Obama and the 2012 Election

So, I don't like Obama. I haven't liked him since 2008, but now he's become even worse.

So my question for you all is, do you think he should continue as president through the next four years, given his actions, mostly in the past year? As well, does the republican candidacy affect your opinion about whether or not he should be replaced?

The notable and extremely disconcerting actions of Obama in the past year, to me, are a) killing an American citizen on his own initiative because that man was a terrorist, without giving him a trial and without even considering incarcerating him (linkand b) making it difficult for women under the age of 17 to get Plan B (which was his administration, but he backed them up wholeheartedly, citing paternalistic sentiments that is NOT wanted by a President (link))

As for the republican candidacy, I can't see anyone but Ron Paul getting Obama out of office. Rick Perry is terrifying (see his anti-gay ad that he wholeheartedly approved), Rick Santorum is a hypocrite and also terrifying(link,link), Newt Gingrich, admittedly, I don't know much about, but he's a party line republican, which doesn't appeal to me much, and no one else is really in the running except Ron Paul.

For those who don't know much about Ron Paul, he considers himself a constitutionalist, and the media calls him a libertarian. He has some republican beliefs, such as being against gay marriage, and being against abortion- HOWEVER, he doesn't believe in Federal laws, he believes that each state should have the power to make their laws for themselves. Further, he actually has a concrete plan for reducing the deficit, he doesn't believe in Big government, he doesn't like the Federal Reserve, the FNMA, or any other big government companies. He would get rid of Obamacare (which most americans don't like).
Lastly, (and this is HUGE for me) he is the one and ONLY candidate who has held the same beliefs since the 70s or earlier. In the past decade alone, Rick Perry has gone from being a democrat to being a republican. And people were seriously considering him to be the President.

So what's your view. Do you think Obama should continue? Which Republican should replace him? Do you like Ron Paul?

Okay, for one thing Obama did not make it harder for young women to get Plan B. The Department of Health and Human Services did. He backed up their decision, but he did not make their decision. While I'm not a fan of that, I would rather move to Canada that vote for a Republic president, especially in this election.

While I may not agree with all of Obama's decisions, he stands behind his decisions, unlike the majority of the Republican candidates who either repeatedly change their mind on record, are linked to racism, are linked to both consensual and non consensual sex acts, who say they believe in the family while having multiple extramarital affairs, who are against rights for gay people, who are against rights for working class Americans, who don't care about people over corporations, who are against abortion.

I also don't like how everyone seems to think it's so evil for Obama to try and give healthcare to Americans who can't afford it. It makes me sick. I would probably cut off a finger to get good healthcare.

I'm voting Obama and I voted him in the last election. I don't agree with everything he's done, but every president [regardless of political affiliation] makes mistakes. And I am going to disagree with a lot less of Obama's decisions than I would a Republican candidate who wants to strip rights from me and my sisters. (Neither me nor my sisters identify as heterosexual.)

To me, the perspective of the US getting a president who is actively against affirmative action (source), wants to overturn Roe vs Wade (source), dismantle the UN (source), has no problem supporting financial people found guilty of genocide (he was the only person who voted no on the motion to suspend support towards companies which sufforted the Sudanese government after Darfur - source), believes children are their parents' private property so parents should be allowed to deny life-saving treatment for their children because the government should never be allowed to involvement in the life of children (I wish I was joking about this, but it's true - source, he also voted against laws aimed at offering children better protection online because having to report a child pornography website once you find out about it puts your civil liberties at risk), that employers should be allowed to fire people for whatever reason they want, including race or religion and that equal pay for equal work is detrimental and should not be guaranteed under any circumstances (source), that homeless people are 'tramps' and should be left to die on the streets (source) is extremely worrying. I was never really a big fan of centre-right politicians, but I can see their appeal and I admit that they have sometimes pulled through and done the best for their countries. But this is not centre-right politics, this is far right politics bordering on fascism. The idea that thousands of people are willing to vote Paul Ron as president just blows my mind, it seems absolutely incredible.

