rammed through by congress. Obama was able to, at the very least, get language changed in the bill to be more specific about what it would allow the government to do. For that you should thank him, instead of setting up his more ignorant supporters in a game of Republican-style 'gotcha' politics.

Lol this post is wrong on almost every front. Will need time to get the facts/sources in order... just had to say though, nothing personal, this made me laugh. The delusion is amazing

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

Yes in the current system. Voting third party is not throwing away your vote, and this type of thinking is exactly how we perpetuate the bullshit that we're in. Fallacious reasoning and arguments.

What if I vote for a third party and the greater of two evils ends up winning the election? How is that desirable?

 

[devilhawk]

Some great discussion in here.

I think the vote percentages required to receive funds or be allowed participation in major debates should be lowered. Instead they have raised them in the last few decades allowing the Republicans and Democrats to squeeze out any other challengers. Notoriety of the third parties is one crucial element that they are missing.

Maybe a change in the primaries is in order. I wish it was a easy as opening up the primaries so that people could vote for the best overall candidate of each of the parties, but it would seem likely in this climate that people would vote for the worst instead.

Unfortunately, the country is so polarized and in bed with their chosen parties they turn a blind eye to every misdeed their party does. It shouldn't matter if the opposing party would do the same, in fact, it should give people more impetus to chastise their own party as they should be held to a higher standard.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Thing is....DOMA is unpopular.

No one gives a shit about NDAA except neogaf.....can't be high on their priorities (plus if they tried to NOT defend it republicans would be ALL OVER them for being weak on defense).

I'm pretty sure a lot of men/women who died fighting for this country gave a shit about our freedoms. I can't believe what people are apathetic about these days. "If nothing bad is happening to me, why should I care" is basically the argument/complete faith in career politicians that are propped up by money interest. Or how about how the 2000 election where Gore rolled over despite winning Florida

 

[Henchmen21]

What if I vote for a third party and the greater of two evils ends up winning the election? How is that desirable?

Voting solely on party lines alone is already the greater of two evils.

 

[not psycho]

I've said this before, but it takes some concrete examples to get people worked up.

With Bush we could see the American citizens being detained without trial. We could see the government arguing in favor of torture, and we could see photos of torture happening. With Obama, that hasn't come out (yet?). Until then, Obama can claim he wouldn't use his powers for evil.

As for drone strikes aimed at terrorists, even most of the people against them are really for them, regardless of the president.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I've said this before, but it takes some concrete examples to get people worked up.

With Bush we could see the American citizens being detained without trial. We could see the government arguing in favor of torture. With Obama, that hasn't come out (yet?). Until then, Obama can claim he wouldn't use his powers for evil.

As for drone strikes aimed at terrorists, even most of the people against them are really for them, regardless of the president.

Really? Care to explain how 2% success rate with high profile targets, meaning most deaths from drone attacks hurt people NOT targeted. Drones are an act of War. We send these robots over Pakistan and drop bombs on neighborhoods.... I'm not in favor of this. I am not in favor of any more military action in the region unless its credibly self defense. We got Osama, we got everyone responsible for 9/11... the case is closed. Meanwhile our military budget is at ridiculous levels and our poverty rate is the highest since 1964.

 

[Deified Data]

I've said this before, but it takes some concrete examples to get people worked up.

With Bush we could see the American citizens being detained without trial. We could see the government arguing in favor of torture, and we could see photos of torture happening. With Obama, that hasn't come out (yet?). Until then, Obama can claim he wouldn't use his powers for evil.

As for drone strikes aimed at terrorists, even most of the people against them are really for them, regardless of the president.

You might have to elaborate on why we're all apparently deluding ourselves, then. I always thought I opposed drone strikes. Why am I actually for them?

Really? Care to explain how 2% success rate with high profile targets, meaning most deaths from drone attacks hurt people NOT targeted. Drones are an act of War. We send these robots over Pakistan and drop bombs on neighborhoods.... I'm not in favor of this. I am not in favor of any more military action in the region unless its credibly self defense. We got Osama, we got everyone responsible for 9/11... the case is closed. Meanwhile our military budget is at ridiculous levels and our poverty rate is the highest since 1964.

