Skip to content

Moral Arithmetic

© Jen Sorensen

Jen Sorensen’s comments about her comic:

I find that people who spew the platitude that “the candidates are the same” tend to be the ones who have the least to lose if the wrong candidate is elected. At risk of sounding melodramatic, these elections truly are a matter of life and death. If you end the Affordable Care Act and millions of Americans lose their health insurance, people will die as a result. A recent estimate puts the number at 26,000 deaths per year due to lack of insurance; that’s more than a few September 11ths. Then there’s the Global Gag Rule, which Romney would reinstate. It rarely gets mentioned, but this policy wreaks havoc on women in impoverished nations. Romney would also end contributions to the U.N. Population Fund, which combats the spread of HIV and prevents 22,000 deaths annually.

These are but a few examples. Turning Medicare into a voucher program, radicalizing the Supreme Court for a generation, and displaying an open hostility toward science probably won’t help things either. Obama isn’t perfect, but as far as I’m concerned, voting is a moral arithmetic problem with a clear answer.



  1. ebdoug wrote:

    Put “did not end Patriot Act” on Obama’s side.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 5:18 am | Permalink
  2. il-08 wrote:

    I disagree, it is often the people with the MOST to lose who say there is no difference between the candidates.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 7:55 am | Permalink
  3. David Freeman wrote:

    I can sympathize with the “they are the same argument” because there are so many frustrating similarities for a progressive to get pissed off over. Most significantly, it really does disturb me that I am contributing financially to, actively campaigning for and early voting for a war criminal – Nobel peace prize be damned. However, I support Obama despite similarities on the basis of voting for the dramatically lesser of two evils. Sorenson illustrates this brilliantly.

    Unfortunately some people not swayed by the lesser of two evils argument (I’m think of you cousin S) stop with the similarities. I’m supporting Obama and Democrats generally because of the differences. The Republican Party has abandoned science and reason in favor of misguided faith and rationalizations. The Republican Party supports ever expanding government into our most private decisions while shitting in the Commons and reducing the social safety net. Republicans are every rich white man for himself and to hell with the rest.

    The Democratic Party may disappoint but the Republican Party is an unmitigated disaster. I look forward to the day when Republicans go the way of the Whigs and Dems are fighting it out with Greens.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 9:58 am | Permalink
  4. Hassan wrote:

    Put passed NDAA 2012 on Obama column that legalized arbitrary detention by President of US citizens.

    Also put assassinated 3 US citizens (at least from what we know) without any trial in Obama column.

    Killing hundreds of civilians (if not thousands) in drone is already in list.

    Not closing gitmo (after promising) can be put in the Obama column as well.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink
  5. Arthanyel wrote:

    Hassan – If we want to keep coming up with a list, we can add more to Romney’s ledger as well, and still all worse.

    1) Will move disaster relief to private enterprise
    2) Will establish “Personhood” had make IVF illegal and rape babies mandatory
    3) Will either drastically increase the deficit or throw millions of people out in the streets to starve – or BOTH

    As for the NDAA, you can’t put that in Obama’s column. The REPUBLICANS forced that through and Obama reluctantly signed it with a signing statement that his administration would refuse to comply with that – so be realistic, not petty.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 10:21 am | Permalink
  6. Hassan wrote:

    ARTHANYEL, you are mistaken why Obama reluctantly signed it. Republicans wanted congress to give the power to president when needed, and Obama was arguing that he should have that power all the time (something like that)

    Regardless, everyone has their priorities, and there is nothing wrong with that. If killing muslms left and right are ok with liberals, they have their candidate.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 10:28 am | Permalink
  7. Arthanyel wrote:

    Hassan: You are in error. Read the signing statement. Obama specifically stated his administration refused to use that power at all.

    As for whether killing Muslims left and right is OK with liberals, you know better. Obama is going after actual enemies, and appears to be OK with the collateral damage. Liberals object. Romney would be OK with putting ALL MUSLIMS to the sword (check the Mormons) and Republicans think wee need to EXPAND the collateral damage at a minimum.

    So between the two, who is a better presidential choice for Muslims? Answer – of the two, Obama. A better choice would be neither, but since you are going to have to be stuck with one of them, pick the better choice.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink
  8. Hassan wrote:

    ARTHANYEL, read second point specifically.

    Regardless of whom I vote, my state is pretty red. And I think Obama is going to win easily with approximately 330~ electoral votes.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink
  9. Iron Knee wrote:

    I will freely admit that Homeland security and the war on terrorism is the main area where I am disappointed in Obama. But I also realize two important things — that the majority of Americans will not vote for someone who appears soft on terrorism, and that Republicans (at their best) are far worse than Obama (at his worst) on this matter.

    But my biggest point is that it is downright silly and counterproductive to refuse to vote for any candidate with whom I do not totally agree.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
  10. Hassan wrote:

    Iron Knee, doyou think jews would vote for a presidential candidate that is anti-Israel even though they may agree with him on most of other issues? Perhaps few would, not many

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
  11. jonah wrote:

    Regarding whether jews would vote for an anti-isreal candidate, I would imagine if the alternative was a wipe-israel-off-the-map kind of guy then, yes.Assuming of course that anti-israel refers to something a lot less severe.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
  12. Arthanyel wrote:

    Hassan – Don’t let your emotion get in the way of the facts.

    Your link to an editorial opinion about the bill is interesting, but my statement is 100% accurate. In the signing statement the President states (and I am quoting verbatim), “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

    So please stop the hyperbole.

    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 8:08 am | Permalink
  13. Iron Knee wrote:

    Hassan, I’m not sure of the point of your question, other than to be annoying. Do you really believe that Jews vote as a single block? Do you also believe that US Muslims would all vote for a candidate who is anti-Israel?

    Friday, November 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink