?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

why I'm voting for Obama (again)

I think our reasons for voting are all historically interesting, so I wanted to get mine down. Back in the days when I used to vote libertarian I used to write these long entries trying to convince everyone else to vote that way too. I don't do that as much anymore, although I blog a lot on issues, now that I've voted with a major party twice in a row I don't feel like I can change many people's minds over to my side. We vote how we vote. But I wanted my reasons to be down somewhere.

Why I voted for Obama:
  • I do believe we should help the poor and tax the rich, to some extent. I'm an awful libertarian now. To put it simply, history has shown that when we left everything up to charity, a lot of kids starved to death. And the economy never really flourished, although there are lots of theories to the contrary. I am not a socialist, I don't want to bring the rich "down to our level", but there is some crap going on... the social security cap, for example. And capital gains rates lower than what Reagan set them at.
  • The right's assault on women's reproductive rights is more offensive than I can possibly describe. The republican party platform calls for a ban on all abortions, no exceptions. As a woman of childbearing age, I basically don't think they give a crap about my life or health. As soon as a sperm gets to a cell in me, whatever it does becomes more important than my life and health, they've even denied entirely that my health is at risk. No, I do not believe that a "good mother" would die for a non-viable fetus.
  • Four years in office and Obama started zero wars! That's a much better average than the last guy... and yes, I'm still mad about that.
  • I am glad someone did something about healthcare reform! Was it perfect? No, it was a little muddled in there... but that's politics. The fact is that someday we will shake our heads at the fact that insurance companies could give us "lifetime caps" or kick you off a plan WHEN you got sick. And insured women get free birth control! And young people, in their formative years, struggling to find jobs, their whole lives ahead of them... get to stay on their parents insurance!
  • Needed to vote liberal to counteract conservative voters' crazy-ass conspiracy theories about Obama being a kenyan or a muslim or a terrorist who "doesn't support the troops" or whatever. AKA, I don't want to be on the crazy side.


Why I won't be totally depressed if Obama loses:
  • Continued assault on general aviation in speeches got super old. Although there wasn't actually legislation behind those words... the user fees and depreciation changes that we thought could happen didn't happen, so I think (aka: hope) it was all class warfare talk. But it was still shitty. And stupid, since airplanes are a huge US export.


And finally, I just want to say that my friend tabloidscully bought up a good point elsewhere that really resonated with me. A lot of people are voting for Romney because the economy sucks, the jobless rate only fell from 10 something to 8 something during Obama's term, and we want to believe a guy who says he's got a plan. Well really, who knows? There are so many things outside a president's control, both sides are vague with their plans, both sides want to do a better job with the economy but we don't know what they'd really do, or if it'd work.

But we KNOW how Romney feels about women's rights, gay rights, and healthcare reform. I KNOW that Paul Ryan sponsored a fetal personhood bill, which would even make some forms of birth control illegal. I realize that this is why they're called "wedge issues" - to get people mad, give politicians something real to take a stand on that's different from the other guy. So in this vague world of politics, when sometimes the wedge issues are the only thing that's clear, that's what I'll vote on. They are very important to me.

Tags:

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
neuro42
Nov. 5th, 2012 11:42 am (UTC)
In fairness, Mittens has been every bit as insulting towards (general and non-general) aviation as Obama has.
nibot
Nov. 5th, 2012 08:34 pm (UTC)
really?
neuro42
Nov. 6th, 2012 01:23 am (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, I thought so. But now I'm not finding a lot to back that up. So maybe I'm wrong. There is the whole 'roll down the windows' nonsense, of course...

http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_01_2012_p0-501886.xml&p=2

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_08_2012_p52-501752.xml

So I'd say it's fairer to say that, like with many things, Mittens just has no clear position at all on GA/bizav. He's certainly no clear ally.

athene
Nov. 5th, 2012 02:33 pm (UTC)
Being a crazy-hippie-liberal living in Texas, I voted Green because my vote for Obama really won't count anyway. That being said, if Obama looses Texas by one vote I'll never forgive myself.

Edited at 2012-11-05 02:34 pm (UTC)
binaryprecision
Nov. 5th, 2012 03:14 pm (UTC)
I must disagree on the war point. Obama has waged war in Libya without congressional approval, sent drones into Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, escalated the war in Afghanistan, and delayed Bush's plan to end to the war in Iraq where we in fact still have troops stationed. Where's the liberal outrage?

Of course you know I disagree on some of your other points as well but this one is just blatantly incorrect. I'm no Romney apologist either.
nessalc
Nov. 6th, 2012 02:45 am (UTC)
Something I noticed
while it may or may not be entirely accurate, the only difference between the candidates on issues of foreign policy seems to be (and this is, or in my opinion should be, only tangentially related) how much money to spend on the military. Both were fine with the actions in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, etc. Neither seem to have problems with Guantanamo (despite Obama's original orders to close the place) or other "detention facilities", nor issues with the now-infamous "kill list". Again, all my information is second-hand, as I didn't watch the third debate, but for that, I see no difference between the two of them.
thesynergizer
Nov. 5th, 2012 05:55 pm (UTC)
so.well.said.
sio
Nov. 5th, 2012 07:57 pm (UTC)
Mitt has no plan to create jobs. more like outsource them. his precious Bain destroyed lots of companies and outsourced lots of jobs. people are too blind to see that little fact.

not to mention Obama believes in us women getting equal pay. like 99% of Republicans, Romney opposed the Ledbetter Act. not surprising...the only woman he remotely cares about is that bitch he's married to, and she's never lifted a finger a day in her life to do real work. i don't count being a mother because nannies did all the real work with those kids.

ETA: tabloidscully has a good point but the bit she didn't mention: Obama has brought THREE job creation bills to the table, and the Republican-run Congress REFUSED to work with him and pass them. so really it's not his fault--he tried. it's the GOP who want to see people out of work.

Edited at 2012-11-05 08:00 pm (UTC)
hitchhiker
Nov. 6th, 2012 03:53 am (UTC)
> To put it simply, history has shown that when we left everything up to charity, a lot of kids starved to death.

even if people hadn't starved, leaving things to charity perpetuates the twisted thinking behind the phrase "the deserving poor".
(Deleted comment)
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow