ugh @ chuck todd not realizing that his framing is exactly the problem
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:55 (fourteen years ago) link
iPhone, can't watch. my q was srs btw
― being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:55 (fourteen years ago) link
"best" answer about torture: it would be extremely distressing to the CIA and military, who need to be kept in some kind of fighting shape so we can get out of two wars (u can not agree on this, of course), and yes, suck up any valuable oxygen needed for health care, the economy, anything else. and it has no constituency. americans like torture. they took to it very easily and don't want to let it go. they are mostly happy to forget about it and move on.
"worst" answer: obama and his ppl are narcissistic enough to think that merely electing them to not-torture is a good enough solution.
none of these is a good answer, mind u.
― goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 18:57 (fourteen years ago) link
and, see, Todd is yet another guy who thinks that Practical People understand how torture is a "distraction" for the President.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 14 December 2009 18:58 (fourteen years ago) link
thx goole
― being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:00 (fourteen years ago) link
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious, which is that photos of the US actually torturing detainees would be first-rate recruitment materials for al-Qaeda etc. I'm sure if considerations of Americans' safety didn't factor into it, Obama would like nothing better than to embarrass and shame the Bush administration. It's pretty much a slam-dunk in terms of domestic politics. The fact that he refrains shows some of the maturity required of being commander in chief, IMO.
― o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:01 (fourteen years ago) link
can someone fill me in on the STD apology for o's lack of movement on stuff like torture etc? is it still "it'd tear the country apart?"
it's "he wouldn't get reelected and be able to do the things he really wants to do/the really important things" IIRC and to try to make it plain that I do get the argt, I just don't agree with it: look, there are small gains to be made, which have real impact on people's lives: health care; the economy; jobs. On these, the Democrats, led by Obama, can make gains, and repair some of the damage to the system done by 8 years of neocon economics (really 28 years of neocon economics I'd guess, gotta defer to people who can really describe how Clinton engineered the years that followed Bush I). If Obama chooses to do something huge & make-or-break like prosecute members of the previous administration (or people who would be compelled to point up the chain of command), he risks the midterm elections for sure, and probably reelection, and these losses would have human costs -- less people getting the jobs we hope the Obama administration will produce; less statesmanship and back to the adversarial international ways of the previous administration, which demonstrably harmed us at home and abroad; less of the small good gains we believe tend to be made on behalf of normal working people under Democratic administrations.
How'd I do?
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:02 (fourteen years ago) link
"so universal health care is simply a mea culpa for not prosecuting gwb for torture"
I accept this apology!
― Philip Nunez, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:03 (fourteen years ago) link
so deej is your position seriously "nothing can be done" on torture? like, it happened, too bad so sad for dudes who got tortured, we promise not to do it again?
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:07 (fourteen years ago) link
um, no ...?
― unicorn strapped with a unabomb (deej), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:13 (fourteen years ago) link
it's "he wouldn't get reelected and be able to do the things he really wants to do/the really important things"
jesus christ will you fucking stop it with this re-election line since NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THIS TO YOU EVER on this board. nor have I read any pundits say anything like it.
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:19 (fourteen years ago) link
yeah i dont know where the re-election thing is coming from j0hn is that something your irl friends say or what
― max, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:19 (fourteen years ago) link
irl friends?
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:21 (fourteen years ago) link
thx j0hn!
― being being kiss-ass fake nice (gbx), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:22 (fourteen years ago) link
intemperate raccoon lovers
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:22 (fourteen years ago) link
do you guys live in some dreamworld where 1st term presidents with sympathetic house & senate are never thinking about elections?
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:23 (fourteen years ago) link
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/03/01/01_raccoon_lgl.jpg
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:24 (fourteen years ago) link
don't thank me yet gbx evidently my understanding of the whole thing is based on a fallacy, to wit, that politicians sometimes seek reelection
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:24 (fourteen years ago) link
no one here is arguing that Obama should/shouldn't do things based on how it would affect his chances for re-election, is all I'm saying.
Obama is surely performing that calculus, but that's beside the point.
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:25 (fourteen years ago) link
I'd argue not so much a fallacy as much as an unstated assumption but that arguing would take away time I could spend posting this:
http://www.lepenquotidien.com/valentine.png
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:26 (fourteen years ago) link
GAH
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:29 (fourteen years ago) link
wtf, that's the entire point
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:29 (fourteen years ago) link
"no one's ever said that to you" - conceded! how does that even matter?
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:30 (fourteen years ago) link
(gonna stop the raccoon pics before I get sbed but I found a DOOZY)
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:30 (fourteen years ago) link
http://www.greatdreams.com/political/Don-Quixote-Windmill.gif
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:31 (fourteen years ago) link
GODDAMN IT HI DERE
WHAT THE HELL
well why should ilxors formulate defenses for arguments ilxors are not making? that's more about politeness than politics, tho...
xps ok what is with the raccoons
― goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:32 (fourteen years ago) link
I had another long post about how Obama's definitely NOT gonna be more liberal in his second term but it got eaten apparently... Obama's doing the calculus to get elected, no doubt. I'm sure he's aware that the majority of modern president's major legislative accomplishments are achieved within the first two years of their first term. By the second term the President is often severely compromised politically and also lacking in the political capital to get things done with congress.
But, even so, Obama is NOT promising to be more liberal if he gets re-elected. You have posted, repeatedly and apparently without any provocation, that this argument - that Obama will be more liberal if he gets re-elected - is being used to silence criticism. Even though, NO ONE IS SAYING IT. this is not that complicated to understand, frankly I'm kinda surprised at your harping on this...
x-posts
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:34 (fourteen years ago) link
it's "he wouldn't get reelected and be able to do the things he really wants to do/the really important things" IIRC and to try to make it plain that I do get the argt,
you "get" an argument that you just made up, that is ahistorical and illogical, and that no one on ILX is making. good job.
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:35 (fourteen years ago) link
I don't think the argument is really that Obama is going to be more liberal if he's re-elected. The argument is that he isn't being very liberal now so that he will get re-elected; what he does in the hypothetical second term is entirely up in the air.
My counter-argument is that all Obama really ever promised to do is be more liberal than McCain. He isn't as liberal I want for him to be, but I knew this would be the case going into things and therefore it is difficult for me to feel betrayed when 85% of his responses to issues have been in line with how he campaigned.
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:38 (fourteen years ago) link
(btw 85% is a precise statistic that I just pulled out of my ass)
..except for torture. and the banks. but maybe we got the wrong impression from all the populist sunshine?
― goole, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:39 (fourteen years ago) link
The torture thing is the most misleading thing he's done IMO and even there I am not 100% prepared to pass judgment because I haven't spent as much time as I want to spend digging into the issue and getting info from multiple sources in an attempt to get to what the real facts are.
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:40 (fourteen years ago) link
(which is a weaselly way of saying "I stopped paying attention but IIRC the last thing I heard on it really, really sucked and I should stop playing WoW long enough to confirm it")
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:41 (fourteen years ago) link
when did he say he was going to prosecute people on torture?
― bnw, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:43 (fourteen years ago) link
never
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:43 (fourteen years ago) link
He said something during the campaign about putting a stop to it, which was undercut somewhat by the rendition decision, and that people who did it should be brought to justice, which was undercut by Holder's decision not to prosecute and his own statements that we should look forward; I am fully aware that I may be misremembering what he said during the campaign, though.
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:45 (fourteen years ago) link
he did say we weren't gonna do it anymore. whether or not that promise has been carried out is a little difficult to determine, given the secrecy of rendition process. although on the public face of it, yeah he did outlaw it and order all branches of the military/intelligence community to follow no-torture guidelines, etc. which is a good thing imho.
x-post
― a triumph in high-tech nipple obfuscation (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:45 (fourteen years ago) link
I don't think he ever said he was going to go after Cheney or Gonzales. Holder's given conflicting statements since being appointed.
(the more accurate thing is likely that he said something which was interpreted to mean what I outlined above that really should have been taken at bald face value, but that doesn't keep me from being bummed that no one is trying to through Cheney in jail)
― I am a big question mark (HI DERE), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:46 (fourteen years ago) link
I'd actually put my happy-with-Obamaness at about 70/75%; that the rest of the world no longer thinks we're led by an idiot who can't find France on a map is important to me, and I believe that Obama's statesmanship will be good for us as a country & important for our economic health in the future, since the future of the world economy is going to involve one whole hell of a lot of cooperation imo. I am happy with his bipartisanship; he restores dignity to the country when he insists on listening to others, trying to hear what they have to say. Even his tendency to compromise what I'd call valuable principles - I see that as a net gain for public discourse, which, in the long run, is extremely important; it has a lot to do with how impressionable young people will grow up to be, and govern, etc.
Unfortunately, the remaining 25-30% has mainly to do with the torture of prisoners & the disposition of prisoners of war, issues on which while there are no answers without possible cost. I am arguing that it seems clear that the president believes the political costs to him & his party would be too great for him to pursue the right course of action, which is holding people accountable for betraying the country on an issue as vital as detention without cause & torture of prisoners. I don't think any other explanation of his stance on this issue holds up.
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:52 (fourteen years ago) link
Cheney, bummed in jail.
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:57 (fourteen years ago) link
Thinking back over a long history government-sanction abuses of human rights, I'd say that is a best-case scenario.
― Adam Bruneau, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:57 (fourteen years ago) link
:(
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 19:58 (fourteen years ago) link
I can think of many considerations other than electoral ones that would make Obama hesitate to launch an investigation of the previous administration. At a time when its vital for the US to repair its image in the Muslim world, to be digging up a lot of dirt and airing it to the world may not be the most advisable course, however much we would like to reach some semblance of justice against those who perpetrated it. Also, such investigations are bound to be incredibly disruptive and divisive within the national security agencies and military, at a time when we need their full focus on threats to the country. Not saying these considerations should trump everything else, but they are there.
― o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 19:59 (fourteen years ago) link
a developed democratic country that cant come correct on torture-- i dont know if that image can be repaired without disclosure imo.
― bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Monday, 14 December 2009 20:07 (fourteen years ago) link
I hear that o. nate but really - that information? it's going to come out eventually. we don't live in a world where you can keep secrets for long. if any president might be able to preside over its release and maybe minimize the damage it'll do, better Barack Obama than anybody else, in my opinion - as an international statesman, he's better equipped than anybody else I can see filling his shoes. the damage is done & it's going to surface at some point, all of it. I would expect Obama to realize that he might have the best shot at averting utter catastrophe but pursuing a policy of openness with it. which policy, incidentally, would be right in line with FOIA & as Hunt3r points out, our vision of ourselves as a decent bunch of people.
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 20:11 (fourteen years ago) link
(but pursuing = by pursuing in the above, thx)
― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 14 December 2009 20:12 (fourteen years ago) link
I think minimizing the damage might just involve letting things come out slowly in dribs and drabs. Maybe the trauma of a big media circus investigation might be therapeutic for the national soul, but Obama does not seem like the kind of person who would be drawn to such a divisive confrontation.
― o. nate, Monday, 14 December 2009 20:23 (fourteen years ago) link