Why You Should Vote For Barack Obama

Discussion in 'General' started by CosmicSerpent, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. First off, I want to make it clear that I respect everyone's right to vote for who they want. I simply wanted to explain why I strongly feel that Obama is the best candidate. No matter what candidate you support, I urge you to at least read this and give him a chance. It took me a while to determine who I was going to vote for because I wanted to take all aspects into account and hear everyone's case before I supported someone prematurely. I ask that you do the same.

    There seems to be an overwhelming amount of support for Ron Paul on this message board, and on the Internet in general, so I'll address that first. I think it's safe to say he isn't going to get the Republican nomination. He's too different from all of the neo-cons currently running, and the Republican party has changed too much to ever accept his views. After the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, it's clear to me that either McCain, Romney, or Huckabee will win for the Republicans. This will become even clearer after the SC primary. So why not support the next best candidate who actually has a chance of winning? I don't know about you, but given the choice, I'd rather see Obama than Hillary or any of the Republicans.

    Whether you agree with Ron Paul's positions or not, virtually no one else in Washington shares them. Maybe it would be nice to have such a different kind of president, but you have to consider how the presidency works and whether Ron Paul would actually be able to put into action the changes he is proposing. The president can't just pass laws all by himself. Even if he did try to introduce all these different bills, they would have to be approved by both houses of congress first, meaning a majority vote. Sure he has a lot of influence, but a lot of other people's minds are going to have to be changed also. Ron Paul is essentially a Libertarian. Considering both the Senate and House of Representatives have always been almost 100% Republican/Democrat, I don't think Paul is going to get much done in office. He can veto whatever he wants, but it's going to take other politicians who share his views to actually see progress made. It has become obvious to me in all the Republican debates that Ron Paul is way too disagreeable and combative to ever fulfill the job of president adequately.

    What we need is a president who can work together with others and is compatible with Congress. Someone who's able to see things from someone else's view... someone who can negotiate and not simply put up a stubborn wall. Only then will we be able to make the important changes we need. Who fits this requirement better than Barack Obama? Throughout his campaign, he's been talking about bringing down the party lines and coming together for a common good. He has several endorsements from senators and representatives across the country, and even Republicans are commending him for his message of unity and working together. For once, we have a candidate who doesn't see everything from an "us vs. them" point of view. There's no doubt in my mind that Obama has the ability to reverse the damage Bush has done to this country and bring everyone together to work for a common good.

    This election, perhaps more than any other, has been about change. It's certainly been Obama's campaign slogan from the beginning, and other candidates have also adopted it. Obviously, the general consensus is that we need someone far different and much more capable than Bush. To me, none of the Republican candidates, besides Ron Paul, seem very different than Bush. Are we forgetting that Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in the last 50 years and that more than 2/3 of the population opposes the Iraq War? Again, none of the Republican candidates besides Ron Paul support a timetable for withdrawal. Not to mention the horrible condition our economy is in. It seems to me that the Republican party has gone astray... statistics show that the party has gotten smaller in the last few years, and I think more people are starting to see that the last thing we need is another neo-con president. If Ron Paul actually stood a chance, I would consider voting for him. But the Republicans have gone too far astray to ever nominate him, and the only other candidate who makes any sense would be a Democrat.

    So why Obama over Clinton or Edwards? Well for one, Clinton and Edwards both supported the Iraq War in the beginning. But for me, the main reason is because Obama has "stepped up to the plate" so to speak, more than the others. He came out of nowhere and worked his way up to frontrunner status when originally, Hillary was expected to get the Democratic nomination for sure. He wasn't a well-known politician before this election began, and the fact that he's come this far says a lot about his character. Clinton, on the other hand is riding on her "experience" as First Lady. In reality, if it weren't for her husband, no one would know who she is right now. Obama has risen to his current popularity completely out of his own accomplishment.

    A lot of critics say he's too young and doesn't have enough experience, but I think we need to rethink the kind of experience we're actually looking for. Dick Cheney had more experience in Washington than just about anyone, and look at the job he's done as VP. The fact that Obama has had so little time in office should be seen as a good thing considering how popular he has become. It proves that what you stand for matters more to the American people than what you've had the chance to accomplish in the past. What we really need are new faces and fresh ideas. Are we forgetting that Thomas Jefferson was only 33 years old when he wrote the Declaration of Independence? Not to mention Roosevelt, JFK, and Clinton were all younger than Obama when they assumed office.

    Unless you have some extreme conflict with Barack Obama's political positions, I see no reason to vote for someone else. It has become clear to me that he is best suited for the job, and I think you'll agree if you watch some of his speeches/debates and consider the grand scheme of things. He supports a responsible withdrawal from Iraq, talking to our enemies to prevent a crisis, universal health care, and reducing greenhouse emmissions just to name a few things.

    I'm not trying to say he's perfect... no politician ever will be, but he's by far the lesser of evils in this election.

    Oh, and by the way, he would end federal raids on medical marijuana patients/growers and supports a state's right to legalize medical marijuana. Also, he would work to reduce sentences for non-violent crime and have our law enforcement and court systems focus on more serious criminals. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
     
  2. .....
     
  3. pondering..................................
     
  4. i didnt read the whole post but i read the first few sentences of what caught my eye. and i have some questions.

    how does obama feel about Mary Jane ?
    Taxes and the IRS ?
    DEA ?
    is he going to make america's persepective more isolated? meaning america mind its own buisness and not fuck with other people buisness (which i am totally for)
     


  5. Yes, I think it is safe to say that. I realize the primaries have barely started, but Huckabee, McCain, and Romney are all pretty far ahead of Ron Paul. I realize it's still possible for him to win, I'm just saying it's extremely unlikely. It's very rare that a candidate places lower than 3rd in the first few primaries and then goes on to win the nomination.

    Could you elaborate on this acceptable way? What I'm saying is that his positions are too extreme and I've seen so much conviction in his campaign that I don't see how he would be willing to compromise at all.

    For one, Mike Huckabee. In his appearance on the Tonight Show, he said "I have a great respect for Barack Obama. I think he's a person who is trying to do in many ways what I hope I'm trying to do and that is to say let's quit what I call ‘horizontal politics.' Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. I think the country is looking for somebody who is vertical, who is thinking, ‘Let's take America up and not down,' and people will forgive you for being left or right if you go up." (Source)

    I believe I've also heard other Republican candidates praising Obama for this.

    That's pretty much exactly what I said. However, Obama was the one who originally used that as his message. It wasn't until much later that all the other candidates started embracing "change" also.

    I agree.

    Sure, but there were also those of us who opposed it to begin with. There were those of us who needed further evidence for these alleged WMDs and would have never gotten involved in a full scale war based on nothing. That shows good judgment, so it is a pretty big deal.

    I realize this. You think she would have been elected senator if she had never been first lady? Obama didn't stand on anyone else's shoulders to get where he is.

    The UK, Australia, and Canada all have some form of free health care and it has worked out great.

    If you want to ignore global warming, go right ahead. But for those of us who actually care about the future of our planet and children, it's something that needs to be addressed. You think things will go well if we continue producing waste the way we are?

    I agree, but it's a step in the right direction. In my opinion, none of the candidates who support full legalization stand a chance of getting elected.
     
  6. He isn't for full-on legalization, but would definitely reduce sentences for non-violent crimes. He also supports a state's right to legalize medical marijuana and would end the federal raids.

    He has proposed over $80 billion in tax cuts for the lower and middle class

    He isn't quite as non-interventionist as Ron Paul, but he would never invade a country without a legitimate reason. He was against the Iraq War to begin with. One thing that also stands out is that he's willing to talk to our enemies and try to work out differences rather than refusing to cooperate with them. I think a president like that would make a world of difference.
     
  7. how is he on global warming ?
    Oil companies prices?
    and saving animals throguht the world ?
    and ones in our own backyard that are disapeering due to hunting for profit,construction?
    and how is he on enivromental protection and keeping the earth the way it was ?
     
  8. Here's a little bit about his Energy/Environment Policy:

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

    http://obama.senate.gov/issues/environment/

    I don't know if he's said much about protecting animals, but he does have a general concern for the environmental protection.

    Here's some information about a wide variety of issues and where Obama stands:

    http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

    http://obama.senate.gov/issues/

    http://answercenter.barackobama.com

    http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
     
  9. its not that i have a problem with his message i like it but in reality i feel its just another empty promise. and my case is based on the facts, fact one you can talk about breaching the party lines and bringing all together, but it aint gonna happen, first he hasnt got the diplomatic experiance to pull that off, and regardless of what some of those senators who professed thier faith in obamas message said pubicly, what they say in private is a different matter. this message also sounds strikingly familliar to the one of geoge w. bushes 2000 message of "i'm a uniter, not a devider"

    And i've heard that most of the cash feeding his campaign is from large corperations and the nuclear energy sector, which just seem to not jive with his message. he promises change and offers no real solutions. also hes not been hit with the hard questions yet that will be asked if he gets the nomination.

    look, ill admit im a republican but i see nothing there thats viable on the republican side, and nothing really on the democrat side. i think we're fucked either way and i told my wife after this election im registering libratarian.
     
