Obama is no longer my president

[Pretzel_Warrior]

Seems to be what many of the people on here are saying. He has transformed from someone full of hope and strong ideas about fixing health care, advocating for gay rights, and ending wars we are in to some all-powerful corrupted man who wants nothing more than to expand state power and dominate the lives of all citizens.

In the beginning, he was the guy who inherited Bush's major catastrophes and was dealt the bad hand of working with GOP obstacles at every step of the way.

Now he is a tyrant who won't close Guantanamo Bay, won't stop drone strikes, who wants to spy on you, and probably wants to torture you.

He hates anything to do with attempting to fix global warming. He only wants to benefit the 1% (or 0.1%) and all we can do is suffer under this tyrant.

What is a meaningful way for you to register your opposition to some of the things he's done or is doing or is allowing or refusing to fix?

I don't think calling him a bully and insinuating he and his team are the Keystone Cops while also saying they are the modern day Gestapo is the way to go about it.

Ideas?

[sibelian]

1. Politicians can be replaced. nt.

[geek tragedy]

3. Obama won't be replaced until January 2017. Sorry to disappoint. nt

[Amonester]

18. Unless the hair-on-fire crowd is even more successful at reducing the Dems turnout in '14

than they were in '10....

Hello oRangeman/tuRtleman in '15?

They will soooooo fix all Obama/Biden's wrongs to our 'all-or-nothing' likings!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. no kidding. we MUST work to give him the majorities in House/Senate again

[Amonester]

31. Agreed. But to too many here...

Working for that is obviously too hard.

Better do all they can to 'punish' them instead, without any serious evaluations of the possible consequences of their 'punishment' campaign.

[nineteen50]

94. What would the pay off be?

More of the same.

[99Forever]

124. Hogwash.

Voting your principles and conscience isn't "punishing" anyone.

It's called having integrity and the courage of one's convictions. Sorry that you have neither.

But pretend it's otherwise, it's all you've got.

[liberal_at_heart]

139. They can't actually think these bullying tactics work.

[99Forever]

140. They must...

.. because it's the same crap time after time. The bottom line for me, as it stands today, the Democratic Party needs me a whole heck of a lot more than I need them. If they won't work for my vote, by working HARD for progressive policies, then they neither deserve my vote nor will they get it.

[truebluegreen]

79. We have a majority in the Senate.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

81. I know. I just didn't phrase my thought very well

I was meaning "getting back" to having majority in both the senate AND the house like we did from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011.

[truebluegreen]

84. Ah. Got it.

[nineteen50]

96. and they had the ability to change the rules to make a filibuster actually a filibuster

but decided to keep there arse covered by allowing it to occur easily so they would get both the lobbyists money and the liberal vote by ranting liberal ideas knowing those ideas would never make it past the filibuster they continue to have the best of both worlds.

[truebluegreen]

127. I think I mostly agree with you...

but could you translate that into English?

[nineteen50]

132. They like the Republicans to easily filibuster

so they can rant liberal knowing it will go no where and then they get the corporate money and the liberal vote in their re-election run.

[truebluegreen]

135. Yup. I do agree. Thanks for clarifying.

[nineteen50]

133. Example

In Ca. when the democrats knew they could vote for single payer and it would fail because it needed a 2/3 vote they all voted for it. When they elected enough to win the vote out right their votes changed just enough to defeat the bill.

[pnwmom]

98. Barely. And we could easily lose it in 2014.

[Demo_Chris]

111. In what way have they earned it? And what would this accomplish?

Sorry, but I don't want chained CPI, insurance mandates, more spying on Americans, and more "free trade" deals rammed through. I don't want more billionaires in Washington and more crony capitalism. I don't want UnitedHealth writing our healthcare laws, Exxon writing energy policy, BP deciding when the Gulf is clean enough, Lockheed deciding when we go to war, and Monsanto determining just how much Roundup is safe for babies to eat. I don't think we need MORE tax cuts for the wealthy and more austerity for everyone else.

Obviously, radical opinions like these have no place in today's modern Democratic party, but I don't want these things and I damn sure won't vote for them.

[rhett o rick]

40. If you want a good turn out in 2014 then work for it. Dont just blame someone else.

I was working in 2010 and it wasnt the progressives that stayed home. It was the centrists who couldnt figure out which side to vote for.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

41. that makes no sense. the sides to vote for were very clear

and the centrists on the GOP side and the DEM side always stay home for the most part in midterms. We just didn't activate OUR base nearly as much as the lying liars at FoxNews GOP Incorporated did.

