Not getting everything I want would be easier to accept if there weren't other political interests getting everything they want.

Such as whom?

Again, everything you just said can be boiled down to "I got stuff I wanted, but it came from a process I would rather have been X or Y, or came in a form I would rather have been Z instead of how I got it." to reiterate, that's basically what Clooney is complaining about. I don't ever want to hear you complain about, oh, let's say vigilantism. After all, all you're saying is, "Yeah, he stopped a criminal from committing crimes, but he did it in a way I don't like." If he did something that, in the abstract, was something I might have supported, but, in its particulars, made things worse than they were before, that's not an argument for me to support him for re-election, and if you can't understand that, then I'm afraid I can't help you. (Also, just as an aside on the merits, I doubt you'd have an easy time convincing someone whose leukemia-stricken kid gets to stay on their insurance policy in part because you, a healthy young adult, have been asked to maintain some basic level of responsibility to insure yourself would consider that the plan Obama signed into law takes "way more" from you that it gave them - and you, for that matter - in return in terms of protection from industry abuses.) If they'd like to vote to re-elect him as President, that's their right. But, speaking as someone who has not benefited from his policies and has, in fact, seen a great deal of harm emanating from them, I will not be doing so. I apologize if this inconveniences you. What are those countries Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan.

Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan Yes, I suppose if you see American military involvement in those places as equivalent to the war in Iraq, it's not surprising you would see the faults of Obama as equivalent to those of whatever knuckledragger the GOP nominates.

Why do so many Democrats have such trouble wrapping their minds around the concept of seeing Obama and the Republican nominee as flawed in ways that are different and yet both still disqualifying from receiving my vote? Is such nuance really that hard to grasp?

Have you considered that perhaps we grasp your nuance but just disagree with your specific points?

When every conversation seems to inevitably lead to the accusation that I think the Democratic and Republican nominees are "the same," no, not really. That's a pretty good sign that the subtlety has been lost.

You're the first one to mention them being the same (to deny that you believe it) in this very discussion....

If they'd like to vote to re-elect him as President, that's their right. But, speaking as someone who has not benefited from his policies and has, in fact, seen a great deal of harm emanating from them, I will not be doing so. I apologize if this inconveniences you. Voting to reject a policy change that helps millions just because it doesn't help you? How Republican.

Interest voting is not at all unique to Republicans.

It is hardly a progressive concept, however. It is very much a "me first" mentality.

When every conversation seems to inevitably lead to the accusation that I think the Democratic and Republican nominees are "the same," no, not really. That's a pretty good sign that the subtlety has been lost. Not the same -- in fact you said this: Every time he gives me a little of what I want, he makes sure to take away more than he gave. To say that American involvement in Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen is worse than the Iraq war is just absurd.

Likewise, to fault someone who was against Iraq for not voting for someone who started involvement in Pakistan, Libya and Yemen is equally absurd. I will not vote Republican in 2012 because of their messed up obsession with screwing the American worker, and serving the almighty dollar. I will not vote for Obama because I simply cannot support an administration that finds it fine and dandy to invade foreign nations and murder their leaders, citizens, etc. Would Obama do more of what I want than the Republicans? Yes. Is that enough reason to vote for him? No.

You're the first one to mention them being the same (to deny that you believe it) in this very discussion.... Indeed? it's not surprising you would see the faults of Obama as equivalent to those of whatever knuckledragger the GOP nominates.

I will not vote for Obama because I simply cannot support an administration that finds it fine and dandy to invade foreign nations and murder their leaders, citizens, etc. That's a pretty big stretch. Would Obama do more of what I want than the Republicans? Yes. Is that enough reason to vote for him? No. Now that's a reasonable position, and then it comes down to disagreeing over the strategy of voting.

Indeed? Fair enough, and I stand corrected, although WesternDem makes a good point about your claim that our limited involvement in the three countries you named are somhow worse than the Iraq War. It is hardly a progressive concept, however. It is very much a "me first" mentality. Bingo. By that same logic, Craverguy, pretty much every entitlement program out there ought to be horrible in your eyes, since you personally (in all likelihood) are not drawing any tangible present benefit from it, but you're paying for others to. Would you like to explain how that's any different, other than the fact that with HCR you're paying into a private policy rather than the U.S. Treasury? In both cases, you're essentially footing the bill so other people can benefit presently, with the theoretical expectation that you will as well at some point. It may be structured differently, but the real-world effect on your pocketbook is basically the same.

