U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Felya]

The same month that the RNC did not even have the economy as a bold point in their platform, we had 3 bank failures and the first TARP. The president was Bush...

What was Obama supposed to do to save these banks and economy, when Bush was president? What was Obama supposed to do in the 10 month Dow lost nearly 3k leading upto the RNC to elect McCain and ignore the economy.

[smelltheglove]

When you say doing what he was doing, you should just say start wars. Because than, comparing what Obama is doing to what Bush got blamed for by the liberals, becomes a lot clearer.

Bush started two wars without an exit strategy, while Obama ended one.

actually, what he's talking about is civil rights violations, which obama has a pretty crappy record on. im an obama supporter, and i find his record on this disturbing, and im shocked at apologists for it. it's not ok because our side did it and not theirs

[ptwonline]

actually, what he's talking about is civil rights violations, which obama has a pretty crappy record on. im an obama supporter, and i find his record on this disturbing, and im shocked at apologists for it. it's not ok because our side did it and not theirs

As I have said before, Obama is a pragmatist. He knows he needs to fight terrorism but he also knows that America has neither the money or the appetite to get involved in another war/invasion. The difference between now and Presidents in recent history is that instead of just launching a few missiles to hit terrorist camps and installations, Obama has much finer tools at his disposal that can be used to target individuals. What he is doing can certainly be considered immoral and very possibly be illegal, but under the circumstances it's the pragmatic way to fight against the terrorists, and I think a lot of people recognize that and that's why they give him a bit of a pass on it.

Personally, I am not sure if gaining an advantage over terrorists today is worth the price of the potential abuse these sorts of powers could pose in the future. It's certainly a moral dilemma, and I'm unsatisfied with the current solution being offered while also recognizing that there may not be a better option.

[cubby]

The mess made by Bush will take many more years to undo the worst of the immediate damage, and decades to clean up the longer-term damage to the budget.

As for Obama and Lincoln, there are many similarities.
- President at a time of extreme national divisiveness and particular hatred towards the President himself
- Came into office at a very difficult time
- Tried to build a team including people from "the other side" to help govern the country
- Strong orator, and similarities in how they construct speeches and arguments
- Governs primarily as a pragmatist despite publicly portraying more principled ideologies
- Attacked for apparent lack of faith, and taking mostly pragmatic approaches to religious issues
- Believe in spending lots of money to help out economic woes
- Evolve (at least publicly) on social issues of the day
- Tackling some of the most divisive social issues of the time (slavery for Lincoln, economic and racials divides for Obama)

The list goes on.

Now of course there are ways they are different too. But there are definitely many similarities in ideology, attitudes, and methodologies between the two. Obama is definitely a big fan of Lincoln too so operhaps the similarities are not all coincidence.

Also keep in mind that even though Lincoln is revered now as one of the greatest Presidents, he was considered incredibly divisive and widely hated in his own time. Also, with a small change in the events of the day largely outside of his control and Lincoln could have gone down as the worst US President ever. Being compared to Lincoln is not necessarily purely a compliment of Obama.

Exactly. It's possible Obama could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents in our history.

[Grizzly Willy]

"Greatest presidents in our history" is a bit of a stretch. I don't feel he deserves that title, nor will he, should he get reelected.

[smelltheglove]

As I have said before, Obama is a pragmatist. He knows he needs to fight terrorism but he also knows that America has neither the money or the appetite to get involved in another war/invasion. The difference between now and Presidents in recent history is that instead of just launching a few missiles to hit terrorist camps and installations, Obama has much finer tools at his disposal that can be used to target individuals. What he is doing can certainly be considered immoral and very possibly be illegal, but under the circumstances it's the pragmatic way to fight against the terrorists, and I think a lot of people recognize that and that's why they give him a bit of a pass on it.

Personally, I am not sure if gaining an advantage over terrorists today is worth the price of the potential abuse these sorts of powers could pose in the future. It's certainly a moral dilemma, and I'm unsatisfied with the current solution being offered while also recognizing that there may not be a better option.

yeah, i get you. what bothers me is the attitude some people give as though they do feel its ok. theres quite a gap between "i dont like it, but it's what we have" and "problem? no problem here!"

[ptwonline]

Exactly. It's possible Obama could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents in our history.

Personally, I think that is unlikely. Even though I think Obama has done a very good job, the overall result of his Presidency has been mediocre at best simply because of the circumstances (worldwide recession, outsourcing of the economy over decades, obstructionist Congress).

However, aside from being known as the person who broke the color barrier for Presidents, Obama will probably go down in history very favorably as the father of modern medical care in the US. Conservativs pretty much assured that once they got the "Obamacare" moniker to stick.

[Slammin Shaman]

Pathetic, just pathetic. You can't blame fucking everything on Bush.

But we can blame him starting two wars on borrowed money and the Bush tax cuts.

