Willravel

In this thread, I'd like to have a discussion in which people who voted for or otherwise supported Senator/President Obama voice their disagreements with what he's said or done as president. My thinking is, admittedly, that I didn't see this enough when Bush was in office and considering how often I point out the right's silence during Bush's terrible presidency, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't live up to my expectations of others.

So it's in the interest of being honest that I propose that Democrats, progressives, liberals, centrists, moderates, and anyone else who generally supports or supported Obama during his election or subsequently post your grievances or disagreements so that we can discuss them and perhaps gain a better, more objective view of the current administration. Right-wingers are certainly welcome to discuss this, too, but I'd really like it to be more about President Obama's base of internet support discussing the man we helped to elect to office.

I'll get the ball rolling with what I think is the most obvious complaint folks on the left have with President Obama: American terrorism*.

- Extra-judicial assassinations: starting under Bush, the CIA was given the authority to kill US citizens abroad if "strong evidence" existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorism against the United States. President Obama adopted the exact same policy which continues to this day. According to the WP article that first uncovered this, both the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command maintain lists of individuals ("High Value Targets"), whom they may kill at will. On the list is at least three American citizens. The meaning of this is terrifying: the United States Government can carry out executions of American citizens without being bothered to try them in a court of law. The cornerstone of our legal system, due process, is suspended. In case anyone might be on the fence about this, the same intelligence community that bowed to pressure in linking Iraq with 9/11 or claiming there was unquestionable evidence of WMDs is supplying the evidence which is trying, convicting and potentially executing these people. If you think this is okay because President Obama is in office and he is a really great guy who would never abuse this power, I want you to think about the fact that our next president will almost certainly be a neoconservative with ties to the military industrial complex.

-Drone attacks: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen. There are heavily armed CIA drones in all of these countries, carrying out missions to supposedly kill members of al Qaeda or people associated with al Qaeda, but with no oversight whatsoever. Reports coming from the attacks almost always include high numbers of collateral damage (that's the death of innocent civilians). Amnesty International released images a few months back proving that drones are using cluster munitions in civilian areas which are killing women and children. While the United State refused to sign the cluster bomb ban (hooray for us!) meaning we've not technically broken the law, we are killing many, many innocent civilians. Even the United Nations has published reports about their serious concerns with human rights violations committed by these unmanned drones carrying out attacks in countries we don't have permission to be in.

- Rendition/indefinite detention: almost as soon as President Obama took office, he revealed that he would continue the Bush administration's rendition and detention program. The program includes the illegal, again extra-judicial kidnapping of civilians *suspected* of having ties to terrorism, and the holding of these individuals without trial for unspecified amounts of time. Some of these individuals are sent before military commissions (also known as tribunals, iirc these are the same thing) and are tried outside of the public eye on what has in the past been highly circumstantial evidence at best. Some are not even tried, though, instead rotting in prisons, some of which secret, despite never even having been charged with a crime.


These are all things which I believe are incredibly dangerous and immoral, and speak to the fact that President Obama and I absolutely do not see eye to eye on many very important factors. It terrifies me that someone who seems so intelligent and reasonable can do such stupid, immoral and unreasonable things.


*when I use the word terrorism, I'm using the traditional, pre-1980s definition of the term defined as the intentional use or threat of violence against civilians in order to advance or attain political or ideological goals, especially using intimidation or fear. If you have a different definition of terrorism, I'd like you to imagine I use whatever word you associate with the definition I've used above. I don't intend that this thread to devolve into a semantic debate.

Cimarron29414

Oh! THAT president! I wouldn't have known without the portrait. Good Lord, Will.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Willravel

It's my sense of theatricality. If it takes away from the thread, I'll delete it, but I kinda like it there. How often do we have images in political threads?

Derwood

- Gay Marriage
- DADT
- Gitmo
- Cap and Trade
- Bank Bailouts

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Willravel

Good list. Would you like to expand on those things?

Baraka_Guru

As a social democrat, I view Obama's compromises on the health care reform to be an embarrassment to the concept of universal health care. It seems merely a legislated insurance scheme, and it's clear that not enough people support it.

I think America should set up publicly funded health care and be done with it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

there's alot of stuff that the obama administration's done that i don't support. the extension of the bush administration's wars in afghanistan and the logic of it's "war on terror"---the weak positions on gay marriage and dadt---the lack of a clear or even coherent plan or even vision for how the state might interact with the economy in order to help people weather the transformations in global capitalism that follow on the slow implosion of the american empire----the compromises on health care, that the french model was never on the table even though it's obviously the best alternative to the barbarism in america......

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

roachboy, I've mentioned before that if Obama were actually a liberal, he would have taken a stronger stance on gay marriage and DADT. Disappointing, indeed.

And I assume that Afghanistan can go without saying....

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

loquitur

I disagree with him on DADT.
So on that I agree with the people here.

I disagree with him on lots of other stuff, too. Don't get me started.

flstf

Requiring people to purchase insurance from private companies seems like a recipe for disaster. I understand the government will subsidize those whose incomes are low and can't afford it but this just transfers tax dollars to the already bloated industry. The healthcare reform needed a public option and some means of cost control.

I read several articles today about how the insurance industry was already lobbying newly elected Republicans to not repeal the individual mandate and focus on eliminating the precondition requirements and max caps instead.

I realize President Obama made many compromises in order to get the passing votes but the bill as it stands is a windfall for the insurance and healthcare industries.

StanT

I want single payer healthcare that covers everyone and I want it now.

If you're going to catch hell for passing healthcare reform, go for the gold.

Rekna

I think Obama's single biggest flaw so far has been that he has tried too hard to compromise with the right who was not looking for compromise at all. Hopefully, the rights attitude will now change as they can try to take some credit for things passed but previously the right would just say no to everything. The compromises resulted in watered down legislation (for example health care reform) that the right still came out entirely against. He should have been a stronger president and implemented good legislation and said to hell with the right since that is what the public viewed he did anyway thanks to brilliant marketing by the right.

Cimarron29414

StanT,

It's a short flight north, if you can't wait. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!....you know, if you just can't wait.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

god forbid that the united states should exit capitalist barbarism and join the rest of the civilized world in providing universal health care for its people.

why do that when there are so many shiny expensive weapons systems to be had?
it's much better that the united states focus on killing people in great number more than on making the lives of its own people better.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

Lighten up there, rb. I've already said I'd reduce the size of the military dramatically - seven times now.

I was merely reacting to the "I want a candy, and I want it NOW!" style in his post.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

It still doesn't speak to the point that a lack of even the most basic care is an issue to far too many Americans.

In thinking of this, it seems to me that America is at a disadvantage for having a long history of a convoluted system, so to "modernize" it into a workable form of universal health care seems disruptive. But major and revolutionary programs are never easy. It's not like Canada just up and created our system overnight. It took a number of years, and it evolved over more years.

But it happened. It started on the provincial level, in a highly rural/agricultural/resource-producing province that had a shortage of doctors and needed a solution. From there, other provinces and eventually the federal government saw the benefits of providing essential medical care to everyone. Now we have a single-payer system with no co-payments (for the most part), which means people don't need to worry about losing their work insurance (unless it's dental, though many workplaces provide this) or whether they can afford to go to the doctor with their children.

It's a shame that a nation such as America can generate so much wealth and yet not be able to provide basic medical service to its citizens. It's a shame that people go bankrupt because of health issues.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

bg: that follows from a political choice, obviously.
typically, in the "debate" around universal health care, the choice has been restated to keep the ethical problems away--you know the problems that follow from a mode of distributing wealth that makes the lives of the children of the affluent worth more than the lives of the children of the poor.
people can get derailed by "principled" questions about the "role of the state" by way of some libertarian fantasy-land where there is happy market land and sad state land and neér the twain should meet.
because that's an easier route across which to argue that the current distribution of wealth produces no ethically problematic outcomes.
because confronting the question in ethical or political terms---not to mention medical terms----typically means that you can't find grounds to argue against some form of universal health care.
there is and should be a discussion to be had about what form that will take---i don't think the flaccid compromise that the obama administration made with the right goes anywhere near far enough----but regardless that debate seemed to me short-circuited, absconded with by insurance company lobbyists and policy wonks who must have decided that an actual debate about these questions would be too messy for teevee....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

It's certainly a politicized issue.

