2012 Election Thread

[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Our intervention only makes us more unsafe. It's the very reason we were attacked on 9/11. You don't put out a fire by pouring more gasoline on it. It is not our job to police the world. All it does is generate hatred and distain for our country, all the while, the civillian death-toll climbs higher and higher.

Your down-playing of our current president's actions are just more proof of partisan hackery. Were Bush comitting the same crimes, you would be throwing a fit, and rightly so.
 
Nope. I just lean a bit right on foreign policy. I didn't like Bush starting the Iraq war at all, and I think the Taliban could have been ousted with air strikes and sanction and support for local opposition groups like in Libya rather than all this invasion and nation building. But I don't have a lot of qualms with drone strikes at terrorist leaders, training camps etc. regardless if it's Bush, Obama, Romney etc. As long as they're going on good intel, and reporting civilian casualties accurate--and again I'm concerned about the latter.

I do agree it's not our job to police the world--but only in the sense that it shouldn't be our sole job. The United Nations and Nato etc. need more power in doing things like the ouster of Qaddafi.

I'm not jingoistic and think only American problems at home matter. A person is a person and it should be the obligation of the world powers to police things and prevent human rights violations, much less genocides.

I also agree with concerns about fanning the flames of hate--which accidentally killing civilians certainly can do. That's one advantage of drones--they can fly a lot lower, do more localized damage etc. and thus minimize collateral damage. But they're certainly not fool proof, intel can be bad etc. so it's key that great care is taken in deploying them and ordering strikes. But it's still better than bombing from manned jets, or putting troops at risk in ground assaults or helicopter attacks etc.
 
Ok, I get where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I get how someone could hold that position.

Still, it's quite the juxtaposition when Obama is lecturing foreign leaders on how to treat dissenters, all the while publicly paid gang members are macing and assaulting occupy protestors. I feel that when we focus to much on the evils or the world, we overlook the evils right here at home.

I'm against our welfare system, but I would be willing to embrace it if it meant ending our American empire and the bill that comes with it.
 
While I definitely agree about how the occupy protests (and other protests in the past) were handled, that can't be pinned on Obama or Bush or Clinton etc.

Those are decisions made by city leaders--mayors, city councils and police chiefs. With the exception of past cases (Kent State etc.) that involved the National Guard of course.

Now presidents could certainly speak their outrage over police brutality in breaking up protests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Obama was responsible for the way that whole thing was handled. I just think he should have been more outspoken about it. No matter who is protesting or what the protest is about, those who dissent must be protected.
 
I'll admit I don't know enough about HR347 to have a strong opinion on it.

From what I gathered at the time it just heightened some restrictions on protesting near places where someone is under Secret Service protection, major events like the Super Bowl etc. where security is very tight.

That doesn't bother me too much, though I get the slippery slope concerns of limiting where people can protest. But some small limitations I'm ok with. Banning protests from these types of things, ok. Banning protests within a certain distance of funeral proceedings, ok. Limiting protests on college campuses to free speech zones away from classrooms and other areas where they disrupt the operation of the school, ok.

But again, it can be a slippery slope and end up stifling dissent if too many areas are blocked from protests. So I get those kind of concerns.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Temporaryscars']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.[/quote]

When I voted for Obama in 2008, I saw 2 wars, one of which was unrelated to 9/11 but based on it occuring, and one that we paid less attention to. I was actually glad we were in Afghanistan and had an open relationship w/ Pakistan, because that was a fitting reactive measure to 9/11. That said, timetables had been set, removed, denied, missons claimed to have been accomplished, and trillions spent under Bush. There was no end in sight; Bush did set up timetables for withdrawal, but Lucy also held the football for Charlie Brown on a number of occasions. I did not expect any sitting Republican to see an end to those wars, ever. Since they are winding down, since they are ending. That's progress, and that's compromise. It is indeed satisfying one of the reasons I voted for Obama. If it's happening too late, we can argue about that indeed. But I'm happy that it's happening at all.

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.
Click to expand...

Eh. We have stations in Okinawa, Korea, and Germany still; stations are not the same thing as continued active military engagements. Satisfaction with one step forward is not satisfaction with the entirety of it, even if I expected two steps forward.

The thing about Obama is that he didn't do *precisely* what you expected him to. If that's how you want to vote, I can't argue against that generally. But if that's how you approach politics, I'm afraid you'll never find a candidate that you would support, then. Politicians work within the political machine, so I have to reject the notion that, especially in the office of the President, that they have unchecked power and ability to do whatever they want. They do not.

