Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is It Immoral to Vote for Obama?

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 6:52 p.m. EST by mcdynamite (-1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Is It Immoral to Vote for Obama? by MIKE WHITNEY

I don’t like mixing politics with morality, but sometimes it’s unavoidable. What I mean is this: how can anyone cast a ballot for a man who they know will continue to kill people in other countries merely to advance US policy objectives? That’s the question people need to ask themselves.

Under normal circumstances, I can understand the “lesser of two evils” theory of voting, just as I can understand why people would think that Obama would be better president than his GOP opponent. But these aren’t normal circumstances, are they? After all, we’re not just talking about which candidate might be more inclined to protect Social Security or Medicare. We’re talking life and death. The question is whether one is willing to throw their support behind a policy that kills people in exchange for the presumed protection of Social Security?That’s a pretty cynical calculation.

Knowing what we know now, we can say with 100% certainty that Obama will continue killing people wherever he deploys the US military, the US intelligence services and US drones. How can anyone in good conscience sign on to that type of thing?

Now I know people will say,”If you don’t vote for Obama, you’re handing the White House and our children’s future over to crackpots and extremists”.

This is a very persuasive argument, but it’s also misleading. The real issue is whether one is willing to support the administration’s policies, policies that we all know will continue to kill defenseless women and children wherever the US is involved.

At present, there’s only one antiwar candidate on the ballot, Ron Lawl. And while I bitterly disagree with him on economic and social matters, these issues pale in comparison to America’s homicidal foreign policy. If the balloting were held today, I would vote for Paul in a heartbeat and I would try to convince others to do the same.

As for those who choose to vote for Obama; that’s fine, only, please, don’t pretend you don’t know what the consequences will be.

25 Comments

25 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 3 years ago

Both choices are immoral but you will probably find on in your best interest.

You and never made such a choice before? You are kidding. Suck it up and do the best thing for your family. Try the better of two goods, if it will make you feel better. You aren't going to be faced with that choice anyway with the likelyhood of getting one or the other having any significant likelyhood.

Sure, write in, Ron, or Nader, or Colbert. We are counting on you,

[-] 0 points by screwtheman (122) 3 years ago

Yes.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Truthseeker99 (99) 3 years ago

what consequence will happen if RP is elected and ends social security and medicare? He is a total libertarian. I agree with some of his ideas, not all. And we can't just totally withdraw from the rest of the world. We tried that before Pearl Harbor.

[-] 1 points by reddy2 (256) 3 years ago

He has already said he wont remove those payments.

He believes in diplomacy - not withdrawing from the world - so if anything he wants more communication not less.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 3 years ago

You do realize that as President he couldn't end either program and the Congress would never go for it. He can set the tone and try to guide policy, but the President can do little more than write Executive Orders without Congress.

[-] 0 points by reddy2 (256) 3 years ago

I agree.

Ron P.aul will stop the illegal immoral wars for oil that kill people indiscriminately.

Obama is a puppet of Wall St and anyone who gives this man their vote is a hypocrite.

Most of the negativity relating to P.aul on this forum relates to deregulation but P.aul will be blocked from achieving much if not all of this.

What he will achieve will change the face of the world - he will be the PEACE president.

Obama will never defy the military industrial complex. P.aul speaks openly and honestly about this subject while Obama reads his scripted lies from his teleprompter.

[-] -1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 3 years ago

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 3 years ago

If you had a tumor in your lung would you have an awful operation and had it removed or would you "know" your were going to live another 50 years and do nothing? You must know Mr Flip Flop will start wars as the solutioon to build our economy and you know the Randist will change our economy till people starve and die of a cold.
This is not a moral test - it is a reality test.
Remember - if there was no ralph -
we would not have had georgie and Iraq etc etc etc

[-] 0 points by tomcat68 (298) 3 years ago

don't forget the Thinking half of America realizes the "crackpots and extremists" are the Democrats

[-] 0 points by TheCloser (200) 3 years ago

Voting is a sacred and private right. Not a moral issue in any context. On the face of it, this post is silly.

[-] 0 points by Denofearth (41) 3 years ago

Here's an idea! Let's hold a new Constitutional Congress to determine how best we proceed as a nation and what parts of the constitution we may want to ... shall we say upgrade. The Congress itself would be comprised of average Americans, selected from the latest census by lottery. Moooahahah.

[-] 0 points by fetacheeseplease (42) 3 years ago

let's be honest, it doesn't matter who we vote for at this point: don't pretend like any significant change is gonna come from whoever is next elected. mitt romney? cain? perry? obama? let's not be naive in thinking that anyone, republican or democrat is going to change anything at this point. they're all puppets who just talk and talk and talk, but they're not even the ones running the show.

[-] 1 points by reddy2 (256) 3 years ago

I think it does matter.

Even though Americans are waking from their slumber, it will take some time.

The elections will take place regardless - why not vote for the candidate who is committed to peace?

[-] 0 points by Oneofmany (85) 3 years ago

The system itself is ancient and corrupt. Until we change it we aren't going to adapt to rising populations and depleted resources. The names can keep changing but the real issues aren't going to go away.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 3 years ago

You have some points but the best is that we MUST keep the crackpots, crackheads and religious extremists out or we will be back in Nixonland. Remember that?

[-] 1 points by mcdynamite (-1) 3 years ago

Seems like Paul represents peace and freedom via following the constitution..... naturally the only thing you can can do is slander and name call because you'd lose a reasonable debate in five seconds. Admit it - you'll vote for Obama even though he represents everything you pretend to stand against

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 3 years ago

No. But I will vote for him unless someone better comes along. Even republicans don't want Paul. Why should someone who detests everything they represent?

[-] 1 points by mcdynamite (-1) 3 years ago

I will vote for him....... enough said. You proved my point completely. HA HA HA. You pretend to hate Bush and you pretend to disprove of Obama begrudgingly yet their foreign policy and collusion with the banks is identical. You can't even articulate a single substantive difference between them can you?

[-] -2 points by raines (699) 3 years ago

Paul doesn't think that Iran is a threat,....to anyone. Sorry, that's a deadly posistion to take.

[-] -1 points by mcdynamite (-1) 3 years ago

Says you.... care to back that up with some arguments or are you just counting on people to be scared of middle easterners generally knowing nothing about the country or their capabilities?

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 3 years ago

Are you talking about Ron Lawl? He's on record saying Iran poses nuclear threat. You really believe that?

[-] 1 points by mcdynamite (-1) 3 years ago

Look at your two posts!!!! This is why we are in such a gigantic mess in this country there is a critical thinking crisis. There is no record of Paul saying Iran poses a nuclear threat. I think this was a typo though. I think you meant to say "He's on record saying Iran poses NO nuclear threat." This is absolutely true. Iran poses no nuclear threat to the United States. Prove that it does. Why are you so afraid of the world?

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 3 years ago

Iran poses no nuclear threat? THEY DO !!!!

[-] -2 points by Jimboiam (812) 3 years ago

Anyone But Fuckin Obama.

[-] -2 points by nikka (228) 3 years ago

Yes.

Not just for the reasons you enumerate, but Yes.