Republicans seem to be more satisfied with the status quo than the idea of an actual universal plan that covers everyone. They help maintain this status quo by demonizing the concept of a single-payer system as outright socialism.

This despite such a system managed and defended by liberals and conservatives alike.

This despite the significant support for such a system by those in the medical field, such as physicians.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Wes Mantooth

I find that a lot people are wary of universal healthcare (or whatever we're calling it) because they just don't want the US govt anywhere near their healthcare. If the US govt had a great track record of getting shit done quickly, efficiently and cost effectively then I bet the numbers in favor would go up a bit. I agree that we need to address the health care issues in this country but when you have a population of 300 million people who largely think the federal govt is a crooked, bureaucratic mess that couldn't change a light bulb without hiring 5000 people, doing a mountain of paper work and finding the one light bulb store on Earth that sells 30 million dollar light bulbs there is always going to opposition to the idea.

On the other hand some people are just selfish, but some of the concerns flying around out there are valid.

__________________

Tully Mars

I disagree with Obama on several issues. I think the way he's pandered to the G&L people of this country is probably my largest disappointment in him.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

ASU2003

I think he pandered too much to them. At least too early on in his Presidency. There was a right way to do it, and he didn't do it. I want to see "don't ask, don't care", and civil unions (where they really love each other and aren't doing it for tax purposes) being recognized by the government as equal. But, this is one of those things where the White House needed to send a bill to Congress, not the other way around.

I wish Obama would have done more environmental regulations, including trade restrictions with certain countries if they don't match our level of technology, or aren't willing to buy technology from Europe or the US/Canada. And, I'm not talking about CO2 emissions, although those would improve as well.

Cimarron29414

ASU2003-

WTF are you talking about? You will only let gay people "who love each other" have civil unions? Why do you care if they love each other or not? Would you let heteros who don't love each other get married???? The only reason to create that contract with the State is for legal (tax) protection. Otherwise, it is not the fucking State's business who you live with? Dude, you really have lost sight of this issue.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

i'm confused by the last few posts. people who happen to be gay should be allowed to legally marry for **all** the reasons and advantages that breeders get from marriage. the question(s) of why folk would or would not avail themselves of marriage is no more interesting for gay folk than is the question of why straight couples might choose to live together rather than marry.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

not so fast, rb, I believe this problem is well in hand.



And so as not to be a total troll and not contribute to the subject of this thread at least marginally, I will say that just about the only thing I don't disagree with Obama on (politically, and particularly as president) is his choice in neckties. Then again, those might not be his choices at all.

In which case, maybe I would agree with his choice of cigarettes for those quiet outside moments...although I am not in a position to agree at this time, being that I don't know which cigarettes he prefers. If he likes a menthol, then I would have to withdraw my support from that issue, as well.

---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

which only makes the whole hissy fit about what a crazy liberal he is seem all the more ridiculous. I mean, what sort of numbskull has that much trouble noticing that he's not all that 'liberal'?

Makes me want to wave my arms and scream 'i'm here, i'm here' whenever I pass a car with one of those stupid 'Obama/asinine socialism reference' bumper stickers plastered to the back of it. And these folks want us to trust them with guns, sheesh...

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

silent_jay

...

ASU2003

I really don't care about this issue, except when it is used by the GOP to rally support behind them.

And I am trying to figure out a way for them to get 'married' with all the benefits, yet keep the religious people happy. Or do gays and lesbians want to get married in churches? I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think the state can tell the church want to do, and a lot of people in this country wouldn't be happy with it for some reason.

The stuff in parentheses in my previous post shouldn't be there. I made a mistake.

mixedmedia

Marlboro Reds are a little harsh, but being that my own preference is for Marlboro Lights, I can't hold that against him. What's more I think this may be the only instance in which Obama is more 'liberal' than me.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

loquitur

hmmmm I thought tobacco companies were evil?
(me, I gave up smoking 21 years ago)

mixedmedia

/off topic
I pretty much have, too, except when I go to the strip club.
heh, which sounds like a joke, but it's true.

And tobacco companies are evil. [see above]

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce