U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[smelltheglove]

The fact is that until Obama survives being shot in the chest being shot in the chest (and still finishes his speech), personally leads soldiers into battle against an enemy empire, and rides a moose through a river, he will never be a better president than Teddy Roosevelt.

hmmm, president death match, teddy roosevelt vs vladimir putin (if teddy was alive and in his prime of course)... now THAT would be a showdown

[Kalyyn]

Well that's a given of course.

Seriously, if I were to bring back any president it would either be Ol' Hickory or Teddy. If for nothing else than to see them personally bitchslap congress

I could legitimately imagine either one of them walking into the senate with an assault rifle in one hand and a budget in the other, firing a few rounds into the air and yelling "Alright assholes, listen up! You're passing this bill and you're doing it right fucking now!"

[mistuhbull]

I could legitimately imagine either one of them walking into the senate with an assault rifle in one hand and a budget in the other, firing a few rounds into the air and yelling "Alright assholes, listen up! You're passing this bill and you're doing it right fucking now!"

Anyone with a fucking problem can line up on the right, My buddy Mr. M-16 will be happy to address your concerns.

[Kalyyn]

hmmm, president death match, teddy roosevelt vs vladimir putin (if teddy was alive and in his prime of course)... now THAT would be a showdown

Little known fact: In addition to being the savior of mankind, Roosevelt was known for being a hell of a wrestler. Though, Putin is a James Bond villain and knows Judo, so I wouldn't expect him to give up easily.

[cubby]

come on now. maintaining gitmo and failing on transparency, and civil rights violations are not "small picture" - hell, he campaigned on those things. i think you and i agree that we think romney would be worse, but that doesnt mean obama gets a pass. if we cant hold him accountable for these things, we can at the least call him on them, and acknowledge it's wrong

Yes, and as soon as you get past the hiccup reaction, and read into the DETAILS of each issue, you'll see that he was prevented from doing what he wanted to do by outside influences.

Gitmo couldn't be closed for a variety of legal and national security reasons. Read up if you don't know them.

Civil rights violations (I'm assuming NDAA). You should know better as to why this was passed.

Transparency - the Bloomberg report. Obama got 19 out of 20. How did Bush do under the same test? Did they even do that test on any other President? Look into the details.

[FusedMass]

I just sincerely do not see a way for Mitt to win, some of the biased polls even one's on Fox showed Obama leading. Isn't it nearly a lost cause. What are Republican's hope happens? Obama is he get's Florida or Ohio. That's it for him. Mitt seems had ton of confidence but he's not showing his policy's or his "data" that show's he's tied. Sort of leaves me puzzled.

[smelltheglove]

Civil rights violations (I'm assuming NDAA). You should know better as to why this was passed.

Transparency - the Bloomberg report. Obama got 19 out of 20. How did Bush do under the same test? Did they even do that test on any other President? Look into the details.

drones would also fall under civil rights.

and comparing him to bush for that? dont you think we should aim our standards just a TAD higher? that's like winning a footrace against a toddler, hardly something to brag about.


im not saying he's a bad president, or even a bad guy. but he's not the second coming, and pretending he is faultless is just silly

[Deleted]

Yes, and as soon as you get past the hiccup reaction, and read into the DETAILS of each issue, you'll see that he was prevented from doing what he wanted to do by outside influences.

Gitmo couldn't be closed for a variety of legal and national security reasons. Read up if you don't know them.

Civil rights violations (I'm assuming NDAA). You should know better as to why this was passed.

Transparency - the Bloomberg report. Obama got 19 out of 20. How did Bush do under the same test? Did they even do that test on any other President? Look into the details.

So Everything negative about Obama's presidency is not his fault but everything good is to his credit.

Also, the fact that Obama scored 19 out of 20 isn't a good thing. You're trying to reach a score of 0 ffs.

[cubby]

drones would also fall under civil rights.

Not really, because we aren't targeting civilians with them, and if drones are being used for surveillance, well, helicopters were ok before, so what's the difference?

and comparing him to bush for that? dont you think we should aim our standards just a TAD higher? that's like winning a footrace against a toddler, hardly something to brag about.

I wasn't trying to do that, sorry for the confusion, because I agree, we should aim our standards much higher. What I'm saying is, what did the last, say, four administrations get on that test? And is the result of the President, or the beauracracy inherent within the government? That's what I'm talking about - the bigger picture, the real reasons things happen and the real reasons why they happen. Does that make sense? (not being sarcastic here, just asking if I'm coming across clearly - I can elaborate if you want).

im not saying he's a bad president, or even a bad guy. but he's not the second coming, and pretending he is faultless is just silly

Why can't the second coming have faults?

[smelltheglove]

Not really, because we aren't targeting civilians with them, and if drones are being used for surveillance, well, helicopters were ok before, so what's the difference?

I wasn't trying to do that, sorry for the confusion, because I agree, we should aim our standards much higher. What I'm saying is, what did the last, say, four administrations get on that test? And is the result of the President, or the beauracracy inherent within the government? That's what I'm talking about - the bigger picture, the real reasons things happen and the real reasons why they happen. Does that make sense? (not being sarcastic here, just asking if I'm coming across clearly - I can elaborate if you want).

Why can't the second coming have faults?

what about the american citizen he took out with a drone? not saying id have done differently, but there is certainly something to be addressed for the future, if nothing else imo.

i see honest and valid criticism as a path of progression, and comparing to the lowest common denominator is not a good way forward imo

i was under the impression that the second coming was by definition perfect? never was good at that stuff, lol

[cubby]

what about the american citizen he took out with a drone? not saying id have done differently, but there is certainly something to be addressed for the future, if nothing else imo.

i see honest and valid criticism as a path of progression, and comparing to the lowest common denominator is not a good way forward imo

i was under the impression that the second coming was by definition perfect? never was good at that stuff, lol

We should definitely keep up on events and maintain vigilance.

I agree, lowest common denominator is not the way to advance - but my criticism is valid. Did any other administration pass this test? Was it the President or the bureaucracy that caused the problem.

It just might be . . . I'm not good at it either.

[smelltheglove]

I agree, lowest common denominator is not the way to advance - but my criticism is valid. Did any other administration pass this test? Was it the President or the bureaucracy that caused the problem.

it's always been my feeling that merit should be measured against an ideal, not anybody else. so by my standard he needs to step it up

[Sunseeker]

it's always been my feeling that merit should be measured against an ideal, not anybody else. so by my standard he needs to step it up

I think it's fair to judge things both ways. Ideals are ideals for a reason, but even the most perfect person cannot exactly duplicate the ideal, because it's impossible.

Judging a person based on an idea of what they want to achieve is fair insomuch that it's them living up to their expectations. But this must be tempered with how much is realistically possible to achieve given the system they work within and what people have achieved with it before them.

[bergmann620]

Not really, because we aren't targeting civilians with them, and if drones are being used for surveillance, well, helicopters were ok before, so what's the difference?

If I target a gang banger but put a round into the debate team captain, I still go to jail. What gives us the moral high ground to essentially conduct a war of terror in Pakistan?

[Sunseeker]

If I target a gang banger but put a round into the debate team captain, I still go to jail. What gives us the moral high ground to essentially conduct a war of terror in Pakistan?

You are not a nation and things work differently. This is like the argument that because an individual has to balance their checkbook every year, so much as nation, and that's just patently not true. And how do you jump from that to "war of terror"? A "war of terror" emphasizes targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in basically a war of attrition. Even if we do shoot the wrong guy from time to time, our methods are not that of targeting civilians, and our goals are not to simply kill and destroy as much civilian life and property as possible.

[Grizzly Willy]

We should definitely keep up on events and maintain vigilance.

I agree, lowest common denominator is not the way to advance - but my criticism is valid. Did any other administration pass this test? Was it the President or the bureaucracy that caused the problem.

It just might be . . . I'm not good at it either.

The issue is that he promised to be more transparent, but he has failed to do so in accordance with the FOIA. That is a problem.

[cubby]

So Everything negative about Obama's presidency is not his fault but everything good is to his credit.

Also, the fact that Obama scored 19 out of 20 isn't a good thing. You're trying to reach a score of 0 ffs.

Nope, I'm the first to admit that most of Obama's negative stuff is his fault. But the big picture is something to always keep in mind.

[Deleted]

ACLU: Between 2009 and 2011 the number of people whose telephones were the subject of pen register and trap and trace surveillance more than tripled. In fact, more people were subjected to pen register and trap and trace surveillance in the past two years than in the entire previous decade.

More:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-se...-huge-increase

"One of the best presidents"

[cubby]

If I target a gang banger but put a round into the debate team captain, I still go to jail. What gives us the moral high ground to essentially conduct a war of terror in Pakistan?

Because there are different rules for different situations. In your example, there are laws that govern the behavior and your actions (or anyone's). Our moral high ground is what actually gives us the right to conduct our war inside the borders of Pakistan. People in this thread will "freak" when they read this, but the smart ones know that it's true.

[bergmann620]

A "war of terror" emphasizes targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in basically a war of attrition. Even if we do shoot the wrong guy from time to time, our methods are not that of targeting civilians, and our goals are not to simply kill and destroy as much civilian life and property as possible.

So, you would advocate the state using drones to take out suspected gang leaders in our country? Do we put domestic terror suspects to death?

Have we tried and convicted the men we're killing? Or are we assuming they are 'combatants' because they fit a profile? Have we even made a case that what they are doing is worthy of death?

Further, we are causing a population to live in fear and terror.

Lastly, what happens when other countries start targeting us for drone strikes- when Arab Spring countries start bombing the homes of cartoonists that have offended Islam?