General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo is every complaint about Obama wrong? Or some people just don't like to hear them?
People have legit complaints about Obama. Unless you think Obama is perfect and has been the perfect liberal.
It seems many Obama defenders get so defensive about any complaint about Obama.
Many of us here, including me, will 100% be voting for Obama. I am not happy with many things he has done but most of us know he is the only choice we have. I would never vote for any GOP candidate.
But what is wrong with calling out Obama when he deserves it? Why is it a post that says "Obama is wrong not to veto indefinite detention" met with "Obama has done 1000 liberal things, here is the list!!!"??? The damn post is not about what Obama has done right, we all know he has done stuff right, it is discussing things he should have done that he didn't.
Obama should be liberal. Always. That is a given. Why is complaining about him not being liberal at times met with "quit picking on Obama"? Sometimes he needs called out.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)like "his CoS worked at JP Morgan! That proves it!"
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You can't say it isn't fair to judge those choices.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Because all I said was that his choices are fair game as far as criticism goes. I don't see how anyone goes from that to your post.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)And we know the latter completely and totally.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Then who did? (Just delving further, Orsino. I think you and I are on the same page.)
Is Obama so dang helpless that he chose advisors against his will? If he is that helpless, is that okay? And if he isn't helpless, then he chose those advisors. It's one or the other. It can't be both.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...and I know that Obama didn't hand-pick everyone, or necessarily even compile all the short lists. That's what advisers (and donors) are for.
Ultimate responsibility is the president's, but the people he names to posts are undoubtedly filtered through party and financial loyalties.
So yeah, I think it can be both, sorta.
tblue
(16,350 posts)But he owns those choices, regardless of what influenced him to make them, no?
I wish he'd have picked good, decent populists to surround himself with. Would make things a whole lot simpler.
I want to ask people here who defend all does, 'If Obama was a more steadfast, fighting liberal/progressive, would you like him LESS?"
Wouldn't we all be behind him, with great passion, if he was?
Happy holidays, Orsino!
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...that the job of the presidency is too big for anyone to do alone. A president has to be able to rely on advisors at some point, and no doubt finds himself signing off on someone else's plan quite frequently.
His signature is his bond, however. He also has to be willing to replace people who aren't working out for us, and Obama has disappointed me there, too.
Happy holidays!
frylock
(34,825 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)He chose them for their competence.
People here don't know what a Treasury Sec does for example. They are bean counters - not policy makers.
Paulson went to Congress and said our financial system was collapsing then Congress fought over the details. Congress screwed up because they didn't put enough policy around TARP.
Congress appropriates, not a cabinet member.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Undersecretary of State, ambassador to Germany, etc.
The point is: "guilt by association" is not what's going on. That'd be more like the Rev. Wright (do I remember that name correctly?) "scandals" during the election. No, Obama chose to surround himself with these people so rightly or wrongly criticism of those choices is at the very least fair game.
GOTV
(3,759 posts)Does the evidence point more directly at competence or a sign to wall street that their interests would be protected and thus they should keep writing checks?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)he would NOT vote FOR TARP until and unless "they put enough policy around TARP."
..but he voted FOR it and lobbied FOR it no strings attached anyway.
So, i guess if you are blaming Congress,
you are assigning blame to Obama here too.
One small step ....
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]
tblue
(16,350 posts)Promises schmomises! That is so 3 years ago. Then is then, now is now. Things change once you get into office and those promises were only a wish list. Get with the program!
Sad, bvar22, isn't it?
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)"people here don't know what a Treasury Sec does for example." Bull-fucking-shit! There are innumerable well-educated, very politically savvy people on DU. YOU don't hold that sole position here! Just because people disagree with you, it doesn't mean they don't understand how the government works. Get off your damn high horse.
And FYI, Treasury Secretaries are NOT just bean counters.....if you think that Baker, Paulson, Geithner and many others haven't influenced policy, you're dead wrong. Yes, there were some whose influence was minimal but others have had a substantial impact. Just because it's Congress that has the ultimate control of the pursestrings, you don't think that the Treasury Secretary has any influence on policy. Ha!
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)He hired Geithner. He hired Summers. He hired Robert Rubin. He has hired Immelt (the job-exporter in chief). These are the architects of this mess we are in (and the chief destroyers of the middle class). Explain why, when you are the boss, and you hire the people who committed the crimes and were the main culprits, that doesn't make you in bed with them (oh, and we can't forget about him reappointing Bernanke)? Where, exactly, is the accountability? The perp walks? I do see his justice department doing exactly what every justice department has done with respect to Wall Street...fines with no admission of guilt or liability with a promise to not do what they say they didn't do to begin with and then they do it again...it took a judge to stop it.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Home prices were double/triple real values in 2002-2007.
You are doing the right-wing dance - trying to blame government for a free-market mania. I feel terrible that 11 million people are stuck in upside down mortgages (not counting the millions already foreclosed).
Do you blame government for the dot-com bubble and collapse?
The housing bubble was like a drug pushed on addicts (homebuyers). It was a market failure.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)the problems. Or they were actively involved in causing the problems while they were in the private sector.
And Obama put them there.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Geithner - no. He is a lifelong government beauracrat (can't spell that word)
Geithner is an interventionist. A "use government to solve problems" guy.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)Geithner is a "use government to solve banks' problems" but screw the little guy. Geithner was one of those instrumental in seeing to it that the government bailout of counter parties to AIG insurance policies (particularly Goldman Sachs), were 100 cents on the dollar rather than negotiating something smaller. His disastrous decision-making exacerbated the problem and was nothing but a big payday for Goldman.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)That was all about saving AIG and their trillions in policy holders.
Treasury got repaid for those AIG claims.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)AIG has not repaid it by a long shot.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-11-01/business/30346637_1_aig-stock-american-international-group-treasury
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)pissed you off).
your article states that over $100 billion of roughly $160 billion has been repaid.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)the government should have let Goldman fail...it should have let them all fail. As for what you said...yes, exactly...AIG has "paid back" $100 of $160, which means...tada, they have not paid it all back. Finally, who were the beneficiaries of the AIG policies? Yes, Goldman. The government backstopped that without demanding any concession (taking less than 100 cents on the dollar). Given the huge leverage the government had, it should have demanded that Goldman take 50 cents or less on the dollar.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)AIG.
An insurer that cannot pay claims is worthless. AIG was top ten in the Dow. HUGE company. AIG was truly TOO TOO TOO Big to Fail.
Tens of millions of Americans need AIG on property, life, disaster, and commercial insurance. 20x that worldwide.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)And thank God, we will never do that again. Oh, wait...we're right back where we started. You're right.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)This all started with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which Robert Rubin pushed really hard when he worked for Clinton. THAT was what sowed the seeds of the housing bubble by completely deregulating banks with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the repeal of the prohibition on interstate banking. Summers was a huge Clintonian and little Timmy was a protege of Rubin. In fact, Summers and Rubin were two of the main supporters of not regulating the derivatives markets...again, which lead to the housing the bubble, which really is a subset of the larger financial crisis and the lack of any regulations of derivatives.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)It allowed Citi to get bigger - that is about it. So Rubin got that. Derivatives did NOT lead to people defaulting on their mortgages.
Foreclosures SET OFF THE DERIVATIVES. And derivatives existed anyway - Brooksley Born simply wanted to put them on an exchange and monitor them.
The thousands of little mortgage originators were entirely unaffected by this law. They were the pushers. I blame people like Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide, IndyMac, WaMu, etc.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)I know what Gramm Leach Bliley was. I know about restrictions in interstate banking and the Glass-Steagall. The repeal of those lead exactly to the mortgage crisis. Why is that? Because it caused huge jump in the securitization of mortgages. That explosion lead directly to the crisis because no bank was accountable for what it didn't lend.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)So did Great Britain and they got hit by the housing bubble. The only "huge jump" was in the PRICES of homes. That made the MBS over valued. If home values had not crashed none of these problems would exist today!
Again - the root cause was the bubble - not government. You KEEP REPEATING RIGHT WING DOGMA.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)I never said it was the government. In fact, I said, and believe, it was the lack of government that caused it. Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. The bubble was not a "cause." The root cause of the bubble was complete lack of government oversight and a nearly complete deregulation of the derivatives market. As for the securitization of mortgages, you don't know the numbers. Again, if you look at the dollar amounts of securitized mortgages after GLB, it sky-rocketed.
I mean, really? Are you serious? What do you think caused the price of homes to skyrocket? What causes any asset to skyrocket beyond its real value? The bubble is not a cause, but it is a symptom.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)It was DEMAND, pal.
JLinTx
(5 posts)Then who are you expecting to read that? 
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)into deregulating banking and derivatives trading?
They have a HUGE responsibility in causing the mortgage meltdown. They persuaded Clinton to sign into law two of the most toxic pieces of legislation ever written:
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act.
http://www.progressive.org/node/124962
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)It simply allowed CitiGroup to grow larger.
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)The repeal of Glass Steagal allowed traditional commercial banks to engage in much riskier investment activities than they had previously been allowed. Furthermore, the "too-big-to-fail" banks knew the federal government would bail them out and engaged in much riskier behavior than they otherwise would have.
The repeal of Glass Stegal and the passing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act increased the magnitude of the mortgage crisis exponentially.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)I am done with this thread.
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)who is to blame?
I welcome your input!
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)then spikes the ball at the 10 yard line and claims he scored.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)GLB allowed Citigroup to even exist. Before that banks could not sell insurance. After that, they could (which is where the merger of Citibank and Travelers came from).
Amen. This is the single biggest problem I have with President Obama. However, even with this mark against him he is infinitely better than anyone the GOP has to offer. (I think that is Disclaimer #7)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Rather than take a clean sweep of these scoundrels that got us into this mess, Obama reappoints them. It was at that point (Cabinet appointment) that progressives realized that Obama was just another corporate sell out.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Obama appointment 
ept of Interior/ Agriculture.
Salazar is NOT a Good Guy.
NOT!
