2012 Election Thread

[quote name='detectiveconan16']Yeah, they really expect people to get off their butts and actually register to vote themselves. Some people can do it, that's what I did, but I'm guessing filling out a freakin' form and mailing it in is too much for a lot of people. That's why it is cool to have these organizations help out, but these laws just make such a seemingly simple yet important thing quite ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Right. Even beyond that, having registration drives also gives the parties a chance to pump up their tickets. Without the outreach, a lot of people are going to be in the dark about a lot of the candidates. And like everyone knows, the more people that vote, they more they tend to vote Democrat. The way Florida is doing it, they're killing 3 birds with one stone.
 
While the issue is flippant, Ryan's lie about his marathon time only solidifies my belief the man will say whatever he thinks sounds good at the time or "proves" his point. I mean 1 hour difference? This is not someone forgetting about his youth but someone whose lying and deceit has become a systemic part of who they are. It is this idea that you can say whatever you want because you think nobody will check and if you are caught that nobody who was going to vote for you will care. If you can lie about this then public policy is nothing. Maybe I am being too harsh and this is common practice, but it bothers me a person can be so fast and loose with their own historical past, and expects me to trust them with public policy.

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-sub-300-marathon/
 
A 48 hour window between when a signature is gathered and when it is turned in does not strike me as a particularly burdensome barrier. However, I dont run voter registration efforts, and apparently it really is.

And for some reason, Republican registration is not closely tied to these kinds of drives. You dont drop from 260k to 11k as some sort of fluke not related to policy.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']While it may be a fact there were 58 Dems and 2 Independents for those 4 months it was pretty obvious those 60 were not going to pass any radical Progressive Bills.[/quote]
Umm... Obamacare?
 
You know, dirty ads are part of the political game, I get that, but when you don't think you can win without actively keeping people from voting, that's just sad. It means you don't believe you can win democratically, you're afraid that if everyone who wants to vote, does vote, you'll lose.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Umm... Obamacare?[/QUOTE]

Read this and tell me how progressive Obamacare is. Any bill with its origins from The Heritage Foundation cannot be too progressive. On top of that Mitt Romney signs his own law requiring a mandate for MA. The party of personal responsibility just does not want to help pay for poor people to have health insurance. It is about greed not principal. Anti-abortion because life is so precious yet let poor people die from treatable conditions. It is all a big pile of hypocrisy.

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

A progressive idea would have been a public option...a REALLY progressive option is a single payer system. This is the problem. Ideas once thought to be conservative 20 years ago are now considered socialism/communism/Marxism. It really scares me to be honest. Obama is not even close to the anti-business, anti-military, socialist the right loves to paint him as.
 
A very thorough article, to be sure - but it shows, at best, mild disagreement within the Republican party in the early 1990's about the individual mandate.

If there had been more substantive evidence of disagreeing with the individual mandate in articles, letters, correspondence, or other sources *from* that time period, people like Stuart Butler might have some credibility. But what we're required to do, if we believe people like Butler, is believe that their statements from the past few years denying their support for such a program extended back nearly 20 years. And that's despite the heavy hand people like Butler had in crafting the health care model in the first place.

In short, that is far and away some significant revisionist history. Yet again, you have brazen lies from the right in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary - this time, in the form of Santorum's denial of supporting the mandate in 1994.

Back to the election, can someone who supports Romney talk about what they think he would do to grow jobs that Obama has not or will not do? I'm truly very curious. I'd like to see Romney supporters talk about some of the issues they support him on. This isn't me trying to bait anyone, I want to have a sincere discussion.
 
Their job plan isnt a mystery. You would be told about burdensome regulations and taxes preventing businesses from creating jobs, as if creating jobs was their goal or that hiring decisions was made on the basis of tax and regulatory policy.
 
But that's not a policy. I want to see Romney supporters discuss his plans and policies that they like that will spurn job growth. We're being sold, by Romney/Ryan, 12 million jobs in 4 years - to make that kind of bold claim, they should be able to talk about how they plan on achieving that kind of remarkable growth. With specifics.

I'm waiting to have that discussion.
 
I finally saw Friday's Daily Show and it's hilarious that a great deal of the states that classify themselves as "Republican" are the biggest money moochers of the Federal Government, costing Big G billions of dollars a year easily. California, that always hits the news as a state in constant danger of exceeding their budgets, manages to pay more in federal taxes than it takes in federal money, even though that amount is pretty miniscule in comparison to Connecticut. Mother Jones, and NYT reported this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Government policy doesnt create jobs. Its the private sector, remember? So to the extent that they dont appear to have a policy - that is the policy, and purposefully so. Anything the government does just gets in the way.

