U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Naxere]

The answer is easy: he's sacrificing principles for progress. Obama is first and foremost a pragmatist. If he follows the rules on child soldiers then he would have to withhold aid, and since those countries are fighting terrorists/fighting for stability, then holding back the aid could cause problems. In the case of The Congo, in the past he has been pretty strict with them so it looks like a "the more you cut back on child soldiers the more money you'll get" sort of arrangement (carrot, not just stick).

So would you say his quote in the above article is dishonest at best?

[Wells]

So would you say his quote in the above article is dishonest at best?

Depends on whether you think his actions are based in pragmatism or not.

[Felya]

So would you say his quote in the above article is dishonest at best?

Regardless of how honest his words are, his actions of ignoring law are dishonest. I have trouble believing that any side that uses child soldiers is the right one.

[FusedMass]

Mitt finally gave an answer on something today. I was looking at it and he said he'd respect what Obama put in place then goes on to say that he would put his own plan in before they're vistas expire. Did he just pander to hispanic community telling them he wouldn't repeal it and exact same time hinted to his base his might be harder that he's given no details on

Mitt Romney: Deferred Action Immigration Plan Would Remain Under My Administration
After months of dodging the question, Mitt Romney said on Monday night that he would respect the executive action President Barack Obama put into place granting certain groups of undocumented immigrants a reprieve from deportation.

The former Massachusetts governor has steadfastly refused to address the issue, insisting that he would achieve comprehensive reform quickly enough so as to make the Obama policy a moot point. But in a sit-down interview with the Denver Post, Romney went a step further.

"The people who have received the special visa that the president has put in place, which is a two-year visa, should expect that the visa would continue to be valid. I'm not going to take something that they've purchased," Romney said. "Before those visas have expired we will have the full immigration reform plan that I've proposed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

[Spectral]

Well, that's good anyway.

[Lenonis]

Apparently this has been going on since 2010, but how do the Obama supporters defend this?


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...child_soldiers

Before I'd pass any sort of judgement I'd want to know more information about the justification for this action. The article you linked was quite heavy on people attacking the action and incredibly light on the reasons why the administration would take a seemingly contradictory stance on something rather controversial.

I'd also say that dealing with these countries is (not to beat my favorite dead horse here) not a black and white scenario.

[Felya]

Before I'd pass any sort of judgement I'd want to know more information about the justification for this action. The article you linked was quite heavy on people attacking the action and incredibly light on the reasons why the administration would take a seemingly contradictory stance on something rather controversial.

I'd also say that dealing with these countries is (not to beat my favorite dead horse here) not a black and white scenario.

They have another article on it here:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...child_soldiers

It seems to be, the argument is that without the sanction, they have access to fix the issue with child soldiers. The 'secret memo' seems to be implying that with sanctions in place, we could not provide the support and influence to stop them from using children. Which if you think about, this is removing a sanction put in place to discourage child soldiers, so that we have more access to discourage child soldiers. I guess Obama needs to have a talk with folks who pushed a sanction, he now finds to be impeding it's own intent. I guess he can do that next time he is near a mirror...

What is also interesting, this article from 2010, is now the sites second most popular story... Right behind 'Bachelor Padding'...

[Lenonis]

It seems to be, the argument is that without the sanction, they have access to fix the issue with child soldiers. The 'secret memo' seems to be implying that with sanctions in place, we could not provide the support and influence to stop them from using children. Which if you think about, this is removing a sanction put in place to discourage child soldiers, so that we have more access to discourage child soldiers.

*scratches head*

I guess at the end of the day, this sort of thing is something I simply don't know enough about to feel comfortable playing back seat driver on.

It does seem odd to create legislation that calls for action, then block that action for several years.

Given that it involves putting children in harms way, I simply cannot help but think the administration must have good reason for taking this action given the potential backlash it would receive. Given my lack of knowledge of the intricacies of dealing with this issue, I guess at the end of the day I'm hoping that they are making the right decision with the data they have.

[Maleficus]

Oh happy day...you know. Growin' the piehh. Gettin' a slice o' the pieehh.

http://news.investors.com/100212-627...l-sharply.aspx

A nice summation of the article for those that choose not to check it out.

"...despite Obama's promise that he would reduce income inequality, it's increased each year he's been in office, reaching an all-time high after remaining flat during the Bush years."

FORWARD. (For more PIEHHH!)

[belfpala]

So... rich people should vote for Obama?

[Lenonis]

FORWARD. (For more PIEHHH!)

So...there is a series of questions that need to be answered before that data can be blamed on Obama.

1) How much of that income inequality was due to the effects of the economic crash? The stock market has rebounded but the job market has not. That would create income inequality issues regardless of administration policies.

2) How much of that income inequality was due to tax policy? That would be something clearly linked to administrative policy.

3) etc. etc. You get my drift.

The only point you have -- is that Obama didn't follow through with a campaign promise. Old news at this point, and typical for any flavor of politician.

That all being said, this falls into the category of "Yeah, Obama didn't do a good job, but it'll just be even worse with Romney."

Not a compelling argument.

[belfpala]

The only point you have -- is that Obama didn't follow through with a campaign promise. Old news at this point, and typical for any flavor of politician.