Be patient - he's about to explain why you don't actually feel this way.

 

[not psycho]

You might have to elaborate on why we're all apparently deluding ourselves, then. I always thought I opposed drone strikes. Why am I actually for them?

I said most, not all.

In my opinion, most people hate drone strikes, but think terrorists are such a threat that the existence of drone strikes, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives (American lives). So they make themselves feel better by being against it, but not really. I might be wrong! But since neither Obama or Romney has deviated from this policy, at least they both think they would lose support by changing it.

 

[Seguin]

I said most, not all.

In my opinion, most people hate drone strikes, but think terrorists are such a threat that the existence of drone strikes, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives (American lives). So they make themselves feel better by being against it, but not really. I might be wrong! But since neither Obama or Romney has deviated from this policy, at least they both think they would lose support by changing it.

Yea it's a good thing American lives are worth more than dirty foreigners, so all that collateral damage isn't a big deal.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Yea it's a good thing American lives are worth more than dirty foreigners, so all that collateral damage isn't a big deal.

He's not wrong in thinking that these people exist. As long as the comfort of every day life isn't directly threatened in America people couldn't really give a shit about what we do in other parts of the world.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I said most, not all.

In my opinion, most people hate drone strikes, but think terrorists are such a threat that the existence of drone strikes, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives (American lives). So they make themselves feel better by being against it, but not really. I might be wrong! But since neither Obama or Romney has deviated from this policy, at least they both think they would lose support by changing it.

Lol yes, the Iraq war was just an idea that was propped up by the people... Come on folks... our military action over there is just making more hate towards the US... the polls show this. The Middle East fucking favors Bush over Obama... just because Obama puts on a smile and says he cares about Muslims doesn't mean his policies reflect that. The military needs reasons to keep it getting enormous amounts of tax payers dollars, creating reasons for innocent people to attack the US is a good way to do that. Same story goes with the War on Drugs and drug use... everything shows that it just makes drug abuse and AIDs spreading from heroin needles WORSE. Look at Portugal and their stats after they decriminalized. And lets not forget about the 50,000 people who died in Mexico at the hands of drug cartels. That's like 17 9/11's for them. Our government is completely fucking backwards if you look at the facts and its amazing to type for hours on this forum and discuss these facts with people, only to get the same response of "well we just can't let the GOP win"... We have the power, this is our country and until we change our ways and stop falling in the same trap we will continue down the same slow and steady path to our deaths.

 

[kame-sennin]

We've been having the same discussion for weeks now. From now on I propose attaching the following disclaimer to the OP of all threads discussing third party politics:

• Yes, we know the current electoral system favors only two parties and that if a third party grew large enough to become viable, they would simply replace the other as one of the major two parties. Massive electoral reform is needed before true third parties can become viable, namely the installation of an instant-runoff voting system. This is one of our aims.
  
• Yes, we know that voting for a third party in a swing state technically aids the "enemy" and acts against our best interests. This is why such a course of action is rarely encouraged by any of GAF's third party supporters, while opponents batter this strawman into the ground.
  
• No one here expects their chosen third party candidate to win the 2012 election. We vote for third parties as an investment in their future and/or as a protest to the current electoral system and its chosen duopoly. We are not flakes who wants Jill Stein to swoop down and solve all of the nation's ills. We recognize how deeply ingrained the corrupting influence of corporate money is in Washington. We vote third party despite this.
  
• The Tea Party is a sham political movement bought and paid for by corporate interests and not something any true third party movement should aspire to. What works for them would not work for the Green party, for example. Nominate candidates with a vested interest in seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Anyone who believes this took any serious degree of political finesse and acumen are delusional. The Tea Party did not "reform" the system, or bend it to its will. The Tea Party is the system, disguised as a grass roots movement.
  

This is easily the best post I've ever seen in a political gaf thread.

 

[Derrick01]

Voting solely on party lines alone is already the greater of two evils.

A perfect example of someone who is not aware of how reality works. But hey when Romney wins and everything falls apart you can at least tell everyone how you made your stand for freedom or whatever you think you're doing.

