"If You Don't Want to be Reminded of an Unpleasant Reality, Don't Ask to be Reminded"

[The Doctor.]

I'm just trying to be helpful here and explain why people will respond the way they do to anti-Obama sentiment on DU.

I expect that we're going to hear more about how awful, unworthy, and what a big 'mistake' it was to vote for Obama now that the NDAA is going to the President. I'd be willing to bet, as it turned out with the HCRA, that upon inspection we're going to learn that it is not the catastrophe people are making it out to be. Happy about it I am not, but Obama has shown us a track record that proves he is doing the best job of holding up the interests of The People that he can. Now that's just my opinion, and I know this issue is going to get beaten to death in the next several weeks, but that's not the point of this post...

First things first: There has been a high level of dishonesty on the issue of supporting Obama, so I'm going to head off possibly the most dishonest tactic first: I'm not telling anyone to 'shut up' or 'keep your opinions to yourself'. I can always tell I'm standing on the correct side of an issue by how much the “other side” has to go out of their way to mischaracterize, conflate, and create strawmen. The "You just want me to shut up!" claim is perhaps the most dishonest tactic used. So let me be crystal clear here;

I don't want anyone to 'STFU' or withhold their earnest opinions. I would like everyone to express whatever facts, reason, logic, emotions, dreams, theories, bi-polar disorders, studies, faith, he-said/she-said, information, misinformation, disinformation, inclinations, opinions, maxims, poems, or zen koans that they wish to subject to the scrutiny of the DU community. Period. Anyone can say anything here that they want and then whine to their heart's content if what they say is subsequently hidden.

To the point: Obama is the President. He is also a Democrat. This message board is called 'Democratic Underground'. Next year we are going to have a national election where President Obama will face a Republican challenger. Obama has made progress and done significant good for the American people. The Republican challenger will very likely be one that will undo much of that good. Also, they will likely slash safety nets worse, roll back more regulations, allow for greater pollution, less competition and overall give more control of the government to corporations than anyone can even accuse Obama of.
We all on the same page?
Doesn't matter, this is the reality. If you really think that a Republican will not do worse things to this country than Obama, then you probably should ask yourself what you are even doing here. Again, to head off the inevitable BS: that applies ONLY to those who really think that Obama is no better than any of the Republican candidates or otherwise expresses no intention of voting for or supporting him. So please, if that isn't you, then save it. I have my disappointments in Obama, but I'm not detached enough from reality to think a Republican would be a better choice.

Right now, we are seeing the beginnings of a movement to fix what is truly broken in this nation. We know what that is: corporate control of the government. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to be in the thrall of corporations, lobbyists, and above all... big banks that somehow always get what they want. This movement is a very good thing and it means there is real hope of restoring control of the US to The People.

But that hasn't happened yet.

So, for the time being, and while we are doing many other things to change the paradigm, we only have two viable Parties and two people to realistically choose between for the presidency next year. Sorry if that is disheartening, but barring some sort of vast miracle or catastrophe, it's an inescapable fact.
Heading off the next strawman; I am not telling anyone how they should vote or who they should vote for. You can vote for whoever or whatever you want. Naturally, I am here because I believe that the best choice for office is Obama, as I presume is the reason most everyone else is here as well.

It is reasonable to assume that the candidate who receives the most support and performs the best will likely win the election and become or remain President. Here, on Democratic Underground, it is expected that we will all get behind the Democratic nominee.
Now for the next piece of BS to head off: No matter how you feel about that point, it is not 'authoritarian' to suggest that part of being on Democratic Underground is the expectation that one will support the Democratic candidate for President. To call such a suggestion 'authoritarian' is as asinine as saying that it's 'authoritarian' for a Pacifist Group to expect its members to be non-violent, or a basketball team to expect its members to play basketball rather than soccer on the court. Anyone who calls the assumption that people on Democratic Underqround should support Democrats 'authoritarian' has all the sense of someone that thinks they can bring baby-back ribs and veal to a vegan convention. We're on a Democratic message board where we're allowed to say what we want up until we voice opposition, tacit or deliberate, for Democratic causes. Supporting and re-electing Obama is one of those causes.

It's really that simple.

So here's the deal:

IF you do not want to be reminded that a Republican could win the White House if Obama does not have enough support, then do NOT say you refuse to support him or otherwise try to undermine enthusiasm or support for him here.

If you cannot restrain yourself, then when you are reminded of the above reality and whine that you're 'being told to shut up' or 'how to vote', or that you're 'being repressed by authority', please try to remember where you are. Because until undermining support for Obama is no longer tolerated on Democratic Underground, such complaints are just childish. Not that I have any expectation that everyone will actually take a step back and think about this. In fact, it is my experience that people love a good excuse to put on some righteous indignation and outrage.

But I have hope that, despite my 'tone', the vast majority of Duers are adults and will understand the substance of what I have said.

“If you don't want to hear it, don't ask for it.”




On edit, none of the Obama detractors seem to have grown up yet. (That doesn't mean 'earnest critics', but the underminers will still try to possess that label.)

[The Doctor.]

3. Fair enough.

And honest. Can't be faulted for that. I won't try to convince you that he's not as bad as you might think, I'll just let his second term speak for itself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. x2

[Hutzpa]

45. What happens if you find out

that NDAA bill is actually protecting Americans, what will you do or say then?

[Hutzpa]

52. Shouldn't you be channeling that energy toward

getting him a majority in Congress instead?

[TBF]

81. Agree

I will be voting for him, sometimes I even break down and send some $$$ (especially when I'm trying to win dinner w/him - I have much to discuss). But I spend more time trying to educate and encourage folks to get involved however they see fit - whether working on campaigns, protesting, or a little of both.

Just sitting around posting negativity doesn't help anyone.

[The Doctor.]

96. You... don't.... want.... a Democratic majority... in Congress...

??? ???

Help me understand. I'm sure that's not what you meant.

[The Doctor.]

107. Oh... koo.

That's fair.

[Hutzpa]

115. You beat me to that question

nt.

[sendero]

129. If we are going to have....

.. a Republican president, then I would prefer a Democratic congress. But we've already seen that this president, even with a Democratic congress, is not going to pass progressive legislation.

Once he has lost that congress, then he starts yakking progressive (like he did in his presidential campaign) again, in the full knowledge that he can't DO anything he is talking about.

So all I am saying is you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. Obama is a great progressive talker, and a nonexistent progressive do-er. And having congress isn't going to make jack shit difference, we've already seen that play.

[Hutzpa]

155. "Then he starts yakking progressive"

why some of you border is beyond me.

What a twisted logic though wouldn't you say?

[Maven]

108. Why, so we can vote for all the blue dogs he supports?

[Hutzpa]

116. I don't know where you got that talking point from

but i can say this that your statement is unfounded.

[Maven]

135. Really?

Blanche Lincoln

Arlen Specter (former GOP)

Joe Lieberman

All supported by Obama in their primary elections against more liberal alternatives.

"President Obama: I'm a Blue Dog Democrat"

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/12170-President-Obama-Im-a-Blue-Dog-Democrat.html

[Doctor_J]

119. He had HUGE majorities 2009-2011

far bigger than he'll have next time, if he gets re-elected. He did nothing with them, except bash Dems. Your point is ridiculuous

[The Doctor.]

122. That shows a particular ignorance of the facts.

Mainly that Republicans were all too willing to use the filibuster to stop anything Obama wanted. Without a super-majority in both houses, guess what the Democrats had to do...

compromise.

Now if only they would sink to the level of Republicans. Right?

[Doctor_J]

127. Thanks for proving my point.

The post to which I responded said that electing more Dems will help. That is patently false, as was seen in 2009-2010, and you just admitted that.

Obama should have called Harry into the Oval office and told him to either go nuclear or resign his leadership position to someone who would.

And now you're admitting that we would have to play rough to get anything done. You basically admit that you would rather die playing nice than get dirty and actually stand up to the far right. Please bookmark your post so that when the country goes down the drain, you can read it and comfort yourself with the fact that we played fair.

20 years of abuse by hate radio has made the entire party weak, complicit, and completely useless. I am happy for you that that's alright by you.

[The Doctor.]

174. Proving your point? Not really.

Yes, 'more dems' will help. We just need a supermajority of them.

That's how many more.

Even without a supermajority, 'more dems' will help if we can take simple majorities.

Even without simple majorities, 'more dems' will help on municipal and state levels.