The 12 million claim isnt particularly bold, 11 and change is whats already forecasted for the next 4 years.
 
It seems to depend on whose numbers you use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...0/factchecker-romneys-12-million-job-promise/

Moodys has it at 12 million regardless of who is president. CBO had it at 11 (9.6 if we go off the fiscal cliff). I'm sure Obama and other entities have their own estimates as well. 12 million is in the neighborhood of what everyone seems to be expecting anyway, regardless if it turns out to be accurate.
 
Continuing my theme of Ryan is nothing but a liar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/paul-ryan-today_n_1853759.html

He was NOT blaming Obama for losing the GM plant you see. Only that he broke a promise (which he never made) to bring the plant back. Covering a lie with a lie is such a wasted art these days.

Vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) backpedaled Monday from a claim in his Republican National Convention speech that President Barack Obama was responsible for the closure of a General Motors plant that in fact closed during the presidency of George W. Bush.

"What they are trying to suggest is that I said Barack Obama was responsible for the plant shutdown in Janesville. That is not what I was saying, read the speech," he told NBC's "Today." "What I was saying is the president ought to be held to account for his broken promises. After the plant was shut down he said he would lead efforts to restore the plant. It’s still idle."

"What I was saying is the president ought to be held to account for his broken promises. After the plant was shut down he said he would lead efforts to restore the plant. It’s still idle."

Sounds to me Ryan is advocating government help a private business get back into business...seems hypocritical since government "did not build that".
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']I finally saw Friday's Daily Show and it's hilarious that a great deal of the states that classify themselves as "Republican" are the biggest money moochers of the Federal Government, costing Big G billions of dollars a year easily. California, that always hits the news as a state in constant danger of exceeding their budgets, manages to pay more in federal taxes than it takes in federal money, even though that amount is pretty miniscule in comparison to Connecticut. Mother Jones, and NYT reported this.[/QUOTE]
That was pretty funny. What was funnier was how the folks they talked to didn't get the joke, that those states should be cut.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']source?

also, please let the Romney supporters speak for themselves.[/QUOTE]

Let's be real, Myke - Are there *any* Romney supporters on this site?
 
well, there's dafoomie, who unlike many isn't afraid to cower or hide or discuss what he actually believes. And, yes, that is a dig at you.

i'd call you a fence-sitter, since you're reluctant to ever support anything, taking the lazy "all sides are corrupt" approach to politics. but surely you'll vote this fall. Maybe you're one of those Gary Johnson (or whomever is the Libertarian flavor of the month) people.

So, then, tell me what policies the candidate you plan to vote for (or most support if you're undecided currently) proposes that will spurn job growth in the US?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's be real, Myke - Are there *any* Romney supporters on this site?[/QUOTE]
IATCG is one too.

edit: If I remember correctly, he said something to the effect of anyone not voting for Romney doesn't want the country to "succeed."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']well, there's dafoomie, who unlike many isn't afraid to cower or hide or discuss what he actually believes. And, yes, that is a dig at you.

i'd call you a fence-sitter, since you're reluctant to ever support anything, taking the lazy "all sides are corrupt" approach to politics. but surely you'll vote this fall. Maybe you're one of those Gary Johnson (or whomever is the Libertarian flavor of the month) people.

So, then, tell me what policies the candidate you plan to vote for (or most support if you're undecided currently) proposes that will spurn job growth in the US?[/QUOTE]

I could also see him being one of those "I'm not voting because it'll never change" folks.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']well, there's dafoomie, who unlike many isn't afraid to cower or hide or discuss what he actually believes. And, yes, that is a dig at you.[/quote]

Funny. I posted a direct link to the results of that survey - which includes exactly how I answered every question.

Also of amusement to me... Obama ranked 37% and Romney ranked 36%. Maybe I see both sides equally useless because both sides fail to line up with any significant majority of my beliefs.

So, then, tell me what policies the candidate you plan to vote for (or most support if you're undecided currently) proposes that will spurn job growth in the US?
Click to expand...

Myke, you know better than to ask that of me. Unlike most, I don't think it's the place of the Federal Government to "create" jobs. Now, cue the complete and utter disdain for such an idea...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Funny. I posted a direct link to the results of that survey - which includes exactly how I answered every question.

