Is voting for Obama due to one issue justifiable?

[Kitsunegari]

I wasn't planning on voting in the upcoming US presidential election since I really despise both candidates, however I find myself now considering Obama solely on foreign policy issues. While he is continuing to impose sanctions on Iran and may try a no-fly zone in Syria, I don't see him launching or aiding an attack on Iran. Romney OTOH has received major contributions from strongly pro-Likud groups and individuals who were associated with the Bush administration in many cases. He has taken an almost comically subservient line when it comes to Israeli issues as seen in the debates.

Obama's biggest backers tend to be Jewish as well, but are mostly dovish when it comes to Israel (affiliated with J-Street and the like), which has earned him some fairly terse warnings from those who desire a more assertive policy.

As an aside, there may actually be second issue that I prefer Obama on: as far as the economy, I have no doubt Obama's retro-Keynesian policies are a total failure and that a more neoliberal approach of a Romney presidency would result in a slight improvement. But there is the upside that the continued recession has resulted in a major drop in immigration and even voluntary repatriation.

[beerin]

Neither the Obama or Romney side is going to do anything new against Iran or Syria other than what is currently going on.

Israel can take care of anything heavy without direct American help, just American "standing aside" There is nothing to be gained from an invasion of Iran just obvious and secret strikes to degrade its capability.

[mrmouth]

Israel would need the US' refueling capability to carry out a strike. Even if they fitted existing military and civilian aircraft into refueling aircraft they would not have enough.

And nobody is invading Iran. The force you'd need for that exists within Iran. It's young, soaks up Western culture, and they died by the thousands to make their intentions known. Unfortunately the Iranian security apparatus was too strong, that time.

There are plenty of issues to vote on.

[I WUB PUGS]

I personally don't see much if any difference between the two candidates. There is one truth that we must remember about Presidential Politics. You will never know what a President really has up their sleeve until the second term. We have no way of knowing what Obama will do in his second term if he can get backing in Congress.

That said, every first term President wants one thing; a second term. You don't get a second term if you piss off the middle too much so I don't believe that Romney would push for even 1/10 of the social or even fiscal policies he advocates in the first term.

They're both expensive suits full of hot air who at this point are still trying to energize the base. After the RNC they're gonna go after the middle, well Obama is doing it already because he can.

Please don't say Obama is a Keynesian. ARRA was 1/3 tax cuts FFS. If he were a true Keynesian then Government expenditure would be double what it is and all those unemployed people would already be under the Government payroll, which to be fair, doing that from the start for 2-3 years on building infrastructure would've been a good idea IMO, but that ain't going to happen. It's easier just to send out checks than it is to have any sort of vision. Obama was criticized by people like Paul Krugman for not making ARRA bigger, plenty of people wanted FAR more stimulus.

Obama's policies are almost the exact same as Bush's and he can't really deviate from them too much without losing the base or middle.

We'll see what he does with another 4 years, I don't have hope with either of them in WH. We should probably just go without a Government, not like they do anything, can't even pass a friggin budget.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Romney won't invade Iran. That would be unimaginably retarded. He just makes the right noises for hawkish idiots and Jewish donors.

[Dr. Croccer]

Politics is always about choosing the least crap guy.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Politics is always about choosing the least crap guy.

until 50 years later when they are looked back on as brilliant leaders.

[SLN445]

Politics is always about choosing the least crap guy.

Damn it you beat me to it

[Kitsunegari]

Please don't say Obama is a Keynesian. ARRA was 1/3 tax cuts FFS. If he were a true Keynesian then Government expenditure would be double what it is and all those unemployed people would already be under the Government payroll, which to be fair, doing that from the start for 2-3 years on building infrastructure would've been a good idea IMO, but that ain't going to happen. It's easier just to send out checks than it is to have any sort of vision. Obama was criticized by people like Paul Krugman for not making ARRA bigger, plenty of people wanted FAR more stimulus.

