The Progressive Case Against Obama

[Type Username Here]

Look, it's simple, you have an all or nothing personality, a short-sighted one. The worst part is that you then try to back up these false scenarios with people giving a guy a pass because he's black, a democrat or whatever else. Do you think I forgot you being so flabbergasted with how to debate me that you tried to insinuate that I support some of Obama's decisions just because I'm black? Please.

You said your family has always voted Democrat, going back to the Civil Rights time period. I assumed you did the same and apologized when you said it wasn't the case. Quit with the strawman shyt.

You keep bringing up stuff that VVD, myself and others have clearly and continue to be against. You can crying that it's so important to some liberals that they're not willing to budge on it. Bullshyt, most liberals have more pragmatism than you're demonstrating. It's simple, you're not a liberal. You read some philosophy books, adopted some of those principles and you vote based on two issues. The greater nation be damned.

Again, you act like some of those issues are issues you can budge on. I don't think they are. The point is, that during the Bush regime, these "liberals" you speak of sure as fukk weren't very pragmatic. You keep ignoring this point in every thread.

You keep trying to falsely claim that these issues aren't important to me just because I know the likelihood that they'll affect the greater populace vs. college costs, a serious look at education, the odds of another conservative supreme court justice, a jobs bill, healthcare, etc. It's simple, those things don't affect you in your comfy life so you don't care. You have the luxury of sitting around and arguing the principles of Locke all day. You are not most of America.

This doesn't even make sense. If those things are more important to you than violating the law, so be it. To me, they are not.

I took one of those "who should I vote for" questionnaires before and I was leaning to where Jill Stein is (who isn't that far from Obama on a lot of issues, she just seems more earnest in their pursuit). But I still know better.

The only thing you know is how to contribute to a broken system.

In what setting in the real world do mature adults act like you're acting?

Again, look at the left and the "mature" adults during the Bush Presidency. They sure gave a fukk about these issues when the president wasn't a Democrat.

Seriously, tell me. In what setting in the real world do individuals insist on having things their way or no way at all?

That's the point of voting. I vote for the candidate that best fits my ideal, not the candidate who has the best chance of winning. That bothers you for some odd reason.

If everyone thought like you then we'd get nowhere. You think you're standing on principle, but aside from the most extreme examples, principles almost always yield to pragmatism. I'm not telling you to vote for him, but get off your high horse, it's an illogical one.

Those things I mentioned, the President did WITHOUT having to go through congress. A lot of is done solely through the executive branch and the Justice Department. You keep bringing up legislation and Republican Congressional opposition like it has any merit in the cases I listed.

Principles always yield to pragmatism except when it's the other guy doing it? Who's being illogical now?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

So Bar None, is the answer just continuing to perpetuate the destructive duopoly ad infinitum? Its pointless to try and effect change through the two major channels. Third party channels are a joke. You say everyone else doesn't know what theyre talking about and doesn't propose anything realistic. What do YOU propose?

 

[No1]

i excersise the "what's the point" approach because i don't see any clear solutions. I'm on record...more or less, stating that this country is on borrowed time. BARING some type of change. I want to be proven wrong, I want to know who, what, where and when on that "change". As it stands I don't see anything fixing this sinking boat.
That's why at the end of my quote of his post I asked for solutions.

There are to many broken parts right now and we're asking the people who broke them on purpose to fix them. I just don't see that happening.

I think his comments are what any informed person taking a God's honest approach to the situation would arrive at. Sounds like you agree to a degree, you're just saying that it's a given.

I don't have solutions to the problems, i'd love to see some...

I do mostly agree. I always have. But I prefer a problem-solver's approach to someone saying "well they're not all that different so who cares?" That's not entirely true always, but even more so, that's not a solution. We're not that far apart. But you said one thing that I don't entirely agree with. "We expect the same people that broke the system to fix it." That's true in the area of campaign finance, but it's not true in the area of issues like civil rights.

It's obvious that the existing power structure was anti-civil rights. But there was enough public information and voter outcry to force their hand. Even then, women were put in the CRA as a means to sabotage it, Republicans thought that there was no way that men would pass a bill giving women equal rights. But at that point the momentum was too strong, and it passed anyway, including the part for sex. They'll fix it if they have the reason to fix it. The problem is transparency and voter attention. Which is why I believe that voting should be mandatory like in Australia and that TUH is correct in that Civics courses and Local Government courses should be mandatory.

All we can do is hope that as the populace becomes more and more educated that we'll slowly see the informed voter that we need.