Also of amusement to me... Obama ranked 37% and Romney ranked 36%. Maybe I see both sides equally useless because both sides fail to line up with any significant majority of my beliefs.[/quote]

Didn't see it. What survey are you talking about?

So, how will the economy improve, and what presidential candidates (including the "rent is too damned high" party dude if he and his amazing facial hair are running again) do you think have the best ideas and policies to make that happen? What are those ideas?

Myke, you know better than to ask that of me. Unlike most, I don't think it's the place of the Federal Government to "create" jobs. Now, cue the complete and utter disdain for such an idea...
Click to expand...

[UncleBob]So, can you point to where I said the government would "create" jobs?[/UncleBob]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And yet, I never said you said anything about "creating" jobs. Simply said I didn't think it was the Federal Government's place.[/QUOTE]

So your answer is a non sequitur, then. Good, let's move on. Perhaps now you can answer the question?

Also:

[quote name='UncleBob']I never said you said[/QUOTE]

:lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So your answer is a non sequitur, then. Good, let's move on. Perhaps now you can answer the question?

Also:



:lol:[/QUOTE]

Whether or not you hate UncleBob, you have to admit he's fucking good.
 
Goddamn, Deval Patrick killed it at the DNC tonight. There were rumors of him trying for 2016 and I can see it happening now.

edit: Julian Castro was pretty good too, but still needs a little more polish. He could be a real big player with a little more experience.

edit2: Wow, Michelle Obama was even better than Castro. Whoever wrote that speech deserves an award.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Purple Flames']Michelle Obama knocked it out of the fucking park with that speech. Beats the hell out of a story about a trip to Costco.[/QUOTE]

For real. I can't remember the last time I was *that* focused on my television. The woman is amazing. And now for what I came here to post...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackt...-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/

Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them

I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.

Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.

Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.

This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.

Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Click to expand...

That's a whole lotta lies.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So your answer is a non sequitur, then. Good, let's move on. Perhaps now you can answer the question?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what kind of answer you're expecting to get out of me. Federal Government should focus on basic infrastructure needs, securing our borders (like, real border security, not kick out the Mexicans border security), international Diplomacy, disputes between the states and protecting citizens from unlawful persecution by their state/local governments. I'd go so far to set up some environmental regulations (that'll fall under disputes between the states, as pollution doesn't stay within state borders, also international Diplomacy for the same reason), a simplified tax code and collection process (we have to fund the Federal government), a unified currency (basic infrastructure), etc., etc.

The Federal Government shouldn't be making decisions based on how it'll effect one private business or another.

I know that saying all this to someone who heavily supports the Federal Government giving away truckloads of taxpayer money to private companies is probably not something that really computes with you...

Oh, and Clak - unless you're a total idiot, I'm sure you're aware there's more to life than "Federal Government" and "Free Market". I'll give you a slow clap if you can think of some other things that could help influence the private jobs sector.
 
[quote name='dohdough']

edit2: Wow, Michelle Obama was even better than Castro. Whoever wrote that speech deserves an award.[/QUOTE]

I heard a twitter rumor she wrote it herself. Take it with a grain of salt, but if she did, than damn am I even more impressed.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I'm not as much a Romney supporter as I am an Obama critic. I would love to see Hillary in 2016.[/QUOTE]

Then you could answer what he has done that Romney could do better (either via different policies, or by not enacting similar policies).

Jesus Christ, can't someone stand up for themselves and openly talk fucking policy around here. Are we all rigid ideology and soft feelings mixed with a total disinterest in the particulars?

No wonder we're fucked and/or can't have nice things.

As for Bob: sure, it's lovely to think that government should not be involved in the economy. I'd like to think bacteria shouldn't be in water. Well, you know what? It's a fucking fact of life, and there's no way to change that. Pie in the sky is great and all, but what you're thinking is the ideal is not, nor can it be, reality. Ever. Under any circumstances. It's impossible.
 
I hate to say it, but I never said the Federal government shouldn't be involved in the economy. I said they shouldn't concern themselves with making it "better" (or worse).
 
I believe that there a is a place for government in the economy, since many technological and medical breakthroughs have been created due to government funding. However, I believe it should not mollycoddle the private sector, giving in to just about every demand it makes, like with subsidies and tax cuts. Tax credits, sure, only if the private sector does something.

