Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3203 of them)

using the military with anything approaching the precision and sensitivity that Obama has exercised.

Yeah, this is the only point where we are galaxies apart. But I am cautious about not conflating the platforms people run on with what's going to happen, so I see Actual Romney and Actual Obama as being much closer than their personas.

I do not actively want Obama to lose, or win.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:18 (six years ago) Permalink

what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence

Must say my first thought was: Elena Kagan vs. Joseph Alito & John Roberts. And yes, morbs, I know Kagan's record.

Aimless, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:20 (six years ago) Permalink

btw I appreciate the thoughtful response DJP, it's more than I'm used to hearing. I understand your judgments (I think) whatever different conclusions we draw.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:24 (six years ago) Permalink

i saw an interesting statement from daniel larison, criticizing the dimwit 'americans elect' outfit:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/01/31/the-bad-joke-that-is-americans-elect/

The extraordinary thing about the obliviousness of professional “centrists” is that they are dedicated to organizing a third-party alternative with no apparent awareness that every remotely successful third-party alternative began as a more radical version of one of the two established parties. Perot’s challenge was a bit different, but even Perot appealed to the constituencies ignored by Bush and Clinton by making their issues his own, especially popular discontent over NAFTA. By contrast, Americans Elect is an organization dedicated to the proposition that Thomas Friedman has his finger on the pulse of America.

i guess i'd never thought of that before. i mean, it's only happened a couple times in two centuries but it's something to think about.

arguably the southern realignment from the 60s to the 80s is sort of like getting two new parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#Fifth_Party_System

i'd honestly argue we're in the "sixth party system" now

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:25 (six years ago) Permalink

thanks Morbs; contrary to appearances to prefer to converse rather than snipe!

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:26 (six years ago) Permalink

also I can't type

to prefer I do prefer

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:26 (six years ago) Permalink

I was putting together a long post, but I generally agree with what DJP said. I mean, holy shit, for all of Obama's post-partisan enthusiasms and centrism, he has effectively been the most leftist president in my lifetime. I am very critical of Obama on many issues, especially around erosion of constitutional limits on the executive branch and some weak negotiating, but there are a lot of things I'm genuinely happy about. I support Obama for a second term, and I see no actuall candidates that are better.

Also, I do believe in running candidates form the left in primary races, but only if I genuinely believe in the candidate and I want them to win the primary and the general. I've donated to blue dog challengers, but not because I think they're going to shift the incumbent to the left. I think that's some weird fantasy shit.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:27 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah I agree with DJP's summation of Obama's record to-date

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:28 (six years ago) Permalink

despite the notable exclusion of any reference to climate change/energy policy

xp

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:29 (six years ago) Permalink

i'd agree with Dan's list

my only caveat would be: i think there is a slim possibility that the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms, which might have positive effects following.

but that's too big mights. it's really more a look on a potential bright side should obama lose.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:30 (six years ago) Permalink

tbh I am not a presidential scholar and I was very young at the time, but given the treatment of history I have a hard time imagining Carter being to the right of Obama

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:30 (six years ago) Permalink

the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms

romney? romney would be harder on financial firms? I mean...

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:31 (six years ago) Permalink

I was going to say it can get tedious arguing with the good doctor but that would be a lie; I enjoy it to be honest. I not only agree w/Dan but I think everyone is kind of ingorning the fact that the POTUS is not only President of the Republic but the chief executive of the Federal Government and civil service and w/o a party whence to source job candidates, a third party President is going to have a terrible time just staffing their cabinet.

That's not necessarily an insuperable barrier to a Ron Paul, who'd be gutting the govmt anyway but Rosanne would probably spend a good deal of time just figuring out where the fuse boxes are.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:32 (six years ago) Permalink

his wife and ron paul's wife have become quite close, i hear

xp

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:33 (six years ago) Permalink

djp otm

mookieproof, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:35 (six years ago) Permalink

I wouldn't count pres romney out for being more centrist in policy w/ pretty much every single issue outside of that one, 'finance is good' seems to be the closest thing to a non-mormon belief than he has.

xp

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:36 (six years ago) Permalink

even the mormon shit, who knows

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:37 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah you're right about that

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:37 (six years ago) Permalink

99% of pols are 'hard or soft' on issues depending on public pressure they receive. The MSM's message on political activity for Joe & Jane Doe is you vote (esp for president), then sit back and root for your guy til the next election. We'll see to what degree the OWS movement changes this.

Also, if a left/populist party ever managed 10-15% in a prez election, the Dems would. Shit. Themselves.

Obama's putative "precision" with drones just makes me think of Captain Haddock with the rocket launcher in Tintin.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:39 (six years ago) Permalink

I was thinking less about "Obama's" precision with drones and more the size and capabilities of the teams he sent to get bin Laden and the team that took out the Somali pirates

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:41 (six years ago) Permalink

the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms

Nah, their states rights libertarianism will lead them to want to have less federal regulation over business. They just dislike the big federal government

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:41 (six years ago) Permalink

a world where a far leftist populist party could get 10-15% support is a world where the dems would be much more left-wing.