This post is merely one attempt to do just that--motivate the mid termers to GET IT DONE and turn some seats blue.

[rhett o rick]

50. The post is a mean spirited attempt to alienate the left. Funny how much

cooperation you get when you name-call.

Where I worked, it was the progressives manning the phones and going door to door.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

57. my OP was a kind-spirited attempt to shake us into reality world

not "Obama was our hope and he turns out to be human and unable to make all of our progressive wishes come true".

My point is...we SHOULD hold his feet to the fire but also our Dem or Repub representative and senators. We should always be vocal and active at every level of government to ensure all of them get the message.

As Noam Chomsky said many times....we only rarely realize as the body politic how much power we have to affect change.

[rhett o rick]

59. I was responding to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3200612

[Pretzel_Warrior]

61. I see. my mistake.

[Sheepshank]

44. if the centrists stayed home

then they also stayed home for the possible Rep votes.

Your post doesn't really make much sense to me either.

[rhett o rick]

56. Why would the progressives stay home? They are the ones that want change.

The centrists are happy with the status quo. The "hair on fire" crowd are the ones demanding change.

If you want to get the progressives to vote, best not start disparaging them.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

58. politics is fluid. The Dems had the 08 victory and majority. and p!ssed off activists

who were mad Obama didn't close down Guantanamo, didn't champion gay rights strongly enough, didn't do all kinds of things. It is DOCUMENTED that the left was not mobilized and the right was.

[rhett o rick]

63. "DOCUMENTED". Do the caps make it so?

By the way, my experience with "pissed-offed activists" doesnt find them staying home.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

65. YES. ABSOLUTELY!! :D

[Art_from_Ark]

116. THe White House losing mid-terms is a powerful trend in American politics

Since 1910, there have been only 3 mid-term elections where the party in the White House has had a net gain of combined House/Senate seats-- 1934, 1998, and 2002. The die-hards will support their party in mid-terms, while the centrists tend to be very fickle in their support for any party.

[blackspade]

123. Oh please, not 2010 turnout crap again.....

[sibelian]

38. No, indeed.

This being the case, why is he defended?

Do you suppose criticisms of his policy are made to dislodge him or dislodge the policy?

I'm not at all disappointed that he will remain in power until 2017. One cannot be "disappointed" in something that isn't going to change, as disappointment requires the expectation that it might.

Placing one's aspirations for the change of any democratic political landscape in a single individual is simple-minded fantasizing.

Politicians are useful, but, they can be replaced. Somebody just as good as Obama is perfectly possible.

It is the nature of the system which he fronts that is important, not him.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

42. then all attacks should be directed at the underlying system--not him

and all attempts to fix things must attack the system--not him.

I agree he faced huge headwinds in Washington as would anyone with ideals. But he stormed in and got a good start. There is still time.

[sibelian]

68. Yes, he did well.

I, speaking personally, do NOT regard him as somehow "malevolent". I think he was what the left needed to make anything happen at all within the system as it stood at the time. I can see why he needed to campaign on "hope" and "change" but had no expectation at all that he would change everything in a matter of months...

That being said, I am deeply disturbed by the stories coming out regarding the NSA, and whilst I agree that attacks on the current direction being taken should *include* attacks on the system, his cooperation with it, even though necessary for the accomplishments he has under his belt, is not helping his image with the part of his base that sought an about-face in national security policy following Bush. It's therefore no surprise that many are levelling very intense attacks on HIM. If YOU place him on a pedestal all that happens is that you've put a man on a pedestal between those feeling disenfranchised from the system and what they want. Of course they're going to throw rocks at him. But that's not because it's him. It's because he's in the way!

I think that some are missing the point here, it's not really hatred of Obama or disappointment that he hasn't acheived "enough" that explains the intensity of opposition to the NSA's surveillance programme. Surveillance, for some, including myself, is a bedrock issue. Clearly for others, it isn't.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. so are you, a Democrat, proposing impeachment of Obama?

just curious. Because he will be replaced in January 2017 but he already won reelection.

[KittyWampus]

27. that poster purportedly doesn't live in the USA.