[ptwonline]

yeah, i get you. what bothers me is the attitude some people give as though they do feel its ok. theres quite a gap between "i dont like it, but it's what we have" and "problem? no problem here!"

I don't think I've encountered many (any?) people who actually thought the issue through and didn't have some severe reservations about it.

[Felya]

actually, what he's talking about is civil rights violations, which obama has a pretty crappy record on. im an obama supporter, and i find his record on this disturbing, and im shocked at apologists for it. it's not ok because our side did it and not theirs

I am not apologizing for it, what I am saying is the crux of what was wrong with Bush was start the two wars. You can blame Obama for continuing Bush policy with Gitmo, I do all the time. When I complain about Bush, it's hard to do the same for Obama, because Bush got is the one responsible for us being so involved in the quagmire that is middle east. I blame Obama a plenty, but the only way you can say Obama is anywhere near Bush on everything from our due process to civil rights violations, is if you describe what Bush did as 'what he was doing'.

[Deleted]

Exactly. It's possible Obama could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents in our history.

Oh dear lord. Signing the NDAA already puts him the trashheap of history unless the US becomes a totalitarian state where everyone has to worship Obama - founder of People's Republic of America.

[cubby]

Oh dear lord. Signing the NDAA already puts him the trashheap of history unless the US becomes a totalitarian state where everyone has to worship Obama - founder of People's Republic of America.

I just can't take you seriously when you focus on one issue and ignore everything else.

[Grizzly Willy]

I just can't take you seriously when you focus on one issue and ignore everything else.

Rights don't correct wrongs. I'm sorry, I don't think a man who has O.K.ed a bill restriciting the civil liberties of his citizens can be viewed as one of the "greatest presidents of our time".

[FusedMass]

Joe Scarborough's reaction to a clip of Mitt Romney on "Morning Joe" said it all on Tuesday.

Co-host Mika Brzezinski was discussing reports that Romney would be appearing with Paul Ryan more often to drum up excitement for his campaign. She replayed a clip of the candidate trying to get a crowd to chant his name.

I find it amusing since the crowd only chanted Ryan's name and Romeny tried to get the crowd to Chant "Romeny/Ryan"

[cubby]

Rights don't correct wrongs. I'm sorry, I don't think a man who has O.K.ed a bill restriciting the civil liberties of his citizens can be viewed as one of the "greatest presidents of our time".

It's a good thing it's all black and white then, right?

Every issue is complicated, every piece of legislation passed had compromise all over it.

[Deleted]

I just can't take you seriously when you focus on one issue and ignore everything else.

If he by mistake made a bad call when it comes to an economic policy or slipped something by mistake in a speech, sure. But certain deeds tell enough a man's character that no matter what else he does, it will never make up for it. Atleast not if he doesn't reverese the policy, but in fact, he actively sought to keep it in place when the lawsuit by amongst others Noam Chomsky had some initial success.

(http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...he-ndaa-2012-9)

I'm just trying to imagine how liberals would act if McCain had won, and had essentially conducted the exactly identical foreign policy as Obama.

[Grizzly Willy]

He hasn't shown any resistance to it. I find that distressing.

[cubby]

If he by mistake made a bad call when it comes to an economic policy or slipped something by mistake in a speech, sure. But certain deeds tell enough a man's character that no matter what else he does, it will never make up for it. Atleast not if he doesn't reverese the policy, but in fact, he actively sought to keep it in place when the lawsuit by amongst others Noam Chomsky had some initial success.

(http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...he-ndaa-2012-9)

I'm just trying to imagine how liberals would act if McCain had won, and had essentially conducted the exactly identical foreign policy as Obama.

It's not like he invaded a country illegally . . . .

You try to make more of something than it really is because of your bias. I'm not sure I can continue discussing Obama with you - if you don't understand the larger picture on this one issue, how can you understand any complicated issue?

[mistuhbull]

He hasn't shown any resistance to it. I find that distressing.

"it" being the NDAA?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...sident-hr-1540

When he signed it he said that he didn't like it and wouldn't utilize parts of it against US citizens.


The fact of the matter that people like to neglect is that the NDAA is part of the defense budget. It's made by Congress (not the POTUS) and had he NOT signed it then the DoD (and armed forces) wouldn't have gotten their funding for the year. And tell me, how effective at defending is a Department of Defense with no money?


Edit: because it's long and people will bitch about it being too long so they won't read

1) The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

2) I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

3) 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.

the relevant to my comment bits

[cubby]

"it" being the NDAA?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...sident-hr-1540

When he signed it he said that he didn't like it and wouldn't utilize parts of it against US citizens.


The fact of the matter that people like to neglect is that the NDAA is part of the defense budget. It's made by Congress (not the POTUS) and had he NOT signed it then the DoD (and armed forces) wouldn't have gotten their funding for the year. And tell me, how effective at defending is a Department of Defense with no money?

They don't care. They see one issue, ignore reasoning and logic, and shore up any arguments against it. There is no reasoning if they don't want to listen.