These current crop of politicians, don't really seem to be in favor of that since they treat Government and Private Industry as a revolving door. One side gives money to the other, the other side gives huge perks to the other.
 
Is anyone interested in debating policy? Does anyone look at issues and proposals on candidate websites anymore? Or do we let wankers like Sean Hannity (or Lew Rockwell, or non-wankers like Markos Moulitsas) tell us what to think?

Obama supporters - what policies and plans for 2012-16 do you want to see? Why do you support him? God knows there's not a single Romney supporter that is willing to stand up at all, let alone has the guts to actually point to something other than a combination of soft feelings and gut instinct to try to (laughably) justify their vote. I ask people to bring up policy, and everybody hems and haws, continuing to play the same bullshit games they did before, not acknowledging for a moment that anyone who does so is acknowledging that they're committing intellectual fraud.

When you say things like "I'm not pro-Romney, I'm anti-Obama," you're admitting that you can't be bothered to actually read and review what the candidates propose before voting. When you say things like that, you're admitting to not having paid attention to the political climate the past 4 years. You're putting your entire view on the idea that you're upset and disaffected, which is politically lazy - any single one of us can always find something to feign outrage about at any point in time. It takes true effort and true thought to think about policy proposals and plans instead.

Did closing Guantanamo matter as much to you then as it does now? Does it matter that public opinion and GOP politicians refused to assist in closing the place and allowing people who *have* been charged be placed in facilities in the US?

Did ending the wars matter as much to you then as now? Does it matter that we are drawing down in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Does it matter that one candidate is openly advocating for neoconservative preemptive war in Iran, and turning China into the new Red Menace by declaring them an economic and military threat on day one in office?

Didn't know that last part, did you? You can pretend here you did; such is the nature of online communication. You can google and cover up the fact that you didn't pay attention. But you know better. Stop posturing, start reading. For fuckin' fuck's sake, start reading.

This does help explain why there are so few people who stand up and point out what a silly idea it is that Paul Ryan is a "policy wonk" or a "serious policy dude" or whathaveyou - when the "path to prosperity" is an underpants gnome plan of austerity.

You're why this moment of television grandeur didn't gain more traction, and why out and out idiots like O'Donnell get air time to this day - you can't be bothered to know better.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obrien-c...and-marxist-around-unanchored-by-definitions/
 
I'll talk policy. How about foreign policy? A recent US drone strike killed 13 civilians in Yemen. Where are all the war protestors that were everywhere when Bush was in office? Nobel Peace Prize indeed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Obama supporters - what policies and plans for 2012-16 do you want to see? Why do you support him? [/QUOTE]

Things I'd like to see, in no particular order.

1. Bush tax cuts expire. Preferably for all, but at least for the upper income brackets as they've been discussing.

2. Pass the Buffet rule so the very wealthy pay at least a set tax level and people like Romney aren't averaging 13% in taxes.

3. Really part of the above, but more expansive--tax capital gains as regular income. Income is income.

4. Get the health care law in place. Work toward setting grounds to expand it and eventually move toward a single payer system years down the road. i.e. get the medicare expansions in place etc.

5. Get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act and work toward equal legal rights for gay couples.

6. Wrap up the war in Afghanistan.

7. Finally close Gitmo and start giving detainees faster trials/tribunals rather than holding them indefinitely.

8. Find a way to make diplomacy work in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Make any military action an absolute last resort. Don't be fully supportive of Israel if they strike on their own too soon.

9. More investment in education. Both financial and reforming the system to give talented people and good teachers incentive to get into the field and stay there.

10. More investment in research and the sciences. This, and the last point, are crucial to the countries future as a world leader in innovation.

11. Further address environmental issues. Moving toward green energy, lessening dependence on oil etc.

12. Invest in upgrading infrastructure. Everything from roads, the power grid, broadband speed and available and public transportation (high speed rails on the eastern and western sea boards etc.) are in huge needs of upgrade and expansion, and are areas where we lack behind other nations.


That's a pretty solid gamut of the things I care most about. Do I think Obama will accomplish more than a fraction of them in a second term? Of course not, no one can make such major changes/progress without our political system.

But he'll at least try on most of them, where as Romney and the Republicans are pretty much opposite on all of them. Hence why he has my support. Just donated $100 to the campaign yesterday.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I'll talk policy. How about foreign policy? A recent US drone strike killed 13 civilians in Yemen. Where are all the war protestors that were everywhere when Bush was in office? Nobel Peace Prize indeed.[/QUOTE]

That's not a policy, dude.:rofl:
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's not a policy, dude.:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, let's talk about words the candidates use that may or may not ever end up meaning a single thing. Let's ignore the actual actions they take while in office.

