Is the a third option?
January 19, 2012 5:00 PM Subscribe
How can I reconcile a vote for Obama given his human rights mis-steps?
This morning I posted a status update on Facebook linking to Andrew Sullivan's defense of Obama on the Daily Beast. In the comments of my update I got into an argument with a guy I know about the ethical considerations of a vote for Obama. Fighting on the internet is pointless, fighting on Facebook doubly so. Or maybe not because now I'm questioning my support.
" at this point, it kind of is disturbing that obama-apologists think they have much to stand on. by re-electing barack obama you're willing to continue to have muslim children slaughtered by covert drones & cluster bombs, & america’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, & the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, & privacy eroded further by the unchecked surveillance state, & american citizens targeted by the president for assassination with no due process, & whistleblowers (julian assange) threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” & the fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, & a substantially higher risk of war with iran (fought by the u.s. or by israel with u.s. support) & the internet 'regulated' by SOPA & PIPA...
obama is drone bombing in 6 countries! the first black president just bombed north africa like---"
Which is all more or less trufax.
"The reason Obama's human rights abuses have gone largely unremarked upon by most Americans is not because they're apologists or because they approve of them, it's because they don't know about them or because the facts have been deliberately distorted by our government and media. The left has failed thus far in moving the national discussion away from inane bullshit. Most people don't even understand the implications of Citizens United.
If there were a credible alternative, that's who I would be voting for. There isn't. Instead we have Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum; three men that have openly, giddily pushed for war with Iran. The only major presidential candidate with a rational foreign policy plan is Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's domestic policy ideas are fucking crazy and disastrous for gays and women.
The United States is not an autocracy. The president doesn't have unchecked power. He's still beholden to the will of the people. Barack Obama is the one that we've got the greatest shot at exerting our influence on. He's not even close to the ideal option but he's what we've got to work with. "
Basically that Obama has pulled some nefarious shit but we can browbeat him into stopping and he also won't fuck the country domestically.
The conversation at that point basically devolved into him calling me an Obama apologist and reducing my argument to my being for torture because of the gays. Or something.
It's almost like Ron Paul would be better for the world, and four more years of this Barack Obama would be better for the country (in my opinion) and a vote for Obama is basically putting the domestic interests of the US above the greater interests of the world. This makes me uncomfortable. I can't be the first person to feel this but I'm having difficulty finding articles or editorials that discuss this issue.
I'm not at all libertarian, I'm pretty socialist actually. I read the crap out of Shock Doctrine. Can anyone point me toward the people talking about this? They don't necessarily have to be liberals. Holy crap, that's long. Sorry! Thanks.