Let me quote your sources, as I know a lot of people won't.

For being actively against affirmative action, I can agree with his sentiment:

Quote

I do not support any government action that strips citizens of their own individual integrity. It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender, and government-administered affirmative action is no exception. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government has come to think it can best decide who succeeds and who fails, and thus breeds hostility and suspicion in others. Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. The true antidote to this is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence --not skin color, gender, or ethnicity

Affirmative action DOES divide people more than it bring them together. His point about "individual achievement and competence" has huge merit. For people to suffer because of quotas not being filled is bad. For a woman to be hired before a more skilled man is bad. For anyone who isn't a young white man to get hired before a young white man on the basis of them not being a young white man is stupid and racist. (Please don't bring reverse racism into this either).

For being against Roe v. Wade, I can also support this, because it's similar to many other situations. His exact words:

Quote

Roe v. Wade nationalized the issue of abortion, and it has ripped our country apart ever since. I support taking jurisdiction over abortion law away from federal courts and allowing the states to set their own abortion policies, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade without a new Supreme Court decision. Because the Constitution neither gives the president nor Congress any authority to act in these areas, I will abide by the decision of each state and will not seek to interfere.

He directly says that he supports taking jurisdiction away from federal courts. You know what that would do? Marijuana would be legal (completely) in California. The drug war fights between the federal and state departments would go away. That would save tax money.
You know what else? If the majority of the people in a state are against Roe v Wade and want to overturn it, that's their prerogative. I don't agree and never will agree with big government. Nor do I think people should be against abortion, but that's for them to decide, not the federal government.

As for the UN, it's not a point on it's own and your link doesn't say anything... But here's what he said (and the question.)

Quote

WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TOP THREE OVERALL PRIORITIES IF ELECTED?
My first priority would be to bring our troops home as soon as possible. I would further address our national security by strengthening our border security with Mexico and Canada, seeking to remove America from the entangling alliances the Founders warned us against entering, and returning to the constitutionally mandated principle that all wars must be declared. I would work with Congress to remove us from the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF, NAFTA, and CAFTA, while promoting true free trade with and travel to all nations. And I would once again focus on the search for bin Laden. My second priority would be to address the abuse of civil liberties here at home. I would seek the repeal of the PATRIOT Act, the Military Tribunals Act, and other legislation that gives the federal government powers to invade our private lives. My third priority would be to return the United States to a sound monetary policy by abolishing the Federal Reserve, balancing the budget, and requiring that the only currency manufactured by the federal government be that allowed by the Constitution: gold and silver-backed currency.

You're specifically bothered by the one thing (about the UN). Tell me, how much do you know about the Oil For Food in Iraq?
Wikipedia page on Criticism of the UN. And yes, anyone could have written it, but the sources for that page are good and it makes a good collaboration of information.
I think the UN has a place. I think it needs to have less power. I can also understand why Ron Paul wants to leave the UN. It's part of his position (which is huge, that he's actually consistent about his beliefs on ALL levels) that each country and state should be independent.

In the book you linked, I couldn't find anything that is actually that harsh in regards to children. Can you tell me the page/chapter? Same goes for the next two criticisms.

Do you support OWS? You know who doesn't believe in corporate bailouts? Ron Paul.
You know who receives tons of funding from Wall Street? Obama and most other politicians.
Which congressmen have refused a congressional pension? Ron Paul, Howard Coble and Tim Griffin.
Ron Paul has stated (and funnily enough, I believe a man who's been consistent since the 70s) that if he becomes President, he would accept a salary of $39,369, the median wage in the US.

The best line I've heard to sum up Ron Paul's beliefs = "His views on politics promote free choice without bigotry."

Quote

Okay, for one thing Obama did not make it harder for young women to get Plan B. The Department of Health and Human Services did. He backed up their decision, but he did not make their decision. While I'm not a fan of that, I would rather move to Canada that vote for a Republic president, especially in this election.