[sibelian]

47. No. I think that would be quite purposeless.

It's the system he works in that needs to change. I regard him as a benevolent individual who has been presented with choices that you and I can comment on from the comfort of our keyboards. We are not wrong in judging him, and there is no reason to suppose he could have done any different.

A boxer who is mysteriously struck with illness on the night of a big match may fight on and may miss a punch. We may say "he was dealt a raw hand", but we may also say "he missed." Both are facts.

[KittyWampus]

24. why don't you spend some time focusing on your own country? Seems they're spying too.

[laundry_queen]

89. That was rude.

Are you saying people from other countries aren't allowed to participate on US issues here at DU? Even though everything the US does affects every single country in the world? News to me.

My country is trying to spy as well. Most of us Canadians are far more aware of it than Americans are aware of their own gov't spying. We had a nice little twitter campaign awhile back when they tried to pass some internet surveillance bullshit that made gathering data without a paper trail easier (look up #tellviceverything). It embarrassed them enough they backed off. For awhile anyway, now they are trying again in their usual slimy conservative way. I don't think Canadians will put up with it. At my university, many conversations about the internet and the US have many students (and our profs too) concerned about your country gathering OUR data. Let's just say, the rest of the world is sick of this BS. As more information comes out about governments attempting to gather data, expect a lot more protests in the rest of the world than you'd ever see in the US.

[MjolnirTime]

104. But brain cells cannot.

[sibelian]

108. PLONK.

Waste of space.

[valerief]

118. They replace them with clones. nt

[geek tragedy]

2. Sadly, this attempt at snark reflects the beliefs of a number of DUers. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. I know. It is sad. I'm just trying to understand it.

[MjolnirTime]

105. The majority of DUers, actually.

Your crew makes up a very small percentage of the people who come here.

But you wouldn't know it by the volume of posts.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

112. let's take a vote on it, buddy. I am sure you are wrong

[MjolnirTime]

125. You haven't been here long, huh?

It was obvious in 2008. It is obvious today.

Obama's detractors will use any excuse to press their case, and they delight in using this board as their soapbox.

[Number23]

126. Your comment is a bit confusing. Are you saying the president's supporters make up a small

percentage of posters?

[MjolnirTime]

129. No, the majority of DU actually supports the Democratic President.

But the Haters scream ever so much louder.

[Number23]

131. On that, we are in 100% agreement.

[Savannahmann]

4. Nuts

Absolute tommyrot.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. what is that?

[Savannahmann]

26. A polite way of saying bullshit.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

43. I'm very positive still about Obama. Just talking about others

who seem to revel in attacking Obama.

[DCBob]

136. Really??

Having fun with your game?

[SamReynolds]

143. Re-read the OP.

You seem to have missed the point. I'll admit it wasn't all that clear, but it's there.

[DCBob]

144. I dont think so.

[SamReynolds]

154. Okay, I'll spell it out for you:

In what can only be described as 'blatant fashion' the OP states unequivocally that (s)he is commenting about what MANY people on DU are saying.

Not being satisfied to take something at face value that is spelled out very clearly, you have decided to assign some insidious motive to the OP so that you can be oh-so-smart and point out how incorrect/wrongheaded/FoS the poster is in all of your super-duper insightfullness.

Assuming, for the moment, that you are right, what do you believe this 'game' is that the OP is 'playing'?

[Gravitycollapse]

5. 1. He definitely still is your president. 2. This is not a modern day Gestapo.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. please read more carefully

[Amonester]

39. Too late now.

It's all or nothing.

My 'number of star members who have put you on Ignore' is growing (from 7 last week to 9 now).


I don't care about that. I worry more about the repukes taking over after my Ignorees will succeed at screwing up (again).

[Pretzel_Warrior]

46. I cannot help if someone puts me on ignore due to lack of reading comprehension

and the fact that they have a star or not could be as small of a difference of $5 or $10. Not impressed.

[Amonester]

51. And to them, 'we' are 'authoritarian' (I haven't put anyone on stupid internet ignore).

Like I said, I'm really worried about the possible consequences of their foolishness (impeachment on twisted facts).

I don't care about star or starless stupidity.

[moondust]

78. Never mind.

Have a nice day.

[quinnox]

10. well, what can I say, but when you make your bed, you own it

Maybe people would start having different impressions if he started acting differently and changing the policies that some people are upset about.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. so you don't want to do anything about it...just whine and complain?

assuming your voices won't be heard?

[quinnox]

21. I think of DU as an outlet

I am not going to be able to change things on this kind of scale. I have to worry about mundane stuff, like putting food on the table, paying bills, keeping a roof over my head and so on. I wish I had billions or millions to use to advance causes, but I'm not one of those people.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

60. understood. statistically, I am sure most of us are in similar boat

I just wish we could whip up some positive energy and momentum to say "SCREW 'EM" we are going to keep marching (if not physically then figuratively) on Washington to say "NO! NO! NO! NO!...not in my name!"

the last time dramatic restrictions were put on security apparatus was under JIMMY CARTER. You know, that one term failure president the right loves to bash?

We can do it again.

[JaneyVee]

20. How can one man please everyone all the time?

[riqster]

34. As Ricky Nelson said:

[NoOneMan]

11. "Seems to be what many of the people on here are saying." <-- Just men made of straw

Need any help burning these people?

[Maedhros]

103. It's an argument born of convenience.

If one casts the debate in terms of "hatred" of Obama, then its far easier in one's own mind to counter the argument by defending Obama from the "hate" than to defend the policy.

Note how disagreement with bad policy is re-cast as scurrilous attacks on the President:

...some all-powerful corrupted man who wants nothing more than to expand state power and dominate the lives of all citizens.

Now he is a tyrant who won't close Guantanamo Bay, won't stop drone strikes, who wants to spy on you, and probably wants to torture you.

He hates anything to do with attempting to fix global warming. He only wants to benefit the 1% (or 0.1%) and all we can do is suffer under this tyrant.

I don't think calling him a bully and insinuating he and his team are the Keystone Cops while also saying they are the modern day Gestapo is the way to go about it.

I would be more accommodating of the Administration's apologists if they weren't uniform in their defense of Obama. For example, if one of them objected to the chained CPI proposal but not the surveillance program, or if one detested drone strike double-taps but saw a need to continue to keep Gitmo open, then I would be more inclined to believe their arguments were in good faith.

However, there is a bloc of posters here that have defended every bad policy decision by Obama using disingenuous ad hominem arguments - criticism originates from racism, critics are Paulbots, etc. There is no substantive defense of the policy. That bloc clearly does not argue in good faith, which leaves open the question of their motives. Are they really concerned for the country, or just engaged in partisan politicking?

[woo me with science]

113. Well said.

[bunnies]

13. " and probably wants to torture you. "

[Pretzel_Warrior]

64. not my words.

[bunnies]

70. Seriously?

Someone here really thinks that? wow. I hadnt realized its gotten that bad. sigh*

[Octafish]

15. Not just Guantanamo. Ask Don Siegelman.

Justice for Just-Us.
Welfare for the Wealthy.
Wars without End for Black Gold.
No New Deal for the 21st Century.
Spying on Everybody, especially those who Dissent.

Other than that, I don't have a problem with the program.

[Rex]

16. If people want that, then fine that is their choice.

I voted for the guy TWICE, I never give up on someone halfway through. He is MY President. Come hell or high water. No matter how steaming mad I get or how I think they should change policy to ease up on us over the surveillance state. I voted for him, now I have to own my vote.

[JaneyVee]

17. Meanwhile, his accomplishments list far outweighs his "broken promises" list.

And this with the most extremist nihilistic and radical opposition in US history.

[Zoeisright]

87. No shit.

But some people are "all or nothing", and that attitude will doom this country.

[Whisp]

22. It's the same crew, I don't think the numbers have changed much since 2008

of the ones raggin' on Obama for everything and not giving him credit for anything either.

So the new influx of Obama haters have seen a path, the path that these anti-Obama people have been making for them for years. And they jump right in like they belong because the climate is right, with their putrid Ron Paul talking points.

[The Link]

23. He didn't start out advocating for gay rights.

Perhaps he can evolve on some of these other issues in the next few years. Of course, that wouldn't be much use to anyone.

[think]

25. I would focus on the puppet masters at The Carlyle Group instead of blaming Obama

Please feel free to throw Goldmann Sachs in that mix as well.

[KittyWampus]

30. I sure do agree… or start with some lower hanging fruit. Focus on the money. It's what hurts them

most.

[think]

33. Yes the money is their fuel. Cutting off their contracts at Booz Allen would be a nice start

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Point of fact, he ran for office advocating civil Unions because equality was an affront to his

God, Sanctity, his good friend Rick Warren and whatnot. The revisionism mars your attempt at characterizing others.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. but that is just the point. he started advocating for gay rights and then IMPROVED

his aproach. The end result cannot be denied. His bully pulpit as a strong voice in the US dialogue tipped the scales even further toward gay marriage across all states and at least legal recognition by federal government.

So with that amount of change and progress...why give up? There is still time, ya know?

[Bluenorthwest]

52. That is NOT what you wrote. The reality based version is important.

The fact is, he was 'against marriage equality' vehemently. There was loud, hard core activist politics and big money donors and pressure exerted. Certain DU folks were constantly in an uproar over the criticism, the activism, Dan Choi has been called a liar on DU, a self serving attention grabber for some of the very actions that lead to the repeal of DADT. On both DADT and DOMA the LGBT community practiced politics with the President while certain quarters on DU groused up a storm about it 'you want a pony' and 'it's poutrage' and 'how dare they
and 'it's just one song' and 'it's just one prayer'.
Every bit of political action that was applied to achieve what has been achieved was utterly attacked and mocked and characterized as disloyalty by the same lot that today calls lifelong Democrats Paulbots for not supporting Booz Allen, a private firm.
So when certain quarters on DU whine and cry about that which adults are saying and doing in a democratic republic I really think they should stop weeping and gnashing teeth, pull out a pencil and start taking notes from those of us who are getting things done.

Want to do some 'links to what self identified 'supporters' said to LGBT people advocating for our own rights on DU'?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

67. my OP said he advocated for gay rights. I said nothing about marriage equality

and as a smart politician trying to get elected--neither did he. You removed a lot of nuance to the discussions that were taking place back then. That is your right. I remember precisely why so many were upset at all the attacks against Obama back then.

I'm merely saying the grotesque attacks on Obama on these boards are not productive. Attack policy. Fine. Attack methods. Fine. But when people are using ad hominem attacks on him and caricturing him....I will mention it and state that is wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Tell me about the 'nuanced' way we were called names. And why don't you have the decency to

say what you 'remember precisely' about the 'attacks against Obama'? Why be all coy and insinuating when you have precise thoughts in mind?
Fact is, the President did his part well. His self anointed 'supporters' here did nothing but whine and cry and show themselves to be useless in the process. Then the day we won, they wanted credit, as you do now, for the victories they resisted and for the actions that they criticized.
So. You remember precisely but you speak vaguely. Why is that?

[Maximumnegro]

146. Because gay rights would have flourished

under Romney, right? Under McCain, right? Cut the shit, please. Obama PERSONALLY was opposed to gay marriage but has always been an advocate for gay rights and there is no way in hell the Supreme court would have ruled thus under McCain or Romney.

But hey why not pout out the midterms and 2016 let's see just how far lgbt, minority, and women's rights will flourish under a republican president.

[Pilotguy]

29. If you're a United States citizen...

...then Obama is your president until January 2017.

[arely staircase]

32. So who is? nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

37. mine is President Obama. I don't know who the opposers

consider to be their president

[Bluenorthwest]

55. The question being asked of you is who do you claim are 'the opposers'?

I've never seen anyone post the crap you claim in your OP, so your targets must exist in your own mind.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

69. my question is why you are after me so hard core?

I'm stating my point that I think people are way over the top in the way they express their fear, disappointment, anger about what Obama has done or allowed to be done or hasn't done. It becomes a self-reinforcing feeding frenzy and then people start coming up with conspiracy theories and generally whacko comments to be against Obama and it becomes like FREEPER-lite in here.

It takes way from activism conversation. As an activist yourself, I would think your hope is the board isn't clogged by a bunch of counter productive mumbo jumbo but on winning more progressive seats in the house in 2014.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. I am sick of this thing you are doing. The Pin Up Politics Revisionist Crew never helped in the

past and it does not help now. You have the audacity to exploit LGBT rights in this context, and that is pretty fucking low sauce from centrist Straights. Barf. I don't care for it. Gauche, tacky and thoughtless self indulgence.

[cthulu2016]

36. Step One: One could stop thinking the world is a referendum on Barack Obama

Once having gotten past the notions that ideas are about sides and that history is a series of fan clubs the rest will fall into place.

You will find that both accolades and condemnations of the President are about as meaningful as voting on American Idol.

Good luck.

[rhett o rick]

49. There is a spoil-sport at every party.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

71. I don't know. I think FDR's extended presidency shows what happens when you have people aligned

and then not aligned. He was able to bring about the New Deal with the help of Democrats...but Republicans shut down continued expansion of stimulus to the economy during he Great Depression. Result was a lot of relief for every day Americans who were in deep trouble but then the progress was allowed to be rolled back.

The only thing that "helped" was WW2 and the convergence of stimulus (Democratic focus) and imperial warmaking (Republican focus) and the subsequent spending and devastation of Europe/Japan is what put the U.S. on a path to immense prosperity and power.

But the point is regarding FDR, there is huge power in marshalling a coalition of people backing your efforts.

THe coalition is falling apart, and the business vultures are like a disciplined phalanx of soldiers...continuing forward to meet their objectives. We can't give in so quickly.

[markpkessinger]

45. Has anyone said, "President Obama is not my President?" . . .

. . . or is that just a convenient straw man of your own fabrication? I mean, first you put words in people's mouths, then you respond to the words you placed there. That's a pretty classic straw man set-up.

[markpkessinger]

134. All I hear in response to this are crickets . . .

. . . which tells me something.

[cali]

48. oh fuck more histrionic hypebole filled with false claims.

[Iggo]

53. Oh good gawd.

I'm really getting sick of this shit.

[LWolf]

54. He was never "my" president.

He was, and is, the President of the United States. That's not me. I'm just a single, non-essential citizen.

I never had any hope when it came to his administration, other than the hope that it wouldn't be as bad as I thought it might.

Why? Because I wasn't inspired. I paid attention. I knew he was a neo-liberal, and I knew more neo-liberalism was not what we needed. That, and I'm a teacher. If the rest weren't enough, telling FOX news in '08 that Republicans "got" education better than Democrats and that he sometimes upset teachers...that was definitely enough.

Then came the appointments, which were, for the most part, appalling. Before he was ever inaugurated.

No real hope. His strong ideas, for the most part, were the wrong ideas.

I saw others with hope though, and I saw that hope dying, a little at a time, until that death gained momentum and came crashing down like an avalanche, leaving a swathe of morale destruction behind.

Tyrant? Bully? Keystone cop? Modern Gestapo? No. None of those. He's a neo-liberal, and neo-liberalism is bad for the 99%.

A meaningful way to register opposition? As it turns out, listening to him, phoning the WH, writing letters, "holding his feet to the fire," etc. has not been all that meaningful. He easily ignores anything he doesn't want to hear. Still, we continue.

Here on DU? Venting frustration, expressing opposition...I don't think it affects things much. It's how we react in the real world that matters, and many of us are busy. We're STILL writing, phoning, demonstrating, etc.. As a matter of fact, I've got a list of phone calls to make right now.

What else would you suggest?

[whatchamacallit]

83. +1000 n/t

[Union Scribe]

62. Of course he's my President. And he'll hear from me as such.

Just as my Congresspeople and Senators do, state and local. Rhetoric here doesn't have to abide by the decorum of writing to an elected leader, so if I think he's wimping out on something I'll say that here and put it another way in contacting him. So that's how I "register my opposition to some of the things he's done or is doing."

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. thank you for the encouraging words

I really understand how dispiriting it is. I'm just trying to basically say in my crappy way....don't give up on ourselves--don't give up on him as a reflection of what we want.

[Union Scribe]

73. I very much like that turn of phrase.

Not crappy at all PW.

[Botany]

66. Gestapo

troll much?



http://poorwiseman.net/images/deathhead2.bmp

[CakeGrrl]

75. But we can never stop

holding his feet to the fire!

What better way to do that than to rail incessantly about what a despotic fool he is?

I mean, if your employer wants to motivate you at work, the best way to do that is to call you an incompetent shithead, right? That will light a fire under ya!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

85. lol. exactly.

and in the spirit of the Constitution, we are his boss.

[brush]

76. I agree

There certainly seem to be a lot of shit stirrers on DU now with their hair on fire screaming that Obama is such a horror and has divided us terribly.