Why !?
jkent26943xs
(1 post)bvar22
(39,909 posts)[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85
Didn't I read a thread here the other day pointing out how smart President Obama is?
...and NOW you are trying to tell us he is a dumbass who doesn't KNOW who these people are? 
Personally, I don't believe he is a dumbass,
and things that happen on his watch are NO accident.
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]
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Wilmer
(25 posts)!
comipinko
(541 posts)
Roland99
(53,342 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)I mean obviously all of his closest economic advisers and chiefs of staff were hoisted on him against his will by the big bad Republicans just to make it LOOK like of all the people and all the views he could have had represented on his economic team, he just chose corporate, finance and wall street friendly people.
Goddamn those Republicans with their insidious schemes!!!!!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Wall Street corruption less than Bush and less than he does food stamp fraud and less than he does medical marijuana dispensers.
I agree he should be judged by his actions.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)will call him on. I don't know why he never opened a reinvestigation of 911, I don't understand why he has never had any interest in prosecuting the previous Administration (aka mis administration) and I certainly don't understand why he has not investigated either Wall Street or the Bankers.
msongs
(67,393 posts)teddy51
(3,491 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Some projected their own little pet projects on Obama in 2008.
I look for declarative statements.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Wonder when they are going to get mad at and feel betrayed by them when nothing new happens.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)holding rallies in which my community is slandered, in fact, they do the opposite, they stand with us.
Let me know when OWS starts drooling out dogmatic language like 'Sanctity' and 'Sacrament' and announcing that one kind of people is superior to another as the President does. You PM me when that happens.
Until then, the President is as wrong as a person can be when he stands with hate preachers and stands against the equal standing under the law of each American.
Obama is wrong, petty and prejudiced on this issue.
DWilliamsamh
(1,445 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)FYI.
DWilliamsamh
(1,445 posts)No one is perfect and Obama is far from what I thought he was but that faux pas, as charged and angry making as it was, is meaningless when compared with the actual policy advances in my opinion. I mean really... how can the mistake of having someone speak - and not against your community during that speech - who has said some pretty awful things against you in the past compare to actually getting discriminatory laws and regulations off the books?
I was angry as hell at the time as well - and I STILL think it was a horrible mistake right out of the gate but put it in context. Holding an "optics" issue against someone who has made clear changes to policy in your favor even at the expense of helping (even unintentionally) put someone in office that will actively work against you is just silly.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will invite you to read the Guide to the Perplexed on OWS.
I am serious if you think of them this way, you are way off.
Oh and yes, the psychology of mass movements also applies to them.
(What can I say... as a political observer I do get it)
Suffice it to say... them are starting to really turn dangerous... tea parties (rank and file) and OWSers are talking... and you know what they are realizing? DC is dysfunctional and in many a case they agree. I know scary. Why do you think Tea Party Leaders told their followers NOT to go to camps? Oh and yes, since I am actually seeing them also as a mass movement, though a failed one since it was co-opted early on, also the same dang psychology does apply.
paulk
(11,586 posts)I find this just about the most hollow pro Obama argument of all.
It's like we, his constituents, the people who voted for him, aren't allowed to have any input or opinion into what positions he takes while in office, because, well, he didn't campaign on it. It's all a done deal, folks - just sit on your hands.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Me too!
"When I'm President, EFCA WILL be the Law of the Land!"
"I will renegotiate NAFTA"
"Insurance Mandates are NOT they way to go for America."
"....I will put on comfortable shoes and walk the picket line."
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
"I think the best way to protect Social Security is to Raise the Cap."
"I will immediately institute Country of Origin labeling
because Americans should know where their food comes from,
and will let folks know whether their food has been Genetically Modified..."
I could go on and on, and post video PROOF too,
but this format makes that messy, but here is one you can start with:
Restore America’s Honor
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah
How many "declarative statements" can you count in the following short video?
Transparency
The meme that those of us who are expressing our disappointment didn't pay attention during the campaign
IS pure BS, but is still being propagated at DU.
Truth matters.
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]
BeHereNow
(17,162 posts)
LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)Those who root for the team, no matter how ... many problems it might have... don't appreciate "bad talking" apparently. Superstitious paranoia, fears that somehow the Left's criticisms of Obama will invigorate the Right(??)... or maybe just plain thinking of politics as if it is just local neighborhood gossip (and "bad laundry shouldn't be aired" ... I couldn't say... but the apologists sure do seem to think repetitively posting a list that is reminiscent of a 17-year-old's resume (I was 4th Monkey in a presentation of The Wizard of Oz in the 3rd grade...) will somehow win over ... (those who haven't been paying enough attention to be critical?)... the public.
—So quit picking on Obama... somebody might listen and vote against him because of what he's done... and that would be... uhmm... unjust?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Ok I will.
At the risk of ruffling a few feathers... to some folks the leader (no matter what party) is infallible. They are invested in the leader and the success of the leader. Any criticism of the leader, naturally, leads to a few less than nice responses.
This is well known psychology.
It even has a name and it is predictable as the sun rises in the East.
Did I mention it is highly undemocratic? I mean the small d variety.
But I do get it, sadly.
Logical
(22,457 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)because they wanted to.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it's existed in the US... but at least in my opinion it's at unprecedented levels... and it might be related to 911 actually.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I could recommend a book, but I suspect it will go to waste.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Because I want to reflexively accuse you of hero-worship.
The logical fallacies are piling up on your side.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but I won't...
Suffice it to say I am answering the question of the OP. I did not mention any political leader by name. It could indeed be Grayson... it could be Hitler, it could be Mao. it could be Che Guevara... or for that matter El Duce, or Franco... or if a Martian leader involved humans the Emperor of Mars.
As I said, it is well known among historians and political scientist, and it is even a subject of very basic political science... and these days there are even interesting MRI studies on this. They are not just fascinating but damn scary. You could try to understand why... somehow I doubt it.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)"infallibility". That is a straw man that no Obama supporter has claimed. You want to establish that a garden variety Obama supporter is under some spell in the context of the OP.
In way of a reply I mentioned that delusion can also accompany those who think they see a "Matisse" where there was none.
The large majority of us handle criticism very well. But as I pointed out upthread, many "saw" things in Obama that never existed.
Most of the time a supporter is just a supporter.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Some of Obama's supporters, just as some of Bush's supporters, just as some of Grayson's supporters, just as some FDR's supporters, hell some of Nixon's, can't accept any defect in the politician. It is reality.
As I said SOME. How many or few in the universe of supporters fall in that category require careful sociological and political science surveys. BUT SOME do. It's not a strawman, it's reality.
In the words of inigo montoya... that word does not mean what you think it does.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Which was my original point.
Opposite ends of a bell curve.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I said I understood this since I get this phenomena.
it also varies from politico to politico and charisma level of saith poltiico. Why I did not inject any names of politico... you did.
I am talking poli sci...
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Lets support your favorite Dem - whoever it is.
Your argument was civil. I respect that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You should consider getting a stunt poster to stand in for you when things get rough.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Nadin was transparent in his/her agenda.
That is why this place is fractured. Passive aggressive insults like this hero-worship nonsense.
I support Obama - get over it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As a politician. We could be talking of king George III or Caesar for all I care, or yes, now that I think about it, David Koresh. See, it does not just apply to politics.
And what you call a logical fallacy is known as the psychology of mass movements. See I am talking, almost graduate seminar level here. But the seminal work on this is assigned to first year undergraduate students in poth poli sci and history. Reading that and having read into it lets me fully get the psychology behind, now let's get personal, the Reagan lovers, the nixon blind defenders (nothing like meeting one in 2003), Clinton Accolytes. Bush bots and yes, a few blind Obama supporters. The psychology is exactly the same. And the op asked, I answered...
For the record it has nothing to do who I like as a politician either. Or for that matter who I will vote for in 2012. Free clue, it is the same guy you will be voting for.
Sorry for trying to lift the discussion from the mud there sparky.
Rex
(65,616 posts)bones being thrown in front of you. I wonder who else is on his/her list!!! YOU like this person...I know it!!! Therefore I can argue THIS way...oh no you are NOT talking about that person...well then it is THIS person....blah blah blah
Way to go Nadin, again you rock with the facts and not assuming like a wild child. 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Obama and Bush use these psychological techniques on their followers.
hence the term Bush-bot during the Bush years came to characterize the masses of people who followed Bush unquestioningly, as there are now masses of people who follow Obama unquestioningly. I'm not an expert on human psychology, but these kind of psychological techniques seem to be heavily exploited by religions and cults.
Some might call it 'brainwashing.'
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)there is little difference between cults and political partisans.
I will leave it at that... suffice it to say MRI studies are fascinating.
patrice
(47,992 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)guilty as charged, I read books (and papers)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)yup
think
(11,641 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)Sign me up again!
athenasatanjesus
(859 posts)I also hate when they frame complaints in the way that the right wing would normally frame them.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Skittles
(153,138 posts)lots of their wording / arguments are identical
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)I won't apologize for going on recently about the NDAA as a non-issue that changes nothing, which might be mistaken for defending Obama, but I try to balance it in most posts by pointing out that the real issue is the ongoing war.
If Obama doesn't have a plan to end the war, then that's a failure and worth criticizing. No republican would come up with a workable plan either, of course, but expectations for competence and good government are much greater when it comes to our own party.
...I don't mind long-winded and sometimes difficult debates. Sometimes it takes awhile to work through a complicated issue that way, even if no one admits to ever accepting differing opinions. For whatever reason, learning often comes in the course of argument, and is hard to gain otherwise.
zeljko67
(65 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Just because it is a complaint does not mean it is justified.
Deserves it is in the eye of the beholder. Merely disagreeing with you is not wrong.
Why is it so important to call him out? Do you think you're going to like improve him somehow?
Logical
(22,457 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)In fact on a forum that includes Democrats, constantly complaining about their candidate is going to create blowback.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)blow back. The fact is anyone who opposes my rights is going to get called out for that constantly until they stop with the bigoted memes and slanders of my family. Telling us all that Newt is 'Sanctified' and we are not is a truck load of tripe which we will not buy from him, you, or anyone. He is wrong, and all who refuse to call him out for that wrong loudly and constantly are also wrong. Deeply wrong.
Equal is equal. Those who call for less than equality for any minority group are wrong, morally wrong.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Let's take this paragraph from your OP as an example:
"But what is wrong with calling out Obama when he deserves it? Why is it a post that says "Obama is wrong not to veto indefinite detention" met with "Obama has done 1000 liberal things, here is the list!!!"??? The damn post is not about what Obama has done right, we all know he has done stuff right, it is discussing things he should have done that he didn't. "
---
See how wrong that is?
First of all, the last I heard Congress still has the NDAA bill and has not even sent it to President Obama yet.
So, the excerpt shows one example of baseless 'negative criticism',
saying 'Obama is wrong' when he hasn't even had the opportunity to either sign or veto the bill is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
A thread discussing "things that he should have done that he didn't", before the appropriate time is a bit silly, eh?
There are 100s of these type of threads criticizing President Obama unjustly and all they normally do is get folks in a tizzy.
Perhaps we ALL should be more careful with our 'words' and with the 'facts' when composing OPs and comments - and that might result in less outrage from both sides.
Just my opinion.
Thank you for the opportunity to play
Btw, please note that I did not post a LIST in this message text box, but if you want one then you can click on the first link in my signature line
Logical
(22,457 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I know that some folks refer to another DUer's list as 'Teh List', but that's NOT 'my' list
My List is a 'Compilation of LISTS'
I think that maybe each person with a list should have their own list nickname so that folks don't get confused - LOL
Maybe we could even have a 'list' of people with 'lists', that would make us all easy to find, just a suggestion.
patrice
(47,992 posts) tblue
(16,350 posts)I cannot match your enthusiasm for our president, but I can tell you are really trying to reach out to folks like me. And I so appreciate your tact and courtesy.
Happy holidays to you and yours. May we all have a wonderful 2012, including the Election!
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)This seems to happen with people whose norm is to be critical of the President, not just exceptions here and there.
I think the constant critics are bugged about being disagreed with. And they flip it around on those who disagree by blaming it on an inability to brook criticism of "their leader".
Do you find that theory as 'interesting' as the one upthread, or less so because you agree with the armchair diagnosis up above because it's a slam on Obama supporters?
I think I already know the answer.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The President is opposed to equal rights for my community. Those who defend that are as wrong as he is. Equal is equal. There is no such thing as 'mostly equal'. Those who argue for half steps or slow progress on equality are wrong. Simply, totally wrong. There is no excuse, no mitigation. They are fully in the wrong. It is easy to show that fact just by looking at the rest of the 'Sanctity' crowd, Newt, Herman, you know, Republicans. Palin. Deep thinkers.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)All evidence points to Obama being for equal rights. There is virtually no evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his words have not been sufficient, but his actions are indisputable.
comipinko
(541 posts)And , anyone with reading comprehension skills can see that his own words bare this out. And for most people who think, being POTUS,we know that his "words" are, in fact "actions".
emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)And other states which have legalized Gay Marriage?
comipinko
(541 posts)emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)Is Obama actively standing in the way of gay marriage, or is he just expressing his dumbass opinion?
Is he attempting to legislate his dumbass opinion? No.
Is he demanding the justice dept enforce DOMA? No, he is doing the opposite.
comipinko
(541 posts)Yup, that is "actively standing in the way" for political motives, non-less. That says something about ones honesty.
emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)I certainly agree that his spoken position on marriage equality is awful
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)BootinUp
(47,138 posts)people will aggressively defend their candidates.
So if someone is going negative on the party's candidate during election season its like an invitation to a battle.
Shouldn't be a surprise to DU'ers or bloggers that have been around during other Presidential elections.
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)Well, there might have been a month of honeymoon at the beginning. But I am pretty sure I heard criticism of Obama's policy and choices prior to the inauguration. And vigorous defense of the same at that time.
It certainly was present soon after the inauguration. At that time, no criticism could be valid, because he was just starting, and there had not been time for his carefully laid chess strategy to come to fruition. I myself was startled at several things early on that appeared to be betrayals of what I as a liberal believed, but defended the president. He needed time to get things done. I figured a year to get things rolling was reasonable.
I have switched sides on this, moving from being a strong supporter who worked hard for his election campaign to a stunned citizen, who is trapped into voting for Obama for lack of any options.
In some ways your post is true, but only insofar as a president is campaigning from 2 years prior to his election until the day after his reelection. There has not been a time during this presidency when this tension between the disappointed ones and the admit no fault supporters has not existed(I am aware my phrasing would make my position clear if I hadn't already stated it above, and may not be fair to all participants.)
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Point out some republican reprehensible act and you will get at least one sarcastic reply stating something to the effect that people here (I'm assuming they mean critics) think both parties are the same.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)their reliance on large amounts of money to get elected. Until that changes they will not be as responsive to we the people as they should.
This is a created problem, getting rid of it will not be easy, but it is essential.
applegrove
(118,598 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)if not here? Where?
No I am being dead serious. Today I spent the day chasing occupiers, who went from party headquarters to my congress critter's office to hold a sit in. They were angry over the NDAA...
The response here was that this was waste of time, by fellow DU'ers who want no criticism. So my question is, in all seriousness, where can people voice their dissatisfaction? I mean some of the folks I met today while covering the story are life long democrats ready to ditch the party. And not just voters, I am talking of Democratic Party Club President here. These are very much REAL LIFE people...
IMHO, take it or leave it, the party better wake up... it has a small insurrection in it's hands, and stop blaming the voters.
It is smaller, for the moment, than that faced by the Republicans, but it is there. And ignoring it... well it will only grow. At this point, this is just a report from the field.
applegrove
(118,598 posts)defenders' reeks of the GOP. Those meme should not be here. And they should not force the admiration of Obama into a group where it will get less play than if it stayed in GD.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)is not for me to say... a FEW probably are. It falls into interesting political science studies. And right now I have no time to do the statistics. My guess is probably less than ten in the whole site, but I cannot tell... not with a proper survey.
But in all seriousness, in real life I am hearing an amount of dissatisfaction that is starting to remind me of Bush in the last three months among Republicans. People in the old DU went HALLELUJAH they are waking up... me, well if both parties are having small time revolts, it is a symptom the SYSTEM is not responding to the needs of the American people. Bright people usually go... time for serious corrective. Given citizen's united i am not counting on that.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)No serious?
If you do... well then I welcome you to your blindness, but anecdotally, one problem polls might be having is the number of people hanging on pollsters and cell lines.
Please consider that.
emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)in circles on this?
I too beleive there are a few posters who are like this. Just as I beleive there are a few posters who attempt to pass off hyperbole, half-truths, and hyper-speculation off as "criticism". Ten sounds about right for those as well
Both of these types of posters should expect some sort of blowback, and generally they get it.
Call me naive, but I think that most DU'ers are on the same page in terms of core values and where we would like to see the country go. Mostly what we see are disagreements over tactics, or disagreement over who is most to blame for the current clusterfuck in Washington. However there is something pretty dysfunctional in the way we sometimes communicate with each other. I'd much rather we address that than have yet another thread about the handful of "Obama defenders.'
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and where the conflict comes from. And why if we ever get proportional representation the Dems and republicans will break up into at least three parties, each.
The old FDR democrat who is pro labor, et al, has very little in common with the free market blue dog.
At the same time the old line Ike, or even Reagan Republican has very little in common with religious conservatives.
This is why in the US both parties are coalitions that come together for a short term goal... but coalitions that in time do fall apart as one side rises over the other in influence. In fact, this is why the two parties have switched over the course of decades on who or what they think are priorities.
The democrats in classic European sense have a Social Democratic Party and a Neo Liberal Party, at the very least.
You may say that I have been looking at this very hard in the recent past.
Republicans have a Libertarian wing, a Business wing and the social conservative, culture warriors that barely tolerate the other two.
Way too much inside baseball, I know... but when I look at a candidate these days my first question after the letter is... ok what faction of the party do you belong to?
For the record the Dems also have a smaller, less loud, left libertarian wing.
emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)It isn't "inside baseball" at all.
And I can see the usefulness of it as a way to look at what is currently happening with DU. DU is a coalition of leftists that seems to be splitting more and more each day.
However, the more I think about it, the more I think we are being divided because there is more noise that signal in the discussion these days.
I'm starting to rethink my earlier position that "if we are just talking about a handful of posters, then why are we belaboring it?"
I'm thinking that the handful of posters are poisoning the discourse in such a way that the two "sides" at DU have become so paranoid about the motives of everyone on the other "side".
So that the discussion at DU has become dysfunctional and toxic. Shallow and paranoid, more about accusations than about substance.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And as to shallow and toxic.. .welcome to silly season. It is the time to be jolly and attack the other for every real and perceived error and mistake.
I have been here for a few electoral cycles, and this will not be different than the rest. 2008 primary wars were especially enlightening though.
emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)Thanks for reminding me, it helps give perspective. We are about the same DU vintage, I think. The dynamics of 08 primary wars were pretty interesting.
As always, very good to talk with you. Best Regards.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)When we are trying to describe what is perceived as swarming behavior. Cheerleaders and most similar terms are rejected as offensive.
Who are "they" forcing Obama supporters out of GD? There's nothing like that in the OP.
Even if that did happen, how would it get less play? Did GD
get less play?
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)(And "morally bankrupt" to boot.)
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)and I would remind us all that folks have been complaining non stop since inauguration.....
which is how the Democratic enthusiasm meter allowed Republican victory throughout the country in 2010.
Sure, often a complaint is legit in that this President hasn't done exactly what some wanted....
but oftentimes it is speculative and aimed at predicting what he is about to do,
till he doesn't do it, and also calling him names while at it.
I think in the end, folks will get exactly what they have been working so very hard for, day in, day out.
I'll just look and say.....that's what you get....although it is too sad that so many others will have to suffer too!
But hey.....No biggie! Let us keep on complaining.....
After all, you ought to have a hint as to what harm it could it do by now....no?
patrice
(47,992 posts)ins to Thom Hartmann's show. There are a lot of people becoming more active, who have pretty naive ideas about how politics work that amount to "Threaten and bully and you'll get what you want" when, in fact, it's more like backing trailer up.
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)that you tell us one single time that you personally agreed with a single complaint against President Obama's actions or choices. I wont even demand a link.
I have seen many of the critics acknowledge the victories. The DADT repeal was a big one for me. So far as I can tell, his Supreme court picks have turned out quite reasonably(the hope for more is my main reason for being willing to vote for him again). Ledbetter. Obamacare has its good points.
But I have as yet to see a single one of those individuals that I would consider Obama Defenders admit that any particular, specific, criticism has validity. Plenty of "Oh, I have my disagreements" type generality's, "not every complaint is wrong", but never a specific point, a need to WIN every argument, without fail or exception, to never admit any weakness or allow that we might need to make demands that the president change policy in any specific way.
I want to see it. I want to feel like we are all here in good faith. But It doesn't feel that way to me, and I am guessing I am not the only one.
as to 2010... I dont think DU's critics sunk us into the depths of tea party domination. If we have that kinda power... I dont even have words. 2010 was about the accomplishments or lack thereof that the Democrats controlling the Senate, House and Presidency demonstrated, combined with a desperate influx of money from the opposition, combined with a racist backlash that demanded an outlet.
I think this is what bothers me the most. Generally, I'm supportive of the President. But when I point out my disagreement with something he's done or said, there is this monolithic, angry resistance.
All of a sudden, I'm this Nader guy who cost us the 2000 and 2010 elections (even though I, of course, voted Dem both times).
There is zero attemt to argue the specifics of the issue, and every attempt to make it an issue about the far left fringe in general and what a great President we have. (And how little people like me appreciate him.)
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)
And each time, I will give the president credit where I feel it is due. I will be fair handed about it. If I am asking someone I perceive to admit no fault in the presidents policy to admit a fault, then as someone they may in turn perceive to be an unrelenting critic, I will make sure to credit him for his successes.
Perhaps I am wrong in suspecting I will receive no answers. Its happened before. I hope I am.
In the end, I suspect that many of us feel about President Obama much the same as I do. I started with great hope. A community organizer had to be a step up from the RW leadership we had been experiencing. This is a person who saw the needs of the people of our nation, and would do something about it. He would put himself out to do what was needed.
Unfortunately, I see our nation as a car headed along a narrow road toward the edge of a sheer cliff with a long drop. We've been headed that way a while, with Republican policy. Bush JR was stamping on the gas for all he was worth. Obama is applying the breaks, with only occasional pressing of the gas pedal. But we are, in my perception awfully close to the edge, and once we launch off the edge it wont matter how fast or slow we go, bad bad things will be forthcoming. We need to stop, to reverse. Not just to slow.
Or to put it another way, Obama is better, we just happen to need more than better from him.
Edited to acknowledge that I was wrong. I did receive a response that directly addressed my request. One that I believe was very reasonable, even if I disagree with some of the assertions made in it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Good faith is what is needed. I'd like to see that in action.
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)There are other instances when I have disagreed with this President, but you are correct, they are few......
I can surely say that if I were President, I wouldn't necessarily approach certain issues as Pres. Obama has. But I'm not President, so I try not to act as though I have all of the solutions to the many problems that our nation faces, since I'm not sure how I would get the solution actually done....and at the end of the day, that is the key. It is very easy to list problems. Easy to list what is wrong with this country, much of it which has been around longer than this forum has been.
My feeling is that I don't need to shit on someone whose already been damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I don't believe that doing this will get us anywhere......so my good faith is not wrapped up in how many ways I can criticize the person that I consider to be on my side so much more than the other. My good faith is manifested in how hard I can fight against the Republicans and the Corporate media. That is how I choose to spend my time.
We demand that the President call out Republicans, but few here seldom do. Sure folks here call Republicans names, and such....but we don't actually "do" much to them. We usually don't call them, don't write to them....mainly because some believe that it won't help...which is a wimpy attitude; that somehow they are unreachable, so why bother? How is that courageous or tenacious, or persitent or strong? It just ain't.
Many talk about how President Obama acts often like a Republican, but we forget that many here agree with some main Republican talking points about this President like when calling him a failed leader, and so that kind of good faith only ends up smelling like a good ol' pile-on. Many here, through this forum, influence public opinion to only see flaws in this President.....and since the general public sees that we don't support him, why should they? Yes, we influence public opinion....and for those who think forums such as this doesn't do that....well, that's just not true. If we believed that we influenced nothing, we wouldn't spend time here with our pronouncements, etc....
At the end of the day, I am an optimistic-realist in reference to what the future can be, so I tend not to waste my valuable time criticizing my own (because I don't believe that it advances anything for all of us to do this, since we've already got the media, many here and everywhere else doing a fantastic job criticizing this President constantly, meaning my help isn't required), and instead, I concentrate on those who are so terrible till it hurts just to think about them back in power.
In other words, I've been here in good faith since 2003, and I have always understood that politics in this imperfect union, made up of imperfect folks, including our leaders, is going to continue to be imperfect, as it has been all along. Change is very difficult, expecially due to the environment in this country. It has always been, and always will be. Ask OWS how long they believe the changes they want will take? And whatever answer you get, understand that it might take much longer still. Protestors of the Vietnam War may have finally helped the war end, but how long did it take? one year, two years, three years. or even more? Ask the Civil Rights Movement how long they had to fight? Why would make you think that one man could do it so much faster than millions? Especially one who is criticized on everything he does all of the time?
The way that I see Democrats and Republicans in general is that their leaders represent them well, because the leaders reflect exactly what rank and file are made up of. Many want to say the President caves.....but we also show absolutely no loyalty to this President, as many of us choose to point our fingers at him more often than to point the finger elsewhere (and oftentime there is a strong case to do so)....and yet, if Pres. Obama dares to criticize rank and file Democrats, then we have a shit fit as though we must be perfect...when we surely are not. And we then hold a grudge from that day forward.
Folks have called this President oftentime enough, a wimp. But we are not any less wimpy, considering that we rarely stand up behind this President about anything he proposes, because we are too busy finding flaws in all that there is that he proposes, and whining about what we didn't get. To me, that's a wimpy stance....cause finding flaws is such an easy thing to do. It is much more difficult to support a position that one may only agree with 65%, but for so many, it's all or nothing (meaning don't get anything done, just yell and scream which takes no courage, just a disagreeable disposition--see Republicans)!
We demand that this President uses the bully pulpit, but then we mainly use our own Bully pulpit vehicle to criticize him instead of our opposition.
I understand clearly that the Democratic party is made up of very different folks. In otherwords, I don't believe that I need to prove to you that I am capable of being like you on this forum in order to show good faith. My good faith is through making donations, providing man power to my side (and understand that the ballot offers us the choices that we will have to literally live with) and not helping my enemies. That's how I operate.....because I am who I am....which is I am not you.
emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)quakerboy
(13,918 posts)I appreciate your indulging me. You don't have to prove anything to me, but I strongly appreciate that you took the time to do so.
Obviously there are things we disagree on. My perception is that the president has responded more clearly and decisively to criticism than he has to support. Its hard to feel that you will be heard/valued as an uncritical supporter in that sort of environment. And while I do write to our elected republicans (though they are fortunately rareish in my neck of the woods), that also does feel like a waste of time. They are not listening, not even a little, as far as I can tell. I make a point of pointing out their foibles to people in real life, which I figure is a more valuable use of my time.
I strongly disagree that all criticisms of the presidents policy are equal. Obviously, I would tend to feel that way since I don't like being lumped with republicans. But I feel that my critiques are valid, where the repub's and their media lackeys tend to just make shit up. I do also feel like DU should be a place where we can have an honest discussion of the pluses and minuses of the policy with others who are aware, who care about the issues. We may not always agree, but I prefer to believe we are all at least pushing in the same general direction, for the preservation or even improvement of our country. Outside of here is where I put on my game face, where I defend the president as best as I can honestly do. Mainly by pointing out the serious issues of any of the other "serious" contenders, and pointing out how much better he is than his predecessor.
You and I will both be voting for Obama in the next election. I would suppose that we also would both be voting for democrats all the way down ticket as well. I guess one significant point where we part ways, though, is that you feel we need to fight against Republicans and the corporate media, whereas I would phrase it differently, we need to fight for the betterment of our country. I would guess that 90% of the time these mean the same thing, but sometimes they probably lead us differently.
I wish that I could feel like you do. But I don't. I could easily, happily, support 65%. I tend toward quantifying things, so back in 2009, after the first wins and losses, when I was tempted toward despair, I quantified things. I wanted to avoid having purely emotional responses to each issue. 10 basic issues that I cared the most about, each with 3 basic options quantified at +1,0,-1. So an end score of 1 would be 55%, (-9 would be 5% and 10 would be 100%). Giving benefit of the doubt(assuming that the president refuse to lower taxes on the rich or raise the SS retirement age, even though he is being pushed on those issues), I end up with a score of -4. 30%, in other words. I dream of 65%. The only thing that allows me to keep going is that most likely republican challengers are all 0%.
I could be wrong, but my hope is that this internal warfare on DU is that it is much like any other family squabble. So much more vehement and virulent for the similarities and ties that hold us all together, and so much harder to step back from to consider the valid points of the other side because it is personal to the values we hold dear. When we can do things to be more real with each other, to actually talk to one another, I think it is a good and valuable thing, and I appreciate your taking the time to do so with me.
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)and I would dare to disagree and state that most likely republican challengers are all "-100%" of any of our interests. That is 0% is no change in any direction....and that is not their plan at all. Many thought Bush would do no harm, and yet the monentary and mental deficits that we face today were largely caused by those things his party worked to enact, and Republicans haven't gotten any better. Much of what happened under Bush was unimaginable, and yet that is what we got.
My plan is not fighting two fronts.....
considering that only one front can win....after everything is said and done.
Look, the election season is about to commence in earnest, and it ain't no joke. This election will not be about whether I am truly satisfied with what has happened over the past nearly three years. It will be about the fact that we cannot go back at this time....and one of the things that I do well is to give people the good news, and the reasoning as to why we must keep marching forward with Pres. Obama at the helm, and that there is no alternative that will be anything but what is 100% against all that we believe!
I will be damned before I participate in providing any help at all that would assist in a scenario where we wake up on election morning in where we handed the entire government back to Republicans. Four years may not be a long time to affect a great deal of change, but it is certainly enough time to totally give me everything (and I mean everything and then some) that I do not want nor would have even imagined.
I have participated in this forum all these years because of politics, as I don't see this as a self-actualization vehicle. I am not here to "feel better" about my "values" or display my wishful thinking of what the world should be like. Instead, I have been here to affect changes in election results...because it is the results of elections that provide the strongest vehicle to ride in a particular direction, and it is elections that brought me here to begin with.
One of the reasons I no longer post or read here as I used to is because this site, over time, has turned me off of politics....and if the perpetual negativity spewed against Democrats here can do that to me, it can affect anyone! That's a very sad and negative thing...and it is true that many more than you might believe are disengaging, not because of what the President is doing or not doing, but due to the fatigue that sets in believing that one has to fight all sides all of the time, day after day, while being called names and made out to be less than simply because of believing that what is most important is different from what some others think. I can't allow this negativity to affect me, as I believe that I can still make a small difference, and therefore, for now.... I have to turn off in order to retain the strength that I need to fight the "-100%"!
Case in point, is I am donating to groups that will help register voters, and I am registering folks myself. That's positive action....and that is the only thing that I want to do..... My poison in the well is not needed.....as there is so so much there already.
Bush taught us that Supreme Court Picks can change our world. For me, it really is that simple.
So folks can call me a defender if that makes them feel better about their own positions, but I am simply a person who understands that in this democracy, elections matter most, and elections are won by those who are motivated to wanting better and not by those who don't mind dealing with worse thinking that this will wake folks up...because for the most part; it won't.
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)"Bush taught us that Supreme Court Picks can change our world. For me, it really is that simple. "
Absolutely with you there. That's the key factor keeping my vote loyal.
If you prefer to alter the my scale to place the republicans at -100%, then that puts Obama, quantitatively, at -40%. Still better than the republicans, but also well below the 65% agreement that you find. As I said, I dream of 65%.
styersc
(2,847 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:27 AM - Edit history (1)
Before Obama was innaugurated, I was opposed to illegal detention in Guantanamo.
Before Obama was innaugurated, I was a strong supporter of civil liberties.
Before Obama was innaugurated, I believed that the rich in this country were pampered and not fairly contributing.
Before Obama was innaugurated, I actively worked to enforce responsible environmental policies.
Before Obama was innaugurated, I felt that there was an attack on unions that had to be addressed from the very top.
Unfortunately I was duped into believing that the candidate I was voting for shared these values, and beliefs. I was fooled then but I won't be fooled again.
I was also under the impression that the majority of the folks I shared this forum with were in agreement with these positions. Then I came to find out that many were more interested in the cult of personality than they were in issues.
And now those who have had consistent values are attacked by those who are star-struck.
Thank you.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
My Traditional FDR/LBJ Pro-Working Class Democratic Party Values haven't changed.
What was WRONG under Bush,
is STILL wrong.
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]
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So is every complaint about Obama wrong? Or some people just don't like to hear them?"
...having trouble defending your argument?
What does Obama being wrong in your view have to do with the ""Obama has done 1000 liberal things, here is the list!!!"???"
Why would such a list bother you?
Here's the point: When " damn post is not about what Obama has done right," the points and counterpoints within that post constitute "discussing things"
The debate isn't always going to be among people who agree with you.
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)that in a post regarding, say, indefinite detention, the points and counter points being posted should in general be in regards to indefinite detention and topics directly related to it, rather than Ledbetter and the rest of the list?
To be fair to ya'll who so often defend the president and his positions, Its been a while since I have seen anyone respond by posting one of the fabled lists.
As to your specific question, the reason why such a list would bother me is that it generally has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. When I saw it posted, it was generally used as a way of dodging the issue at hand. Akin to jumping into a serious conversation, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALA". And that feels a bit disrespectful to everyone else participating in the conversation.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...you're free to ignore them. I mean, your justification for others not posting the President's list of accomplishments is that you find them "annoying." Well, that's on you. It appears you consider it "disrespectful" to counter a claim (such as health care reform will drive insurance costs up) with evidence to the contrary.
There was a time when it was repeated over and over that the President sanctioned torture just like Bush. Posting the ACLU's various statements that the President rejected torture is not "disrespectful" and shouldn't be seen as "annoying." If there are flaws in the ACLU statement, point them out instead of leveling accusations like "sticking your fingers in your ears" at others.
You should be able to defend your claims regardless of the counterpoints. That may not lead to swaying anyone's opinion, but it's part of having a debate/discussion.
Also, when posted in an OP, the President's accomplishments are the "topic at hand." See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100219885
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108
Note, we're having a discussion in a thread that clearly made "the list!!!"???" the topic at hand.
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)then its surely fair to post one. No arguments there. If there ever was a place for the list, this thread would be it.
Posting an ACLU statement about the president rejecting torture is relevent to a thread about whether the president sanctions torture. Its not so relevant in a thread about, say, raising the social security retirement age. Thats where it becomes a distraction from the discussion. Thats where I would take issue with it.
As to counterpoints: One should be able to defend an argument against counterpoints. But "Lilly Ledbetter is great" is not a counterpoint to "its wrong and a waste of time and resources for federal law enforcement to crackdown on MMJ clinics".
patrice
(47,992 posts)It may not be the complaints against Obama themselves that people are having problems with, but rather the manner in which claims are made. In my experience, here especially, discussion often does not get as far as substance, because the logical foundation of someone's predicate is so flawed that there just really isn't anything there worth critiquing: no foundation > no construct, only pieces of things. This problem is so common that perhaps people think criticism of PO is not permitted, when in fact, it's just a big majority of instances in which if we're going to talk about anything, we need to start with the same language.
We could go ahead and discuss about pieces of things if people want, as long as, again, we use the same language and thus witness to one another that pieces are pieces, probabilities, and not absolute knowledge, but when you want to begin with what makes a piece a piece and not a whole, many react to that defensively, as though you were telling them "You have said 0" which makes them defensive and they claim that your position is that every complaint is wrong, when in fact all you may be doing is trying to agree upon a common semantic set to discuss the topic at hand. Yes doing that does open one to critique of one's rational mind, but the principles upon which that critique is based are inherently a double-edged sword, the logical tools with which I might beat you about the head usually also applies to me too. If I can get you to use it, it becomes a discussion, not just of the relative arbitrary merits demerits of various pieces, but instead what we could use to hold those pieces together in order to construct what *WE* might refer to as approximate knowledge.
If that's too much to ask, we could always just play with the pieces of things (these various complaints) as long as we both recognize that that is what we are doing.
boxman15
(1,033 posts)Far too often, I see some people saying "Obama is a NEOCON! He's no different than Bush!" Or they harp on his negatives without acknowledging the huge amount of good, very often times liberal, things he's done (he's the most successful president in decades).
I'm not happy with every decision he's made. He should be tougher with Republicans. He should do a better job of communication (which really would have helped with health care reform and the debt ceiling mess), the drawdown in Afghanistan should be much faster, I could go on and on.
But flat-out ignoring the huge number of accomplishments this president has had is disingenuous and just as bad as an "Obama defender" ignoring his faults.
Response to Logical (Original post)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Some people that defend every action of Obama and post those lists get paid to do so. Every liberal has many legit complaints about Obama. If you don't you have NoSense."
Aren't you clever? Here, this one is on me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108
No charge!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I have a link to a list of 'lists' regarding Obama in my signature line - where do I go to pick up my check?
I've never ever been paid even one dime to post here on DU.
p.s. If anyone here is getting paid for being an Obama supporter that posts lists please PM me with the 'secret info' so I can get my share of the moo-laah - LOL
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)and I didn't mean you. But I found the p.s. on your last line amusing.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)"morally bankrupt" to "paid," who knew a list of the President's accomplishments could lead to offensive name calling and paranoia?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And it comes from Karl Rove himself. Yup they did hire people to post on blogs and other places. I am too lazy to look for the story right now, but I remember when it broke. (As in I am dead tired from working on news story and now essay)
So if one party does it, it stands to reason to think the other party will. Suffice it to say I am not saying they are... just where it is coming from.
The only true people who do this... as in for real, are corporations who pay secret shoppers and online posters to promote products and of course we know Karl Rove's SUPERPAC.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Consider for a moment that most of the folks here who you're arguing with are rank-and-file Dems just like you. Also consider that these two factions here were CREATED and ask yourself how that could happen. After all, it is a strange situation -- I find myself simultaneously a Democrat by principle and a President Obama skeptic by circumstance despite my general approval of what he has accomplished.
For me personally, it was the TSA nudie scopes. Sorry, that one crosses my personal line. I teach radiation physics and I am familiar with computer imaging. I also am quite familiar with our govt's fascination with collecting all the biometrics they can on their own population and I find that a tad unwholesome. I paid attention to Chertoff's lobbying and how other similar and obviously safer radiation choices (millimeter wave) were ignored in favor of x-ray backscatter simply because an IMAGE was created. I found several instances where promises were made about how the data was handled which were demonstrable lies. I watched the safety exceptions granted for TSA employees so that they didn't have to wear a radiation badge -- exempting them from the workplace safety rules the rest of us follow for good reason. I watched that one engineer from Livermore suggest a software fix that would alleviate most of the privacy concerns IN SOFTWARE. The fix took 45 minutes and no additional hardware. It took THREE YEARS of continual complaints for that fix to finally be accepted. For amusement, I read the doublespeak over on the TSA blog from "Blogger Bob" and the rest of the crew as they attempt to justify all this BS and manage public concerns about the outrage du jour that they've typically brought down upon themselves. I have read Schneier's "Beyond Fear" and realize that many of the things being done to make us safer actually don't work but are done to give us the PERCEPTION of being safer. That seems a bit intolerable.
For my concerns, on for some on DU I instantly became:
1) A republican plant
2) A PAID republican plant
3) A useful idiot for the Tea Party
4) A useful idiot for the Koch Brothers
5) An Obama hater
Kind of like the names you're worried about. Number 5 actually kind of shocked me. I thought I was complaining about Bush-era policies that could be changed by the new (at the time) administration. But oh, no, apparently this was just as the honeymoon was ending and the poll numbers were not looking up so the opinion of some here was that I should just take a heaping bit of STFU for the team. "The art of the possible" I was told along with indications that I had some kind of personal problem for even feeling bad about needless radiation exposure or the "freedom gropes."
Look, just because the possession of the ball has changed doesn't mean that up became down. My values mean more than that.
Now I am not going to name names, but several of the posters on this very thread who are currently tut-tutting about all those nasty name-calling O haters were among the very people happy to fling little bon mots at me for having a non-approved opinion on an issue. Fine, I'm an apostate -- it actually has its positives you know. One of them is that your eyes become open to a lot of things around you that you'd kind of happily accept in better circumstances. It made me generally skeptical of any thread where these same people came down with their same kind of dissent smashing tactics -- after all I know what happened on the one issue where frankly I KNEW what I am talking about.
Now you personally, ProSense, seem to wear very very very thick rose colored glasses but you've generally refrained from some of the more childish name calling and so I can respect that even as I find flaws in some of your arguments. However, as you seem shocked that this name calling can occur I decided to take some time to explain it to you. The entire situation is unhealthy. In the end, I forced myself to take a break from DU for a couple months when I realized that I was not as upset with the President's behavior NEARLY as much as I was with his DU proponents. I'm back, but my core beliefs have not changed, and the same people are behaving in the same fashion so we'll see how long my new found sense of balance lasts.
So in the end, I hope you realize the moral: as you fight all these monsters you have to realize that sometimes you've created them. To end it, *everyone* has to change. Good luck with that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I just pointed where the paid troll came from. That one has a clear origin
In my view melding GD and GD-p was a mistake and led to full fledged intercine warfare.
Oh and I forgot, I am a proud indie. I went so far as to change my party affiliation a while ago.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)criticism for Obama in the almost three years that he has been in office. If anyone that perfect? No, I don't think so unless you are religious and believe that Jesus Christ was.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)You are the one that does it for free, don't expect a check now when they know they have you for nothing.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Some people do nothing but complain and some people do nothing but defend. I think both groups are sad and will never be happy with the other sides POV.
emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)I think we are talking about maybe 20 or 30 posters
Orrex
(63,199 posts)There is at least one other option, namely that some of the complaints about Obama are wrong.
Also, I take issue with one of your assumptions:
That is your preference; it is not a given. And even if we accept your preference as fact, it doesn't follow that Obama must necessarily enact liberal policies at all times.
pampango
(24,692 posts)It seems to me that DU'ers who tend to like Obama and what he has done think that DU is full of Obama-bashers who never have anything good to say about him. And those who tend to dislike Obama and what he has done think that it is full of Obama-worshipers who never have anything bad to say about him.
Your OP is good. You are right that a post that says "Obama is wrong not to veto indefinite detention" should not be met with "Obama has done 1000 liberal things, here is the list!!!" Of course, a post praising some action that Obama has undertaken should likewise not be met with "But Obama has done 1000 conservative things, here is the list!!!"
Whether a DU'er basically likes/trusts Obama or basically dislikes/distrusts him, it seems to be difficult for many to support (or at least ignore) threads that go against their overall opinion of Obama even if they agree with the particular opinion in an OP about something he has done.
indepat
(20,899 posts)likewise, I really dislike all conservative/RW things he has done, but nonetheless like him.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I noticed a significant change in DU long before we migrated to DU3. Two years ago, most any criticism of the President got a thread locked. That was not true last summer.
In my opinion, DU is healthier, and a better tool for leftists/progressives/liberals/Democrats than it was two years ago because of the increased tolerance for dissenting opinions.
I worked for BHO's election in 2008 and have been working for his re-election ever since. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't be critical of his actions when they run counter to what I think is best for Americans. This concept is called "constructive criticism". You've probably heard of it. I can categorically state that it is NOT a call to vote Republican, or to stay home.
I suspect many DU'ers, like me, have been critical of right-wingers for blind obedience to their party. I strongly feel that blind obedience is not healthy for our side either.
So pick your spots. If you're talking with your "undecided" cousin, emphasize good things that the President has accomplished. There are many from which to choose.
If you're here on DU, or otherwise working with leftists/progressives/liberals/Democrats, then be constructively critical.
Finally, remember that satire and cynicism are powerful tools. I try to use them not in a mean-spirited way, but to create emphasis and to elicit soul-searching. That doesn't mean I don't respect those with whom I disagree.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100240343#op
aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)to run a large and complex system of government that was doing, does, and will continue to do many things we don't agree with. We did so understanding that he would face a dedicated opposition that would attempt to thwart any change he would propose.
There have been a great number of things to complain about in government since the election of St. Ronbo of the Raygun, and probably a fair number before him.
I protested LBJ's actions in Vietnam, I protested Nixon for many of the same reasons. I did not protest Carter, but did complain about how ineffective he was dealing with congress. I protested Reagan and Bush repeatedly for a great many reasons. I complained about Clinton with NAFTA and welfare reform. There was no end to the objectionable things Bush* Jr. did....
We would be complaining about anyone who took this office for many of the same reasons. They are valid reasons, but it is helpful to consider context.
All in all, I really like this guy.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)little for any politician in the real world. The demanding crowd wants to hear the praise as they take it for their own, they can not bear righteous criticisms as they take it personally for no reason other than projection and delusion in terms of their relationship to the politician.
It is a huge mistake to make. They 'agree with all' meme clearly means the standard includes support for the politicians opposition to marriage equality. Thus, it is a demand that gay people either engage in silent self denial or that we simply are not their idea of what a Democrat is. To 'support' as they demand is to take up the case for McClurkin and Warren and Coburn and C-Street and troops on the ground in Uganda and of course 'Newt's Marriage is God Made Sanctity'.
Not my cup of tea.
Here we go again 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Black and white thinking doesn't get us anywhere.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Or some people are just working to sow uncertainty and doubt?
Sid
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Think about it honestly. The 'agree 100% or you are not a good Democrat' meme demands support of wrong headed dogma and faith based nonsense which I simply reject. Sanctity? Do you agree with the idea that some God 'Sanctifies' Newt and all Mrs Newts and at the same time looks and me or Rachel Maddow and says 'unworthy of Newt's rights'?
The rules of the Obama group, for example, mean one must agree with that or keep silent or one is not welcome. A sort of DADT rule. You can BE one, just don't express the aspirations of your community or you will be shown the door. Not sure that is how the rules seem to those who wrote them. Seems that way to those of us who are asked to closet or not participate. To make agreement with a religious dogma into a litmus test for who is and who is not a good Democrat is disgusting to me. I'm not religious. The dogma is made up to rationalize prejudices, that's it. I do not support religious dogma posing as political thought. "I'm a Christian, so I think marriage is for Newt!" that's not me.
I don't understand the theory of Sanctity at all. It seems that it works like this: Newt's dick gets sick of the old wife, so God instantly takes away her 'sanctity' and assigns it to the next woman Newt's dick wants to 'sanctify'. God is Newt's procurer, that seems to be the theory. More confusion arises around the women that are not chosen to marry Newt, just to engage in 'pretend Sanctity' in a car or hotel room. Does God issue temporary Sacramental status for those situations in the straight life?
I'm sorry, the whole 'God in the mix, we are superior to those other people' trip is to me, daft, irrational, and hugely bigoted. I take great issue with those who promote that stuff, and with those who run rationalizations for the promoters of religion and intolerance. The 'Rick Warren is just one prayer' crowd. The defenders, yes there is that word, of that which is wrong.
So sorry, the religious stuff I can not agree with, nor do I agree that Newt is Sanctified and I am not. I do not agree with the President on these things at all.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I stopped reading at "Bluenorthwest".
Sid
mmonk
(52,589 posts)to have reasonable discussions on some issues if the issue contains questions regarding the performance of the President.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)to criticize or to question is one thing, to take cheap shots at each and every opportunity is quite another.
Recently Obama gave a big speech about the economy, a big class-warfare type of speech. There was a thread discussing the speech and someone (one of those fans of the cheap shot a every turn posters) chimed in with the usual "Ooh, he gave a pretty speech" type of thing. No substance, no thoughts on the speech, nothing, just the cheap shot.
Well I thought I'd mock that post for the unimaginative, bot-like nonsense that it was and applied a "points" system, explaining why their bashing post scored low on the points scale. It was just a flippant piece of smart-assery directed at a thoughtless post.
I was shocked to see a reply the next day where the title said "I see questioning Obama doesn't go over well" but inside it admitted the post "questioning" Obama was a cheap shot but how dare I take one back!!1! And the poster informed me they were disappointed in me.
lolz
So yeah, there's criticism and questioning and then there's "criticism" and "questioning". One kind is useless, constant and never, ever leads to productive discussion and that's mostly what I ever see here.
Julie
madokie
(51,076 posts)and the pukes demanded a 61 vote margin in the senate so I can't see as how anyone can honestly complain about anything Obama has done, period. If you want to complain, complain about the pukes and we'll talk otherwise I don't want to hear it. The President is doing as good as could be expected by any rational logical person considering the shit he's having to put up with.
K8-EEE
(15,667 posts)It seems here that SOME people here get downright cranky whenever the President gets any credit for anything, or is considered better than the clowns in the current GOP 3 Ring Circus.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)True
Unless you think Obama is perfect and has been the perfect liberal.
A claim only ever made by his passionate detractors so they can "win" a point by knocking down a strawman of their own invention.
it seems many Obama defenders get so defensive about any complaint about Obama.
Any? Nope. Silly ones that he's just like Bush? That's not defensiveness believe me - it's pure unadulterated, and above all deserved scorn at the idiots who claim it.
"Obama is wrong not to veto indefinite detention" met with "Obama has done 1000 liberal things, here is the list!!!"??? The damn post is not about what Obama has done right, we all know he has done stuff right, it is discussing things he should have done that he didn't.
How many complaints about Obama are simple factual statements without hyperbole (the end of habeas corpus!) or flat out lies (Any American can be imprisoned at will forever!)? They are generally met with facts too. The post may be about what he has done wrong, but the few that get the response you caricature generally make it either explicit or very strongly implicit that he has done nothing else.
Obama should be liberal. Always. That is a given.
Not really. He campaigned - repeatedly and consistently - on being willing and eager to try a bipartisan approach and incorporate Republican input. I can't recall any campaign promise to always take the most liberal approach.
Why is complaining about him not being liberal at times met with "quit picking on Obama"? Sometimes he needs called out.
Yes he does, but not for everything he IS called out on at DU, not because he doesn't meet some unattainable and subjective ideal of always gaining or even seeking 100% success for the most left-leaning option.
Complaints about Obama are much more respectfully heard when they are factual, when they point out realistic alternatives he could have possibly taken (not silliness such as "he should remove every single soldier on foreign soil immediately!" ) and when they are not couched in emotionally charged vitriol.
My own musing is why so many of his detractors think DU is against them en masse when every single "Obama is a Republican fascist warmonger" thread gets triple digit recs and gleeful piling on "me too"s, and DU polls consistently show only 28-30% support for him here.
Tell me - what response should a post like "I'm glad Obama kept his promise and got all the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year" receive? What response IS the most normal? What does that tell you?
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)OBAMA IS INFALLIBLE!
signed,
Straw Man Obama Supporter.
(all in jest, of course)
dmallind
(10,437 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)emulatorloo
(44,109 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)I praise your perfect parsing pursuant to postings putting down the President.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No more and no less than...
"So is every credit to Obama wrong? Or some people just don't like to hear them?"
I think it's simply six of one and half a dozen of the other; we simply fixate much more on the one that validates our own presumptions, and minimize or deny those presumptions which do not.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Every President since at least Reagan (and I am sure way before that) has had a major wall street player, ex-goldman-sachs CEO's since Reagan) as a finacial advisor. They run the economy and the President.)
We are run bt a Russian style politburo. It is all for the wealthy. Sad but true. OWS (the majority of Americans too) has had enough. We must reclaim our government. All non-public money out of politics is the first step IMO.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)give him any credit for anything and this isn't just a recent event, but from day one or even just after the election. But yes, Obama isn't above fair criticsm and I think most of his supporters understand that and have at times found legitamite grounds to gripe about him as well.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Not perfect ... not above criticism ... also not a Secret Republican Corporatist Fascist.
CarrieLynne
(497 posts)I think the problem is after Bush, we didnt want or NEED a typical president...we needed a hero, and thus far he has not been a hero....looking back at clinton and carter they also did alot of good and alot of not so good....but after the tragedy that was the Bush Admin...we needed something as epic WIN as Bush was Epic fail...
I'm hoping that we can get a dem majority back and when obama doesnt have to worry about reelection anymore...shit will get done...
DWilliamsamh
(1,445 posts)As a reasonable person I agree with your assessment that there are things the President should be criticized for, despite the fact that he has indeed accomplished a lot for which he deserves praise. Personally I understand that he is far better on ALL things than McCain would have been, or practically anyone who could win the Republican nomination at this point in our history. There more things than I would have like that I disagree with him on, but I am realistic enough to understand that there is no one who will agree with my point of view 100% - outside of myself that is.
Personally I only "get defensive about Obama" when I hear people talking about primary challenges and such from the left. I am left of Obama on more than a few things, but I KNOW that the result of actually forcing him to run primaries against a more left leaning opponent would do nothing but guarantee his loss in the general next year. To a much lesser extent vociferous and nonstop harping on his failures to the exclusion of his successes will also harm is prospects in the general. None of that means I think he's perfect. None of that means I can't think of other liberals and Democrats who I think would be better on the Whole than the current President. But the reality of the electoral/political process is that if the incumbent President running for re-election is reelected - it is NEVER someone form his own party that is. I know that sounds obvious but essentially those who go on about primarying him, are positing a scenario where either a "better Democrat" or a liberal could get elected. That ain't going to happen. I don't care who you run against - it could be Al Gore Or Howard Dean - both of whom I think would make better Presidents than President Obama. The result would be an Republican victory. And if you don't like Obama - just wait till you get a load of the next Republican president.
But as a reasonable person I also strongly disagree with your assertion that the President "should be liberal. Always." That smacks of doctrinaire and a demand for some sort of ideological purity that just doesn't exist in the real world......not to mention it is obvious from reading just on DU that there are as many definitions of liberal as there are liberals, myself included.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Recently, a new DU member posted in the Barack Obama Group, and ask if they could join us. We said sure.
Within the thread welcoming this new member, this new member posted something that struck me. They said they came to Du because it sounded like a place to find other Obama supporters ... but that they had been surprised by the amount of vitriol focused on him at the site. Then, they found the BOG, and decided to stay.
Which makes me wonder ... how many other democrats come here looking for other democrats who support democrats, and then after a quick look around, decide not to stay specifically because of the level of animosity?
I don't know the answer to that question ... but if we've encountered one person who almost left, I'd bet there are plenty who came, saw the relentless criticism, and decided this is not a place they wanted to be.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)However I would offer something I heard once upon a time. "Politics is a contact sport; wear a cup."
And so is GD with GDP being gone.
I'm glad this person found the BOG and stayed.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)What is this notion "democrats supporting democrats" crap. I, for one, will support a Democrat who is a Democrat, not a DINO. When a person does the things Obama has done (support indefinite detention, support government immunity for warrantless wiretapping, continue renditioning, expanding Bagram), I know I can't support him. Sure, there are things he's done right:
finally ended Iraq (though I'm not sure that is as much him as the fact that Iraq would not sign a SOA)...either way, he was against the war from the start and was there when they came home;
signed Lilly Ledbetter;
made some tweaks to the health care system;
signed the repeal of DADT;
signed some major minor changes to the financial regulatory structure;
signed SCHIP; and
others.
However, many extremely important items he ran against or for he has not done or acts more conservative than W (those mentioned above among others...and, yes, the DAA DOES authorize indefinite detention of Americans...which is consistent with his position that he has the right to order the killing of an American citizen without trial).
If DU really is a place where someone who simply claims the "D" moniker gets "support," then it's not what I thought it was. It seems to me a "Democrat" is more about the principles than the moniker. Maybe I'm wrong.
krucial
(206 posts)You sir, are correct
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Let's say its 2008, and you leave in NC .... and running for Senate are Kay Hagen (D from blue dogville), and Liddy Dole (R from insaneistan).
Do you support and promote Kagen, yes or no?
Do you vote for Kagen, or so do you stay home?
Perhaps the new DU member I mentioned lives in a RED state. What course of action would YOU recommend to them if the only candidates available to them are insane right wing nuts jobs, or a blue dog?
If the PREDOMINATE take away for the potential new member is that DU is little more than a place where Obama and the rest of the Democrats get trashed endlessly, what then?
Finally, the Democratic Party is not homogeneous. And I would suggest to you that the goal of a site like DU is to not only discussion "Democratic Principles", but it is also to get Democrats elected.
In fact if you actually READ the Terms of Service on the site (link provided below) you will find that the SECOND item listed is "Vote for Democrats".
You might want to read it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)I would tell the person to find someone they agree with and vote for them. It's really that simple. As a person who grew up in a red state, I would vote for the best person, the person who adhered to Democratic principles. As for your premise that DU is a place where Democrats are trashed endlessly, that's just silly. If a "Democrat" can't stand up to Democratic Principles, then that person is not a Democrat. As for the terms of service, again, a Democrat is more than a name. Fred Phelps was a "Democrat." Lyndon LaRouche is a "Democrat." Would I ever, EVER support them simply because they are Democrats? Never. Would I ever support anyone simply because they are Democrats? Never. Would I support a person who preaches and lives Democratic principles? Always and with my time and treasure.
Here's my question: If Bernie Sanders ran against a blue dog, whom would you support?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)came from the Newbie ... did you miss that?
That was THEIR experience.
The "democrats" who you claim need to be able to "stand up to Democratic Principles" are not the people I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the perception of that Newbie regarding DU.
You keep making this about YOU ... I'm talking about that Newbie.
As for your question to me about who I would vote for ... Bernie or some one else ... I'll paraphrase you ... "I would vote for the best person, the person who adhered MOST CLOSELY to MY principles".
And again, at no time did I say ... "vote for anyone with a D after their name" ... that's a weak straw-man and you know it.
tblue
(16,350 posts)This isn't OFA and it won't ever be. Or the White House site. Those will always be very supportive of everything Obama does.
http://www.barackobama.com/news?source=primary-nav
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)This is from the DU Terms of Service ....
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.
So again ...seems like DU should be a good place for supporting Dems.
Here is the full TOS text ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
tblue
(16,350 posts)But the day you can get all Democrats on the same page is the day the earth stands still. Ya know?
IMHO, if a Democrat does not stand up for Democratic principles, I think he/she should be called out for that, here and anywhere else. If all that's required of a politician is a (D) by their name, then there is something seriously wrong. Again, that's MY HO.
And that's not 'depressing the vote.' That's promoting Democratic Democrats. Besides, we don't have that kind of power of suppression here. I wish we had power over who votes, but we don't.
I never read anyone here say 'Don't vote for (Democrat).'
No one here has signed a loyalty oath or taken a vow of silence. If you want everyone thrown out of DU who is not 100% on board with a certain perspective, I guess you can pursue that. No one's stopping you.
But for the Obama supporter looking for 100% agreement, he/she'd sooner find that OFA, like I said. It is very safe there for Obama followers and not at all for everyone else.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)1) If all that's required of a politician is a (D) by their name, then there is something seriously wrong.
I did not say that. And the TOS does not say that. Dead straw-man #1.
2) If you want everyone thrown out of DU who is not 100% on board with a certain perspective, I guess you can pursue that.
I said no such thing. Can you provide a quote of mine where I suggest that? Dead straw-man #2.
3)
But for the Obama supporter looking for 100% agreement, he/she'd sooner find that OFA ...
Did not suggest or imply 100% support was healthy or should be required on DU. Dead straw-man #3.
I do have to give you credit, 3 totally false straw-men in one relative short post is quite impressive.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Even if they're Democrats. Even if it upsets their followers. Even if it upsets those being held accountable.
krucial
(206 posts)This is true,many Democrats and so called Liberals dont want to hear anyhting bad,or any complaints about Obama,it is the same attitudue towards Israel.
Nothing bad,nor any complaints,must be lodged or said about Israel
This is totally ridiculous,if we are living in a democracy and if we are free and have a right to speak,then the truth must be told,and whoever is doing wrong must be called out on it.
Wehn we are not told the truth,we wind up in serious trouble and lots of problems.
if we knew the truth about Iraq and confronted the instigators of the war on Iraq,we would not be in half the problems we have today with so many lives lost and destroyed.
We must learn from our mistakes
NOLALady
(4,003 posts)The instigators were confronted. The protests were ignored.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Nonsense and hyperbole is what gets on my nerves. And we see an awful lot of it, cheered and rec'd by people who apparently appreciate that kind of thing.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)Democratic site spread Republican memes for them. I see enough of that everywhere else.
Yes, I know what's wrong with President Obama. I also know what's right with him. And he's my candidate in 2012. EOM.
NOLALady
(4,003 posts)There seems to be an effort to create Republican talking points on a Democratic site. SMH!
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)You can see it in your name. Logical. Just like your post. Logical.
I still haven't figured out the emoticon stuff for NuDu, so I don't have the big grin for pokin' fun face in here.
I agree with your assessment. He still has to do something to get my vote though. Forty years of straight Democratic ticket just to end up with an appeaser doesn't seem like my hours, money, and votes really matter much to the party any more.
S'okay. There are several down ticket races that can use my time, money, and votes. Never voted republican. Never will. But I'm tired of throwing away my vote in an ever rightward march. I feel nasty that my vote went to put some of these policies into effect.
If more Democrats (real ones) had called him out and held him to his campaign rhetoric, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are now. Sure the republicans are to blame. But so are pretend Democrats who support republican actions just because they come from a Democrat.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Does it matter to binary thinkers as to whether "Obama ... has been the perfect liberal"? Does it matter at all?
Isn't it appropriate to observe that AT LEAST SOME of the binary thinkers don't care whether Obama is a liberal or not? They're not even trying to recruit others to support Obama on the grounds that he is a liberal. Instead, the observeable fact is that they are more interested in squelching speech.
Binary thinking makes sense for Republican neocons. But for Democrats who truly value democratic values?
Can they be helped? Is it too late? Or can they be encouraged to walk towards the light?
Jim_Shorts
(371 posts)I think the see-no-evil Obama supporters underestimate how much of an extremely talented politician Obama is.
I would settle for an average public servant.
ooglymoogly
(9,502 posts)after reading the reply's to your post.
gateley
(62,683 posts)We don't seem to be able to do that very well.
And although I'd love it if Obama would "always be liberal", there's no "should". He represents every citizen in the country, not just liberals (although I admit, we're right about everything. 
)
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)What about white supremacists? Does he have to implement what they want because he "represents every citizen"?
No.
Being the president of the whole country does NOT mean carrying out the wishes of evil people.
gateley
(62,683 posts)
Of course he doesn't -- and he must NOT, but neither does it mean carrying out only OUR wishes, either. Even though, as I've said before, we really DO have it right.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Let's remember that 'our way' involves not killing people -- here or abroad -- for trumped-up reasons.
If our wishes are that corruption and needless war end or that the hungry be fed, then it's life-and-death to a lot of folks.
So either we're wrong ... or he damned well DOES have to carry out our wishes in order to fulfill his oath of office.
gateley
(62,683 posts)I don't like guns, but because I don't like them doesn't mean NOBODY should have access to them.
On the issues you cite, yes -- no wiggle room there. For so much, though, you have to give a little to get a little. That's real life -- in DC and everywhere.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)* Indefinite detention
* Extra-judicial killings (including US citizens)
* Continuing wars that were started on lies
No one should ever support those things under any circumstances ever.
Those things mark a bad person and a bad president.
Saying "yes but he's nice to his mother and likes dogs" or some such thing does not factor in.
gateley
(62,683 posts)we're the ones there making those decisions, we don't know all that enters into it. I think that Obama, pre-Prez, would have felt exactly as we do. I believe it's way more complicated and they have way more information (thank God) than we do.
But yes, from out here and on principle, I agree. And if I were President I might be able to follow these. But I honestly don't know.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)But if it ends with "So, I won't vote for him," you're out of line - because the alternative is unacceptable.
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)for example "Obama is wrong not to veto indefinite detention" leaves off the actual context of that part of the act: " of any person who is actively Al Quaeda or assisting Al Quaeda".
This posts and hundreds like it, imply as fact that the OWS can now be summarily rounded up and disappeared. Not even remotely the case. Then it segues into "Obama is anti OWS"
which is patently false. But there are those here who have agendas that do not fit this narrative. You had better believe it.
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)... defending EVERYTHING Obama does, regardless of topic. Blind faith is dangerous, pure and simple.
tblue
(16,350 posts)When you follow a person regardless of what he/she does, it's not even healthy.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)I like your screen name
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts) tblue
(16,350 posts)
I am about 90% where you are. Happy Holidays to you and yours. You put that beautifully and with much more tact than I could right now.
Response to Logical (Original post)
Post removed
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)But alot seem to be zombies here like North Korea...
It would not be American if we simply defended Obama on everything he did. Although I have on occasion jumped the gun or done a knee jerk and so has he.
Kinda like the miscarriage woman who was supposedly punched in the stomach by the anti OWS folks. I jumped on it as the first death and got a suitable retort from my old pastor. Which in the end.. she wasn't reliable. if she was even pregnant. course don't know what happened to that story.
I almost jumped the gun when the senate deal was announced with the stupid pipeline. fortunately Keith Olbermann and his guest showed things and Obama hasn't signed off on it yet. Although am surprised here's Johnny .... isn't biting. Never saw that coming. Seriously. Their stupid argument that is. Oh the tax cut isn't long enough. BS thats now what the real problem is and John knows it.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)"defensive" because legitimate complaints are often buried beneath a pile of half truths, old grudges, hyperbole, pretzel logic, and sometimes outright lies. it never stops. it started before the inauguration, and has gone on 24/7 for the past three years.
any positive thing is dismissed, and anything can be used to generate outrage. examples;
OBL killed : "this is awful because _____ , _____, and ______. his rights were violated"
DADT : "should have did it sooner\he really didn't want to do it"
Obama doesn't attack the republicans hard enough or say what i want to hear : "Use the bully pulpit!1!!"
Obama uses said bully pulpit, or says what people wantt o hear : "just a pretty speech!1!!!"
Iraq War ends : "he really wanted to keep it going forever" or "obama's scheming to invade iran"
random speech\press conference : "he's just like\worse than bush!!!!\ worst dem president in the history of the country"
and when people object to constant barage of bullshit we get gems like
"obama supporters are morally bankrupt and contemptible"
do you really think there's actually a *shortage* of criticism?
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)No.. he doesn't.
Obama could care less if you croak and die.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)I just don't like to hear that he started a War in Lybia and Jorden and Syria.. and Somalia...and Oman and is waiting on a war in in Iran...
The POTUS would never start all these wars to benefit the big oil companies.. would he?
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Republicans, not to stand in your incessant and hyperbolic senseless circular firing. Quit the pissing and moaning and count your blessings for a refreshing change. Would you rather have had McCain and Wolf Shooter Dumbass Nutball Lady? We've heard all the bitching about Obama. We don't need to keep hearing it. It will be Obama or Puke. That is it and that is all. He's passed the most progressive legislation since LBJ if not FDR. COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)We SHOULD be here to stop the dismantling of our constitution, our basic civil rights, and our economy.
The republicans need to be defeated in order to do that, but that's not nearly good enough.
If our country is ruined by "friends" instead of enemies, how will we be better off?
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)....but I'll be voting for him next November , no doubt about it.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)I feel exactly the same way.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I think a lot of DU is already in election mode and view any criticism as an outright attack.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)as a battlefield is the straw that broke my back in terms of supporting Barack Obama for a second term. It is so horrendous a sword of Damocles to hang over our collective heads, I cannot ignore it.
I have been arrested on trumped up trespas charges when doing cop watch loclly, and know from having unfair arrest happen to me reminds me that measures like this once passed always wind up becoming put into use.
I have donated to Barack Obama this year, and I like him on a personal level, but I cannot support him and be true to my strong principles and love for the U.S. Constitution and vote for a pro-active supporter of this nonsense.
I do Forest activism and that battle is going to get crispy hot this next year, and I can see this measure being used to send many of us into the exile of indefinite imprisonment and torture. This troubles me greatly.
I am profoundly sad and disappointed in President Obama's support and advocacy for this sort of unconstitutional measure. I am really stung by the foolish hubris people who support this measure allowing indefinite detention, and I am a laughing stock in thee eyes of some progressive friends locally for arguing to them to support barack Obama as the only reasonable leap of faith to make.
I am very angry, amd feel like a chump.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It allows me to not have to see posts from the handful of folks who rabidly defend Obama's every move, even when that move is clearly against progressive, liberal values. It saves me from losing my temper and keeps my blood pressure in line.