While I may not agree with all of Obama's decisions, he stands behind his decisions, unlike the majority of the Republican candidates who either repeatedly change their mind on record, are linked to racism, are linked to both consensual and non consensual sex acts, who say they believe in the family while having multiple extramarital affairs, who are against rights for gay people, who are against rights for working class Americans, who don't care about people over corporations, who are against abortion.

I also don't like how everyone seems to think it's so evil for Obama to try and give healthcare to Americans who can't afford it. It makes me sick. I would probably cut off a finger to get good healthcare.

I'm voting Obama and I voted him in the last election. I don't agree with everything he's done, but every president [regardless of political affiliation] makes mistakes. And I am going to disagree with a lot less of Obama's decisions than I would a Republican candidate who wants to strip rights from me and my sisters. (Neither me nor my sisters identify as heterosexual.)

Obama has veto power. There's a handful of other anti-choice and anti-women's rights bills that passed this year that he could have stopped, and didn't. This is an excellent summary, the most notable being the very first one on the list, which Obama could have done something about.
And if you're the president and you back up a decision that is completely unfounded in medical science on the basis of being "the father of two daughters," then I can't really have faith in your decision making on the subject.

I agree with you about Republicans. I don't like any of them, except Ron Paul, and he's only part of the Republican party because he doesn't have a chance in hell of getting voted in otherwise.

The thing about health care isn't so much that it was passed, but how it was passed. They were underhanded and snuck it in on the back of another bill.

As for stripping rights, Ron Paul is less about taking them away and more about giving the ones you're supposed to have back to you. State government is supposed to control a lot of things they don't, and it's not good.

To point out some of the scary things Obama has done in the name of the war on terrorism:
-Killed Anwar al-Awlaki (which I would have supported, had he tried the American citizen in a court of law. A right to a fair trial is in the constitution, and it is the government's job to protect those rights)
-Authorized indefinite detention
-Refuses to close Guantanamo
-Extended the PATRIOT act (more big brother, more big government = bad)

And outside of terrorism, his stance on the economy is not healthy. Like most politicians, he follows the belief that more government in the economy is good, not bad.

Ron Paul sounds like David Cameron's idol. Ick.

Cameron believes in the Big Society which means that the government does less and you do more. All it means is cutting huge chunks of money from institutions that need them and blowing it on bullshit.

That man is raping our country and it was enabled by the tossing Lib Dems.

If that's the sort of crap you want then go right ahead.

Obama is a puppet.

States shouldn't get to overturn the rights of people, such as the right to make choices about their own body or the right to marry. While the states should be able to make their own laws, those laws cannot strip individuals of rights they should inherently have. I do not support hiding your prejudice behind the excuse of 'states should have the rights to make this decision'.

Kaylee Frye:

Affirmative action DOES divide people more than it bring them together. His point about "individual achievement and competence" has huge merit. For people to suffer because of quotas not being filled is bad. For a woman to be hired before a more skilled man is bad. For anyone who isn't a young white man to get hired before a young white man on the basis of them not being a young white man is stupid and racist. (Please don't bring reverse racism into this either).

Affirmative action's purpose is not to "bring people together", it's to level the playing field and offer people who are not middle-upper class young white men a chance at getting a job which matches their individual achievement and competence. This apocalyptic scenario of skilled men being passed over to hire incompetent women or minorities is a non-issue with little basis in reality. Last time I checked, 83% of the Congress is made up of men although women make up 50% of the population. And, don't worry, the overwhelming majority of those men are university degree holding old white men who used to be highly skilled young white men. There's actually not even a single African-American member in the Senate and in the whole of the Congress there's just one Native American member.

Quote

He directly says that he supports taking jurisdiction away from federal courts. You know what that would do? Marijuana would be legal (completely) in California. The drug war fights between the federal and state departments would go away. That would save tax money.
You know what else? If the majority of the people in a state are against Roe v Wade and want to overturn it, that's their prerogative. I don't agree and never will agree with big government. Nor do I think people should be against abortion, but that's for them to decide, not the federal government.

