Just a reminder for anyone planning to vote for him in a month.
Under Barack Obama, your country is waging a war of terror. It indiscriminately kills civilians with drone strikes, then classifies any male adult victim as a “militant”. It uses secondary strikes to murder good samaritans who try to help the wounded, the same tactic the FBI once warned terrorists might use, and a war crime in itself under the First Geneva Convention. It targets funerals and prevents the innocent people of Pakistan from going about their daily lives, because they fear that any gathering will be seen as a valid target for another drone strike.
Even if this does not concern you, remember that every innocent death is a victory for our enemies, a way to recruit men like Faisal Shahzad, the man behind the Times Square car bomb in 2010.
More information about the US’s use of drones in Pakistan can be found in Stanford’s report here.
If you do not want to be complicit in these acts, I ask that you vote for Jill Stein instead of Barack Obama, or vote for Gary Johnson instead of Mitt Romney, and ask others to do the same.
While the OP makes valid criticisms against Obama’s policies, which I also finde deplorable, I disagree with his recommendation. Like it or not, the US is a two-party nation and there are only two men with the chance to win the presidency. There is nothing that suggests that Romney wouldn’t do everything that Obama has been doing and more, indeed I suspect he becomes aroused at the thought of waging war on Iran. Add that to Romney’s morally bankrupt domestic agenda and there is simply no case for voting for him. The only rational vote one can cast next month is for Obama.
The choice we have is Barack Obama or Mitt Romney; no one else will be elected. That’s not being “complicit”; that’s recognizing reality. Voting for a third party member instead of Obama is in effect a vote for Romney. Vote for the lesser of two evils, because no one who isn’t evil will be allowed election to a position of power.
I live in Indiana which according to all reports is a definite Romney state. If I lived in a battleground state I’d vote for Obama, but living in a definite Romney state gives me more freedom to use my vote not as a way to make my candidate become president but to say something about who I really thing ought to be president. So I’ll be voting third party, and I think a lot of other people should too, so that the nation as a whole can see that third party candidates are more viable.
Recognising reality is realising that the only reason Obama or Romney will win is because people like you vote for them. It’s also realising that the odds are against your state coming down to the last vote, and your state making the difference between a Romney victory and a Romney defeat.
If you insist on acting according to game theory instead of making a moral choice, why not use it for good instead of evil? By your own reasoning, every Republican you can convince to vote for Gary Johnson is just as good as a vote for Obama, right?
Who are you saying this to? I mean, you yourself admit that you are only doing this because you live in a state which (at least theoretically) is going to swing Republican. There are only a handful of states where that’s the case, and only a small percentage of people are going to vote in protest like yourself… so your vote will be statistically non-relevant.
The problem, as others have stated, is that our current electoral system locks out third-party candidates (at least for president). Until the system changes, there’s no way in hell we’d ever see a viable third party.
So change the system. Vote third-party locally, and then for whichever of the two main party candidates most closely represents you. Voting for the lesser of two evils sucks, I will admit- but by voting for a third party which doesn’t stand a chance of winning, even in a non-deciding state, takes the chance of the *greater *of the two evils winning. The only way the system can change is if we get enough third-party politicians at the local and state level- because the two parties which are in control now have zero interest in adopting an electoral system which will give another party a chance.
A vote for Obama is not a wasted vote, even in Indiana. The Republicans in Congress would likely act differently if Romney carried his “safe” states by small margins than if he ran up the score. I’m optimistic and would like to believe that if they started to think that there was no state they can take for granted that they’d behave more responsibly in the future.
Who says you have to lie? Present him as what he is: a candidate they’d probably like that you can live with. Why do you think I suggest both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein as alternatives? Because no matter which takes your fancy, a vote for either candidate is a vote for a better President, one who doesn’t endorse counter-productive mass murder, kidnapping and torture.
Wrong. Neither of those people would be the slightest use as president. None at all. They have zero political capital or standing, and would be chum in the water for the most basic of Washingtonian feeders. Quit wasting our time with your hallucinations of the underdog and join the real world.
Knowing what I know about Obama so far, I really have a difficult time reconciling his mindset with these horrific practices.
What I mean is that the signature on the orders authorizing these operations is not Obama’s but rather one of the POTUS; I’m convinced his heart is not in it – I allow for someone to elaborate his “evolution” to someone who can’t wait to sign these orders – but the way military operations (especially, covert ones) brings Government executive to a situation where he would be going against quite a strong mindset dominating War on Terror.
What I’d like to see is a debate on what people think/know are Obama’s motivations in the increase in drone attacks under his presidency as I cannot bring myself to think that he is the driving force behind it and more of a obligatory signatory. I do also realize that some people may be offended by the idea that POTUS is just rubberstamping plans coming out of war ministry but I’d like to be proven wrong.
I voted for Nader in 2000 to send a message to the Democratic establishment, and look how that turned out. Don’t make the same mistake I made. If you feel strongly about it, work to implement instant runoff voting in your state.
Sorry, Jill Stein is a Green–the party that lost my respect by running Nader in 2000.
I don’t agree with all of Obama’s policies but think that Romney would be worse in every way. As a Texan, I’m told my vote doesn’t count. But I’ll gladly vote for the President. Just as I proudly voted for Gore in 2000…
I think you must have misunderstood me as arguing that everyone should vote third party. I wasn’t. I was saying you should vote for Obama even if you prefer a third party candidate, if you live in a battleground state. Otherwise, you should vote for a third party candidate, so that the actual viability of third party candidates will be made more clear.
Not sure what you mean here. AFAIK there are more states which will definitely vote for Romney than ones that will definitely vote for Obama.
Practically every vote is statistically non-relevant.
Right. I’m trying to explain one way I think they can be made more viable. I think they actually are viable in one sense–there are a whole lot of people who either would prefer a third party candidate, or would after half an hour’s reading–but that viability doesn’t turn into votes because people are afraid to vote third party. But if people in non-battleground states thought for a second, they’d realize that they have a perfect opportunity to vote third party, since the battle is already decided anyway. Why vote third party in that case? To show they’re more viable than people think–and thereby to make their viability have an effect on future elections.
I definitely agree that voting third party at a local level is very important, with the possible exception of cases where the local election could easily swing toward either of the two main party candidates and one of those candidates is a very bad candidate.