  10. I'm sure he doesn't have any more of those type donations than the other major candidates. He has said that he doesn't accept money from lobbyists or PACs. He did in the past, but has given that money back. Here's an article about his fundraising:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/238922,CST-EDT-sweet01.article

    But really, does it matter where the money comes from? To me, it's more of a slap in the face to the corporations than it is for the candidate. They're the ones who choose how to use the money. After all, Ron Paul has accepted funds from a white supremacist organization and everyone seems to love him anyway:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-20-paul-donation_N.htm

    I think he offers plenty of viable solutions if you pay attention... check out the sites I posted above.
     
  11. I disagree with just about everything you say, but I only have a few minutes to reply.

    First, when you vote for anybody other then the person you think would do the best job (you seem to admit that Congressman Paul's ideas are good, but just think he doesn't have a chance.) defeats the whole purpose. Finally we have a candidate who has been absolutely consistent throughout his career. He's in it for Americans, not for his own career! I think its unfair to even call him a politician with the guys we've had in American politics.

    Obama is my second choice. Depending on what happens later on down the line, I may vote for him. I will definetly NOT vote for anybody in the Republican party who isn't a Ron-Paul Republican. I think Hillary is a cunt, although I wouldn't mind seeing Bill Clinton living in the white house again. :hello:

    I'm just really sick of this two party system. Ron and Barak are the only two advocating national unity :cool:
     
  12. Christ, who the fuck cares???
     
  13. Let me explain myself a little better.... I think Ron Paul has some very good ideas, but overall I agree with Obama on more issues. What I don't like about Ron Paul is that his positions are all so extreme, I don't think it's worth taking the risk. Anytime you go making huge changes to the government, a "revolution" as his supporters are calling it, there's the opportunity for drastic failure. In other words, Obama has a much smaller margin of error. The changes he wants to make are much more gradual and in my opinion, have a much better chance of actually working.

    Take Congressman Paul's stance on the Iraq War for example. He wants to withdraw all troops immediately not only from Iraq, but from the rest of the world. I agree we basically need to have a non-interventionist foreign policy, but you can't just leave after centuries of involvement across the world and expect everything to work itself out. We've done a lot of damage that needs to be gradually worked on, not abandoned altogether. There's a difference between having a military presence and fighting a full on war. Ron Paul was completely right when he said 9/11 happened because we were over there messing with them in the first place. But now that it happened, we can't just sit back and do nothing. Bin Laden and other al Qaeda operatives are still alive and well in the mountains of Pakistan, a country slowly falling into disorder. Bush had no problem catching Hussein, but somehow the legitimate enemy has gone ignored. What I'm saying is there are several problems we still need to deal with before we just run and hide.

    Obama supports a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, and in my opinion that would be best. We need to tie up loose ends, give them the ability to maintain order, and slowly back off. Simply leaving would create the potential for more attacks against ourselves.

    Here's my logic.... I could vote for Ron Paul, a candidate who has very little chance of winning. To me, it's inevitable that he isn't going to get the Republican nomination (especially where I live), so then my vote would be wasted. On the other hand, Hillary and Obama are pretty much neck and neck on the Democratic side. Just a handful of votes could swing the election either way. Like you, I definitely do not want Hillary in office. If it came down to her versus any of the Republican candidates besides Paul, I might end up voting for her but I'd much rather see Obama in that spot. I think the vast majority of voters would rather see pretty much any Republican over Hillary. Over half of the nation has said they wouldn't vote for her. Therefore, I'm going to use my vote to actually make a difference and get Obama the Democratic nomination. He has a very good chance of winning in my state (SC) and I don't want to give Hillary a chance.
     
  14. Simply an excellent post CS, well thought out and logically defended.

    Stay green.
     
  15. Yes, I agree. I would love to have Ron Paul as president, but his views are to "extreme" for a republican and he will not win candidacy. Obama is the next best choice.
     
  16. I would say vote for anyone who is not a republican. It is unfortunate that Americans cannot see themselves as others see them. Polls done in other countries as to who they would like to see win greatly favour the Democrats. In Canada, for instance, 80% favored the Democrats. Even those who considered themselves conservatives favored the Dems. The most frightening thing about the GOP is their close connection to religious fundamentalists of the Christian Right (Christianity's version of the Taliban.) Most countries try to separate church and state and thus keep ignorance and superstition out of the governing process but this line has become blurred of late in the US.
    Speaking of the Taliban, I am sure that they are praying for a GOP win as they seem to be able to manipulate the Bushites into doing what they want. George Bush certainly made Bin Laden's day when he attacked Iraq. It's not often anyone gets to watch one of their hated enemies destroy another as Bush did to Saddam. (Saddam was second only to George the Lesser on Osama's hate list.)
    One thing is certain, drug law reform will never come from the Republican's.
     
