Why I Voted for Obama


New member
It seemed like a good idea at the time....

Actually, I still don't think he's half as bad as a lot of people make him out to be.

Here's my thing: I've always voted fairly liberal and Democratic. There have been times in the past I leaned more right, and times I voted Republican locally. I always figured it was better to err on the side of the left, if I had to err at all.

Here's where I get my facts: politifact.com and ontheissues.org

I could give a fig what obviously biased outlets have to say, because most everyone has an agenda.

I studied the issues and the candidates a lot. I liked what Obama had to say. I liked that he was young, and ambitious, and his views and values matched mine on the most important issues. I really liked that he was a good public speaker, because George W frankly embarrassed me nearly every time he spoke.

Political debates always fall apart into "The President doesn't really have any control anyway, it's all the House and Congress," so I figured I'd go with someone who at least presented himself well.

I liked Ron Paul. I went to the polls intending to vote for Ron Paul. Then that "wasted vote" idea just kept poking at my mind. Plus, the reason i like Paul was because he wanted to give rights to states. I thought, that's a great idea. You don't like guns? Go live in a gun-free state. You don't like abortion? Go live in an abortion-free state. And better yet, on the state level, your vote is going to count and your voice is actually going to be heard. But then I thought, what if his personal views overpower his promises? My values and his values don't line up in important areas.

During the debates, I liked McCain. However, and I'm sorry to say this to her fans, I really disliked Sarah Palin. I felt like she was seriously devoid of knowledge, and that she demonstrated this time and again, plus she never engaged in serious discussion, she only spewed catchy slogans and sound bites. She was the epitome of the beauty queen, lovely to look at, and full of answers about saving the children and ending world hunger.

Still, I liked McCain. Until that debate where he called Obama "that one." And it wasn't even the "that one," it was his whole attitude. He was nasty and surly and petulant. He was like some pissed off teenager whose girlfriend just danced with some other guy. I didn't want an angry child running the country.

So Obama got my vote. And like I said, I don't really think he's all that bad. I don't see him taking away gun rights, I don't see him running the country into the ground.

However, I also don't see him doing much to help us out, either.

I don't much care about the rhetoric, the rumors, the speculation. I don't give a damn about his birth certificate, or his religion, or if he uses a teleprompter.

What I care about is results.

I'm not seeing them.

I actually quite like Obama as a person, but I'm afraid he's not getting the job done that I hired him for. It appears a lot of other people feel the same way. His approval ratings are quite low at this time.

At this point, I'm hoping there will be other viable candidates. I'm not seeing them yet. But one thing is certain. I'll not be voting for Obama again. This time, I'm not worried about wasting my vote, and I'm not worried about erring on the side of caution. My vote goes to someone else, because, ladies and gents, it's truly time for a change.


Well-known member
The last election cycle assured that either way we would get an idiot for a vice-president. Say what you like about George CCW Bush and Bill Clinton, neither of them had idiots for running mates. When asked what the main difference was between **** Cheney and John Edward, George CCW Bush responded with, "**** Cheney can do the job of president if need be." I think that summed it up quite well. The creators of South Park must have agreed because they gave John Edward the title of "Biggest Douche of the Universe".


Well-known member
OK, I am at a loss on this one. How does the former Vice President's commanly used first name get snarled by the site's language filter? :fie:


New member
"Freedomnomics" by John Lott. Here we have a renowned economist going all the way back to the late 1980s to see what happens when women get the vote. His findings? In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately began to rise as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. That magic word .. .security.


New member
You obviously didn't investigate enough. He had commie/leninist written all over him from as far back as the 80s. As far as him personally............arrogant, lazy, egotistical, and just about as sorry a human being as can be produced by two people.


New member
Most not all but most women will vote from an emotion stand point and vote Libtard. Go back and read the original Post. Just like Most not all blacks will vote for a black libtard.

Pinnacle Safety

New member
There is no such thing as a wasted vote
and change is a commin it may be better it may be worse it maybe the same old soup warmed over but its commin


What I like about USACarry

What I appreciate about USACarry is the fact that when it comes to politics not only do you get varying opinions, but you also get respectful feedback, even if it is strongly worded. I think this may be a result of the emphasis the community puts on freedom. It's interesting that a community which is often seen as closed minded, actually may be the most ready to listen.


New member
Depends on how you define wasted vote. In my opinion if the third party is a liberal, that helps the conservative candidate. If the third party is a conservative, that helps the liberal candidate.:pleasantry:


New member
Depends on how you define wasted vote. In my opinion if the third party is a liberal, that helps the conservative candidate. If the third party is a conservative, that helps the liberal candidate.:pleasantry:

I am still waiting to see a liberal third party candidate.
I am still waiting to see the Democrat party be the one with the "Moderate" candidate over-reaching across the aisle and making excuses and apologizing for their party. I doubt that either will happen in my life time. I guess I can give the Dems some credit on this for having the ability to stay unified.

With regards to the original post, politics are just as polarized as issues like abortion and gun rights. Even the factual and accurate sources are deemed not to be such because there are powerful people who disagree with them. Several media outlets, including the New York Times, spent a lot of time and money to sift through thousands of Sarah Palin emails to find nothing. I wonder how many other candidates and politicians would have been able to have the same result after such scrutiny. I have heard that hearing candidates and meeting them in person is often quite different from almost all media filters. Painting Obama out to be a great President and painting Palin out to be a horrible vice president, is no more than an opinion, which then becomes a mudslinging and pissing contest when people can not back up their opinions with facts.
Last edited:


New member
I honestly wouldn't care who/what party the president was IF. They didn't spend money like it was theirs. It isn't THEIR money. It OUR money.


New member
Ralph Nader has run for president under the Green Party label.

That's true, but I guess to further clarify what I previously posted, I was referring to a third party candidate that actually has enough votes to influence an election. Perot was successful in doing this, and I believe Trump would do so as well if he were to run as an independent.

I guess you don't remember Zell Miller or Harold Lee Volkmer.

I do remember Zell, now that you mention him. I recall him speaking at a Republican Convention. To clarify that piece, I doubt that such a person would be considered for the Democratic nomination to run for President. Not to mention that he probably makes most "RINOs" look liberal. Former Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey would have qualified as "Blue Dog Democrat," but keep in mind that the Democratic party refused to let him speak at at least one convention because of his anti-abortion views.

So yes, I agree that there is some ideological variance, but typically that variance keeps candidates out of nomination positions.
So wooddoctor what make you the scholar on why people vote the way they do???? Unless you're a women or black either way please tell us how you obtained these FACTS!!!!!


New member
Well at least people can make mistakes, identify the mistake as what it truly is, a mistake, then attempt to learn from it and perhaps be more attentive to such matters going forward in an attempt to prevent the same mistake from occurring again.. Yes it was a mistake... The color of his skin is not the matter, The color of his politics and policies (communist red) are the issue and have long been visible...

Please don't do it again...

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Latest member