None of the blame seems even directed towards the obstructionist repugs who were creating a "scandal" a month for a while there and at the same time helping corporations dismantle the middle class, or the bluedog dems/repug lites who went along to get along, or the activist SCOTUS right wing who are tearing down voting and campaign finance laws, or both parties really, who voted in the NSA laws.

If you listen to them Obama made all the decisions for everything that's wrong.

[SidDithers]

77. Under an Obama Administration, hamburgers are 50% smaller...

Sid

[Waiting For Everyman]

82. You mean

let's all sit around in a circle and agree on what terms we're allowed to use and think in?

No, thanks.

[nolabels]

91. I agree

That would be crazy thing to do and they say i am crazy but i still don't want to do it.

So let's agree not to agree and that way we can agree on it

[forestpath]

86. People have a right to their opinions and don't answer to you.

It's bizarre how personally some take it when everyone doesn't see Obama the way they do and how they act like they have a right to dictate terms of allowable Obama criticism.

[byronius]

88. Sufficiently-complex-thinking-people have always been a herd of cats, and humans are knee-jerky

to begin with. Programming issues, I should think.

Thanks for this post. I read the polemics, listen to the evidence, and still don't think the man has an authoritarian bone in his body. We can't possibly know what's really going on, but my judgment of Barack Obama stands pretty much as it has since the beginning: human, decent moral compass, highly intelligent, politically astute, and given our demographic/ideological makeup as a nation, we do not rate such competence. I view him as an incredible anomaly that will soon vanish, never to be replaced by the like -- the splintering left will most likely allow someone truly monstrous to rise from the GOP ashes, just like always. The imperfect is the enemy of the good, blah blah blah splat.

And we'll suffer horribly for it. And people will die. And there'll probably be some intense catastrophe that will reset the whole experiment. And if we live, somewhere down the road, the survivors will view these days much the same way we view slavery. And perhaps the Asocial Corporate Form and the Church Of Hoarding will fade from history forever. I hope so.

Citizens United, I think, is a blade in our back. We're bleeding slowly to death, and Barack's just doing triage.

Hey! But there might be a Coronal Mass Ejection event on the way. And that would make the whole conversation moot, now wouldn't it.

[JAbuchan08]

90. It's funny I read the headline and thought "that's going a little too far"

I clicked, only to encounter a strawman

[OnyxCollie]

92. "full of hope and strong ideas" are subjective things.

Signing the NDAA, increasing drone strikes, domestic spying, tax cuts for the rich, squelching torture investigations, etc. are all very objective things.

The use of values to determine whether political actions are beneficial or nonbeneficial is a fallacy.

We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as
power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption
allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman-
past, present, or future-has taken or will take on the political scene.
We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on
his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very
thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he
does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and actions
perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.

The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline
upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics,
and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the
side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that
astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or
Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and
large consistent within itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences,
and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen. A realist theory
of international politics, then, will guard against two popular fallacies:
the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.

~snip~

Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge
would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well
lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may
give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy
might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his
foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between
the quallty of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both
moral and political terms.

We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his
foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful.
Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue
policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability
of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities
of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have
statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended
by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended
by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?

Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 5, 6). New York: Knopf

[Pretzel_Warrior]

97. those are some pretty disgusting words.

[Historic NY]

101. What topping do you want?

[ucrdem]

95. Good one.

[BrainMann1]

99. Just waiting for something bad to happen

Our President never had a chance and that is what everyone knows but just like Joy Reid said we democrats always find a way to eat each other. The people who never supported him are the very ones who are waiting for something to roast him on. No loyalty Bubba. As said by another DU'er look at what he has to work with. He never was your president he's OURS. Go find your boy Romney.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

110. I agree

[bobclark86]

100. "Obama is no longer my president"

What, you move to Canada or something?

[mwrguy]

102. Obama is still the best president since FDR, despite his faults

[BlueEye]

122. Personally, I give that award to LBJ

Despite the Vietnam War (which wasn't all his fault), Johnson's Great Society gave us so many of the essential programs that Americans take for granted today. 40 years later, his legacy carries on, despite GOP attempts to dismember it.

Now Obama has still been pretty good, I'd give him a B. Plenty of broken promises, but he saved the economy from disaster, achieved successful (if flawed) health care reform, and all in the face of extremist opposition.

