If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Obama supporters are interviewed about Mitt Romney's policies on surveillance, detention, and kill lists...then they find out Obama has endorsed those policies too. Their reaction? Just watch   (reason.com) divider line 29
    More: Dumbass, Mitt Romney, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, make excuses, Burning Man, Dear Leader, child custody  
•       •       •

3079 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 2:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-02 01:21:43 AM
7 votes:
The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.

There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?
2012-11-01 10:35:01 PM
4 votes:
So, vote Republican obviously.
2012-11-02 03:18:56 AM
3 votes:
Obama and Romney have incredibly different positions and would have incredibly different administrations. "They're virtually the same" is absolute horseshiat.

That said, there are several issues the two major parties fail to address, and it's alarming to say the least that there's no real choice on things like drone strikes or drug policy. But just because your most important issues aren't being represented doesn't mean the election's outcome has no consequences.
2012-11-02 03:09:50 AM
3 votes:
Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.
2012-11-01 10:43:14 PM
3 votes:
It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.
2012-11-02 03:32:50 AM
2 votes:
I live in Ohio and I voted on 10/17/2012. Went to a Bill Clinton rally at OCC today.

You'll like the prez I pick for you guys.

Trust me, trust Ohio.
2012-11-02 12:17:10 AM
2 votes:

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


No, vote for neither party. The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.
2012-11-01 10:41:29 PM
2 votes:

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


Such a tactic would NEVER work on a Romney supporter. Mostly because Romney doesn't have a stance on anything but also because Romney supporters only care about getting the near out of their White House.
2012-11-02 08:42:16 PM
1 votes:

thamike: Deftoons: Take a look at Romney and Obama's larger corporate sponsors (read: Goldman Sachs and other banking firms) and try typing that again without looking like the most gullible voter on the planet.

They are nothing alike, Romney and Obama. Only an ignoramusdeep thinking rugged individualist would think that because their biggest sponsors are also the groups with the most money, they are by default interchangeable people.


So which one is against the drug war? Which one is against rendition? Which one is against drone strikes? Which one is against to big to fail? which one is against the patriot act? Or do they hold the same position on these very important issues?
2012-11-02 05:51:16 PM
1 votes:
Reason farking blows
2012-11-02 11:13:10 AM
1 votes:

JohnnyC: HotIgneous Intruder: A neoliberal is nothing but a neoconservative from Chicago.

Account created: 2011-10-21 10:53:51

OH hey! Fresh out from under your bridge, eh? How about a steaming hot cup of STFU? I'll put some tasty mini-marshmallows in it for ya. We love when new folks show up and say blatantly trollish things that are devoid of meaning or consideration. It's SO COOL!...


Er, it's 2012. :)

/Nice little rant, though.
2012-11-02 10:17:08 AM
1 votes:

Magruda: The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by people who say they support change yet fight against it is astounding. You say you have the same goals but you don't like thier tactics, but unless those tactics harm your efforts your objection only helps your supposed common enemy. To not see this you must either be extremely stupid or a liar.


I'm not sure you quite understand how this works.

You see, I'm a potential liberal voter, and apparently I have some things of value ... namely a potential vote and potential funds and time to donate. I don't mean to sound full of myself, I say these things have "value", because I receive numerous solicitations by politicians asking me to give these things to them. So evidently they are in demand. As a 3rd Party, or 3rd Party Advocate, you have to SELL me why these things would be better given to you over anyone else asking for them. The first job of a good salesman is to understand the motivations of your customer.

My motivations are pretty simple. I want to see liberal/progressive legislation enacted. I don't care about the means, I care about the end results. I don't care if the sausage making involves 2 parties, 3 parties or 15 parites. I just want the sausage made.

You need to lay out for me how you're going to make the sausage better than alternatives. You need to spell out for me exactly how you're going to take my vote and my money to enact liberal legislation/better than giving it to President who has the power to nominate progressive Supreme Court Justices, or a Party that has the ability to get hardcore/unapologetic liberals like Tammy Duckworth and Elizabeth Warren into the US Senate. I don't need meaningless platitudes. I don't need guilt trips (I already got one Catholic Mother, don't need another, thanks). I need concrete, pragmatic plans of actions that are going to bring results.

The fact that you not only offer nothing other than meaningless platitudes, but then go out of your way to insult your potential customers, demonstrates that you're a pretty awful salesman. But, hey, you're the righteous one and it's everyone else's fault, right?
2012-11-02 08:55:55 AM
1 votes:

sprawl15: Magruda: Meanwhile telling us it is a waste of time to advocate for them?