Also, lolz at Myke's big tirade about having a real discussion regarding policy and ending it with a link to a fluff piece about some minor candidate who's never held anything close to a major elected position arguing with a third-rate "reporter" regarding the mean, mean words she said. Yeah, there's real discussion on policy.
 
I really like Michelle Obama. Her brother is the bball coach at my alma mater, and I like him too. The Castro guy was alright, but his voice was grating for me. The highlight of his speech was when they were going through the "no's" then got to health care and the audience shouts "NO!" and he has to tell them to wait a second, Romney USED to support that but has now changed. The rest of his speech was painfully lame. Der, der, "I love my mom!" to counter multiple Republican speakers who told us der, der, "I love my mom".

My wife doesn't particularly follow or care about politics, but she looked over at me while we were watching it and asked "are people really so stupid that they watch this and it helps them decide who to vote for, because someone says they love their mom?" I honestly don't know the answer to that, but to me, this year more than ever, it has really been fluff, drivel, and cheerleader talk, than anything about what the candidates are going to do. Maybe I'm not remembering past national conventions fairly and they're all like this.

Regarding Gitmo and this...endless waaaar, I care a great deal about both. I really care about foreign policy, in some instances more than some domestic causes. Obama has done absolutely nothing to speed up the end, free anybody held at Gitmo, and it isn't the Republicans that are blocking this. He has full power to take action on both. These were things he was going to do on Day 1. Remember when people got all hot and bothered that he didn't go through Congress for action with Libya? He has the executive power to end these wars, shut down Gitmo. These are things he said he would do. Instead, he has expanded spying on Americans, maintained, if not intensified the use of drone strikes in the Middle East, set the precedent for assassinating US citizens, beat the Iran war drum just as loud as Bush and the Republicans, then tries to tell us he's different. From a military standpoint, and civil liberties one (outside of gay marriage, which he begrudgingly had to support thanks to Biden and the upcoming election), he has been every bit as bad as Bush, arguable worse.

To me, the biggest lie in this election is the candidates telling us they're really all that different.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I'll talk policy. How about foreign policy? A recent US drone strike killed 13 civilians in Yemen. Where are all the war protestors that were everywhere when Bush was in office? Nobel Peace Prize indeed.[/QUOTE]

While I do not agree with drone strikes or NDAA, I'll be honest and say that with the drawing down in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm tepid on Obama's military actions. I'm glad we're finally leaving - and we have to acknowledge that we couldn't just pack everyone and everything up and walk away. Timetables and plans are necessary to draw down. Yes, it has taken longer than I would like - but it's moving in the direction I want it to.

Drone strikes ≠ neoconservative principles of preemptive war in action.

Obama hasn't done everything I've wanted to see in terms of defense and military engagement, but at the end of the day, he's moving in the direction I wanted him to. The idea that support for any military engagement means that us who were against the war are hypocrites is a figment of the imagination and a red herring. The NDAA is a bothersome piece of legislation, however, and drone strikes bothersome as well. That is not, to me, comparable to spending trillions of dollars to start two wars (and threaten one versus the third, as Bush did with Iran and Romney promises to do with Iran and threatens to do with China) that had little to nothing to do with us.

Obama accomplished what Bush could not in Afghanistan. Obama accomplished, with little resources and minimal loss of life, what would have been another trillion dollar clusterfuck if Bush or Romney did it.

It's not perfect, but it *is* apples and oranges.

As for Guantanamo, it's fallacious to say it's all on Obama - he's experienced not just Republican opposition, but Congressional opposition. If we accept (and we should) that not every Guantanamo detainee should be released (those we should charge should remain detained), then we must find some place to put them. There was much hand-wringing amongst Congresspersons, few to none willing to put the detainees in their district due to (irrational) public fears of "danger" or whatnot. Lacking someone willing to be reasonable and detain those who have been charged to face trial in the federal court system, Obama is left with either keeping it open or letting everyone go.

Now, Obama should be able to find *someone* or *some* jurisdiction willing to actually do something with the detainees who should be charged. Thing is, we did this - our nation created this mess, and we don't want to put them through our criminal system, nor do we want to let them go. How can we, knowing that, hold Obama solely accountable for that?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']While I do not agree with drone strikes or NDAA, I'll be honest and say that with the drawing down in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm tepid on Obama's military actions. I'm glad we're finally leaving - and we have to acknowledge that we couldn't just pack everyone and everything up and walk away. Timetables and plans are necessary to draw down. Yes, it has taken longer than I would like - but it's moving in the direction I want it to.

Drone strikes ≠ neoconservative principles of preemptive war in action.[/QUOTE]

Neoconservatives love preemptive wars. They practically wrote the book on the subject. Obama simply stuck to the timetables set up by Bush. That's unacceptable.

Simply put, we're not leaving. We'll have troops stationed in these countries until 2024. You're giving Obama a pass out of sheer partisan hackery. At least you're showing some level of disdain for his military actions.

[quote name='mykevermin']
Obama hasn't done everything I've wanted to see in terms of defense and military engagement, but at the end of the day, he's moving in the direction I wanted him to.
[/QUOTE]

So bombing other countries and killing civilians without a declaration of war is the direction you want him to move in?


[quote name='mykevermin']
The idea that support for any military engagement means that us who were against the war are hypocrites is a figment of the imagination and a red herring. The NDAA is a bothersome piece of legislation, however, and drone strikes bothersome as well. That is not, to me, comparable to spending trillions of dollars to start two wars (and threaten one versus the third, as Bush did with Iran and Romney promises to do with Iran and threatens to do with China) that had little to nothing to do with us.
[/QUOTE]

Oh trust me, I'm not saying the right does a better job in this field. In fact, I'd say they do a worse job (I could be wrong though. When was the last time we had a democrat in office who didn't get us entangled in some sort of foreign war that had little to do with us?).

[quote name='mykevermin']
Obama accomplished what Bush could not in Afghanistan. Obama accomplished, with little resources and minimal loss of life, what would have been another trillion dollar clusterfuck if Bush or Romney did it.

It's not perfect, but it *is* apples and oranges.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe, maybe not. You couldn't possibly know this to be true (and neither could I). I'm assuming by accomplish you mean the killing of Bin Laden. Well, I still think they should have captured and tried him rather than just kill him on the spot.

[quote name='mykevermin']
As for Guantanamo, it's fallacious to say it's all on Obama - he's experienced not just Republican opposition, but Congressional opposition. If we accept (and we should) that not every Guantanamo detainee should be released (those we should charge should remain detained), then we must find some place to put them. There was much hand-wringing amongst Congresspersons, few to none willing to put the detainees in their district due to (irrational) public fears of "danger" or whatnot. Lacking someone willing to be reasonable and detain those who have been charged to face trial in the federal court system, Obama is left with either keeping it open or letting everyone go.

Now, Obama should be able to find *someone* or *some* jurisdiction willing to actually do something with the detainees who should be charged. Thing is, we did this - our nation created this mess, and we don't want to put them through our criminal system, nor do we want to let them go. How can we, knowing that, hold Obama solely accountable for that?[/QUOTE]

He could have closed it if he really wanted to. How long did democrats control both houses? He promised he would do it on day one.

523091_10150953717337574_118742196_n.jpg




If I seem a little angry, it's because these were the main reasons I voted for Obama last election and he didn't deliver on his promises.
 
I view the drone strikes as basically a necessary evil. We still need to hunt down and kill terrorist. And all accounts are drone strikes do that with lesser risk to our troops and lower amounts of civilian casualties (though I'm skeptical of the data used for the latter claim due to them counting any young males in the vicinity of a proven terrorist as combatants).

As for the timetables for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, in my view speeding them up would have been worse. We shouldn't have been in Iraq, and not in Afghanistan to the extent we were (Taliban had to go though), but he inherited the wars and the worst thing we could do was just leave and let the countries we destabilized fall apart into full on civil wars etc. That just lessens our safety (generation of terrorists) and makes things worse on the citizens of these countries than before we started. So we have an obligation to leave only when things are reasonably stable. It's not going to be perfect as conditions in Iraq show, but things long term should be better for that nation than under Sadaam. Hopefully the same will be true of Afghanistan as things were awful under the Taliban in terms of freedoms etc. (especially for women).

Again, never should have been in Iraq and should have got rid of the Taliban in a manner similar to the ouster of Qaddafi, but since we started we need to do a reasonable job of finishing--both for the sake of fighting terrorism, and for the citizens of these countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top