Am I a bad American...or facing a common dilema?
- Thread starter Playboypenguin
- Start date
To not vote at all because you are upset about the current candidates, or the current state of affairs does nothing to change them, only to allow the same people who made it that way in the first place to continue to be the ones who decide your fate for you.
You have a voice and a vote. USE IT! If enough people stand up in direct opposition of things, things WILL change. History is full of instances where men finally took enough, and STOOD UP! And things changed. Those men gave you the opportunity to stand up today. USE IT! (or lose it)
You have a voice and a vote. USE IT! If enough people stand up in direct opposition of things, things WILL change. History is full of instances where men finally took enough, and STOOD UP! And things changed. Those men gave you the opportunity to stand up today. USE IT! (or lose it)
Shadi Khalil
New member
What about the 935 lies that led us into war, with the backing of all but a handul of senators and congreesmen? Regime change in Iraq was the goverments policy before bush even began his illegal invasion / occupation (why they need 935 lies to implement policy is beyond me) This orgy of blood and chaos was our goverments policy. There are many other nations we have deemed fit for regime change and those invasions will also be part of standing american policy. The one on Iraq and Iran have been there since before i could vote. I dont want to support any new policies that kill more americans than it protects and attacks poor nations just because we dont, or some other nation does not like there leaders.
I pretty much agree with everything the original poster said.
Not only do we have terrible choices for President on both sides, I'm really tired of holding my nose and voting for the lessor of evils. At this point, I'll probably vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and sit out the general. I watched the Republican debate from Florida last night, and was underwhelmed by the frontrunners. I'll be very surprised if Romney doesn't end up the Republican candidate, against Hillary--some choice!
By the way, I just heard today that one of the chief Neocon architects of the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, has a new job, after losing his job heading the World Bank. He's been appointed to head a State department arms control committee. Gee, I wonder if he'll decide Iran needs to be attacked?
Not only do we have terrible choices for President on both sides, I'm really tired of holding my nose and voting for the lessor of evils. At this point, I'll probably vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and sit out the general. I watched the Republican debate from Florida last night, and was underwhelmed by the frontrunners. I'll be very surprised if Romney doesn't end up the Republican candidate, against Hillary--some choice!
By the way, I just heard today that one of the chief Neocon architects of the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, has a new job, after losing his job heading the World Bank. He's been appointed to head a State department arms control committee. Gee, I wonder if he'll decide Iran needs to be attacked?
Hmmm, I don't get the "I won't vote cause they all suck" thing. At the very least, think of it this way: Vote for the candidate who may appoint one or more Supreme Court justices who hold values close to yours. As far as I can tell, that's one of the few things our current President did well.
Whom do you think Hildabeast or Barak Hussein would appoint? I agree that they are all awful, but lets try to look at the big picture.
Whom do you think Hildabeast or Barak Hussein would appoint? I agree that they are all awful, but lets try to look at the big picture.
grymster2007
New member
IMO your voting record does not exactly establish you as a stellar example of an American. But that's in the past and I'll forgive you.
Moving forward; yes you certainly are facing a common dilemma.
My only advice is; while I'm pretty sure Hillary will be our next president, you could improve your societal standing by voting for (cringe) any one of the Republicans. (there are no emoticons that describe my feelings here)
Moving forward; yes you certainly are facing a common dilemma.
My only advice is; while I'm pretty sure Hillary will be our next president, you could improve your societal standing by voting for (cringe) any one of the Republicans. (there are no emoticons that describe my feelings here)
The problem with some of the current President's court appointees is that they seem to have little regard for the Constitutional rights of people suspected of even thought crimes, and no regard at all for international law in respect to treatment of those suspected of being "bad guys", winking at torture, oking permanent detention without trial, supporting secret prisons, etc.
I really don't mind if a foriegn citizen, picked up on the battlefield and fighting against US forces is held forever- which like the war on drugs and war on poverty, is how long the war on terror will last. What really cranks me up is how can you jail a US Citizen without charge for more than 48 hours? It doesn't matter how heinous his crime- even Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Manuel Noriega were charged within 48 hours and Manuel wasn't even a US Citizen and had committed acts of war against the United States (legitimate acts) and its officers on US Territory (the Panama Canal Zone).
No, I want to support this president and there are very logical reasons to do so, but logic and lawful and moral are different things. I believe they have acted unlawfully from the gitgo, and immorally in some instances. I believe the Armed Forces are stretched too thin and ordered to do things they aren't well-equipped to do, and are caught in a tug-o-war between the President and Congress and then you have the disgraceful way Gen. Petraeus was treated. That would have never happened if there were a Declaration of War versus some weak "authorization for the use of force."