 

[Aylinato]

I really wanna close gitmo, and the war in Afghanistan, and drone attacks on citizens of other countries. I really do.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

A perfect example of someone who is not aware of how reality works. But hey when Romney wins and everything falls apart you can at least tell everyone how you made your stand for freedom or whatever you think you're doing.

Spoken like a true docile voter. Carry on.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

This is easily the best post I've ever seen in a political gaf thread.

That second point is questionable. There are at least two people in this thread who don't seem to recognize that letting the greater of two evils win is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Deified Data]

This is easily the best post I've ever seen in a political gaf thread.

Coming from someone who has written some of my personal favorites, that means a lot.

That second point is questionable. There are at least two people in this thread who don't seem to recognize that letting the greater of two evils win is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils.

While I question their choice, you bet I respect it.

 

[sp3000]

That second point is questionable. There are at least two people in this thread who don't seem to recognize that letting the greater of two evils win is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils.

I hope those people understand that they are aiding the Romney campaign whether they like it or not

 

[Karma Kramer]

I hope those people understand that they are aiding the Romney campaign whether they like it or not

I wouldn't vote at all if I couldn't vote third party. Obama is not a liberal, he isn't even on the left at all, he is center right if not full on right-wing. He is a terrible president.

The biggest point to standing by ideals is to move the dialogue in this country closer to where you stand. It's not about wanting to win, but about being honest about what you want and protesting/being pro-active about spreading those beliefs. When people get into the lesser of two evils it immediately kills the opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to unite because it becomes an US vs Them. From where I sit I am able to objectively shit on both parties for what they are and push my true ideals to the fore front of the conversation, spreading information that should be covered more in the media.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

That second point is questionable. There are at least two people in this thread who don't seem to recognize that letting the greater of two evils win is worse than voting for the lesser of two evils.

I think both republican and democrat candidates should be in prison for the rest of their lives. Why would I vote for one to keep the other out of office? How the fuck do you even rationalize what you're saying without for one second considering that perhaps you're making a compromise in the worst imaginable way? People who are content in voting for the lesser of two evils are exactly why we are so fucked. This is the same shit that always happens, and look where this game has got us.

I hope those people understand that they are aiding the Romney campaign whether they like it or not

And I hope you understand that by voting for Obama you're voting for more war and more murdering of innocent people whether you like it or not.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

While I question their choice, you bet I respect it.

So then it's not a strawman at all.

 

[Deified Data]

I think both republican and democrat candidates should be in prison for the rest of their lives. Why would I vote for one to keep the other out of office? How the fuck do you even rationalize what you're saying without for one second considering that perhaps you're making a compromise in the worst imaginable way? People who are content in voting for the lesser of two evils are exactly why we are so fucked. This is the same shit that always happens, and look where this game has got us.

Think of it as a binary choice between keeping the nation largely the same (for better or for worse), or leading it down a darker path for another 4 years. Though it you legitimately find both options equally loathsome there's not much I can say to dissuade you. Do you live in a swing state?

So then it's not a strawman at all.

If you've ever been in a thread discussing third party politics besides this one, you'd realize that it really is. It's really the first response people have to such stances without even bothering to ask where they live, and if they understand the repercussions of their vote. The instant assumption is always ignorance, and in that way plays out very much like a strawman argument.

 

[kame-sennin]

People who believe voting for the "lesser of two evils" is the only way to improve the current situation are both deluding themselves to the nature of corporate politics, and underestimating the power of social movements. Money in politics means that on issues like defense, healthcare, financial regulation, the drug war, etc., it is corporations who write our legislation no matter which party is in power. Further, it is not the electoral process that is responsible for progressive change, but political movements acting outside the establishment (yes this includes third parties). Movements are responsible for women getting the right to vote, the five day workweek and most other labor reforms, the new deal, the civil rights act, and most other popular programs and policies that benefit poor and middle-class Americans. It's only when social movements force politicians to do the right thing that change occurs. Remember, it was republican Richard Nixon who established the EPA under pressure from the environmental movement. Putting your faith solely in electoral politics is surrendering your true political power.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Think of it as a binary choice between keeping the nation largely the same (for better or for worse), or leading it down a darker path for another 4 years. Though it you legitimately find both options equally loathsome there's not much I can say to dissuade you. Do you live in a swing state?

Is there a darker path than murdering innocent people? I live in Colorado, so yes.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

If you've ever been in a thread discussing third party politics besides this one, you'd realize that it really is. It's really the first response people have to such stances without even bothering to ask where they live, and if they understand the repercussions of their vote. The instant assumption is always ignorance, and in that way plays out very much like a strawman argument.

Ah, got it.

 

[Deified Data]

Is there a darker path than murdering innocent people? I live in Colorado, so yes.

If our atrocious foreign policy is the single issue you vote on, then you will get more of the same regardless of who wins. Obama probably won't engage Iran. Romney might. When you don't trust either one it's a tough call. At the end of the day, Romney's going to increase the military budget past the point of usefulness, so there'll be that many more drone strikes to worry about.

At the end of the day, I wouldn't personally bother dissuading you from voting third party because I don't think the (electoral) numbers will be close enough to matter. Just trying to convince you that voting for Obama, in your situation, isn't necessarily contradictory to a liberal worldview.

 

[Karma Kramer]

People who believe voting for the "lesser of two evils" is the only way to improve the current situation are both deluding themselves to the nature of corporate politics, and underestimating the power of social movements. Money in politics means that on issues like defense, healthcare, financial regulation, the drug war, etc., it is corporations who write our legislation no matter which party is in power. Further, it is not the electoral process that is responsible for progressive change, but political movements acting outside the establishment (yes this includes third parties). Movements are responsible for women getting the right to vote, the five day workweek and most other labor reforms, the new deal, the civil rights act, and most other popular programs and policies that benefit poor and middle-class Americans. It's only when social movements force politicians to do the right thing that change occurs. Remember, it was republican Richard Nixon who established the EPA under pressure from the environmental movement. Putting your faith solely in electoral politics is surrendering your true political power.

So you want Romney to win...

 

[Unhandled Exception]

If our atrocious foreign policy is the single issue you vote on, then you will get more of the same regardless of who wins. Obama probably won't engage Iran. Romney might. When you don't trust either one it's a tough call. At the end of the day, Romney's going to increase the military budget past the point of usefulness, so there'll be that many more drone strikes to worry about.

At the end of the day, I wouldn't personally bother dissuading you from voting third party because I don't think the (electoral) numbers will be close enough to matter. Just trying to convince you that voting for Obama, in your situation, isn't necessarily contradictory to a liberal worldview.

It's not the sole issue that I'm concerned with, but the largest one. I don't think they have differing intentions with Iran, I think Obama has put the brakes on a little pre-election but has every intent on catering to Israel's whims if re-elected. I'm not about to make a decision that best suits my day to day comfort when innocent lives are being taken. Obama may have the better domestic policy, but both have more war in mind if Obama's actions are to be taken into account, and Romney's thinly veiled agenda is to be taken into account.

 

[antonz]

So you want Romney to win...

I don't see a President Romney being a monster nightmare that others do. The guy is as Liberal as Obama is when he is not in campaign mode. Congress will remain split to leaning Democrat so its not as if a President Romney could go wild.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I don't see a President Romney being a monster nightmare that others do. The guy is as Liberal as Obama is when he is not in campaign mode. Congress will remain split to leaning Democrat so its not as if a President Romney could go wild.

I was joking around, and yes you are right. They are two sides to the same coin, as Obama said on the daily show last week. A corporate corrupt coin.

 

[Deified Data]

It's not the sole issue that I'm concerned with, but the largest one. I don't think they have differing intentions with Iran, I think Obama has put the brakes on a little pre-election but has every intent on catering to Israel's whims if re-elected. I'm not about to make a decision that best suits my day to day comfort when innocent lives are being taken. Obama may have the better domestic policy, but both have more war in mind if Obama's actions are to be taken into account, and Romney's thinly veiled agenda is to be taken into account.

Fair enough.

So you want Romney to win...

 

[Dead Man]

Given the EC system, if you live in a swing state you have to vote the lesser of two evils. If you don't, you can vote the party that closest fits your beliefs, third party or otherwise. It's not as black and white as you guys are making out.