Also, elsewhere in this thread (I'm pretty sure it was this thread), I and others addressed the oversimplification that underlies the "Obama had a supermajority and could do whatever he wanted" thesis. Did you get a chance to read that?

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

Of course not, and I'm not certain why you would suggest that.

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?).
Click to expand...

If you have a chance, read Hacker and Pierson's "Winner Takes-All Politics." It's not entirely related to this issue, but it does emphasize how both parties (unequally, and heavily favoring the right) have become slaves to corporations - not just the military-industrial complex, but that's certainly part of it.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll enjoy the book and also find it frustrating.

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.
Click to expand...

One hindsight-being-20/20 criticism of Bush compared to Obama in terms of foreign muscle (no, really) was that Bush capitulated to Pakistan and Musharraf too much. When our soldiers went in to capture and eventually kill bin Laden, they did so with neither the knowledge, much less the permission, of the Pakistani government. It's very fair to say Bush would not have captured bin Laden.

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.
Click to expand...

Closing it is one thing - then what? Where would they go? Address this knowing that there is little to no support for taking detainees who have been charged, who are legitimate threats, and placing them on US soil and subjecting them to the US Criminal Justice system. Military tribunals are horrible things, and the standards for detainment deplorable - but what are the options, realistically?

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.
Click to expand...

Good on you for following up on it. Really. We don't agree, because I'm considering broader context (and I think Obama's first 4 years have shown that he is far more moderate than he is the liberal we thought we were getting, and there's lots of post-hoc political analysis on that), but I'm glad you set standards 4 years ago and are voting on that. It's not rooting for your team, nor is it buying into whatever media frames are thrown out there about the economy. So, for real, good on ya.
 
Shame on the recession for not stopping the moment Obama took office.

saying the claim is "bullshit" is a very biased interpretation of the article.

What are the first 8 words of your quote above?

;)

Also, and much more important, from the same article:

The number Castro cites is an accurate description of the growth of private-sector jobs since January 2010, when the long, steep slide in employment finally hit bottom. But while a total of 4.5 million jobs sounds great, it's not the whole picture.
Click to expand...

also noteworthy:

And total nonfarm payrolls, including government workers, are down from 133.6 million workers at the beginning of 2009 to 133.2 million in July 2012. There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.
Click to expand...

The lost jobs are *all* government jobs. Do you want more of those or not, oh ye of the "shrink the size of government" faithful?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']His actions reflect his policy. Stop avoiding the issue.[/QUOTE]

LOLZ...You don't get credit for shooting off talking points when killing "civilians" isn't a policy position.

I'm also not avoiding anything. You're the one that brought it up, so you're the one that needs to explain himself. Why are you asking me what you mean?:rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
The lost jobs are *all* government jobs. Do you want more of those or not, oh ye of the "shrink the size of government" faithful?[/QUOTE]
Those jobs were lost after governments finally had to come to terms with years of runaway spending and unrealistic pensions. Take, for instance, San Jose. Voters in San Jose later voted to scale back pensions.

I have no problem with the existence of state, county and city jobs, especially the basics like police and fire, and those lost may still exist had some fiscal discipline been practiced in the past.
 
what do you mean by "fiscal discipline"? that's a charming phrase, but why don't you be better than Paul Ryan and tell us what you actually mean by that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']what do you mean by "fiscal discipline"? that's a charming phrase, but why don't you be better than Paul Ryan and tell us what you actually mean by that.[/QUOTE]Not paying the police chief and 10 of his cronies up to $400,000 a year every year for the rest of their lives after they retire. The higher ups can also pick up another pension from another locality. In all, San Jose has to devote 245 million of its FY 2011 budget to retirement benefits. From the same presentation, they've lost about 2,000 city employees. The two results are probably not unrelated.

This is what an era of fiscal liberalism, especially in my state, has wrought, but it is happening all over the country. Not that neocons are going to fix it, as they are not serious about cutting spending either, but I will be looking for those candidates in the local elections that are serious about cutting spending and imposing some sense of fiscal discipline be they Democrat, Republican or other. In this sense, the presidential election is overhyped. It is more important to look for people like San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, a Democrat, who supports pension reform and will not back down when nearly 70% of a city's voters demand it.

Reed's predecessor's legacy, on the other hand, is a big expensive new city hall building, which Reed opposed because of its high cost. This is the problem with voting straight Democrat without researching. You don't know when you will get one or the other. And then you don't know if you're going to get real reform like in San Jose or token reform like in San Francisco.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...You don't get credit for shooting off talking points when killing "civilians" isn't a policy position.

I'm also not avoiding anything. You're the one that brought it up, so you're the one that needs to explain himself. Why are you asking me what you mean?:rofl:[/QUOTE]

I don't get why this is is difficult for you. I really don't know how I can make this any easier for you to understand. Our president's actions reflect his policy. He has a policy of sending drones to sovereign nations and bombing people indiscriminately. It's not a talking point, it's a fucking fact.

Where did I ask you to explain to me what I meant? Please, quote me.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Not paying the police chief and 10 of his cronies up to $400,000 a year every year for the rest of their lives after they retire. The higher ups can also pick up another pension from another locality. In all, San Jose has to devote 245 million of its FY 2011 budget to retirement benefits. From the same presentation, they've lost about 2,000 city employees. The two results are probably not unrelated.

This is what an era of fiscal liberalism, especially in my state, has wrought, but it is happening all over the country. Not that neocons are going to fix it, as they are not serious about cutting spending either, but I will be looking for those candidates in the local elections that are serious about cutting spending and imposing some sense of fiscal discipline be they Democrat, Republican or other. In this sense, the presidential election is overhyped. It is more important to look for people like San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, a Democrat, who supports pension reform and will not back down when nearly 70% of a city's voters demand it.

Reed's predecessor's legacy, on the other hand, is a big expensive new city hall building, which Reed opposed because of its high cost. This is the problem with voting straight Democrat without researching. You don't know when you will get one or the other. And then you don't know if you're going to get real reform like in San Jose or token reform like in San Francisco.[/QUOTE]

Local govt is another bag of worms. We have a local politician who told everyone that tolls are going up to 5 bucks on a local thoroughfare and if we didn't like it then "that's too bad". And did I mention that the thoroughfare is being sold so that they can get all the cash right now. And this tax-crazy spendthrift is a Republican.

I get that cash is tight. I just hate it when politicians keep hitting an easily exploitable area like tolls instead of raising taxes on everyone or cutting back on wasteful spending such as obscene pensions.
 
Photo.jpg


I love it when neocons expose their origins.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Holy Shit! Chuck Norris says we will usher in 1,000 years of darkness if Obama is reelected. Seriously, it makes me sad every vote is equal sometimes.

I also find it funny they are emphasizing "Evangelical Christians" need to organize...in order to elect a Mormon and a Catholic. This shit just gets better and better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rw1ioJ99vk&feature=player_detailpage[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't that be good for Chuck Norris? He would be King in the dark ages, the man can stare down a bear!
 
[quote name='dohdough']HAHAHAHAHAHA...Bill Clinton is trolling the fuck outta Republicans. I'm about to bust a gut!:rofl:[/QUOTE]

nmnbu.gif


Damn the internet is fast.
 
I just saw that in another forum and was going to post it here....thanks!

It's amazing that Clinton is ad-libbing most of the speech.
 
Someone suggested that to me - I did see a teleprompter in one screen, so I'm not sure I buy that.

ad-libbed or not is irrelevant. he's talking policies that speak directly to me, no farce, no lies, no magic deficit reduction pixie dust.

also: fuck the 22nd amendment.
 
Members of the press have copies of his 4 page speech/remarks and have been tweeting that he was on page two like 15 minutes ago. He has notes, but I don't think he has the whole thing cued up like others.
 
[quote name='Clak']It takes some brass. Yes it does Bill, yes it does. :lol:[/QUOTE]
"I didn't know whether to laugh or cry." TROLOLOLOLOLOL
 
I've never seen someone who seems to be having such a good time speaking, I swear he looks like he's enjoying this. Clinton always was a smooth talker....;)
 
[quote name='dohdough']Members of the press have copies of his 4 page speech/remarks and have been tweeting that he was on page two like 15 minutes ago. He has notes, but I don't think he has the whole thing cued up like others.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's safe to say he's said more than 4 pages of words, unless it's single spaced and 4-point typeface.
 
[quote name='Clak']I've never seen someone who seems to be having such a good time speaking, I swear he looks like he's enjoying this. Clinton always was a smooth talker....;)[/QUOTE]
Good ol' Slick Willie:lol:

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, it's safe to say he's said more than 4 pages of words, unless it's single spaced and 4-point typeface.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. 48 minutes of absolute pwnage dropping bombs. I can't wait to see how long the transcript is.

[quote name='Purple Flames']This speech is awesome. I've always been a fan of Slick Willie even as a kid.[/QUOTE]
Word. I thought that his Kerry speech was great and better than the last DNC one, but goddamn, this even topped that.

edit: I'm watching on PBS and David Brooks looks like he's been eating shit...LOLZ
 
If only he'd had a handheld mic to drop at the end. Man, compared to the RNC speeches, the democrats might as well have just shit all over them. Clinton and Michelle Obama especially, damn.
 