Nope- I want to support this president, but when I remove myself from team-think mentality, it becomes difficult to do. Even more so since I still have friends serving that I grew quite close to while I was in way back when. Yet even worse when I find that a vast majority of the people who support the war pay such a small price for it and those who do the fighting aren't fully aware of the price they'll pay for it yet. Friends at work tend to support it wholeheartedly but have never served a day in uniform, have never seen a soldier get the dreaded "dear John" letter while deployed, have never got the Red Cross notice that your loved ones passed away while you were stuck in Bagdhad etc... Wars have a financial, social and human cost that I'm not certain those who advocated for it have ever seen or will ever have to pay. To them, war is something antiseptic that you inflict on others. So before we go to war, we need to know that 1. we were attacked or an attack is imminent (Makes it moral). 2. There is absolutely no other way (makes it the best economic choice), and 3. it is legal and by legal, Congress declares it officially and pledges the assets of the entire United States to achieve the goal, and 4. has a well-defined victory i.e.: Unconditional Surrender.
In this case the defined victory was 1. Removal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party from power. That was accomplished in 2003. and 2. Enforcement of all pertinent UN Resoultions (WMD), which also was accomplished by the end of 2004. So why are we still over there? One reason- Nation Building.
No, I want to support this president and there are very logical reasons to do so, but logic and lawful and moral are different things. I believe they have acted unlawfully from the gitgo, and immorally in some instances. I believe the Armed Forces are stretched too thin and ordered to do things they aren't well-equipped to do, and are caught in a tug-o-war between the President and Congress and then you have the disgraceful way Gen. Petraeus was treated. That would have never happened if there were a Declaration of War versus some weak "authorization for the use of force."
Nope- I want to support this president, but when I remove myself from team-think mentality, it becomes difficult to do. Even more so since I still have friends serving that I grew quite close to while I was in way back when. Yet even worse when I find that a vast majority of the people who support the war pay such a small price for it and those who do the fighting aren't fully aware of the price they'll pay for it yet. Friends at work tend to support it wholeheartedly but have never served a day in uniform, have never seen a soldier get the dreaded "dear John" letter while deployed, have never got the Red Cross notice that your loved ones passed away while you were stuck in Bagdhad etc... Wars have a financial, social and human cost that I'm not certain those who advocated for it have ever seen or will ever have to pay. To them, war is something antiseptic that you inflict on others. So before we go to war, we need to know that 1. we were attacked or an attack is imminent (Makes it moral). 2. There is absolutely no other way (makes it the best economic choice), and 3. it is legal and by legal, Congress declares it officially and pledges the assets of the entire United States to achieve the goal, and 4. has a well-defined victory i.e.: Unconditional Surrender.
In this case the defined victory was 1. Removal of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party from power. That was accomplished in 2003. and 2. Enforcement of all pertinent UN Resoultions (WMD), which also was accomplished by the end of 2004. So why are we still over there? One reason- Nation Building.
nobody_special
New member
I'm not thrilled with any of the candidates. That said, abstention from voting only contributes to the problem. My suggestion is to write in the candidate of your choice. I'll probably write in Ron Paul.
Unlike most here, I'm not a die-hard conservative; I have liberal-libertarian tendencies. Do I want Ron Paul for president? No. Do I agree with his platform? Only in certain fairly narrow, but important areas such as fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and abiding by the rule of law. (What a shocking idea, that the government should be subject to law.)
It's a protest vote. I know he won't get elected, I don't think he'd make a great president, but a show of votes might send a message of dissatisfaction to whoever does get elected.
Unlike most here, I'm not a die-hard conservative; I have liberal-libertarian tendencies. Do I want Ron Paul for president? No. Do I agree with his platform? Only in certain fairly narrow, but important areas such as fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and abiding by the rule of law. (What a shocking idea, that the government should be subject to law.
)It's a protest vote. I know he won't get elected, I don't think he'd make a great president, but a show of votes might send a message of dissatisfaction to whoever does get elected.
I believe it might make people sit up and take notice IF there were enough "write-ins". One or two or two hundred isn't even going to get media attention. But if there were thousands, now that would definately get the point across.
God, sometimes I wish I had the money/background/education necessary to run myself. We'd get all the tfl members to help hash out a real working policy on all the issues and run with it.
(Yeah I know, but I can DREAM CAN'T I!?) 
"Even more so since I still have friends serving that I grew quite close to while I was in way back when. Yet even worse when I find that a vast majority of the people who support the war pay such a small price for it and those who do the fighting aren't fully aware of the price they'll pay for it yet. Friends at work tend to support it wholeheartedly but have never served a day in uniform, have never seen a soldier get the dreaded "dear John" letter while deployed, have never got the Red Cross notice that your loved ones passed away while you were stuck in Bagdhad etc... Wars have a financial, social and human cost that I'm not certain those who advocated for it have ever seen or will ever have to pay. To them, war is something antiseptic that you inflict on others. So before we go to war, we need to know that 1. we were attacked or an attack is imminent (Makes it moral). 2. There is absolutely no other way (makes it the best economic choice), and 3. it is legal and by legal, Congress declares it officially and pledges the assets of the entire United States to achieve the goal, and 4. has a well-defined victory i.e.: Unconditional Surrender."
Very good post.
This country has lost two major wars since we won WWII. Korean and Viet Nam were lost because war was not declared: Because there was no declaration of war, the country was not mobilized. Very few National Guard and Reserve units were sent to Korea. None were sent to Viet Nam. There was no sense of urgency to win in Korea or Viet Nam. Local units were not being activated and sent off to war. Civilians at home were not made aware of the real cost of the war in human terms unless they had a son killed in battle.
Politicians played tug of war with the US military. Civilian leaders in the White House and in DOD wussed around micro-managing the military like war was some kind of kids game. During WWII there were no anti-war demonstrations, there were no political hacks in DC speaking out against the war. The war was not open to political debate-the country was in it to win at all costs.
The US had the Viet Nam war won at the end of Tet in 1968. The putrid media painted Tet as a major US defeat. Instead of keeping up the pressure on North Viet Nam, LBJ stopped the bombing of the north and put out "peace feelers." This gave North Viet Nam the chance it needed to rebuild its forces in the south. In the end Nixon and Kissinger surrendered South Viet Nam and the US POW/MIA folks to the North Vietnamese.
Today war has become a spectator sport. I constantly hear things like: "They enlisted for the educational benefits, they are volunteers, what are they complaining about, etc." Recently on another forum I had a go round with some slacker who insisted that the US military does not deserve a pay raise.
US Army
M/Sgt. Retired
Very good post.
This country has lost two major wars since we won WWII. Korean and Viet Nam were lost because war was not declared: Because there was no declaration of war, the country was not mobilized. Very few National Guard and Reserve units were sent to Korea. None were sent to Viet Nam. There was no sense of urgency to win in Korea or Viet Nam. Local units were not being activated and sent off to war. Civilians at home were not made aware of the real cost of the war in human terms unless they had a son killed in battle.
Politicians played tug of war with the US military. Civilian leaders in the White House and in DOD wussed around micro-managing the military like war was some kind of kids game. During WWII there were no anti-war demonstrations, there were no political hacks in DC speaking out against the war. The war was not open to political debate-the country was in it to win at all costs.
The US had the Viet Nam war won at the end of Tet in 1968. The putrid media painted Tet as a major US defeat. Instead of keeping up the pressure on North Viet Nam, LBJ stopped the bombing of the north and put out "peace feelers." This gave North Viet Nam the chance it needed to rebuild its forces in the south. In the end Nixon and Kissinger surrendered South Viet Nam and the US POW/MIA folks to the North Vietnamese.
Today war has become a spectator sport. I constantly hear things like: "They enlisted for the educational benefits, they are volunteers, what are they complaining about, etc." Recently on another forum I had a go round with some slacker who insisted that the US military does not deserve a pay raise.
US Army
M/Sgt. Retired
DonR101395
New member
I've served under Reagan, Clinton, Bush I & II and have come to the conclusion that I don't particularly like any of those running. One of them still interests me, but I'm not decided if I like him enough to vote for him. Having served under a Clinton once I won't do it again. It nearly drove me out the first time, it will drive me out if it happens a second time. I'd rather have the memories of the way is was than have to remember anymore Clinton social experiments in making the military friendly and nice so nobodies feelings get hurt instead of mean and destructive the way a military is meant to be.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Penguin,
I think I disagree with just about everything you said. Not all, but most. Am I put-off? Nope. I got a bit of fire in my belly to engage in debate with the issues, though.
However, after reading your posts in the past to present since I was welcomed here, I must say that I truly respect your opinions. I find that even though you're almost a polar opposite of me, you present your cases with careful thought.
This is why I say that NO, you're not a bad American for saying there's no good choice.
Just because you have dissent over the direction America is going, doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad American.
