Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Hey Obama! ‘I don’t mind debate’ but no, I'll never vote for you again.

Posted 6 years ago on April 14, 2012, 8:18 p.m. EST by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

How many more blacks can we send to prison for weed? Let's find out!

President Barack Obama continued his opposition towards legalizing drugs, including marijuana, this weekend ahead of the Summit of Americans in Colombia.

“I don’t mind debate around issues like decriminalization,” Obama said. “I personally don’t agree that’s a solution to the problem. But I think that given the pressures a lot of governments are under. Under resourced, overwhelmed by violence, it’s completely understandable that they would look for new approaches. and we want to cooperate with them. I don’t think legalization of drugs is the answer.”

That's just mean-ingless.

The continued death and destruction is on you Mr. President. Keep talking out of both sides of your mouth and enjoy destroying good people's lives. Your a true leader and hero, NOT!

My God, could you stand for anything that doesn't have a Super PAC?



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

He has sold you out in every way possible.


[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 6 years ago

We are making so many strides toward racial equality. It really just that light and dark have been replaced by shades of GREEN! The haves and the have nots. Obama has got to be a real disappoint to blacks in particular because they had such high hopes for him.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago


Obama is going to get decriminalization of drugs through congress. And he's going to try during an election year, something sure to get him thrown out of office on his ear. Sure. And I've got a bridge to sell you. In the meantime, he has not threatened any other country with sanctions or anything else for choosing to legalize them. Instead he took a politically neutral, safe position about an issue he cannot change at all.

How horrible!!!!! What a betrayal!!!! How surprising!!!!(Not)

[-] 3 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Can he not do something about the administration? Maybe slash some budgets, fire some over zealous federal prosecutors...

He's not taking a safe position, he's trampled all over states rights and been a frickin' nightmare for the medical marijuana industry.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Firing "overzealous" prosecutors for enforcing drug laws in this country is political suicide. Same with not going after California. It would give the republitards the perfect excuse to label him - effectively - as a drug pusher, given the overwhelming conservatism of the population of this country, and the hysteria driven demagoguery of the current political realties.

Nor it that likely to change is his second term if he wins one, as what he does will effect election chances for congressmen and senators.

It is a sad reality, but it is still reality. In the current climate, no politician, except those on the extreme right, can do what they want to about any controversial issue (if, in fact, they want to) even if it is the right thing to do.

And simply because you and I see the reasonableness of decriminalizing certain drugs like marijuana, it doesn't mean that it is not a controversial enough issue for a large segment of the electorate to make it a non-starter for any politician on the national stage. That potato is simply too hot.

[-] 3 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Chris Christie released a Youtube video saying he is against the war on drugs and no-one cared. Pat Robertson just came out saying he thinks marijuana should be legal, no one cares. Ron Paul is against the war on drugs, no one cares (they care about his stance on other wars).

Legalization is polling at almost 50%... medical marijuana is like 80%...

I remember Obama being critical about the war on drugs and making promises not to go after states with medical marijuana regulations prior to getting elected... no one cared, in fact it probably got him votes.

This is 2012, not 1985... and a politician with some balls and four years ahead of him could quite easily end the war on drugs... pardon everyone convicted... and appoint someone into the Drug Czar's office who could re-educate the public.

Things don't CHANGE if you don't change them. Hence why he will go down in history as the most useless president there ever was.

I should add: People voted for change, they expected change, they would respect change; they didn't vote for mediocrity. His entire campaign for president was a hot potato, and then he chose to completely ignore almost everything he said, and do the exact opposite.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Chris Christie and Pat Robertson can say it because they are known conservatives. But no Democrat can say it without retribution. It is like Nixon going to China.. He could make peace with them precisely because he could not be accused of being soft on communism.

When Obama passed the health care reform law, he was tarred with accusations of "socialist". Conservatives were so pissed they formed the Tea Party. But is was a plan crafted by teh Heritage foundation and first put in place by Mit Romney. When Romney did it, no one accused him of socialism, and certainly no one did so about the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation either.

Obama can't now add arrows to the right wing quiver to be used against him. Obviously this is a bad situation, but one can't lay that all at Obama's feet. Yes, he was elected for promising change. But the major change he promised was an end to partisanship. And on his first day in office the republican leadership announced its main goal was to make sure that his presidency fail at everything, and have worked tirelessly to make that promise a reality. Bipartisanship can't happen from one side only.

On a personal note, i didn't vote for Obama during the primaries. I felt then that he was too willing to compromise and too naive in his assessment of the nature of the Republicans. This inability to do anything now is the result of exactly the kind of thing I was concerned about back then.

So, although I agree that decriminalization would be positive, Obama's previous misguided idealism, his unfounded faith that reason would be enough to convince opponents to compromise and not act like rabid attack dogs, is what put us in this situation now, given the current political realties.

[-] 3 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it drives me crazy that I don't see any democrats attacking the republicans on the issue of small government when it comes to the drug war...

You look at all the wasted money and foregone tax revenue (from a source other than rich wall street types)... not to mention the number of (mostly black) prisoners, people dropping dead in Mexico, the never ending assault on innocent people and civil liberties. Its quite disgusting.

Maybe the democrats need a better strategist, because republican support for the drug war is the most obvious example of hypocrisy in politics. It shouldn't be that difficult to put an end to, the science is there, the public support is almost there... and would be there if someone pushed the issue.

If republicans complain, he should get on national television and say: "I smoked Marijuana, I enjoyed it, and I became President of the United States, and so can you!

...and do you know what the difference between me and those thousands of poor black kids in prison who will never amount to anything because they are saddled with criminal records for Marijuana use is? They got caught, and I didn't."

That being said, I think you're actually understating the situation. He looked and spoke like a leader before the election. Now he looks like useless tool who can't even write his own speeches. He's had 3.5 years to figure out that republicans won't play nice, and he continues to sign all of their crappy legislation anyway... what has he got to lose for standing up for America?

He won the last elected based on promising to at least try to do what he said, now he has basically pissed off everyone who got behind him, and shows no sign of slowing down.

Bottom line for him is that he is going to lose the election because he decided to break all his promises. Including one not to raid medical dispensaries which are supported by over 80% of the national population.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

"Maybe the democrats need a better strategist"

I couldn't agree more! But tragically that's water under the bridge now. Maybe, if OWS and other leftist organizations can change the tenor and substance of the dialogue enough, we can see it in our lifetime, not only in terms of better strategists, but more honest political debates and decisions.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Well I sure hope so...

In all honesty, I have this funny feeling that new Presidents get a JFK talk which goes something like "if you try that you're going to get shot; btw here is your 4 year agenda, and this here is Agent Bob who will be writing all your speeches for you from now on... if you tell anyone about Agent Bob, you will also be shot."

Hopefully one day I will be proven wrong, and will once again believe that voting is not just a thin veneer over a military run dictatorship that is used to placate the masses by making people think they are actually in control of the system. :p

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

I think voting is a bit more than that, but perhaps not by much.

I also don't think that the "talk" you mention is really the issue. I think we live in a nation that is largely innumerate, myth-driven, and subject to every manipulation in the book. In other words, conservative.

It is among the reasons I support OWS: it is changing, however incrementally, the dialogue.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Well I'll agree with that last part. If nothing else "Investment Banker" is now probably hoovering somewhere between Lawyer and Politician in terms being considered a prestigious occupation.

And a lot more people are now aware of the problems. It was a pretty hard fight to get attention in the MSM, but they finally caved (sort of). That's a start.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

I think he means to say the health care lobbyists think its bad for business... and the CIA would require extra funding if they couldn't run drugs... and the DEA layoffs would add to his unemployment statistics...

Doing the right thing is hard, nobody likes seeing people dropping dead at a rate of 1 per hour but you gotta prioritize when your President.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 6 years ago

Well, that's exactly what one would expect from a sitting US President. Let's see, . . . do the right thing for the people of the Western hemisphere or continue to make millions if not billions in dirty money by keeping it illegal.