Your point is simply not logical unless you believe we are better with 'less dems'.


Is that what you believe?

[sabrina 1]

191. Republicans are not the only ones who can use the filibuster, are they??

How come we never hear about Democrats threatening to use it??

We keep hearing that Republicans in the minority are more powerful than Democrats in the majority and with control of the WH. Sorry, but I know how much this illogical excuse has been pushed to explain why Dems appeared to be so helpless once they won the 2008 election, but no one has been buying that.

What the people have finally realized is that if Congress wanted to get something done, they would do it. When they are in the majority and keep making excuses, it simply means that the issues important to the people are not important to them.

What the people know now is that our government has been hi-jacked by Corporate interests and that is why they are now looking for other ways to try to fix that. Beating the same old horse election season after election season, getting the same, or even worse results, is simply futile and we know that now.

I just wish those pushing people to just keep going along with this failed system would start out by acknowledging it has failed the American people. We are smart enough to know that they way the system works, we are slightly better off with Dems. But that is no longer enough. I wish people would get that.

[The Doctor.]

193. You're missing a critical piece of the dynamic...

The Democrats are in the position of WANTING to get something done.

The Republicans are in a position to allow nothing.


The Republicans have all the leverage so long as the Democrats want to accomplish something. The Democrats can't very well threaten to filibuster themselves now, can they? Since the Republicans know that they can't get anything they really want by introducing it, all they have to do is sit back and let the Democrat's sense of duty motivate them to legislate. Then the Republicans can threaten to filibuster unless they get what they want in return.

Seriously, it's just not an option for the Democrats to filibuster themselves.

[sabrina 1]

194. To block Bush legislation is not 'sinking to Republican levels' it is standing up against

policies that are dangerous to this country. But, it didn't happen, so they compromised, they compromised away our rights rather than fight.

Your argument is exactly what I am talking about. There is always an excuse.

[Hutzpa]

125. What HUGE majority is that we're talking about?

nt.

[emulatorloo]

130. Bullshit. The " majority " in the Senate was razor thin

and included Lieberman

[Doctor_J]

140. It was 59-41, which is not razor thin

and, more importantly, was as big as it's going to get for awhile. If he couldn't do anything with those numbers, he never will in the foreseeable future.

[emulatorloo]

187. Takes 60 votes for Cloture.

No amount of sophistry on your part will change the basic facts.

[TheKentuckian]

212. Oh please that was one of the largest majorities in history

[Tx4obama]

149. The 'fact' is after Obama took office dems had a filibuster-proof majority in Senate only SHORT time

With all the GOP obstruction, it takes 60 'yes' votes to bring cloture on a bill in order to bring it to the Senate floor.

Senator Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009 and then Senator Kennedy died in August 2009.

So in my opinion, your comment subject line is false since President did NOT have huge majorities 2009-2011 - not huge enough to get what he and the Dems wanted to get done.

[eomer]

172. Wrong - much major legislation in the last several decades sidestepped the filibuster

by way of the budget reconciliation process. Obama and the Democratic majority could have done many things in 2009/2010 through reconciliation but just chose not to.

[The Doctor.]

175. Please elaborate.

What could/should they have done when? I must have missed when they had a chance to pass anything they wanted.

[eomer]

197. Tax the wealthy, make the tax cut on the middle class permanent, and create a public option.

All those things could have been done by just the Democratic majority by using the budget reconciliation process during 2009/2010. Such a reconciliation bill could not be filibustered and thus wouldn't have needed the votes of Lieberman, Baucus, Snowe, etc.

[Tx4obama]

200. But a bill can only get into 'reconciliation' after the bill's been on the senate floor

and in order to get anything introduced onto the floor 'most' bills (because of GOP obstruction) need 60 votes for cloture.

[eomer]

202. No, not true.

Here is an article about the reconciliation process:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congress/budget_reconciliation/index.html

The most important thing about it is that it cannot be stopped by a filibuster. Many major pieces of legislation, for example the Bush tax cuts, were enacted this way when they could not have been if what you claim were true.

[Tx4obama]

203. Okay, I will back out of this one, because ...

apparently I have forgotten the details regarding reconciliation. LOL

[eomer]

209. Hey, where are those smilie things when I need them?

Thanks for hearing me out.

[Tx4obama]

211. Here's a link to the new list of the emoticons, in case you don't have it already

http://www.du3preview.com/emoticons/index.html

[eomer]

215. Thanks!

[XemaSab]

124. If the Patriot Act saved one life

then was it worth it?

What if it saved ten, or a hundred, or a thousand lives?

There are dangers to living in a free society. Freedom means that some people are "free" to do bad things, like Jared Loughner who shot Gabby Giffords and killed all those people.

I'd still rather live in a free society than in a society like Soviet Russia where the government reads your mail and taps your phones and if they don't like what you're saying then they can throw you in a gulag for the rest of your life.

[Hutzpa]

128. I totally agree with what you're saying

I DO NOT want to live in a society where the government is spying on me, no, my argument is
we don't know whats in this bill, I can't make any judgment based on hear say.

[dflprincess]

147. The ACLU doesn't like it

and I trust their opinion about it way more than I trust Obama's.

[Doctor_J]

133. Or we can have both, where we have the PATRIOT Act and nuts are free to own guns

and get marching orders from King Glen. Seems to me we have the worst of both going on right now, with the NRA being on the side of gun culture, and no such lobbying force on the side of the other nine amendments

[MADem]

2. There are websites/forums that get a huge thrill out of bashing Obama.

I'm always disappointed when I realize that this is one of them, on way too many occasions.

No "safe havens" for Democrats anymore--not even on a board with "Democratic" in its name.

[JDPriestly]

99. Maybe there is a reason that so many Democratic websites are critical of Obama.

Maybe you just aren't being realistic about what his administration is doing and to whom they are beholden.

[MADem]

138. Well, this is pretty much the most vicious "Democratic" website I've seen when it comes to BHO.

I don't expect the wacky wingnut ones to like him. I certainly wish some of the members of this one wouldn't use quite so many of their "themes."

I'm very realistic. I think the members of this administration have room for improvement, but I don't think they're Satan on a Ritz Cracker, either.

Some of the hyperbole I see here would do Limbaugh proud.

[JDPriestly]

157. Not Satan on a Ritzcracker, but leave a lot to be desired.

It would be great if Obama listened to a wider range of advice.

[gateley]

4. When did he sign it? nt

[The Doctor.]

7. I was under the false impression that he had.

Reading the posts around here seemed it a foregone conclusion.

Thanks for the heads-up. Edited appropriately.

[gateley]

37. I was trying to find it via Google, but no official reports, so I thought maybe you might know.

I'm just confused if it's passed the Senate and the House, if it's actually a bill waiting to be signed or what. As you note, reading the posts around here -- and others on in different places that came up in Google -- it seems like it's a done deal. Just wanted to find out if it really is or not.

I've learned my lesson by jumping in before the fact and becoming enraged or heartbroken only to find it was conjecture and not fact. My blood pressure can't take it so I try to remember to check it out before joining in the wailing and hollering.

[Cigar11]

5. Everyone has choices; I’ll respect yours if you respect mine.

At the end of every election process, there’s a Winner and there’s a Loser; always has been and this will be no different.

Everyone wants their needs met, and you can bet everyone won’t get their need met.

I say get out and Vote, and support "your" Vote!

[Little Star]

6. Are you talking about during the...

election season or do you think this should be imposed at all times?

Because my understanding is, you are correct that we need to get on board and not undermine our candidate during election season, but otherwise it's ok to point out when we disagree with our elected officials and why we disagree.

The reason I think this way is because in The ToS this is what the admins say:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Please correct me if I am wrong. I want to understand the rules correctly. Thanks, LS

[The Doctor.]

9. Never suggested as much.

"I'm just trying to be helpful here and explain why people will respond the way they do to anti-Obama sentiment on DU."

Just getting really sick of the very childish claims of 'censorship' or 'authoritarianism' by people who can't stand being reminded that their deliberate lack of support and unwillingness to vote for Obama is tacit support for Republicans.

Sometimes people just have to face reality, no matter how unpleasant it might be.

[Little Star]

26. OK. And..

once those terms that are laid out in the ToS are applicable, people will either obide by the rules or they might find themselves gone.

Personally, I actually wondered more about why people would try to stiffle others from critism or concern of our elected officials during non-election season.