I think I disagree with just about everything you said. Not all, but most. Am I put-off? Nope. I got a bit of fire in my belly to engage in debate with the issues, though.
However, after reading your posts in the past to present since I was welcomed here, I must say that I truly respect your opinions. I find that even though you're almost a polar opposite of me, you present your cases with careful thought.
This is why I say that NO, you're not a bad American for saying there's no good choice.
Just because you have dissent over the direction America is going, doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad American.
SamHouston
New member
A Leader not a politician
Will it ever be possible to get someone in the presidency who is truly not political? It takes so much money and influence the normal person like you and me seems almost powerless. I'm going to vote as moderate as possible considering the best choice that the "system" allows. IMO another Clinton would be a disaster.
A real leader such as Collin Powell would be a nice change.
Will it ever be possible to get someone in the presidency who is truly not political? It takes so much money and influence the normal person like you and me seems almost powerless. I'm going to vote as moderate as possible considering the best choice that the "system" allows. IMO another Clinton would be a disaster.
A real leader such as Collin Powell would be a nice change.
MeekAndMild
New member
Playboypenguin, I can respect your opinions so I'll hope you listen to mine. These hinge on the knowledge that the president is Commander in Chief and head ambassador, appoints judges and ambassadors but has almost no domestic power and almost no control over the economy.
For me the disillusion started with Jimmy Carter. I was in the military then and it really scared me to think that we were being led by a military theorist who seemed to know nothing about military science except the sort of suicidal doctrines which ruled the submarine fleet. He knew nothing about limited warfare and he nearly lost the cold war in the process of brinksmanship. The Reagan years were a process of military rebuilding and I left for a Civilian job halfway through his tenure.
I saw Bush Senior make a good effort to protect our alliances in the mideast, though he bowed to public pressure to come home before the job was entirely finished.
I resigned my commission after my reserve time ran out which coincided with the horrible screwup which Bill Clinton perpetrated when he loaned our troops to the UN for the Somalia invasion. I watched from the sidelines as he fouled up the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the peace progress of the former Yugoslavian Republics, and our general relationships with the Arab nations.
I've been very proud of Bush Junior as I've watched him continue to make the tough choices and do what was right to mend the broken fences left behind by Clinton and by Clinton's UN alliances.
Fast forward 2 years. Do you really want Mr. Clinton or someone like him to be appointed ambassador to the UN? Do you really need to add another layer of big government to the burden "We the People" already carry?
My 2 cents.
For me the disillusion started with Jimmy Carter. I was in the military then and it really scared me to think that we were being led by a military theorist who seemed to know nothing about military science except the sort of suicidal doctrines which ruled the submarine fleet. He knew nothing about limited warfare and he nearly lost the cold war in the process of brinksmanship. The Reagan years were a process of military rebuilding and I left for a Civilian job halfway through his tenure.
I saw Bush Senior make a good effort to protect our alliances in the mideast, though he bowed to public pressure to come home before the job was entirely finished.
I resigned my commission after my reserve time ran out which coincided with the horrible screwup which Bill Clinton perpetrated when he loaned our troops to the UN for the Somalia invasion. I watched from the sidelines as he fouled up the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the peace progress of the former Yugoslavian Republics, and our general relationships with the Arab nations.
I've been very proud of Bush Junior as I've watched him continue to make the tough choices and do what was right to mend the broken fences left behind by Clinton and by Clinton's UN alliances.
Fast forward 2 years. Do you really want Mr. Clinton or someone like him to be appointed ambassador to the UN? Do you really need to add another layer of big government to the burden "We the People" already carry?
My 2 cents.
SamHouston
New member
It's not the popular thing today to say positive things about GB 2. Overall I also believe the man has done a commendable job although he's made mistakes and could have done a much better job in his communication skills. The media has taken every opportunity to bury the man.
PBP, you are not "a bad American for feeling like their is no good choice" among the current slate of presidential hopefuls.
The country is engaged in a futile fixation on the presidential candidates, who are just a bunch of politicians. No matter how much attention we give them, we will not miraculously produce a real leader from among them.
Without a real leader in the Oval Office, the potential for leadership moves to Congress. If we continue to obsess on a no-choice presidential election, we may miss the opportunity to build strong leadership in Congress.
The country is engaged in a futile fixation on the presidential candidates, who are just a bunch of politicians. No matter how much attention we give them, we will not miraculously produce a real leader from among them.
Without a real leader in the Oval Office, the potential for leadership moves to Congress. If we continue to obsess on a no-choice presidential election, we may miss the opportunity to build strong leadership in Congress.