Also note that two of the three Obama quotes in that article are dated before the September 2008 crash.

[ptwonline]

So would you say his quote in the above article is dishonest at best?

Not necessarily. He made a statement of principle that he wants the country to follow, and but then made a decision based in reality. Part of it is a strategy to achieve that principle (like with The Congo), the other parts are more of a lesser-of-two-evils approach.

It's not ideal, but the real world is filled with shades of grey.

---------- Post added 2012-10-02 at 05:44 PM ----------

They have another article on it here:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...child_soldiers

It seems to be, the argument is that without the sanction, they have access to fix the issue with child soldiers. The 'secret memo' seems to be implying that with sanctions in place, we could not provide the support and influence to stop them from using children. Which if you think about, this is removing a sanction put in place to discourage child soldiers, so that we have more access to discourage child soldiers. I guess Obama needs to have a talk with folks who pushed a sanction, he now finds to be impeding it's own intent. I guess he can do that next time he is near a mirror...

What is also interesting, this article from 2010, is now the sites second most popular story... Right behind 'Bachelor Padding'...

Sometimes old stories get picked up and circulated quickly especially in this era of social media and gotcha politics.

Anyway, the theory is that when America gives someone money or other aid--including those whose actions might be considered in some respects bad--it gives America some influence with them. It gives the recipients motives to at least give the appearance of cooperation, and once a dependency is created it can be used as a leash to try to force them in the direction you want them to go. Basically, it's buying friendship (or least paying off to prevent hostilities).

Unfortunately, it gives political opponents the opportunity to make superficial criticisms like "He's funding the Muslim Brotherhood! PROOF THAT OBAMA HATES AMERICA!"

[Lenonis]

Here's an interesting item to ponder:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,3840269.story

Two trains of thought:

1) They paid into unemployment insurance, thus are entitled to the benefit, regardless of their income or net value or whatever.
2) They obviously don't need it, so they are taking money from a system intended to help those in need, regardless of who paid into it.

What is interesting is that according to the article a republican is leading the charge -- so apparently the desire to eliminate spending trumps what would result it a tax increase of sorts on the wealthy. (If they pay unemployment insurance but don't get to collect, that's like a tax)

[Catta]

Sometimes old stories get picked up and circulated quickly especially in this era of social media and gotcha politics.

Anyway, the theory is that when America gives someone money or other aid--including those whose actions might be considered in some respects bad--it gives America some influence with them. It gives the recipients motives to at least give the appearance of cooperation, and once a dependency is created it can be used as a leash to try to force them in the direction you want them to go. Basically, it's buying friendship (or least paying off to prevent hostilities).

Unfortunately, it gives political opponents the opportunity to make superficial criticisms like "He's funding the Muslim Brotherhood! PROOF THAT OBAMA HATES AMERICA!"

"... I'm in charge!"

"Do you feel in charge?"

"I paid you a small fortune!"

"And that gives you power over me?"

[FusedMass]

U.S. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) reportedly asked his wife to be his "porn star" in a hand-written letter from Iraq in 2003, detailing "non-negotiable" sex acts she was to perform on his return and ordering her to wear only two-piece bathing suits.

Family Values right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...cs&ir=Politics

[Grizzly Willy]

Really not sure why that, a topic discussing a Republican representative, is here in the Democrat thread. That and the other Mitt Romney-centric articles.

[Lenonis]

Family Values right?

It was his wife.

So...yes.

EDIT -- Family Values doesn't mean "I only do missionary position"

---------- Post added 2012-10-02 at 01:22 PM ----------

Really not sure why that, a topic discussing a Republican representative, is here in the Democrat thread. That and the other Mitt Romney-centric articles.

I see your Republican centric article and raise you FusedMass being unapologetically democrat!

[Felya]

Unfortunately, it gives political opponents the opportunity to make superficial criticisms like "He's funding the Muslim Brotherhood! PROOF THAT OBAMA HATES AMERICA!"

To me, it just confirms the reasons I don't like his foreign policy. It's not something I knew about before reading, but it simply confirms what I thought. Even if it was an issue that the elections hinged for me, I cannot get over the jeers Ron Paul got and the cheers further military action got during the Republican primary debates. It's not an excuse for Obama, as much as something I am against, but cannot vote on parts of candidates to make a perfect one.

---------- Post added 2012-10-02 at 06:26 PM ----------

U.S. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) reportedly asked his wife to be his "porn star" in a hand-written letter from Iraq in 2003, detailing "non-negotiable" sex acts she was to perform on his return and ordering her to wear only two-piece bathing suits.

Family Values right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...cs&ir=Politics

What's wrong with it? The dude has a healthy sex life, all power to him.

Check out my spin doctoring:

Allen West cares about the environment. He suggests his wife wear more heat appropriate outfits, in the blistering heat of his Florida district. Air conditioning waste of energy, is not something he can stay idly by, even in the tranches of Iraq.

[Grizzly Willy]

I see your Republican centric article and raise you FusedMass being unapologetically democrat!

When I say "Mitt Romney-centric" I mean "as pertaining to Mitt Romney" not "positive press for Republicans".