[Sand Wind]

106. He really want to torture me ? Me ?!?

[Enthusiast]

107. I don't think your's is an accurate portrayal of the President.

And I have utter contempt for President Obama, contempt so deep that I would not dare express it on DU.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

114. why don't you PM me your contempt level for Obama

[pasto76]

109. dont let the door hit you on the way out

CYA!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

115. you missed the actual point of the post

to call out such language.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

117. I'm asuming this is sarcasm.

Too many BIG problems right now (hint - Egypt), and controlling the fall-out from the NSA revelations. All this could be made easier if we had a functioning Congress. We don't.

Support the president and tell Congress to do their jobs.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

119. yes....sarcasm and frustration with the "pure as driven snow" crowd

[SleeplessinSoCal]

128. I appreciate it.

[iamthebandfanman]

120. they called clinton a liberal too

right before he signed DOMA, NAFTA, and the welfare reform act of 1996 (just to name a few)..

[stupidicus]

121. Ho Hum, more exaggerations

from the cheerleading squad that at best are a fair characterization of the pov of a distinct minority.

As far as I know, he's proposed closing GITMO, but done nothing about the indefinite detention thing that makes it so abominable. http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/four-obama-policies-that-help-keep-guantanamo-open/

His comments expressing a desire to stop the drone strikes can be found where? Limiting them a tad maybe? http://americablog.com/2013/05/does-obama-want-to-be-remembered-as-barack-bringer-of-drones.html It's a fine example of his words not matching his deeds -- or the pursuit of them on a variety of issues -- that has so many disappointed and critical.

What's most pathetic is the denial that all of the things he has been criticized for haven't been criticized absent the Keystone Cops, Gestapo, etc rhetoric, but met with the same exaggerations (and insults, etc) found here.

I saw plenty of it from plenty of poster months before the last election over the chained cpi thing.

How did that one work out for you cheerleaders by the way?

[DCBob]

130. Ideas?

Get lost.

[Skittles]

137. you guys get nuttier by the day

[L0oniX]

138. ^^^^this^^^^

[Maven]

141. They get creepier too. Have you seen the one-sided "dialogue"

they have posted up at their treehouse? Truly Republican in its creepy attempt to mischaracterize people they'd rather keep silent. They actually think it's clever.

[Skittles]

142. yes, and I think as more and more people put 'em on Ignore that will be their whole world

and I honestly do think some of them are trolls because it is hard to believe people could be so pathetic

[Pretzel_Warrior]

147. You may disagree with people not wanting to bash the president

But in what world does support of President Obama in DEMOCRATIC Underground qualify us as possible trolls?

Step away from the keyboard and go get some perspective. Your double speak is apparent.

[Skittles]

150. you just DO NOT GET IT

there's a difference between "bashing" and LEGITIMATE CRITICISM - many DUers are SICK of people who cannot handle ANY KIND OF CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT. This is a POLITICAL BOARD - if you cannot understand there are people who want to have SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS about SERIOUS ISSUES without having to put up with the equivalent of five year olds throwing tantrums then it is YOU who needs to STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD AND GET SOME PERSPECTIVE!!!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

151. she said while yelling in ALL CAPS. heheheh. seriously. go see some nature

walk through the woods...smell the fresh air.

[Skittles]

152. ANOTHER EXAMPLE

[truebrit71]

145. I think he went in there with some really good ideas...

...and then, just like Bill Hicks suggested, he was sat down by TPTB and shown how things REALLY worked, with the end result being whatever this hodge-podge of an administration is....(basically trying to put a smiley face on extending the previous administration's agenda, but using complete sentences and proper syntax..)

Suffice it to say this is not the "change" I had "hoped" for...

[Pretzel_Warrior]

148. So marriage equality, ending wars, and health care reform

Aren't change from previous 8 years? Okaayyy!!!

[truebrit71]

149. Marriage equality was decided by the courts...

...we're still in Afghanistan....and health care reform hasn't truly kicked in yet....

BUT, the big banks are now even bigger and more consolidated than before, we're still killing innocent people overseas, we're still holding innocent people captive in Gitmo, we've INCREASED drilling, we're EXPANDING fracking, we're on the verge of approving Keystone XL, the 4th amendment is STILL in absolute shreds - with apparently Antonin Scalia being the only one that gives a damn about it, the US population is being spied on anytime they pick up the phone, send a text or an e-mail, or send a letter in the mail...

Yay CHANGE!!!!

[madrchsod]

153. just think of president romney