U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Grizzly Willy]

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.

It's nice that you can making generalizations without actually knowing anything about me. I understand that the NDAA includes the defense budget. I understand that not signing it would have left our military without funding. I am quite aware of Obama's statements regarding the use of the powers provided to him by the NDAA. I am not a close minded idiot, contrary to what you may think.

My concern comes from Obama's defence of it. When the violations were brought up in court, his administration fought to defend them. I understand that that is the job of the president, to enforce the law, but the way that his administration defended the measures leaves me uneasy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1893652.html

I do care. If I didn't I wouldn't be putting up with this.

[cubby]

It's nice that you can making generalizations without actually knowing anything about me. I understand that the NDAA includes the defense budget. I understand that not signing it would have left our military without funding. I am quite aware of Obama's statements regarding the use of the powers provided to him by the NDAA. I am not a close minded idiot, contrary to what you may think.

My concern comes from Obama's defence of it. When the violations were brought up in court, his administration fought to defend them. I understand that that is the job of the president, to enforce the law, but the way that his administration defended the measures leaves me uneasy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1893652.html

I do care. If I didn't I wouldn't be putting up with this.

That's a very fair critique of the situation. And I don't think you are a closed minded idiot, whatsoever. That being said, focusing on one part of one item as an overall critique of a President's legacy, you would have to admit, is very short sighted.

[Deleted]

"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

So your argument is that he had to pass the NDAA with it's famous line to allow indefinite detention of US citizens, because the bill had other things in it. Well, first of all, that's not a good excuse. You simply do not do certain things, and this is one of them. You wouldn't remove the right to vote of women just because it's in a bill that extends the debt ceiling.

Second, the congress was willing to remove the infamous line from the bill, but Obama's administration wanted to retain it.

Third, a Federal Judge (appointed by Obama) decided to permanently block the indefinite detention line of the legislation. This should be an optimal situation for Obama if he really doesn't like the law. What did he do? He fucking sent the DoJ after the judge and her decision.

Obama wants to have the power to indefinitely detain, or assassinate, anyone who he percieves to be a threat to the nation without due process. Fucking hell most of you Liberals would have your head explode of anger if a Republican was responsible.

That's a very fair critique of the situation. And I don't think you are a closed minded idiot, whatsoever. That being said, focusing on one part of one item as an overall critique of a President's legacy, you would have to admit, is very short sighted.

You don't think the Internment Camps FDR was responsible for shadow his legacy? He was a vile racist, with no respect for the rules that limited his authority.

[cubby]

So your argument is that he had to pass the NDAA with it's famous line to allow indefinite detention of US citizens, because the bill had other things in it. Well, first of all, that's not a good excuse. You simply do not do certain things, and this is one of them. You wouldn't remove the right to vote of women just because it's in a bill that extends the debt ceiling.

Second, the congress was willing to remove the infamous line from the bill, but Obama's administration wanted to retain it.

Third, a Federal Judge (appointed by Obama) decided to permanently block the indefinite detention line of the legislation. This should be an optimal situation for Obama if he really doesn't like the law. What did he do? He fucking sent the DoJ after the judge and her decision.

You seem so smart in your other posts/comments/criticisms. I think you may have to just admit that when it comes to this particular topic, the NDAA, you might be blinded to reasoning. I have the same problem with animal rights.

(I can explain in detail if you want)

[Deleted]

You seem so smart in your other posts/comments/criticisms. I think you may have to just admit that when it comes to this particular topic, the NDAA, you might be blinded to reasoning. I have the same problem with animal rights.

(I can explain in detail if you want)

How am I the one who is blinded? You're the one who is defending him on things that Liberals used to lynch (figuratively) Republicans for. You're seriously defending Obama's NDAA decision?

Let's see what Obama has also done with absolute disregard to your constitutional rights to due process. Well, the use of warrantless wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens has surged enormously since Bush left office. The War on Drugs has expanded as well and they are using The Patriot Act to crack down on people for drug use.

[Sunseeker]

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".

No, but wrongs don't negate rights either.

[cubby]

How am I the one who is blinded? You're the one who is defending him on things that Liberals used to lynch (figuratively) Republicans for. You're seriously defending Obama's NDAA decision?

I knew I should have phrased that better. In this one case, I wasn't making fun of you or really criticizing you - I was trying to relate to the situation. My blind spot issue is people who care about animal rights (so you know my favorite group is PETA ). Any time someone brings up that topic, I ignore whatever "animal issue" it's about and immediately ask about homeless children. No good reason for it. I'm sure animal rights people really care about dolphins or pigeons or whatever. I can't hear anything they say, though, because all I can think of is why isn't all this energy going towards helping homeless kids.

The point I was trying to make was that the NDAA might be your "animal rights" issue - and no matter what great things Obama has done (and there are a lot of great things he's already done for this country) all you see is the human rights violation. And any argument explaining it or trying to justify it (and there are good ones) falls on deaf ears to you.

Again, just trying to have a conversation about this, not trying to attack or anything, because I know it sounds like I am.