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:42 (six years ago) Permalink

'zackly. So, go Roseanne.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:44 (six years ago) Permalink

i have a grand theory obama's miseries w/r/t war, surveillance and the law are all based on domestic political fears, but i have no real proof, just a feeling.

like, cheney pulled all this shit because he was legit interested in eternal global dominance. obama is paranoid about anything going wrong on his watch while cheney is still looking and ultimately doesn't trust anyone to cut him a break or understand anything. so, more secrecy, more mercs, more drones, more special ops, more secret law, etc etc

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:44 (six years ago) Permalink

a world where roseanne gets 10-15% support is a world with roseanne still on television

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:45 (six years ago) Permalink

(by far leftist I assume you mean Ted Kennedy types) xxxp

ah, the deep-in-his-heart argument... could we swear an organ in?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:46 (six years ago) Permalink

a world where roseanne gets 10-15% support is a world with roseanne still on television

or a world where every state in the country is like MN circa 1998

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:47 (six years ago) Permalink

xp to continue my lil' theory all the stuff about his post-american tranzi charater is bullshit too, if that were true he could have sold afghanistan to india and china and the whole world would be better off, but no, it's "ours" so "we" have to "finish it" or whatever, nobody else can be trusted

this isn't a "deep in his heart" argument! he doesn't trust anyone except himself and like four people from chicago! this is pretty clear!

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:48 (six years ago) Permalink

goole, if you are right on your "Cheney's watching" argument, then why did Obama say in the 2008 campaign that "we're not a country that detains ppl without a trial"? was he that 'naive'?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:49 (six years ago) Permalink

or was he just lying? (easy answer)

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:50 (six years ago) Permalink

I actually have no trouble believing there's classified information out there that you don't get to see until you are President that could change your mind about the usefulness of indefinite detention.

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:50 (six years ago) Permalink

what's going on w/roseanne??

dave coolier (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:51 (six years ago) Permalink

and that's an unrebuttable argument, so well played! xp

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:51 (six years ago) Permalink

she is seeking the Presidential nomination of the Green Party

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:51 (six years ago) Permalink

she's one of 2 finalists.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:52 (six years ago) Permalink

btw goole, by your theory, when Cheney said on TV last summer that he was glad O had "seen the light" on terror and detention, Obama turned to Bill Daley and heaved a sigh of relief?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:53 (six years ago) Permalink

well if DJP's argument is unknowable then neither is yours...

i think he naively underestimated how cheney-fied the CIA and military was and how hard their stance was on forgetting torture ever happened. my reading is that john brennan said, ok you can send people into pakistan or you can have a 'get right with god' moment on the darkside stuff, pick one.

i don't think holder really knew what kind of a shitshow a terror trial in new york would cause either.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:55 (six years ago) Permalink

I actually have no trouble believing there's classified information out there that you don't get to see until you are President that could change your mind about the usefulness of indefinite detention.

i don't doubt the 'usefulness' of indefinite detention, just its legality and morality.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:00 (six years ago) Permalink

legality follows usefulness, as it has throughout the history of man

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:05 (six years ago) Permalink

the Geneva Conventions were not created because they were that useful

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:13 (six years ago) Permalink

The writers of the constitution knew some of the language there was not useful, so I don't exactly agree with you DJP

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

How useful were the guys we let out of Guantanamo after 4-5 years who didn't do anything, and have told their stories in the media?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

habeas corpus isn't really that useful to most ppl in authority

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:15 (six years ago) Permalink

FWIW, if anyone cares and in an attempt to not make this a filibuster -- the reasons why i am even willing to consider a third party (i was quite vehemently anti-Nader back in the day, before he went on TV and made his odious racial comments about Obama) are: (1) the solidification of "money=power" and everything that goes with that; (2) the shit economy (usually my #1 concern and very closely tied in with "money=power"); and (3) i have no more faith in Obama, left to his own devices anyway. his administration's appalling record on civil liberties is important, but admittedly secondary for me. (i'm mixed on foreign policy - pre-Bush, i was a bit more hawkish than some liberal/lefties; but i don't agree with the overall continuance of the Bush-Cheney way of thinking).

so there you are.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:19 (six years ago) Permalink

so am I completely mistaken in my impression that the economy overall has been slowly improving over the past 12 months (at least, in states where they didn't enact laws that caused $11B worth of labor to flee)?

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:22 (six years ago) Permalink

tbh I am not a presidential scholar and I was very young at the time, but given the treatment of history I have a hard time imagining Carter being to the right of Obama

― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, February 3, 2012 2:30 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Carter ran as a centrist, to the right of McGovern. He was anti-abortion, he deregulated the airlines, he stayed within the continuum of our cold-war national defence strategy, our military and CIA were all over South America and the Middle East, he oversaw huge tax cuts to corporations. He lost favor with the unions who felt betrayed, and he was criticized form the left during his presidency, just like Clinton and Obama.

I think maybe he was generally to the left of Obama during his presidency, but I think Obama has effected more liberal gains in policy than Carter did.

I think Carter is an amazing humanitarian, and I don't want to detract form his accomplishments both during and after his presidency, but I think he was much less a liberal president than we remember.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:24 (six years ago) Permalink

economy's in better shape, I think unemployment's down a little & the GOP has been kicking itself in the balls every day before live news cameras for several months

even haters like me get huge lols from how fucked the GOP is

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:24 (six years ago) Permalink

The economy ios getting better and we are in much better shape then the austerity fetishists on the other side of the pond.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:24 (six years ago) Permalink

Krugman and others who seem to know more about the economy agree that we have made economic progress, but we could have made more. On the economy as with civil liberties, Obama made promises in 2008 that he has not kept. With a different economic team without Geithner we could have made more progress. Obama has gone after whistleblowers but not Wall Street.

Obama's refusal to release the legal argument for killing Americans abroad, and for putting them on secret lists, may make the CIA and the Pentagon happy but it is not consistent with his 2008 campaign or American ideals. But I'm still a hold your nose and vote for the least objectionable candidate who will win.

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:26 (six years ago) Permalink

carter's term in office offers a useful demonstration of what happens to a president who isn't supported by his party.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:26 (six years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.