That's the beauty of being a third party fanboy. You'll never have to worry about silly little things like pragmatism or compromise because you'll never even get a whiff of power, and you can pat yourself on the back more vigorously each time for your purity of thought and deed while the big bad two party system causes all the world's problems.

Bob posts a smarmy, condescending rant about how arrogant and uncompromising people who vote third party are and two other users give him the thumb's up. And yet, somehow, those of us who vote third party are supposed to be the smug ones here. If I vote for a candidate and he wins, I am partially responsible for whatever he does in office. If I don't think what he might do (or, in this case, has done) will reflect well on me or be something I would agree with, I don't vote for him. And what party is listed under his name when I go in to vote really has no bearing that.

Why bother voting at all? Your vote will never affect policy in any way, shape or form.

This might shock you, but many of the people I've voted for in the past have won. For example, I have yet to cast a vote for a losing candidate for Congress or the state legislature. I vote third party when I feel a third party vote is warranted by the major party candidates.

So do I. I voted for a Libertarian, a Green, and even a Conservative candidate on the 2010 ballot because I had some serious issues with the Democratic incumbents they were running against. You should obviously vote for whoever you think is the best person for the job - that's the essence of democracy. But the high and mighty attitude is not endearing, and the point I was trying to make was that it's easy to criticize when you're on the outside looking in. Third party folks who rant and rave about how evil and/or incompetent the Republicans and Democrats are remind me of the losers who call into sports talk radio on Monday morning calling their team's football coach an idiot, because they'd do such a better job in his position. Do you think that if we swapped all the GOP members of Congress for Libertarians and all the Democrats for Greens it would usher in a new era of integrity and ideological purity in Washington? Or would those with power turn out to reconsider their ideals when it became expedient to do so, as they have been doing since long before the D/R dichotomy ever existed?

And Clooney makes a valid point. Republicans circle the wagons and defend their own. Bush didn't have to worry about ducking potshots from the right wing of the peanut gallery when he was up for re-election like Obama's getting from the left right now.

Third party folks who rant and rave about how evil and/or incompetent the Republicans and Democrats are remind me of the losers who call into sports talk radio on Monday morning calling their team's football coach an idiot, because they'd do such a better job in his position Being a football coach is a skilled profession. Being an honorable and principled representative? Not so much. Anyone really can do it, if they have the stones for it. Do you think that if we swapped all the GOP members of Congress for Libertarians and all the Democrats for Greens it would usher in a new era of integrity and ideological purity in Washington? Or would those with power turn out to reconsider their ideals when it became expedient to do so, as they have been doing since long before the D/R dichotomy ever existed? I think if they were the sort of people who reconsidered their ideals when it was expedient to do so, they wouldn't be the sort of people who run for office as Libertarians and Greens in the first place. And Clooney makes a valid point. Republicans circle the wagons and defend their own. Bush didn't have to worry about ducking potshots from the right wing of the peanut gallery when he was up for re-election like Obama's getting from the left right now. Republican voters are at best hypocritical and at worst genuinely ignorant of what went on in the Bush Administration? I am shocked by this revelation.

I think if they were the sort of people who reconsidered their ideals when it was expedient to do so, they wouldn't be the sort of people who run for office as Libertarians and Greens in the first place.. Governing can be for idealists, but those idealists must be realistic. Up here, whenever the NDP takes control of a provincial government, they learn very quickly that while they don't have to abandon their ideals, any progress made has to be measured, and compromise is key to survival. You're frustrated with Obama, but I really think that under the circumstances, he can't be much more progressive than he is. And it would certainly help embolden him if the left would stop throwing him under the bus all the time.

He's not progressive in most areas; he's, in fact, regressive. You take civil liberties as an example. Bush tried to claim the right to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Obama claims the right to detain them indefinitely, or even have them assassinated, without any due process at all. Supporting that would not be compromising on my principles to achieve progress, it would be supporting policies that diametrically and radically oppose those principles. And as long as I have a vote, I'm not going to use it do that.