[Deleted]

I knew I should have phrased that better. In this one case, I wasn't making fun of you or really criticizing you - I was trying to relate to the situation. My blind spot issue is people who care about animal rights (so you know my favorite group is PETA ). Any time someone brings up that topic, I ignore whatever "animal issue" it's about and immediately ask about homeless children. No good reason for it. I'm sure animal rights people really care about dolphins or pigeons or whatever. I can't hear anything they say, though, because all I can think of is why isn't all this energy going towards helping homeless kids.

The point I was trying to make was that the NDAA might be your "animal rights" issue - and no matter what great things Obama has done (and there are a lot of great things he's already done for this country) all you see is the human rights violation. And any argument explaining it or trying to justify it (and there are good ones) falls on deaf ears to you.

Again, just trying to have a conversation about this, not trying to attack or anything, because I know it sounds like I am.

Due process and the judicial system is pervasive in our entire society. If the judicial system doesn't work, the it doesn't matter what rights you have on paper, none of them can be protected.

In other words, an infringement upon due process, is an infringement upon all other rights as well.

Having the legal right to make people disappear for an indefinite amount of time without going through a judge is something typical of totalitarian states, not western democracies.

Also, from The Atlantic:

Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue.

Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.

Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

[cubby]

Due process and the judicial system is pervasive in our entire society. If the judicial system doesn't work, the it doesn't matter what rights you have on paper, none of them can be protected.

In other words, an infringement upon due process, is an infringement upon all other rights as well.

Having the legal right to make people disappear for an indefinite amount of time without going through a judge is something typical of totalitarian states, not western democracies,

Alrighty then, you've pretty much classified yourself in this discussion. Keep in mind no rule is absolute - except that rule.

---------- Post added 2012-09-26 at 08:10 PM ----------

You don't think the Internment Camps FDR was responsible for shadow his legacy? He was a vile racist, with no respect for the rules that limited his authority.

None whatsoever. And no, he wasn't.

[Deleted]

None whatsoever. And no, he wasn't.

Forcing American citizens to concentration camps doesn't shadow FDR's legacy? Rofl.

[cubby]

Forcing American citizens to concentration camps doesn't shadow FDR's legacy? Rofl.

No, it doesn't. Not with most people. When you posted it I had to remember that it happened (and I'm a student of WWII history). It was a regrettable event, of course, but FDR did a couple of other things that people pay more attention to.

(and I'm not excusing the internment camps, btw)

[Deleted]

No, it doesn't. Not with most people. When you posted it I had to remember that it happened (and I'm a student of WWII history). It was a regrettable event, of course, but FDR did a couple of other things that people pay more attention to.

(and I'm not excusing the internment camps, btw)

Some things are simply unforgivable. Takes a special kind of psychopath to send your own citizens to concentration camps.

[Wells]

Some things are simply unforgivable. Takes a special kind of psychopath to send your own citizens to concentration camps.

Internment camps. They're a black mark to be sure but don't compare them to what the third reich was up to thank you very much.

[cubby]

Some things are simply unforgivable. Takes a special kind of psychopath to send your own citizens to concentration camps.

This is forgivable - for some reason you can't. Were you perhaps hit by this personally? I don't mean to prod, but the internment camps weren't some awful experience where people died. There were, as Wells so aptly put it, a black mark on our nation's history, but they weren't concentration camps, AT ALL.

[Spectral]

You don't think the Internment Camps FDR was responsible for shadow his legacy? He was a vile racist, with no respect for the rules that limited his authority.

I think most reasonable people regard him as one of the three greatest Presidents of all time, flaws and all.

---------- Post added 2012-09-26 at 06:54 PM ----------

Some things are simply unforgivable. Takes a special kind of psychopath to send your own citizens to concentration camps.

No, it takes a special kind of fear brought on by an existential threat to the United States, something that very few people posting here have any firsthand experience with. That doesn't excuse it, morally, but it's why someone who isn't a "psychopath" would engage in such an action.

[Grizzly Willy]

Which is partially why I don't care about the GOP this cycle. Their fearmongering is borderline criminal. I'm almost surprised that they haven't incited anybody to violence yet.

[Felya]

Which is partially why I don't care about the GOP this cycle. Their fearmongering is borderline criminal. I'm almost surprised that they haven't incited anybody to violence yet.

Should they be blamed for the militias that have been arrested? The guy who flew a plane into IRS building? The governor that got shot in the head? If someone really wanted to, there is plenty of blame to go around.

[Grizzly Willy]

Was more thinking about violence against Obama, but I see your point.

[Felya]

Was more thinking about violence against Obama, but I see your point.

It would be the same regardless. I don't know if you can blame the rhetoric, when the actions are of someone mentally imbalanced. The rhetoric can change from JFK to Reagan, but it takes the mental lapse to attempt any attack on the president. No mater the rhetoric, the person doing it has to be insane. Like the crosshairs crap a few years ago, it's vile, but I can't blame it for a crazy person shooting a democrat and 13 people a year later.

[Spectral]

I think trying to pinpoint a single piece of political rhetoric for violence is a bit like trying to blame a single cheeseburger for why a person is overweight. It's a cumulative sum of events that leads up to that, not one thing.