I had a good discussion briefly with TemporaryScars this afternoon. Look up. Read for a bit.

We can have fun in the meantime. In fact, I'd rather have fun sharing silly .gifs that I would dealing with your trolling. If you're not going to contribute to legit policy discussion, you have zero place to start whinging that we aren't talking policy.

EDIT: Back to the speech, I certainly can't be the only one who noticed that Clinton mentioned George W. Bush not only more frequently, but in kinder, more respectful tones, than the party he belongs to, and the party who wants to reinstitute his very same policies via Romney during their convention last week.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I had a good discussion briefly with TemporaryScars this afternoon. Look up. Read for a bit.

We can have fun in the meantime. In fact, I'd rather have fun sharing silly .gifs that I would dealing with your trolling. If you're not going to contribute to legit policy discussion, you have zero place to start whinging that we aren't talking policy.[/QUOTE]

Be the change you want to see in the world, myke.

For the record, I'm not whinging that you're not discussing policy. Just pointing out your total hypocrisy on the subject. Like so many others.

Laugh it up re: Clinton. Meanwhile, oh, hey, let's ignore yet another Drone Strike in Yemen that killed six.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/6_islamist_militants.php
 
I like that he pointed out Obama's willingness to compromise and cooperate versus the Republican party's unrelenting partisanship.

I think that kind of speaking could turn independent voters who don't want to take sides.
 
Didn't listen to it. Might catch a replay of it if it gets a lot of press like Eastwood's did... but, in general, I have better things to do with my time than listen to career politicians pat each other on the back. Same reason I didn't tune in to the RNC.
 
To be honest, I just want to see a third party candidate win for once. Libertarian, green party, bullmoose, I don't care. I think it's time we tried something different.


Kaku 2012!
 
Yeah, I'd say that's better than watching the R/DNC.

On the plus side, I can have this window open, other windows open and the two TVs on whatever I want in the background.
 
[quote name='Clak']:rofl: That's fucking hilarious bob LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

fucking hell, you get dumber with each post.[/QUOTE]
Cause ya see, going to an event with a high concentration of elected officials from one of the two major parties is the exact same thing as going to a voting booth to cast a ballot.:booty:

More DNC speech chat: Did you guys catch Warren busting out the "fuck you, got mine" line? I almost choked on my water!:rofl:
 
Didn't watch any of the DNC today except for Mayor Menino, whenever they put him in front of a mic it's must see TV. Meant to catch Fauxcahontas but wasn't able to.

The policy debate of the election comes down to whether you believe higher taxes and higher government spending or lower taxes and spending cuts are better for the economy. Very few other issues are of any significance.
 
Hey, I'm not a fan of voter ID laws myself - just highly amused at the hypocrisy (hey, there's that word again) of how forcing folks to have ID is discriminating against particular groups of people.

Maybe the DNC just doesn't want poor, elderly or black people inside.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Didn't watch any of the DNC today except for Mayor Menino, whenever they put him in front of a mic it's must see TV. Meant to catch Fauxcahontas but wasn't able to.

The policy debate of the election comes down to whether you believe higher taxes and higher government spending or lower taxes and spending cuts are better for the economy. Very few other issues are of any significance.[/QUOTE]

Which major party is seriously backing real spending cuts? Because I wanna vote for them.

Can't we have higher taxes and spending cuts?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Hey, I'm not a fan of voter ID laws myself - just highly amused at the hypocrisy (hey, there's that word again) of how forcing folks to have ID is discriminating against particular groups of people.

Maybe the DNC just doesn't want poor, elderly or black people inside.[/QUOTE]

Except that attending the DNC isn't a fundamental right like voting is thus leading to a false equivalency.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Didn't watch any of the DNC today except for Mayor Menino, whenever they put him in front of a mic it's must see TV. Meant to catch Fauxcahontas but wasn't able to.

The policy debate of the election comes down to whether you believe higher taxes and higher government spending or lower taxes and spending cuts are better for the economy. Very few other issues are of any significance.[/QUOTE]

Who, pray tell, is faux...whatever dreadful name you used up there?

Second, I'm disappointed that you refuse to discuss any ideas. Reducing the election to the simplicity of your above quote is insincere, inaccurate and extraordinarily lazy. You can have an opinion, but if you're not going to work at it I'm going to constantly remind you of that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top