 

[No1]

So Bar None, is the answer just continuing to perpetuate the destructive duopoly ad infinitum? Its pointless to try and effect change through the two major channels. Third party channels are a joke. You say everyone else doesn't know what theyre talking about and doesn't propose anything realistic. What do YOU propose?

Do not try to set up a false dichotomy on what I said. I never said anyone else doesn't know anything. I said you are personally arguing with your own logic, but then you said you're not a progressive so then I don't even know who or what I'm arguing with. Why would a non-progressive propose a progressive critique of the president. What do I propose to what?

I never said third parties are pointless.

 

[Blackking]

I think its a good post simply because it does highlight the fact that the liberals on this board (myself included) have been giving Obama a pass for a lot of stuff recently because it's election season. But its hard for me to balance personally- like for example this disposition matrix he's been working on? I'm not a fan of that at all. In fact it's another terrifying step forward. But the point is that nobody really cares about this stuff except for the people really into politics. The average American gives no shyts.

The one post by nasci.. was hard, however this post right here is what it is.

Most of America is deaf and blind. The people who pay attention either are in non-swing states or are so liberal that hate Obama for sh1t he can't even control.

Most others don't really give Obama a sweeping pass on every issue, but it is election season. We know that the parties have Israel, Big Business, and wealthy people to answer to but we also know that there are a few issues that we do control with our vote (especially at the State Level).

We think we don't like the foreign policy of a Democrat, well we Know we would be disgusted at the foreign policy of a Republican war hawk Pres. We know for sure that the Democratic social platform will never be accomplished; but the few things that Obama will do are better than the few things that Romney will do.

Lesser of the evil sounds like some weak sh1t to accept, but in life you play the cards you are dealt.

We talk about 3rd parties gaining power overtime... how and when do you all purpose we go about this?

I say our best hope is to start changing local politics...

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Do not try to set up a false dichotomy on what I said. I never said anyone else doesn't know anything. I said you are personally arguing with your own logic, but then you said you're not a progressive so then I don't even know who or what I'm arguing with. Why would a non-progressive propose a progressive critique of the president. What do I propose to what?

I never said third parties are pointless.

What are you saying?

We got a record deficit, we got a stagnant economy, we got a devolving situation in the ME. You know how the system works better than anyone, supposedly. How do you suggest we address our issues, within the context of the system? How is a vote for one of the big two the best way for Joe Sixpack to effect change???

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

We talk about 3rd parties gaining power overtime... how and when do you all purpose we go about this?

VOTE THIRD PARTY NOVEMBER 6, 2012

 

[MeachTheMonster]

VOTE THIRD PARTY NOVEMBER 6, 2012

The only reason a third party seems so appealing, is because they are a third party. The more mainstream they become, the more they will have in common with repubs, and dems.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

fukk the middle east. I'm more terrified of what's going on here. Police state, largest incarcerated population in the world (?), civil liberties being stripped away underneath our noses (especially when it comes to communication) shyt is outrageous. And all to justify national security. fukking nuts.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

The only reason a third party seems so appealing, is because they are a third party. The more mainstream they become, the more they will have in common with repubs, and dems.

In the interim they can effect change. Esp left wing parties. Dems are too p*ssy to co opt anyone like the GOP did the Tea Party

Again... if we agree the two parties are shyt... WHY SHOULD ANYONE VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM?????

 

[No1]

You said your family has always voted Democrat, going back to the Civil Rights time period. I assumed you did the same and apologized when you said it wasn't the case. Quit with the strawman shyt.

Stop lying. My family was not even in this country during the Civil Rights period. I never said any such thing.

Again, you act like some of those issues are issues you can budge on. I don't think they are. The point is, that during the Bush regime, these "liberals" you speak of sure as fukk weren't very pragmatic. You keep ignoring this point in every thread.

Oh really? During the Bush administration the Patriot Act was unprecedented. Furthermore, they didn't exactly have a failing economy, and the rise of poverty, etc. to do deal with. People on the left don't even know that much about the NDAA, I've had to tell most people about it. It's not nearly as publicized. Further, I criticized liberal for picking and choosing. But they obviously trust Obama more than Bush. That's what it comes down to, and I never said they were right to do so.

This doesn't even make sense. If those things are more important to you than violating the law, so be it. To me, they are not.

It makes perfecr sense, you care about one single issue that is arguably unconstitutional vs. issues that are affecting the everyday lives of Americans. I get a kick out of you dapping up posters that don't believe in your stance whatsoever. You confuse agreeing that the system is flawed with agreeing with your ridiculous stance.

The only thing you know is how to contribute to a broken system.

there goes you're crying again. WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH, the system is broken, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH, no shyt. You don't know how to fix a damn thing. You demonstrate that whenever you speak. You have no problem-solving skills whatsoever. You're right I am GENUINELY bothered by people who can only point out problems but can offer no solutions. But I'm even more bothered by a guy who weighs a policy that has a .0000000000000001% likelihood of affecting anyone over things that affect EVERYONE.

Again, look at the left and the "mature" adults during the Bush Presidency. They sure gave a fukk about these issues when the president wasn't a Democrat.

That's all you got? Vague references to the ways Democrats reacted to President Bush who had already lied to them about a war, had 9/11 happen on his watch and who people feared wanted to go to war with Iran? Who had also permitted water-boating? Yeah, I wonder why people were more distrustful of that guy than the guy who voted against the war. I wonder why they were more distrustful of a guy who had Cheney and Rumsfeld in his administration. More importantly, the current court already said the Patriot Act was constitutional. So now what? I don't like it at all, but I do not and MOST people do not weigh that higher than every other problem that affects everyday people. That is my issue with you, you spent a month acting like you were above everyone because they didn't weigh that as heavily as you. You're against Obama damn near solely on that issue.

He, a constitutional scholar, changed once he got into power and saw the landscape. If you 're voting for a third party because of that then you're doing the same thing Obama voters are doing, placing your faith in a guy's character. It's the same thing.

That's the point of voting. I vote for the candidate that best fits my ideal, not the candidate who has the best chance of winning. That bothers you for some odd reason.

What bothers me is this false dichotomy you keep setting up. It's to the point where it's PAINFULLY obvious that all you can do it speak in generalities. At no point have I advocated voting for the guy with the best chance of winning. I prefer voting for the guy who has the best chance of getting ANY of my ideals through. No politician in history has ever gotten everything his supporters want through. This is what you don't get. If I vote for Jill Stein and Romney wins and fukks over college students, people who are still on their parent's healthcare, maintains the supreme court that authorized the policy that you're crying about, etc. How did I not just shoot myself in the foot?

Those things I mentioned, the President did WITHOUT having to go through congress. A lot of is done solely through the executive branch and the Justice Department. You keep bringing up legislation and Republican Congressional opposition like it has any merit in the cases I listed.

Where in the world did I do this? You really are fighting ghosts. But I'll help you out. No president in history has ever come into the position and lessened the power of the office. Never.

Principles always yield to pragmatism except when it's the other guy doing it? Who's being illogical now?

I'd respond to this, except that it doesn't make any sense and doesn't apply to anything I said. Stop it.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Lol @ the partisan back and forth. You guys look like idiots

 

[MeachTheMonster]

In the interim they can effect change. Esp left wing parties. Dems are too p*ssy to co opt anyone like the GOP did the Tea Party

Again... if we agree the two parties are shyt... WHY SHOULD ANYONE VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM?????

Because the alternative would be to not vote, and even though politics will not change, policies will.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Because the alternative would be to not vote, and even though politics will not change, policies will.

Again... a third party vote.. is not not voting at all

If I don't agree w/the policies of the Democrats & Republicans... should I just not vote?? Is that democracy????

 

[No1]

What are you saying?

We got a record deficit, we got a stagnant economy, we got a devolving situation in the ME. You know how the system works better than anyone, supposedly. How do you suggest we address our issues, within the context of the system? How is a vote for one of the big two the best way for Joe Sixpack to effect change???

I'm not answering shyt that you say(because I have a pretty good idea that you're just a contrarian who is upset LOL....oh and LMAO @ third parties having the best chance to change anything in the interim...stop it, and I'm voting third parties locally) until you explain to me how you can say you are not a progressive and then post up an article about progressive critiques of Obama and co-sign them. It's possible, but not very likely or logical. What exactly are you standing on? Who are you?

More importantly, stop trying to pull this bullshyt where I said that I know how the system works better than anyone. I said one guy's post was "a given" and that's really it. Whether I do or not remains to be seen.

Again, what do you consider the issues worth talking about? More so, what ARE you talking about? You just claimed that there is partisan back and forth when neither I or TUH identify with either party, it's obvious that you're some guy who has no solutions or ideas of how to get to them that thinks he's "above others" that participate in the process. In short, the "smart dumb nikka" prototype.