It absolutely is.

The problem is systemic - without a fundamental change to our voting system, third parties at best act a spoiler and produce the type of government you want the least. Take a simple situation; 30% of the electorate are Democrats, 30% are Greens, 40% are Republican. What is the optimal voting strategy for Democrats and Greens? Under our system, if they vote their values they get nothing and the GOP takes over. Under a proportional representation system, they get exactly the representation they hold among the populace and hold a general liberal majority in congress despite the differences in their values - which would lead to the Greens voting against Democrats when they want to check certain policies.


A few things about 3rd parties running national candidates:

1. They want to qualify for federally matched funds, and that's why they run national candidates for office. They have to cross a certain threshold on the national vote to accomplish this, so doing state elections alone won't do that.

2. If they don't have a national platform, then they likely won't have a well-organized convention, and they don't have a comprehensive plan and framework for their party. If they only focus on state and local races, then those parties are more likely to break up and become even more regional and marginalized. The weaker the center of the organization is, the more out of control the branches become.

3. So even if a national 3rd party candidate acts as ineffectual at least (When it comes to voting percentage) or spoiler at best/most, they still perform the job of being the voice/face of the party. Chipping away at that small percentage, going from 1% to 2% and upward, ensures more support (And more money) for the next election.

That's how it's supposed to work in theory, anyway. What doesn't help is when the parties themselves choose crappy candidates and rejects from the bigger, two parties. I think the Greens made a pretty good choice in Jill Stein, mainly because her opposition was Kent Meslay, a guy who barely even campaigned, and Roseanne Barr, and that would've killed the party if she'd been nominated. I think she's derailed her own campaign though by doing all her civil disobedience actions, though. People don't think she's presidential when a candidate gets arrested. If she wants to pratice civil disobedience after the election, good on her, but the Greens need a candidate, not a protest orchestrator right now.

The Greens are always in danger of becoming what became of Occupy and the anti-Iraq War movement: broken down into various, barely connected groups, each pushing one issue as the issue, and nobody providing a central framework to carry the entire movement forward, putting an underline underneath the name and core message of the organization.
2012-11-02 07:52:49 AM
1 votes:

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.


Why is this so hard for certain people to get? Obama is a centrist. None of his policies are too liberal for liberals. Liberals will not "solve" the problems they have with Obama by voting in such a way that a more right-wing person takes office. Both sides are not the same, and, yes, a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Romney because there are only one of two people will will, and their names are not Stein or Johnson.
2012-11-02 07:20:29 AM
1 votes:

Magruda: Which is why it continues.


No... it continues because 3rd parties are so weak they can barely get elected to low level local governmental positions and haven't proved that they can be trusted with a high level elected position at all...

You want there to be a viable 3rd party, start small, prove your 3rd party is worth voting for on a local level and get them in control of the majority of positions in your town. Then, if they're successful at improving the situation, get them into the state level until they're in control of that by running on their success at a local level... prove that they can run a state government and be successful. You do that and I'll THINK about voting for your 3rd party candidate for President.

The problem with most of you '3rd party' whiners is that you want to go "Straight to the top". You're not interested in learning the ropes... having them learn and earn their way to the top. You just want us to hand over all the reins and trust that these folks who have NO experience at running things and have no serious support structure would do a million times better than one of the two parties we have, yet you have zero proof upon which to base your faith in your 3rd party... BUT... you want us to vote for them...
2012-11-02 06:48:51 AM
1 votes:
Democracy requires an informed electorate, so there ya go.

This is what happens when you treat politics like a team sport.
2012-11-02 05:16:05 AM
1 votes:

FedExPope: Genevieve Marie: Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.

Except that on almost every issue regarding civil liberties, Obama has been garbage as well. It's not about disagreeing on just one issue. Numerous issues including the ones in the article have been black eyes on his first term, at least to those people holding him to a decent standard of a progressive. His half-hearted attempt at support for gay marriage can barely count. I'm sick of hearing people continuing the mistakes of supporting a broken system and calling that pragmatic. Pragmatism is about what works and what's practical and clearly the system we have isn't working any more.


What exactly about his support was "half-hearted" or an "attempt"? He supports gay marriage. He's the first president to do so, and he did it in an election year. The Democratic Party has adopted it into their platform, only eight years after Bush arguably used it as a wedge to win a second term. The cultural turnaround on this issue has been incredible. He repealed DADT and stopped defending DOMA. He supports all of the state ballot measures this year. This is the most gay-friendly president in US history. The idea that it's some throwaway gesture and it barely matters is ridiculous.