[The Doctor.]

39. No one should try to stifle criticism or concern.

I was very specific about the type of statements that would elicit the response I described. 'Criticism or concern' were not among them.

I'm sometimes amazed at how so many people (not necessarily yourself) decide what is being said in a post without actually reading it.

I'd be embarrassed to mis-address a point because I didn't bother to read what I was responding to. Why aren't other people?

[Little Star]

47. Well...

I think most people have read what they are responding to (I know I certainly do.)

People sometimes write in such a passive aggressive, subtle form (not necessarily you) it becomes impossible to have an honest conversation with them. Perhaps that is what would give some the false impression that their original writing was left unread.

In other words it is not always the lack of reading but rather the real intent of original author.

[The Doctor.]

48. My 'real intent' is in black and white.

Anyone that has trouble with that needs to ask themselves why they feel they have to make stuff up in their own heads and substitute it for what's in front of them.

There's nothing 'between the lines'. I don't insult people by pretending they said something they didn't. I realize it's too much to expect the same in return.

What I said is a simple as what I said. It's just sad to me that people have to apply 'creative interpretation' to what should be a very clear and straightforward message.

[Little Star]

49. Okey, Dokey...

peace.

[The Doctor.]

60. Bye.

[a simple pattern]

59. Actually you just did that to me in another subthread.

You pretended not to know that we were disputing the meaning of the word 'Democrat.' You pretended to think it was 'contemplate.'

Carry on.

[The Doctor.]

61. Then you should learn to communicate.

Instead of leaving it up in the air. If you are talking about a particular word, it would help to actually say what that word is.

There is nothing so ambivalent in the OP.

Nice try (again) though.

[a simple pattern]

65. I think you mean 'ambiguous.'

The OP is only ambivalent in the sense of cognitive dissonance. Nice try, though.

[The Doctor.]

66. When you sit on Santa's lap,

be sure to ask for a dictionary.

We're done here.

[Zhade]

199. You used the wrong word. Look it up.

NT!

[hfojvt]

63. that fact is just really irrelevant to a discussion though

Person A: Obama's stimulus program sucks
Person B: So you want a Republican to win?


Yes, we all know that Republicans winning is a horrible thing. The worse thing seems to be that even when we donate, walk and vote for change, all we get is more of the same. We voted for change in 2008, and yet we got four more years of the Bush tax cuts. We voted for change in 2008, and yet we have a President proposing economic stimulus right out of the Reagan/Bush playbook and using basically the same lies to promote it.

Obama has betrayed those who supported him again and again and again, and at least pert of his low approval ratings are due to that fact. You cannot expect people who feel betrayed to be enthusiatic supporters of the POS who betrayed them. I use POS because they will likely see that person as a POS. A traitor is going to be seen as worse than an enemy. The enemy you expect to attack you, so you can understand that, but when the supposed friend puts a knife in your back, well that is unforgiveable.

I strongly suspect that the signing of the NDAA is not as huge a betrayal as it is being made out to be, ironically in much the same way that the supposed Bush memo that supposedly authorized arrests of war protestors was not really as bad as was claimed here and by supposedly unimpeachable witnesses like Ray McGovern.

It would just be nice to discuss the facts of the NDAA instead of partisan loyalty or electoral pragmatism that are not really relevant to the merits or demerits of the NDAA.

[The Doctor.]

64. And yet another person can't be bothered to READ the post they're responding to.

"Again, to head off the inevitable BS: that applies ONLY to those who really think that Obama is no better than any of the Republican candidates or otherwise expresses no intention of voting for or supporting him. So please, if that isn't you, then save it. "

Seriously, I would be embarrassed if I did something like that.

[JDPriestly]

102. So if you were faced with the choice of voting for one of two Fascists, which would you

choose?

I do not think that Obama is himself a Fascist, but when there is so much as a discussion of incarcerating a person for an unlimited time without a trial, without a lawyer, we are talking about a fascist policy.

So, before I buy into your idea of supporting Obama no matter what because he is the better of two sad choices, I want to know whether, by supporting him, I am supporting one or more Fascist policies or not.

I am more familiar with Germany and with the Third Reich and the history of the use of unlimited incarceration by Hitler's government than are most DUers.

So, I will decide what I will say about Obama after I read the text of the bill in question. That we are even having to discuss a bill that allegedly would authorize unlimited incarceration of prisoners apparently in violation of our Constitution is horrifying.

[The Doctor.]

104. That's reasonable, however...

it's a bit contradictory.

You say;
"I do not think that Obama is himself a Fascist, but when there is so much as a discussion of incarcerating a person for an unlimited time without a trial, without a lawyer, we are talking about a fascist policy."

And then say;
"So, before I buy into your idea of supporting Obama no matter what because he is the better of two sad choices, I want to know whether, by supporting him, I am supporting one or more Fascist policies or not."

I get the very fine distinction you are trying to make. We're talking about a 'fascist' vs. 'one who accepts fascism'. There's barely a boson between them even though you say Obama is not a fascist.

As far as I've seen, Obama has done what he's been allowed to do in terms of good. That's just me though.

The OP was pretty straightforward on this point;

"Again, to head off the inevitable BS: that applies ONLY to those who really think that Obama is no better than any of the Republican candidates or otherwise expresses no intention of voting for or supporting him. So please, if that isn't you, then save it. I have my disappointments in Obama, but I'm not detached enough from reality to think a Republican would be a better choice."

It really is that simple. If you think that Obama is even a hair's breadth better a choice, then, given no other choice, we should see that he remains in office while we attempt to change other facets of this abominable system. If you do not believe he is the better choice, then perhaps it's time to think about another country. I'd be lying if I said I haven't thought about it, but so long as Obama is in the WH, a move won't be necessary.

[hfojvt]

156. uhm, I responded to post #9

Is what you quoted from post #9?

Also, what makes you so sure that "isn't me"?

[JDPriestly]

100. Excellent, hfojvt

Let's read the language of the NDAA and then decide where we stand on it.

I have been on both sides of the issue and then realized I have not idea what the bill actually says since there are two versions about its meaning here on DU and elsewhere.

[ut oh]

109. You created your own Strawman

"... deliberate lack of support and unwillingness to vote for Obama is tacit support for Republicans."

I think criticism of our Dem President is acceptable and actually important. We've seen that our 'elected' officials by and large are owned by the corporations (save for a very few). This includes Obama. This does not mean he is anti-The People, but it acknowledges the fact that corporations have too munch monetary influence on politics, and policy making in general. I think it's very important to point out things like the HC legislation ended up being a big give away to the insurance industry, and a lot of progressives are angry that 'the public option' was off the table. It's these 'decisions' among others that are rightfully criticized (IMO). Criticism does not necessarily mean 'don't vote for him', but means that there's some things that he promised during his campaign that he went back on as well as taking advantage of wiggle room in his claims (Iraq withdrawl timeline for example). If we don't hold his feet to the fire, what's to keep him from moving further right?

During election season, you may have a point in swing states, where every vote could matter. In states that are blue for all intents and purposes, a 'protest' vote would simply be that and nothing more. Coming from California I know my vote matters little when it comes to Presidential elections (booo to the Electoral College). If I were to 'protest vote', making the claim that my hypothetical protest vote is tacit support for Republicans is a false dicotomy.

Besides, if politicians believe that they are guaranteed the votes from their party, what is it that would actually make them stick with the principles of that party? They could do whatever the hell they wanted and as long as they had their D or R in front of their name, they're assurred those votes?? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. For the record, I won't be voting 'for' Obama, I'll be voting 'against' that evil

shitstain Gingrich. I will pick the candidate I think best equipped to prevent Gingrich from getting within spitting distance of the White House. Right now, that candidate looks to be Obama.

[Cigar11]

13. Good Luck

[jtrockville]

11. Speaking of being reminded...

Let's remember what happens to a party when no one criticizes the leaders - when everyone must support the leaders in lockstep. When leaders do things that betray the interests of those who supported them, they need to be criticized, otherwise we'll end up with "clown" candidates/representatives, just like the Republicans did.

I, for one, intend to give criticism when I feel it's warranted. Even if the criticism is directed at a Democrat.

[The Doctor.]

14. Does this apply to you?

"Again, to head off the inevitable BS: that applies ONLY to those who really think that Obama is no better than any of the Republican candidates or otherwise expresses no intention of voting for or supporting him. So please, if that isn't you, then save it."

Criticism is a sign of (not coincidentally) 'critical thought'. It's a sign of sophistication that the wingnuts can't grasp.

[jtrockville]

15. Maybe.

Not that I'm advocating for anyone to vote for him (it's against DU rules), but I think Huntsman is pretty much the equivalent of Obama (on a conservative to liberal scale).

And I'm seriously considering a Justice Party candidate (not that I'm advocating anyone else do it).

[The Doctor.]

19. You mean "The" Justice party candidate.

Anderson won't be on any significant number of state ballots, but you can bet that Republicans are doing their best to help him get on the ballot anywhere they can.

You know what they say about 'sleeping with the devil'.

[jtrockville]

24. Yep, I mean Anderson.

And you know what they say about "the lesser of two evils": it's still evil.

[The Doctor.]

41. Hey, if you want to do

What the Republicans want you to do, then fine.

The fact that you would be doing their bidding should make you do some real thinking about why you're here.

[jtrockville]

69. I'll vote for who I think would make the best President.

I'm not a tool of the Democratic Party, and my decision for who to vote for won't require me to re-think why I'm a member of DU.

[jtrockville]

23. I think you assume I'm bitter. I'm not.

But I'm not donning rose colored glasses either.

[Cigar11]

12. REMINDER: John McCain and Sarah Palin where the alternatives.

Put that in your Pipe and Smoke it on out!

That is all ….

[yodermon]

17. "I'm not telling anyone to 'shut up' or 'keep your opinions to yourself'."

well thank god for that

[The Doctor.]

21. You're welcome.

By all means, say what you really feel.

[lapislzi]

18. I am bitterly disappointed in Obama

That being said, I am a Democrat, and I will vote for the Democratic candidate, as the Democratic candidate invariably BETTER represents my interests, and, I believe, the interests of the nation at large.

[themadstork]

20. Most likely anyone wondering about whether to vote for O

already knows that a repub could easily win the presidential election, or generally any election. If this weren't the case, whether to vote for him or not would be a quite simple decision, and most of us would go out and vote for our favorite progressive when/if dissatisfied. So you basically wrote a post in defense of a repetitive canard, which is odd. X: "I'm not sure if I should vote for Obama again. Some of these policies are pretty extreme." Y: "But a Republican could win!" X: "Yes I know, but I'm not sure if I can vote for him in clean conscience. There's a range of divergent policy regarding which I can hold my nose and pretend to forget, but this may be a deal-breaker for me." Y: "But a Republican could win!"

I'd argue that Y is more concerned with his own sanctimoniousness than actually trying to secure a vote for the candidate they still find worthy. He'd be better off making a case as to why O is still worth X holding X's nose over, but instead he digs in and simply repeats a line he sees as indisputable.

[EFerrari]

22. Berating posters to this forum is not the fast track

to boosting support for any of your positions.

[The Doctor.]

29. Berating who?

Be specific.

[The Doctor.]

44. Hello?

Nothing? C'mon... who is getting 'berated'?

[pintobean]

25. When did you become an admin?

I must have missed that.

[The Doctor.]

30. I must have missed it too.

Why... are you appointing me to be one?

[a simple pattern]

27. You go ahead and call your convention "vegan" if you want to.

Throw out anyone who points out that the only thing on the menu is elephant.

[The Doctor.]

31. Nice try.

But Obama is the only Democrat running for President.

If you don't want a Democrat for President, then you should contemplate why you are here.

[a simple pattern]

51. You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[The Doctor.]

53. It means 'think about'.

Far be it from you to try to discuss the point of the OP though.

I really do appreciate all of the shallow replies. They let me know I'm spot on the money.

[a simple pattern]

57. It's not shallow.

You've constructed a lovely cotton candy castle of fluff around the premise that Obama is a Democrat. I contend that he is not, and that the letter after his name ought to be a diamond-encrusted capital P, for Plutocrat.

[The Doctor.]

58. Yet you have no real proof of that beyond the fact that he had to get past Republican obstruction.

In the meanwhile, you've once more provided a nice, shallow, meaningless, unsupported post to reinforce my position.

Thanks.

[a simple pattern]

62. Yep, he preemptively caved his way right on by that Republican "obstruction."

You don't have a position.

[kath]

153. +1000.

"You've constructed a lovely cotton candy castle of fluff around the premise that Obama is a Democrat. I contend that he is not, and that the letter after his name ought to be a diamond-encrusted capital P, for Plutocrat."

Very well said, and in only two great sentences!

[The Doctor.]

169. So very sad.

It's as if 'comprehension' is anathema to so many people around here.

You can believe Obama is anything you want him to be. The harsh reality is that he is the far better choice for President than anyone the Republicans would field.

If that's a concept you can't wrap your head around, then like I've asked a few others: "What are you doing here?"

[Odin2005]

28. Well fuck me for wanting Democrats to act like Democrats.

[The Doctor.]

33. Cool! We want the same thing!

[ut oh]

111. no, you seem to want peeps to vote Dem no matter what

Even if that 'D' were to be promoting all GOP policy, simply because he's claiming to be a Dem.

And while you claim that you're not telling people to STFU or not criticize, yet your followup comments are 'well all the shallow responses show that I'm right'. You are using argumentative fallacy with great abound here...

Not only are you not convincing the fence sitters, but you're doing a really good job of sounding like an authoritarian GOP'er here, just w/ a 'D' in front of your name....

[The Doctor.]

112. Actually, I'm still a registered Republican.

Nice try though.

(Bonus points if you can figure out why)

[Bluenorthwest]

121. You write and sound like one

I'm an actual Democrat. I notice that many of the hard core Obama wrapped rhetoric writers here are not Democrats and some don't vote for Democrats, oh but here they are lecturing Democrats to support whatever putrid policy the President supports. The President who opposes marriage rights for us. Putrid, atavistic crap.

[The Doctor.]

161. You're not terribly perceptive, are you?

I gave the last poster a chance to try to figure out why I'm a registered Republican yet am an Obama supporter.

I'll give you the same chance.

Meanwhile, there is nothing 'Republican' about stating a simple fact, letting people know what to expect when they say or do certain things, and being perfectly reasonable while doing so.

What's really strange is how inverted your thinking is. So you're saying that people who write in favor of Obama are not actually Democrats, but those who vow not to vote for him are? That's a bit detached from reality.

That is why there is nothing in the OP you can specifically take issue with, instead you resort to nebulous and unfounded insinuations. It's so very weak, I'm actually embarrassed for you.

[Bonobo]

32. A quick glance turned up the usual "whine", "outrage" and "righteous indignation" talking points.

I feel well-justified in ignoring such posts because they always are the same.

Any complaint is called "whining" or "drama" or "pout rage" no matter how well-deserved the anger is.

And no matter what Obama does, there is always the justification that "the others guys would be far worse".

That, "doctor" is a prescription for a one-way ticket down the endless highway diminishing expectations.

Shrug off the lazy self-delusions, doc, or you will wake up and smell the coffee only after the house has burned down.

[The Doctor.]

34. You should read the posts you respond to.

I covered that. But far be it from you to bother understanding what you're dealing with... I'd hate to expect too much.

[Mojorabbit]

38. +10000 nt

[The Doctor.]

40. Thanks for chiming in! Hey... do me a favor...

Let's have a quote from the OP that you disagree with and why.


Oh, you don't have anything? That's pretty much what I thought.

[Mojorabbit]

72. I personally found the tone of the op very condescending.

I am 55 years old and really not accustomed to being lectured on what to think or how to express my views. I would never in a million years presume to make a post like yours because it is not my place to dictate how, why, or when someone else should voice any concerns they might have or any expressions of delight in policy. Perhaps I took the post wrong but that is what I got out of it. I normally greatly enjoy your posts. This one was an exception.

[The Doctor.]

92. Funny thing that;

"But I have hope that, despite my 'tone', the vast majority of Duers are adults and will understand the substance of what I have said."

Seems to me you should be mature enough to get past stuff like that. Also, I would have hoped that someone of your 'maturity' would actually read the post so as to avoid making shit up and looking silly for it:

"I'm not telling anyone to 'shut up' or 'keep your opinions to yourself'. I can always tell I'm standing on the correct side of an issue by how much the “other side” has to go out of their way to mischaracterize, conflate, and create strawmen. The "You just want me to shut up!" claim is perhaps the most dishonest tactic used. So let me be crystal clear here;

I don't want anyone to 'STFU' or withhold their earnest opinions. I would like everyone to express whatever facts, reason, logic, emotions, dreams, theories, bi-polar disorders, studies, faith, he-said/she-said, information, misinformation, disinformation, inclinations, opinions, maxims, poems, or zen koans that they wish to subject to the scrutiny of the DU community. Period. Anyone can say anything here that they want and then whine to their heart's content if what they say is subsequently hidden."

"Again, to head off the inevitable BS: that applies ONLY to those who really think that Obama is no better than any of the Republican candidates or otherwise expresses no intention of voting for or supporting him."


Seriously... does anyone actually bother to READ the OP they're responding to?!?

Please, if you DO read the post, don't 'get out of it' what's not there.

[Mojorabbit]

114. I read the post

You said those things and then went on to use a lecturing tone filled with condescension anyway. After all you do admit in your post that you are using a tone, eg "despite my tone". Most of your replies to people are also pretty combative in my opinion. I don't think are going to change anyone's mind with your post if that was what you were going for. Most people on this list are pretty informed and perfectly capable of deciding on how and when to use their vote. I hope you have a wonderful joyful weekend.

[The Doctor.]

168. I didn't write it to 'change anyone's mind'.

I wrote it because I'm sick of the childish whining after people on a Democratic site take exception to vows not to support or vote for Obama because of a handful of perceived 'failures'.

People have a right to express themselves any way they want. If they are adults, instead of whining about being reminded of some hard realities, they'll back up their position and give good reasons why they will not vote for Obama.

Can I tell you something no one wants to admit? They HAVE NO GOOD REASONS that in anyway overcome the major reason of not putting a Republican in the White House.

That's WHY they resort to bullshit and claim they're 'being told to shut up' or 'how to vote' or whatever. And they sound like children.

I intended this OP to hopefully get a handful of people to engage in just a little introspection and realize that such tactics are transparent. That sort of thing can lead to growth. I think that might have been too much to hope for. I'm not sure if you noticed, but most of the people that disagree with the OP couldn't even be bothered to be HONEST about what was in it.

If anything tells me that I'm 100% on target, that is it.

You have completely misconstrued my purpose by thinking I want to 'change anyone's mind'. I don't, I just want them to recognize the simple truth of where they are and what they can expect when they say certain things.

I plan on a great weekend. Hope yours is good too.

[midnight]

35. It's alright to express an opinion if it is hidden?

I don't want anyone to 'STFU' or withhold their earnest opinions. I would like everyone to express whatever facts, reason, logic, emotions, dreams, theories, bi-polar disorders, studies, faith, he-said/she-said, information, misinformation, disinformation, inclinations, opinions, maxims, poems, or zen koans that they wish to subject to the scrutiny of the DU community. Period. Anyone can say anything here that they want and then whine to their heart's content if what they say is subsequently hidden.

[The Doctor.]

36. I have a suggestion;

Look up the meaning of the word "if".

[The Doctor.]

43. Likely that would be

"One who inserts themselves into a thread without the intention of discussing content or substance but rather for the express purpose of finding ways to insult, demean, or otherwise disrupt discussion."

When I said 'look up the word "if"', I very much meant it because the poster's lack of comprehension hinges on the meaning and placement of that word.

Not that you would bother to understand that.

[LanternWaste]

50. Well, I'm fairly confident that most Either/Or scenarios we're presented with...

"IF you do not want to be reminded that a Republican could win the White House if Obama does not have enough support, then do NOT say you refuse to support him or otherwise try to undermine enthusiasm or support for him here. "

Well, I'm fairly confident that most Either/Or scenarios we're presented with are merely simplistic variations on "My Way or The Highway" arguments. Good on bumper stickers and refrigerator magnets, but that's about all...

[The Doctor.]

55. "If you don't brush your teeth, you'll lose them."

"If you don't put gas in your gas-powered car, it will cease to run."

"If the humidity is high and the temperature falls low enough, there will be precipitation."

"If Obama does not receive enough support, a Republican will become President."

Your confidence is misplaced. I'm sorry if you don't like brutal reality, but it is what it is. Adults have to come to terms with things like that.

I'm assuming you're an adult.

[LanternWaste]

74. I don't think it's my confidence that's misplaced-- merely the prognostications of the few.

I don't think it's my confidence that's misplaced-- merely the prognostications of the few.

I imagine we all fall to the either/or scenario at one time or another-- it's convenient and easy, and allows us the opportunity to make black and white statements of a dogmatic absolutism based merely on our own biases...


"I'm assuming you're an adult. ..." I'll certainly give that all the relevance it warrants.

[The Doctor.]

85. So it's 'biased' to believe that not brushing your teeth is bad for them?

It's difficult to process the level of naïvete it takes to so deliberately ignore the fact that inaction can have consequences. It's not 'black and white dogmatic absolutism', it's reality.

If you really can't make the distinction between cause and effect relationships and 'black and white thinking', then we're done here.

I'm not going to try and teach someone concepts they obviously do not want to understand.

[TheKentuckian]

213. Sounds great

but the reality is that it is short term thinking that cannot or will not account for the trajectory of what is being preached as the word of God.

Thus line of thinking had made BOTH parties worse and ever spiraling downward.

How long until our clearly better choice is between a Gingrich type with a (D) next to his name and some Pat Robertson on acid and crack playing the foil?

We can be marched to the heart of Hell just this way. We are limited in our depths on by how far the TeaPubliKlans are willing to sink.

Short term wins are piling up as long term losses by becoming what we started out opposing out of fear of worse but ever moving toward realizing that fear and more while driving the wicked opposition to new extremes with every step in their direction.

This dynamic cannot be sustained.

[kenny blankenship]

54. Did a search - couldn't find anyone asking you to tell them how to vote.

"We'll call you"

You can write that down - to remind yourself.

[The Doctor.]

56. Please learn to read the posts you respond to.

"Heading off the next strawman; I am not telling anyone how they should vote or who they should vote for. You can vote for whoever or whatever you want. Naturally, I am here because I believe that the best choice for office is Obama, as I presume is the reason most everyone else is here as well."

Personally, I'd be embarrassed if I responded with such a strawman to a post without reading it.

What's your excuse?

[Beavker]

68. Sounds reasonable

It is what it is. Maybe with more voices from the Left, getting more of our guys in the two houses, he could be made to lean more left.

Plus, this guy is facing unprecented, racially motivated hatred. Take that out and maybe we could get somewhere. He's swimming upstream, often with his own party pushing against him.

That leads me to Ben Nelson, my Senator. Worthless. You think Obama hasn't done anyting for the left? Well, Nelson has voted against the MAJOR provisions that Obama and the real Dems are pushing for.

So, I guess you could use old Ben as a measuring stick for Democratic ideals and it makes Obama look a hell of a lot more like Kucinich than Hitler!

[Wait Wut]

70. Thanks for putting (most) of my feelings into words!

I've given up on most of them. My life is too short. Today I found out that going after Medicare fraud was bad. I don't get it, but expected it. Ending the war in Iraq...bad. I can't really take much seriously here.

There are enough of us that get the panoramic view while others seem content with tunnel vision.

I'd throw out a rec, but can't from work. You get a virtual rec!

[great white snark]

71. K&R. It's entertaining to watch The Doctor. surgically dismiss non sequiturs.

Thank you doc.

[The Doctor.]

82. It's actually kind of sad.

I'd hoped for adults. That was too much to hope for.

I've always shown respect for anyone who can get past 'tone' and read for substance. It's a filtration system I use. The tantrums here are just disenchanting.

Thanks tho.

[ElboRuum]

146. Oh they're here.

They're just not posting. One of them is very amused and wants to see what people will say next.

[TygrBright]

73. Unfair! Unfair!! Yer being logical! That's oppressive to non-logic. Isn't that a TOS violation?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. I still have the quaint notion that my vote belongs to me. Not the party or any politician.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[The Doctor.]

77. No one should tell you otherwise.

But until we have instant run-off voting, every vote that doesn't go to Obama is a win for Republicans.

That's not 'blackmail'.

That's not 'extortion'.

That's not 'coercion'.


It's cold, hard reality. Go ahead and ask a Republican if they want you to vote for a 3rd party candidate instead of Obama and see what they say. Seriously, I get it. I wish I could vote for a Sanders or a Kucinich, but we know gawd damn well the game is rigged to choose between a 'lesser of two evils'.

We saw the result of a Bush victory over Gore. We would still have a World Trade Center and over 4000 soldiers would still be alive if the margin wasn't thrown. I'm thankful that it's very unlikely Obama will lose, but I'm not going to 'assuage my conscience' by voting as the Republicans would wish me to.

You may take solace that your 'vote was never lost', but it would be a cold solace in a Republican America if enough people followed suit. Do as ye will and let your conscience be clear. If suffer we must, we'll do it together.

So far, Obama has done fabulous good for the nation where ever he could. I expect he will continue to do so in his second term. If you really want to see more good, at least help get a supermajority in the senate. We're up against some real bastards this time around.

[Fumesucker]

76. TL;DR

[i_sometimes]

78. ditto

But I did read the doc's replies and I found them rather snarky and juvenile.
As I only have a few days here (yeah, I am back from the dead), this type of shit is why I
logged out of DU years ago and only checked in for the outstanding news compilations.
Lesser evil gets my vote but not my fervor.

[The Doctor.]

80. I give as I get.

Don't want to be condescended to? Don't act like a petulant child.

What's more, not having read the OP and then judging the rest of the thread outside of that context is a pretty solid admission of ignorance.

That tells me just what your 'opinion' is worth.

[i_sometimes]

84. lol

I see what you are doing there.
Petulant child, ignorant and a slight against my opinion.
Thanks.
I will move along now, nothing to see here.

[The Doctor.]

86. When you admit to ignorance,

and then take exception to such being pointed out, all I can say is 'that's special'.

Buh-Bye now!

[i_sometimes]

91. You have a nice day too.

[The Doctor.]

79. You mean: "TL;DI"

"Too Lazy; Deliberately Ignorant"

I'd be ashamed to admit something as short as that was 'too long' to read. It would seem an indication that I never made it past reading children's books.

Maybe one day, you'll be able to read some 'big boy' books like "My Pet Goat". I hear that one has lots of pages.

[Fumesucker]

90. I read plenty of long things..

Just not self indulgent and not particularly well thought out posts on the internet..

Indeed, here's a list of just SF I've read in the last six months..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/120060

[The Doctor.]

93. Aren't you a big boy!

Good for you!

So... do you normally comment on things you don't bother reading? (or were you telling a fib about 'not reading it?)

[Fumesucker]

110. It takes time and effort to make a post short and succinct..

A lot of words by no means implies that any thinking is going on, often quite the opposite.

"I'm sorry this letter is so long; I didn't have time to write a short one." -Blaise Pascal

I skimmed your OP quickly and then read some of the replies, I'm not all that interested in getting into the minutia of someone's stream of alleged consciousness, it really doesn't matter if it's someone under the bus with me or someone posting on the internet.

If you're trying to win people to your point of view, you're doing it wrong.

[The Doctor.]

113. So, you cite a major manipulator and suggest I should 'do as he does'.

Sorry, but I'm not into manipulation, just grown-up reality.

I also noticed you didn't bother using his techniques either. Bet it's for the same reasons I have.

[mmonk]

83. What about legitimate disagreement? How will it be treated?

[The Doctor.]

87. *Sigh*

"Again, to head off the inevitable BS: that applies ONLY to those who really think that Obama is no better than any of the Republican candidates or otherwise expresses no intention of voting for or supporting him. So please, if that isn't you, then save it."

[mmonk]

103. Just wondering.

Being anti-Obama is in the eye of the beholder sometimes.

[The Doctor.]

106. S'ok.

No honest criticism can be faulted. There's plenty of that.

[i_sometimes]

137. I don't think we elected The Doctor

to determine that though he will disagree.

[The Doctor.]

178. No one elected me. WTH are you talking about?

Oh, right.. you're voicing your fantasy version of this thread and my intentions.

Reality... try it.

Or just actually read the words that are in front of you instead of listening to the voices in your head. K?

[i_sometimes]

206. Hmm...

Why would I do that? And which version, yours or mine?

[Aerows]

88. Get rid of the idiots in Congress, too

They are a huge part of the problem. If you have a horrible legislator that votes for things you oppose in your state, either vote them out or primary them. All of this bullshit can be traced back to the fact that we have a Legislative branch that thinks since they control the purse strings, they ARE the law. It doesn't help that the Executive branch goes along with it and our Judicial branch is screwed, but at least we can start by getting rid of the corrupt assholes in Congress.

There are plenty on BOTH sides of the aisles that need to go.

[The Doctor.]

94. That's fair. Hard to disagree.

For the moment though, we only have two choices for president.

Color me thrilled.

[Aerows]

95. I know.

How would you like your turd sandwich, with ketchup or mustard?

[The Doctor.]

98. Nail, Hammer, *thwack*.

[TheKentuckian]

214. Same applies to all offices.

[JDPriestly]

97. I would just like to see the language in the bill.

I've heard so many reports about it from some who think it is fascism and some who think it is OK, and I have vacillated from one point of view to the other.

I'd like to see the bill and make up my mind based on facts and not opinions.

[SomethingFishy]

101. Here's the full bill..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100219309

Notice how many responses it got.

It's a pain in the ass to read, very dry, but you can do like I did and skip all the financial crap(it'll just piss you off anyway), the things being debated are easy to find.

It's not good. Not good at all. Vague, purposefully I believe. With loopholes in almost every sentence. The War On Drugs section freaked me out as much as the "internment" sections. It pretty much gives the government the right to do whatever they want, to whoever they want, wherever they want and whenever they want, to continue the 30 year failed war on drugs.

I have not finished reading it but the parts I have read so far are concerning to say the least...

[bvar22]

117. The LAST thing I want is a Republican President.

The 2nd to Last thing I want is the Centrist Democratic Party leadership to claim a mandate for MORE Centrist Republican Policy.

Obama will NOT win in my Southern State under even the most far fetched scenario,
so Liberal Democrats in My State are free to vote their conscience without any responsibility at all for "helping elect Republicans".

There are many other states where this is also true.

There are many good arguments for voting FOR Obama,
but the "If you don't vote for Obama you are electing Republicans" is simply NOT true for many (most?) Americans,
and is not a productive approach for attracting voters.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[The Doctor.]

167. That's a fair point.

The OP is really just directed at people who are trying to undermine support among others. Not everyone is in a deep red state.

It's just that simple: If someone doesn't want to hear it, don't voice an intent to withdraw support for him on a democratic site.

[Deep13]

118. He killed habeus corpus.

Or at least the right to it, which amounts to the same thing. After everything else (including the Bush tax cuts), it is the last straw.

[The Doctor.]

166. So we're just 'making shit up' now?

Bush tried to kill Habeas Corpus for Americans with the MCA '06. The loophole that allowed it was stripped out in '08.

Can you please show us where Obama 'killed habeas corpus'?

(It's 'habeas', btw)

[Deep13]

204. Nope. nt

[Doctor_J]

120. You have chosen to ignore that some of the most ardent bashing of Dems has come from

the corpo-Dems like the president himself. "Fucking retarded". "My party has become too attached to entitlements" (by which he was referring to Social Security). Chronic union-bashing, including teachers.

Back to reality, please

[ProSense]

123. Anyone

IF you do not want to be reminded that a Republican could win the White House if Obama does not have enough support, then do NOT say you refuse to support him or otherwise try to undermine enthusiasm or support for him here.

If you cannot restrain yourself, then when you are reminded of the above reality and whine that you're 'being told to shut up' or 'how to vote', or that you're 'being repressed by authority', please try to remember where you are. Because until undermining support for Obama is no longer tolerated on Democratic Underground, such complaints are just childish. Not that I have any expectation that everyone will actually take a step back and think about this. In fact, it is my experience that people love a good excuse to put on some righteous indignation and outrage.

But I have hope that, despite my 'tone', the vast majority of Duers are adults and will understand the substance of what I have said.

...should be able to see that the persistent negativity toward the President and dismissal of everything he does is designed to do just that.

You can find many quotes declaring the President a failure and calling for a primary challenge dated before September 2009.

There are people who hate this President and vowed never to give him a chance. Everything that comes with governing is his fault, he's a dictator or an appeaser when necessary. His actions are both a power grab and weak. It has been constant, and designed to create the impression that President Obama is severely flawed, and that someone else could do a much better job.