Roe vs Wade is not a federal law, it's not a decision the federal government took, it's a court ruling and made based on the 14th Amendment. Making it invalid means that you essentially make the Constitution invalid and put local government above it. Putting any governmental institution above the law like this is a profoundly anti-democratic because it means that ordinary citizens will no longer be able to appeal to courts of law to change undemocratic, unconstitutional laws, they'll be forced to accept them. Something like this doesn't just open the door to fascism and other kinds of authoritarian government, it opens the door and pushes us in. The moment local governments are allowed to go against the Constitution and impose laws ordinary citizens are not allowed to fight against, democracy will be dead in the US.

Quote

You're specifically bothered by the one thing (about the UN). Tell me, how much do you know about the Oil For Food in Iraq?

How different is the Oil For Food programme from Ron Paul's plans to do business with governments known for their human rights abuse like North Korea (source)? It's exactly the same reasoning (as long as they keep giving us money/resources, they can do all the human rights abuse they want, we don't care), it's just that instead of giving food and medicine to the population, it's going to give more money and power to totalitarian leaders to fund even bigger armies and oppress their population even more.

Quote

Wikipedia page on Criticism of the UN. And yes, anyone could have written it, but the sources for that page are good and it makes a good collaboration of information.
I think the UN has a place. I think it needs to have less power. I can also understand why Ron Paul wants to leave the UN. It's part of his position (which is huge, that he's actually consistent about his beliefs on ALL levels) that each country and state should be independent.

In what areas does the UN have too much power? When it punishes people who committed genocide (e.g. Rwanda)? When it runs global aid programmes which feed 90 million people (World Food Programme)? Or maybe it's when it steps in to protect civilians in armed conflicts (e.g. Bosnian War)? Allowing governments to rape, torture, starve and kill their population because it's a breach of "national independence" to do otherwise is again a profoundly anti-democratic idea because it places governments above the well-being of their citizens, governments then are no longer ruled by the people, the people is ruled by the government.

Children being private property:

Today permission (and frequently
the financing) for this treatment is given by the state to the medical profession
to treat adolescents. It has gotten to the point where the M.D. is absolutely
protected and relieved of any responsibility to the parents. Twelve-year-old
children deserve respect, love, and treatment in a nonviolent manner, but
parents who raise and are responsible for their children deserve to know what
others may be doing to them. Don't parents deserve at least the same respect
regarding their children as others expect regarding their property?
(page 29)

There is no such thing as sexual harassment:
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure
employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called
harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended,
but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?
Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If force
was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is hardly
an example of a violation of one's employment rights.

(One wonders if in this case rape would also be considered consensual in cases where the victim is threatened with a gun instead of being physically held down.)

Equal pay for equal work should be abolished and employers should be allowed to fire people on grounds such as religion or race:
The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible
task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea
of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume the
power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?
The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing
anyone for any reason he chooses and in the name of rights is a clear
indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.
(both page 25)

Funding shelters and soup kitchens is 'encouraging poverty', consequently we should just let homeless people die on the streets:
Americans today have more people living on the street than ever
before, in spite of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to eradicate
poverty. Of course, logic tells us that if you subsidize poverty, you'll get more
of it.
New York City is plagued with thousands of street people. On cold
nights this tragedy is more apparent. Mayor Koch's approach to protecting the
"rights" of the street people is to sue hotels which refuse to house the
homeless tramps. Another attempt to solve the problem has been to round up
and force the vagrants into shelters -- to eliminate the embarrassment of
people dying on Wall Street. The American Civil Liberties Union has come to
the rescue, saying that "arresting" the homeless against their will violates their
rights as citizens -- a reasonable assumption. But the ACLU provides another
solution by claiming the
poor have "a right to a decent home." The problem, they state, is the failure of
government to provide (or steal) sufficient funds to build enough tenement
housing. This confused notion of rights regarding the New York street people
clearly demonstrates how poorly the concept of rights is understood America

(page 26)

I also remember reading yesterday about how he thinks illegal immigrant should be refused emergency medical care (which, btw, is given to everyone regardless of their insurance status or the crimes they've committed, even people on death row get it), but I can't find the quote right now, I'll post it when I find it.