  17. dude i care. dont you care if you go to jail for pot ? it seems like my neck on the line is on the top of my list . I see Iraq and the economy as more important issues but Pot is definetly the thrid on my list. cause it greatly changes my life next. Which is why and should be the reasons why people choose important issues.


    P.S. dude grow up.
     

  18. I don't blame you cause your Canadian, but Ron Paul is the dopest Republican ever.
     
  19. All you Ron Paul fans and doubters should be informed that Ron Paul took second place in the Nevada Primary, and is currently sitting second and has a very good chance at first place in Louisiana's caucus. They are still counting provisional ballots which are mostly Ron Paul supporters.

    This is huge news, if Ron does pull first place out, as long as no one takes 50% or higher in the GOP Primary there, he will get the most delegates and be sitting in second place among the delegate standings, right below Romney and above McCain.

    The MLK Free at Last money bomb day brought in over $1.85 million, and now we have raised almost $3.5 million since the start of the new quarter in the beginning of January.

    Thompson has dropped, Guiliani will drop after he loses in Florida, and Huckabee will be the next to drop after that. They are both broke as jokes. Their staffers are going without pay, and if Guiliani doesn't win Florida he's done. (He has no chance). Huckabee's support is steadily decreasing because people see he really is a wack-job and even his evangelical base is leaving him. McCain got the majority of evangelicals in South Carolina. Unless a miracle happens for McCain, he will drop because he's broke and I think he may die personally, haha. He's a complete liberal democrat in the republican base, and most republicans don't like him.

    So don't skip out on Ron Paul because you think he has no chance, infact we have a hell of a chance!

    This is a marathon, not a sprint, and we have the endurance.

    And now I will go back through with multi-quote and asses all of your statements again, cosmicserpant you convieniently didn't reply back to my questions and statements in the fuck obama thread, in which I bumped with more information, so I might as well carry them on again. Expect my post soon.
     
  20. I can only give my vote to someone who I really feel close to as far as political ideas. And that for me is Ron Paul. It doesn't matter that some people, and the MSM (Mainstream Media) try to slander him and say he doesn't have a chance. The voting process should ALWAYS be about who you think has the best ideas and is the best man for the job. I don't see real change in anyone but Paul. I think voting for someone because "they are the lesser of two evils" leaves us, (We The People), in a place where we're giving up our own ideas about who we want in the white house to the MSM, and the projected "front runners". We're basically saying, "I'm for all these great ideas, but when it comes down to it I try to think "realisitcly" and vote accordingly" and we define what "realistic" is by what we're told. Trust me, if the MSM was praising Paul, and full endorsing his pro-freedom, pro-constitution, pro-sound money policy, Paul would win in a landslide, no doubt. The average American (who has a mind of their own) really does vibe with a lot of what Ron Paul says, so why not have him in the White House? It's due to the influence of those who benefit from what Ron Paul is trying to stop.

    Man, FUCK THAT! What we need to do is realize what works, what doesn't, and what will help us in the future. I don't care how extreme Ron Paul may sound, because frankly, if his strong respect for the constitution and people's individual freedoms sounds EXTREME, you really have to question the State of the Union! How is it that we are looking at a man that says "Look, here are all your freedoms back, stop paying all this money that you earned, keep it, we're going to become a stronger nation, etc etc" and saying "ehh you don't have a chance buddy" Hello? That alone is reason enough to consider actually voting for him and sticking up for your beliefs no matter what.

    I will be frank, I doubt Obama would really make things any better. You see, what we're doing right now ISN'T working! Thus, Canidates who preach change in terms of what is accepted and what is Status Quo, really won't "change" anything! You have to propose a real different way of doing things, if you expect REAL results.

    Why do you think all the other canidates are against Paul? He is a threat to the power that the government has right now, he is a person who people identify with as he is pro-freedom. Why do you think all other republican canidates bound together against Paul in Louisina to try and get more delegates then him. He already had the most.

    I'll stop ranting, although there is tons I could say, what I basically want to say is this. There is a massive revolution happening in the way people view the role of government. Litterally hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of people are waking up to Ron's message and embracing it. More people are getting more politically active. This has only GOOD effects for us, the more people who put their 2 cents in the better for us.

    You should only vote for the best canidate to serve the people's interest and the security and saftey of our union, and the only man for that job is Ron Paul. In every catagory he is just simply amazing.
     

Share This Page