I'd be a lot more understanding of people who argue against voting for Obama because of the deep flaws in the system if there was even the slightest nod toward the value of incremental good. But I never see it, just this fatalistic sneering about how far everyone is from the perfect ideal. It's all solution and no strategy.
2012-11-02 04:50:52 AM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.


Our system of justice is framed by rules that do not permit prosecutors to run roughshod over due process. How is "We don't want them to go free" an argument against due process? Dubya eff'ed up; if we hold dear the principle of due process, then we have to set free those illegally detained.

hubiestubert: Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.


This makes no sense. A mess handed to us demands we clean it up. You keep saying we can't try them, but that's not true. And if we don't have evidence to hold them-- evidence that would be admissible in our own venerable courts of law-- then we should let them go. Either we believe in the ideals of our system, or we don't. Wrt pennies and pounds, we're the ones spouting off on human rights and due process, criticizing governments for detentions with no due process-- how 'bout we put our money where our mouth is?

hubiestubert: There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?


The difference you're trying to highlight begs the question entirely. The fact of warrantless wiretaps, special renditions, phantom indictments and denial of due process is the question. How can these be allowed to underpin indeterminate detentions? We cherish the constitutional rights to counsel, from self-incrimination, to a fair and speedy trial, and from cruel and unusual punishment. Explain how it is that anyone should be denied these rights, especially if these are rights we exhort other nations to grant their citizens? If the mere accusation is sufficient, then what, exactly, is the standard at which any of these rights realize their effect??
2012-11-02 04:08:38 AM
1 votes:
So, let me get this straight: If Romney's doing x, y, and z, and Obama's doing x, -y, and -z, I should...what?

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat


This. Anyone who says they agree with a candidate 100% on every issue is most likely the candidate.
2012-11-02 03:43:43 AM
1 votes:

FedExPope: but if Obama is the best we can do


Obama is, simply put, the best president we've had in at least my lifetime.
2012-11-02 03:21:21 AM
1 votes:

Aaron Haynes: Obama and Romney have incredibly different positions and would have incredibly different administrations. "They're virtually the same" is absolute horseshiat.

That said, there are several issues the two major parties fail to address, and it's alarming to say the least that there's no real choice on things like drone strikes or drug policy. But just because your most important issues aren't being represented doesn't mean the election's outcome has no consequences.



Exactly. Perfectly stated.

fusillade762: I read a David Brooks editorial that basically boiled down to "You should vote for Romney because Obama won't be able to get anything done due to congressional obstructionism from the GOP".


Ugh. "These guys are so insane they won't work with the President towards the common good, so we should probably just give them what they want."

 
2012-11-02 03:18:03 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: Democrats failed to stop the Republicans from advancing their authoritarian policies, so vote Republican.


I read a David Brooks editorial that basically boiled down to "You should vote for Romney because Obama won't be able to get anything done due to congressional obstructionism from the GOP".

/BSABSVR
2012-11-02 03:15:30 AM
1 votes:
The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.
2012-11-02 03:11:05 AM
1 votes:
Democrats failed to stop the Republicans from advancing their authoritarian policies, so vote Republican.
2012-11-02 03:02:42 AM
1 votes:

The Great EZE: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

Such a tactic would NEVER work on a Romney supporter. Mostly because Romney doesn't have a stance on anything but also because Romney supporters only care about getting the near out of their White House.


THIS. The guy has taken more positions than Sasha Grey.
2012-11-02 01:02:26 AM
1 votes:

slayer199: The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


This is a lazy, bullshiat argument.

It's possible that one can find them equally distasteful, but this "they're the same" crap is ridiculous.
2012-11-02 12:52:24 AM
1 votes:

slayer199: The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


yeah. The koch brothers are pumping tons of cash into the Romneys campaign because both sides are the same in every thing but rhetoric. that makes total sense.
2012-11-01 11:00:06 PM
1 votes:
So you're saying he's much more aggressive in anti-terrorism than Bush was, has a hell of a track record under his belt, and has turned "Al-Qaeda's number two man" into a synonym for "zero life expectancy"?

Ok. I concede your point.

Go ahead. Bring up the DJIA next. I dare you.
2012-11-01 10:56:53 PM
1 votes:
So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report