So? There's what he wants to do and what he can do. Also tax cuts at certain times is very Keynesian (see JFK).

Romney won't invade Iran. That would be unimaginably retarded. He just makes the right noises for hawkish idiots and Jewish donors.

Poor wording on my part, pretty much any attack would probably lead to a wider war and necessitate some kind of ground force, despite all the noise about bunker busters and surgical strikes.

[I WUB PUGS]

He could've done anything in 2009, he didn't. What I'm saying is that the tax cuts wouldn't focus heavily or even be considered part of a stimulus package. Taxes would be lowered across the board and the government would take on as much debt as it needed to boost G in the hopes that I and C would go up then adjust. This is what super Keynesians like Paul Krugman wanted, Obama pushed for something that was pretty light. So sure Obama is Keynes lite, some people even want to classify TARP as Keynesian but it's a stretch so some would say Bush is Keynes lite.

Essentially what I'm saying is that Keynesians attacked Obama for not doing enough while Free-Market types attack him for doing anything.


You know what, just disregard the above, too much talk about money in this. The OP wants to talk about bombing Iran.

My stance? Ain't gonna happen, Iran has all the cards.

[Kitsunegari]

My stance? Ain't gonna happen, Iran has all the cards.

Interesting, I thought they were reeling with all the sanctions lately? Also I believe their conventional military is widely viewed as comically weak.

[mrmouth]

Romney and Obama are the same on paper - but the nuts got their hooks into Romney. And even more so after the Ryan thing.

[justicar5]

Interesting, I thought they were reeling with all the sanctions lately? Also I believe their conventional military is widely viewed as comically weak.

Yes and no, they are a joke until they go unconventional (Chemical and maybe Biological) they are also setup to make any occupation supremely painful, in terms of insurrection, and they have allies, both in the region and outside it, it really is a hornets nest.

[I WUB PUGS]

Interesting, I thought they were reeling with all the sanctions lately? Also I believe their conventional military is widely viewed as comically weak.

They are, but I'm talking about military options. It wouldn't take much to seriously harm the entire world. The Persian Gulf is very shallow even at its deepest point and the shipping lane is very narrow. Iran could send some old tanker out into the shipping lane and just scuttle it and the oil market would itself. Even if the flow of oil slowed by a little bit and for a short time, the immediate fear impact would be severe.

And there is nothing we can do to stop them, what are we gonna do? Sink a ship that is supposed to sink? Not like they're gonna do it, they need the strait open too. They hold the cards in an asymmetrical fight. We can just posture.

The sanctions are working, unless you follow the Pro-Iran crowd around here.

[Bolkonsky]

No one's going to invade Iran unless they do something unimaginably stupid, which your vote won't affect anyways.

[Kitsunegari]

terms of insurrection, and they have allies, both in the region and outside it, it really is a hornets nest.

Yeah and the terrain is very poor for a "pinpoint" bombing raid or counterinsurgency when compared to Iraq.

[I WUB PUGS]

Yeah and the terrain is very poor for a "pinpoint" bombing raid or counterinsurgency when compared to Iraq.

Gross understatement. More mountains than Afghanistan, with more people and they are a mostly unified people who have proven to fight tooth and nail against invaders.

Invading Iran would be probably the worst venture any military could undertake.

[Imperial]

Iran is not that important in this election, seeing how no candidate will do anything other than continue the status quo in sanctions.

[motiv-8]

Iran could send some old tanker out into the shipping lane and just scuttle it and the oil market would itself.

At this point the futures market itself just at the thought of tensions in the Gulf. An actual military operation, however brief, would be unimaginably myopic in economic terms just because of how ridiculous the market reacts.

[truth1337]

I'd vote David Duke for the election, regardless of whether he has a chance to win now. If all think like that, eventually he will become President. Republicans and Democrats are the same anyway in all but minor details, since no matter who wins they were campaign sponsored by Goldman-Sachs and will get the same "advisors".