I would not vote Obama and I don't believe he should get a second term because he's misled many of his voters and failed to keep his electoral promises, however this doesn't mean that I'd vote for an anti-democratic candidate either.

Kaylee Frye:

HOWEVER, he doesn't believe in Federal laws, he believes that each state should have the power to make their laws for themselves.

This means he doesn't support things like the civil rights act, same sex marriage or federal scholarship plans that I rely on to attend my university. What this really means is that Ron Paul thinks everyone should be unequal, and how free you are depends on which state you happen to be born into. Gay teenager in Texas? Too bad, bullying laws don't have to protect you if the state doesn't want to. Think it's wrong to be forced say prayers in school? Too bad says Ron Paul, the Supreme Court should have never interfered with the states right to oppress non-Christians (and Christians who don't feel comfortable praying somewhere so public and irreligious, for that matter). The beliefs Ron Paul holds are some of the most dangerous and discriminatory of any mainstream American politician I know.

Kaylee Frye:

Further, he actually has a concrete plan for reducing the deficit,

Are you talking about the fact that he wants us to go back to a gold exchange economy? Because I hardly think you can call that concrete, let along realistic or feasible.

Kaylee Frye:

He doesn't believe in Big government, he doesn't like the Federal Reserve, the FNMA, or any other big government companies. He would get rid of Obamacare (which most americans don't like).

It's odd that someone who is against big government wants to be in a position to run one of the biggest governments in the world. And a lot of people say he would shrink it- yeah right. Congress will continue to be divided, and it's up to Congress to pass legislation for him to sign, and not all Congressmen, Democrats or Republicans, view "big" government the same way he does. Unless of course Ron Paul uses executive orders to close agencies and things of that nature, by my word wouldn't that be a huge perversion of his constitutionalist ethics? He would be creating the big government he's out to destroy.

Kaylee Frye:

Lastly, (and this is HUGE for me) he is the one and ONLY candidate who has held the same beliefs since the 70s or earlier.

This is what I like least about Ron Paul. He's un-adaptive and stubborn, and refuses to look at the world on modern terms, and his outdated policies would marginalize every person in the United States who doesn't fit a conservative ideal, which ironically includes the Libertarians who support him so much, even though he flip flops between the Libertarian and Republican party (didn't you chastise Rick Perry for party flopping?) and cannot show his constituents any concrete loyalty.

I didn't volunteer for Obama's campaign this year, at least not yet, because I too am frustrated with him, even though I will most likely vote for him because he's far superior to any of the socially oppressive, war happy Republican candidates, but I have indeed spent many a long hours volunteering to campaign against Ron Paul, because the image people have of him is such a lie. People, or mainly the college students I talk to at least, love his views on marijuana, capital punishment, drinking age and social things, all while not realizing Ron Paul does not think anyone should be guaranteed those rights, unless you happen to live in a liberal state that allows them. While Ron Paul says he's against big government, he really wants 50 big governments, all where Americans are treated unequally across state lines.

Don't understand why anyone even still bothers with politics, as if it isn't a joke.

^
I don't agree with the state of the government we have now, but that doesn't mean that it can't change or impact my daily life. To completely turn your back on government and then complain about it is quite hypocritical. Sometimes we have to do the best we can with a shitty system.

I don't agree with everything Obama does. But at least he's trying to give me healthcare, not take away welfare, and not take away gay rights.

drumouse.:

I don't agree with everything Obama does. But at least he's trying to give me healthcare, not take away welfare, and not take away gay rights.

I second this. I think he's trying and I do plan on voting for him again in November.

Airon:

Don't understand why anyone even still bothers with politics, as if it isn't a joke.

Because without it there'd be anarchy?

Alex; subterfuge.:

Because without it there'd be anarchy?

Not talking about the idea of government, talking about the current state of the government.

News Flash - The government will always be corrupt until major changes.

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." - Lysander Spooner

^Which is one of the big reasons I support Ron Paul. How about voting in a politician who doesn't want to support the status quo?

And while everyone is praising Obama for trying to give you healthcare, something you consider a right, no one seems to care about the fact that he is TAKING away constitutional rights, and rights guaranteed by the universal declaration of human rights.
Giving you shitty, broken health care, does not make up for the fact that Obama is trampling over the rights of people in other countries. Are they suddenly not human?

Alex; subterfuge.:

Because without it there'd be anarchy?

Without people being genuinely interested in and well informed with the state of politics we wouldn't have an anarchy, but an authoritarian regime. The only thing that keeps politicians in check and prevents them all from turning into dictators are voters.

Kaylee Frye:

^Which is one of the big reasons I support Ron Paul. How about voting in a politician who doesn't want to support the status quo?

And while everyone is praising Obama for trying to give you healthcare, something you consider a right, no one seems to care about the fact that he is TAKING away constitutional rights, and rights guaranteed by the universal declaration of human rights.
Giving you shitty, broken health care, does not make up for the fact that Obama is trampling over the rights of people in other countries. Are they suddenly not human?

Yeah, while Obama is "taking away constitutional rights", Ron Paul wants to do away with the Constitution completely and let local government decide on everything. I can see how that's a marked improvement from the current situation.

And, lol, a conservative rich old white dude is the embodiment of the status quo.

kafka.:

Yeah, while Obama is "taking away constitutional rights", Ron Paul wants to do away with the Constitution completely and let local government decide on everything. I can see how that's a marked improvement from the current situation.

And, lol, a conservative rich old white dude is the embodiment of the status quo.

Ron Paul is a staunch adherent to a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. All of his criticisms of the Federal Government come from the things it does not explicitly stated in the Constitution. He doesn't want to do away with the constitution, but literally everything else in the federal government.

Kurtni:

Ron Paul is a staunch adherent to a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. All of his criticisms of the Federal Government come from the things it does not explicitly stated in the Constitution. He doesn't want to do away with the constitution, but literally everything else in the federal government.

I see his stance on abortion as a desire to do away with the Constitution when it doesn't serve him to respect it. The basis of the legality of abortion is the fact that the Constitution says privacy and self-ownership are fundamental rights (9th Amendment). The Constitution also says in the 14th Amendment, states are specifically prohibited from imposing laws which rob people of their fundamental rights:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So saying that states should be allowed to decide which rights to respect and which to disregard goes against the Constitution.

Kaylee Frye:

^Which is one of the big reasons I support Ron Paul. How about voting in a politician who doesn't want to support the status quo?

As previously stated, Ron Paul is the status quo. Conservative white men in America are the status quo.

Quote

And while everyone is praising Obama for trying to give you healthcare, something you consider a right, no one seems to care about the fact that he is TAKING away constitutional rights, and rights guaranteed by the universal declaration of human rights.
Giving you shitty, broken health care, does not make up for the fact that Obama is trampling over the rights of people in other countries. Are they suddenly not human?

You want to give me something concrete to work for or just vague statements that could mean anything about any president ever?

Including Ron Paul, who wants a lot of constitutional rights and universal human rights to be voted on so they can be stripped from humans.

kafka.:

I see his stance on abortion as a desire to do away with the Constitution when it doesn't serve him to respect it. The basis of the legality of abortion is the fact that the Constitution says privacy and self-ownership are fundamental rights (9th Amendment). The Constitution also says in the 14th Amendment, states are specifically prohibited from imposing laws which rob people of their fundamental rights:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So saying that states should be allowed to decide which rights to respect and which to disregard goes against the Constitution.

He's against most Supreme Court decisions because judicial review is not an inherent power of the court granted in the constitution, not the principles of the decisions. He wants them to come about in other ways, though he would interpret exactly what you quoted to protect the rights of fetuses, I would imagine.

He looks at the Constitution in the most radical and unrealistic way you could ever imagine.