One of the funniest things repeated a few times recently was in response to Ron Paul's kookiness. There were actually arguments that at least he's against the MIC, but that he would never get his other policies through.

History will show Obama to be one of the most effective President's ever. There isn't a President in the top ranks who hasn't been subjected to the same criticisms that he has, especially in matters of war. He inherited a mess, a deliberately entangled war on terror, entrenched in law and the government. It was never going to be easy to untangle the mess.

The notion that all will be well again if someone else were handed the reins is pure fantasy.

[tblue37]

126. To your second point: Please keep reminding people that the next

president will probably appoint as many as 3 USSC justices. We can have more Sotomayors and Kagans--or more ALitoes, Robertsons, Scalias and Thomases.

If we had a decent USSC majority, Citizens United would never have happened.

A president lasts 4-8 years. A crappy USSC can screw this country for a generation, because they are appointed for life, and many serve for decades.

The damage the Cheney/Bush administration did is unquestionable, but through Roberts and ALito, they continue to to untold damage--and that is not going to stop for a very long time.!

[font size="+1"]USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC, USSC!!![/font]

Shout it loud and clear whenever you hear some idiot talk about handing the WH to a Republican because voting for Obama is "the lesser of two evils."

[StarsInHerHair]

145. if a Republican becomes president THEN people will regain perspective!!

right now-where's the anti-war crowd? where are all those people who knew the U.S. was taking a turn for the worse? they are cowed because there's a "Democrat" in the WH

[The Doctor.]

165. WORD.

Thank you.

I just wish so many people didn't have the mentality of children.

[green917]

131. An unpleasant reality!

I don't think you want anyone to STFU either but, you speak in platitudes about "unpleasant realities" and then tell us, essentially, that we should be clapping louder. The biggest "unpleasant reality" illustrated by this bill's passage is the fact that the President said he would veto this legislation that it now appears he will sign into law. Plain and simple, I don't trust Barack Hussein Obama as my Commander in Chief anymore because he, apparently, lies to the American people far too casually because he knows that he can do so with impunity. I will, likely vote for him again because the alternative is even more horrifying but, I don't trust this man to have mine or any other American's (excluding the "person" ostensibly known as Goldman Sachs) best interests at heart and I will, therefore, give him neither my time or my money (both of which I gave him a fair amount of the last time around). My advice to you, however, is that you should heed your own advice...if you don't want to hear painful things about the President saying 1 thing and doing another (aka: Lying), don't open the discourse.

[The Doctor.]

164. I, for one, completely believe you when you say 'Barack Hussein Obama'.

Why, I'm so certain that you're not any kind of troll or other sort of disruptor that you will be here for many years. I look forward to sharing good times and bad, family stories, anecdotes, and special moments with you.

Will you marry me?

[green917]

201. I'm not sure what you're insinuating with this post

I'll think about your proposal though.

In point of fact, I used the President's proper name as I often have because it's his name and, besides, screw the bigoted a@@holes that think his name connotes anything other than his name. In point of fact, I have been here for several years and don't intend to go anywhere anytime soon. As I said, I plan on voting for President Obama next year but that doesn't mean that I'm particularly happy with the way he's chosen to Govern. If that makes me a troll or some kind of disruptor, so be it. In my most humble opinion though, the President has proven to be far too much of an idealist in his belief that the other side of the aisle is ever going to negotiate with him in good faith. He doesn't seem to have learned the same lesson that has eluded so many of our Democratic Representatives...the other side will always sink to the lowest common denominator and will never act in good faith because that would be potentially harmful to them politically. And, I'm sorry, but I have severe issues with the people he has chosen to surround himself with to advise him about economics (as I have with the last 4 Presidents before him as well). At any rate, I would be happy to share yarns of days of yore, family anecdotes or any other special moments with you.

[gtar100]

132. I agree with what you have said.

Sorry you have to go to such great lengths to explain it but you said it far better than I could have. It seems that people have different perspectives on what their one vote means. Some seem to consider it an endorsement of everything about a candidate. Others, myself included, consider it a means of pushing the country/state/community in a particular direction and can vote based on the better choice of what's being offered, even if they don't fully agree with person they vote for. It's sad we don't have a candidate like a Roosevelt or Kennedy but the bottom line is clearly that giving republicans the keys to the kingdom is a fast track to full-fledged fascism. To not vote or to vote 3rd party is sadly a push in the direction repugs are pushing.

I wish it were different and that we had a real progressive to vote for with a real shot at winning. But that's not our reality. It's just not.

To anyone who considers a vote for Obama an endorsement of everything he and his administration have ever done, I promise if you vote for him I will not to hold you responsible for the bad parts of NDAA and HCRA, the seemingly unending war, tax cuts for the rich, etc., etc. Consider what you are doing as part of an aggregate. To withhold your vote, vote 3rd party, or (gast!) vote repug, is a choice you may be able to justify in your own mind but it sure doesn't help the rest of us trying to push this country back onto a liberal/progressive track.

[DonCoquixote]

134. K and R

I will not dent my disappointment with Obama, but that does not mean I am going to compound it by helping the GOp get into office, where they can chant the mantra (Obama wuz 2 far 2 the lepht) while we know the opposite is true.

[bonzotex]

136. K/R...thanks, n/t

[patrice]

139. It is not authoritarian to tell people what your own choices are and expect them to

make their own choices too.

It is the choice of this domain that it is Democratic and, therefore, to not have destruction of Democrats as its purpose, as such, this resource accepts the consequences of its own choice, i.e. fewer member-$$$.

It is the choice of internet users whether they will co - operate with the choice made by DU or subvert it. If they subvert it, the consequences of that choice are that they will no longer be a member here. If their intent is to harm Democrats, they know what the consequences are, so ending their membership is THEIR choice.

There is of course a difference between destructive intent and negative but constructive critical analysis; I feel confident of DU members' ability to discern that difference.

[The Doctor.]

162. Sounds like we're on the same page.

I'm not telling people how to vote. The point of the OP was very clear: If you state you will not support Obama on this site, don't whine when you get a response you don't like.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

141. wish I could give this 100 recs

so true so true

[4dsc]

142. I will express my disagreement with the President

whenever I feel he doesn't have the people's interest in mind. And right now it doesn't appear that either party has the interest of the middle class and poor as their number 1 priority and there are very few of our representatives that are in the same boat.

[The Doctor.]

171. It does seem that way.

If you take a look at what he's pushed for and the reasons why he had to compromise, you'd see that he's really on our side. But I can't hope to overcome the perceptions people are most inclined to.

[Javaman]

143. Nice rantrum. nt

[The Doctor.]

163. Notsomuch.

A 'rantrum' would be when someone whine about 'being told what to think/say/vote' when no one has actually told them what to think/say/vote.

IOW: A childish response to being reminded of a simple and unpleasant reality.

This OP is simply stating that if you state you will not vote for or support the Democrat for President on a Democratic site, don't be surprised if people remind you where you are.

That would be better characterized as a 'lecturant'.

[Javaman]

173. one persons lecture is another persons tantrum. nt

[The Doctor.]

192. Again, notsomuch.

Lecture:

1. An exposition of a given subject delivered before an audience or a class, as for the purpose of instruction.
2. An earnest admonition or reproof; a reprimand.


Tantrum:

A fit of bad temper. Also called regionally hissy2, hissy fit.


The OP is a reasoned explanation of why and under what circumstances one can expect to be notified of an otherwise unpleasant reality. You can delude yourself to any degree you feel necessary to think it is anything but an earnest admonition against people who voice refusal to vote for a Democrat for President and then complain when they are told, on a Democratic message board that their attitude is inappropriate. It wasn't 'angry' or 'upset', it was straightforward, earnest, and reasonable.

When someone complains about being reminded, on a Democratic message board, of the fact that a Republican could win the White House if Obama does not receive enough support after stating that they refuse to support him, that is much more like a 'tantrum'.

A 'tantrum' happens when someone is faced with something they don't want to hear and, instead of acknowledging the reality, they have to turn around and attack the messenger with accusations of 'extortion' or 'authoritarianism', or 'censorship'.

You can pretend all you want that the definitions and applications are reversible, but the only people that will agree will be the other tantrum-throwers that hate hearing the cold, hard truth.

As I said in the OP:

"I can always tell I'm standing on the correct side of an issue by how much the “other side” has to go out of their way to mischaracterize, conflate, and create strawmen."

After seeing how many of 'you' had to make shit up out of thin air, create strawmen, and make this about ME instead of the substance of the OP (like you just did!), the more solid the ground I stand on becomes.


Now, would you like to make this about the substance of the OP, or continue to talk about me?

[Javaman]

195. I love when people quote the dictionary...

as if that suddenly qualifies them.

now you are giving me the "I will show you" kind of tantrum.

[Zhade]

210. Especially when they don't know the diiference between "ambivalent" and "ambiguous"!

It's like being lectured to about math by someone who can't do long division.

[Grateful for Hope]

144. K&R!

[Skittles]

148. yes, we all know we have no choice but to vote for him

WE GET IT

[The Doctor.]

159. Wrong. You definitely have a choice. If you had read the OP

You'd understand that.

I'll sum it up so you don't have to read the whole thing;

"If you don't want to be reminded that a Republican could win if Obama gets too little support, then don't say you refuse to vote for or otherwise support him on a democratic message board."

It's pretty simple. I'm really very amused by all the spinning going on here.

[Skittles]

205. WTF

listen to what *I* said - WE UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO VOTE OBAMA - WE KNOW A REPUKE WOULD BE WORSE - but FUCK I wish I could vote FOR someone and not AGAINST someone

[i_sometimes]

207. Funny how even those

who agree with the op are catching shit.

[arendt]

150. The Republican boogeyman is getting stale

That's why OWS is in the streets.

People are completely onto the fact that politics is now completely rigged. With complete ownership of the media and the TWO parties, the elites are demonstrating that they intend to dismantle democracy in this country. The GOP reality-TV primary contest is part of the plan to totally discredit the process of democracy. They are just laughing at us.

Meanwhile, the so-called Democrat can't do enough for Wall St, for the military, against medical marijuana. Nobody believes in politics anymore. It makes much more sense to believe in good cop/bad cop or "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Its all about hiding raw power behind a smokescreen.

As I have said before, the GOP is the gun which the elites hold to our head so we vote for Democrats who STILL give them all of our money and power LEGALLY. The elites know that if the GOP tried to do this in their thuggish way, the country would explode. But, when you put the Democrats in charge, people are confused as to why the cops beat protesters and the President says little and does nothing. People are confused why the DOJ prosecutes legal marijuana clinics but has not prosecuted, or even seriously investigated, massive Wall St. fraud. Instead, they have tried to cram a MERS settlement down our throats. People are confused why the President stuffed the Catfood Commission full of evil bastards, why he keeps saying we should "reform" the unbroken Social Security system.

So you keep up with the scare tactics. It doesn't bother me at all. It gives me a chance to show people just how little difference there is between the GOP thugs and the corporate Dem weasels.

[kath]

154. Great post, Arendt!

As usual.
So good to see you back here!

[The Doctor.]

158. The OP addresses that. Did you read it, or just go by the responses?

A question: Is the President supposed to have control over the DoJ, or is it supposed to be independent?

[LaydeeBug]

177. awesome post!

[Doctor_J]

182. This thread is chock full of great metaphors

Your is one of them

[Tx4obama]

151. Kicked and rec'd. n/t

[Historic NY]

152. Thanks Dr. for the prescription...

[caseymoz]

160. I think we could replace him and still beat the Republicans.

In fact, I think we could try to replace him and fail and still beat the Republicans. Look at the field of candidates they have. They've been running against Obama for three years. What are they going to have to run against if he loses the nomination?

The time for arguments like yours was in 2000 when so many people were bored with just two parties they decided to throw votes to Ralph Nader. That was the missed opportunity to make the "lesser of two evils argument." How innocent the thinking then seems now.

And I'm even stronger about this opinion: I think we ought to try to replace Obama as nominee. He has done nothing to improve respect for constitutionally recognized rights and a great deal to directly damage them, even regarding things older than the Constitution like habeus corpus. He has either backed down or done the very opposite of what he should have done in terms of unlawful detention, denial of Habeus Corpus, court cases that expanded executive power, and giving us a more transparent government as he promised. The last is most important to fight this secrecy apparatus that we've built.

That is the bottom, drop dead, line. Nothing you've said changes that solid, indisputable fact. And I'm sorry, that's basic for a president as the only thing he promises to do when he swears the Oath of Office. And in that respect, he is just as bad as a Republican. And, I'll put it like this, when you're bankrupt, it doesn't matter if you owe a hundred dollars or ten thousand because your resources are still zero. You can't pay either.

I am thinking seriously of dropping out of the party over this, and swearing off, not politics, but the USA as a bad habit.

So, it's not simple. I hope I've made my point.

[barbtries]

176. yep.

bottom line: NOT A REPUBLICAN. just reality, just the fact of the matter. it sucks, yes, but it is still true.

[Dustlawyer]

179. I am a Democrat who believes we can wear our big boy pants and handle a little criticism.

I know a Republican would be worse overall, but I can bitch about Obama and other Dems. On many issues he is no better. For example, here on the Gulf Coast we have a foreign corporation that has ruined 100's of thousands of lives and livelihoods. BP has bought off all of the Republican Governors on the Gulf Coast, and Obama. He put the Coastguard in charge of the appeals from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) and the claimant has lost every single appeal, over 1,100 to date! There is no way that could be real when BP refuses to pay interim benefits in order to make these fishermen etc desperate to take BP's standing lowball offers. They have settled over a 100,000 claims for 5k but will not pay the businesses anything close to what they have lost. Now they run commercials about how the Gulf Coast has fully recovered. Where is Obama to protect these citizens? Will no politicians protect Americans from BP? The answer is NO! Obama has the sorriest excuse for an Attorney General in Eric Holder. He will come whitewash what BP wants him to when he audits the GCCF. Obama has taken the money and run! Democrats, in general, are Republican lite. They all answer to the same corporate masters because of the money and power. Why do Dems always seem to cave, or Obama start negotiations by giving up key issues such as single payer health insurance? The money! Democrats act like the Washington Generals to the Republicans Globetrotters! I would rather have Obama but by God I can still call him out when he does the favors of the big money, can you say The Defense Authorization Act? Screw him!

[The Doctor.]

183. Good. Nothing wrong with criticism at all.

As a lawyer, I hope you were one of the few that at least read the OP before responding here.

I'm also glad you agree that people who vow not to support Obama should also be able to handle a little criticism. That's what the OP is about.

But, people still whine when confronted with an unpleasant reality.

[bread_and_roses]

180. Frogs in a slow- heating pot ...

croaking at each other that things could be worse ....

[joeybee12]

181. No, he's not...where's that unrec button when you need it!

[The Doctor.]

184. What are you talking about? Who's not what?

It's just sad that the best people can come up in disagreement with the OP is either oblivious or just plain gibberish.

[kath]

185. The OP has posted 61 times in his own thread.

Jeebus. Must be some kind of a record, and not a good one.

[Robb]

186. I prefer the hit-and-run tactic, you're right.

[kath]

188. Well, there's a happy medium somewhere, and this sure ain't it.

The very condescending, lecturing tone over and over and over, ad nauseum...
OY.

[The Doctor.]

190. And yet people can't seem to resist...

It's like I'm telepsychotic or something.

[Ikonoklast]

198. You just forced me to post in your thread!

...cannot...resist...mind...control...


You evil genius, making everyone respond to you against their will!

[The Doctor.]

189. Woo Hoo!

A record! That's awesome!

Actually, if it weren't for all of the stupid, I probably wouldn't give a damn. But when people decide they can't deal with the substance of the OP and have to make the issue about me, or the 'tone', or whatever they need to make it about so they don't have to be inconvenienced by certain realities, I just can't help but point it out.

So... would you like to talk more about me, or do you have something intelligent to say about the OP?

I'm up for both... I have a record to set after all.

[i_sometimes]

208. Not really.

Your op has no substance.
So any record number in posts by you defending it would have an asterisk.
Just saying.
Smoke something dude.

[Zhade]

196. When the "unpleasantness" is based on spin and hero worship...

...I really don't pay attention to it any more. I ignore it, because the points I raise aren't for those so blinded by party loyalty that they refuse to entertain facts. My posts are for those reading who actually want to examine reality - like the reality that the NDAA does not REQUIRE but DOES ALLOW indefinite detention of American citizens if the president decides to apply it in that way.

(please, go ahead and use my post to attack if you wish. I truly don't give a fuck about the opinion of anyone who does so to gain points for their favorite politician. It's just white noise to me.)