To all the Dems out there who are sick of President Obama, I think I get it.

[Zalatix]

You're not interested in voting for him because of the NDAA (in which the indefinite detention section has been thrown out by a Federal judge, mind you ), the use of combat drones, and the ever-expanding use of extrajudicial summary executions on pesky brown people who aren't US citizens (wait, no, two of them were, in fact).

You cannot in good conscience vote for a President that so thoroughly violates your principles. You refuse to compromise what you feel is an open and shut case of right vs wrong. I for one do not see 'purist' to be an insult here.

Well, I am sure that many have spoken their pragmatist approach to this, so I'll keep it short: I'm voting for President Obama to prevent even WORSE abominations of civil liberties and further violations of the global cause of human rights, from happening. Mitt Robme is going to have a far larger list of people to subject to summary executions, and I won't vote third party just because I don't want to split the anti-Robme vote.

Grant you, I totally admire your moral consistency. It hurts me to have to take the pragmatist route, even if it would hurt worse to see Robme win and the world go totally to shit with no way of getting back out. At least Obama is going downhill with the foot on the brakes; you may not think he is, at least until you're in Robme's car and he's got his foot burying the accelerator through the floorboard. You will know, under his regime, what "Full Scream Ahead" really means.

I know it's hard for you to do this, but can we all please just support President Obama for now and come back to this in 2016? Then all the pragmatists and purists alike can for once agree: we will ALL fight during the Primary for a liberal candidate that will, among other things, repeal the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA (unless the Supreme Court does), and scale back or put an end to summary executions.

Meanwhile, right now, we can all pledge to fight together, pragmatists and purists, to elect liberal Democrats at the local and statewide level.

I know it won't be easy pushing this message here, considering that a number of purists have been attacked, and a few have had their posts hidden, and some perhaps even PPR'd, because of the maddeningly crazy situation where purism would put you at TOS-level odds with Obama'12. It's maddening because I know you're loyal liberal Democrats who are standing by your beliefs and to stand by your principles is to elect Robme by default. I am not sure if all of my fellow pragmatists understand the pain of compromising your principles to prevent an abomination from entering the White House. (I'm sure some of you understand, but not all.) There's going to be some very bad blood between the purists and pragmatists and I don't know how we can heal that. And asking the purists to go pragmatist for 2012 is an outright slap to their face, I know this.

Somewhere the Devil (or the god of Capitalism, or whatever is the devil in your belief system) is laughing at this incredibly masterful act of divisiveness.

If I were the owner I would outright abolish the post-hiding and PPR'ing of purists, in favor of a case-by-case compromise. Hell, I'm already compromising my views to vote for Obama in 2012 to prevent Robme from winning; might as well compromise on that, too.

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. RT: Congress still okay with indefinite detention and torture of Americans

Even after a federal court deemed the NDAA unconstitutional, the US House of Representatives refused to exclude indefinite detention provisions from the infamous defense spending bill during a vote on Friday.

http://rt.com/usa/news/detention-amendment-ndaa-rep-599/

[Zalatix]

5. That's why we need to elect liberals to Congress.

Every time a Congresscritter retires or is forced to retire by term limits, we need to have already groomed a new Bernie Sanders to replace them.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. That's why the masses of this country need to stand up and scream "NO!"

because that's best and fastest way for change to occur.

20,000 marching this weekend in Mexico. 40,000 in Frankfurt Germany. Russia are marching.

Where are the American marchers demanding positive change? You get what you march for (or not).

Also, your reply minimizes Obama's part in signing the NDAA. Are you saying we should elect Dems who won't do that sort of thing to the Presidency?

[Zalatix]

10. I would make opposition to indefinite detention one of the 2016 litmus tests.

Also, we had big marches on May Day (May 1) this year, in America. I participated, but my group was pretty small.

The problem is when the masses scream "NO!" the police gangs get out their billy clubs. It may well be that we need another Tunisia or Libya to get control back in the hands of the people.

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. They're planning on flying drones NOW. They're using HR347 in Chicago NOW.

Protesting is patriotic. Use it while it's still possible. The arc of this negative trend is far, far faster than 2016.

And you've not answered my Obama question. That's okay, I'm done making my point.

[SidDithers]

13. Are you saying Obama shouldn't be re-elected?...nt

Sid

[Zalatix]

15. No I didn't say that. Not just no, but hell no.

I am saying the pragmatists and purists need to join forces in 2016 to elect truly liberal candidates - not just another Obama, who is quite damned good, mind you, but also a strong Congressional supporting cast.

[SidDithers]

16. Question wasn't to you...nt

Sid

[bbgrunt]

20. except, as Hedges said, even Sanders voted for it.

[SidDithers]

8. RT. LOL...nt

Sid

[sad sally]

2. The government has 60 days to appeal the decision, so the cheering is a bit early. Also,

Indefinite detention stopped? Not so fast:

snip

For now, more than 6 billion citizens of foreign nations can still be handcuffed and hauled away to a military prison without ever being brought to trial. This week’s decision may protect Americans from that provision, but unfortunately does nothing to spare both foreign reporters and civilians from a life of imprisonment.

The judge’s ruling comes, coincidentally, at the same time that the US House Armed Services Committee has passed next year’s National Defense Authorization Act. Congress is expected to begin voting on amendments for next year’s NDAA as early as this this week, but during Wednesday’s opening debates it was revealed that indefinite detention is already included once again in the bill.

http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-indefinite-detention-judge-500/

[Zalatix]

11. Well said... liberty is a global thing, not just an American thing.

[randome]

3. Unless the candidate is purer than Jesus -supposedly- was...

...it is always a compromise.

But kudos for your post anyways.

[great white snark]

4. The what now? Having read your posts I think you "got it" a long time ago.

Glad you're voting for Obama though.

[Zalatix]

9. What now? I don't know, really.

I am not sure how I alone can change the rules of the DU to be more tolerant of purists. I know what the trap is. If we're more tolerant, we get a bunch of "DOWN WITH OBAMA!!!" divisiveness.

We need to find a way to work together. Call this a cry for help. It's a cry because we'll never hammer the final nail in the Plutocracy's coffin if we keep getting so easily divided like this; and time is fast running out for our opportunity to do so.

[Dragonfli]

25. I appreciate your position, most of us "purists" (that is a rather poor term to use by the way)

Are well aware of the bad place we are in, our response (I can not speak for everyone, but by many separate admissions) is that we will vote for the lesser of two evils.

Manny spoke well for my position and perhaps others labeled incorrectly as purists, (the correct term is Democrats that follow Democratic ideas rather than 90's Republican ones, or adopted Bush war crime ones).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=699596

We have been voting for them for years now but are beginning to realize that they will go further right, further evil, every year because they know we will vote for them anyway and there is campaign cash in doing the wrong thing.

At what point must they earn the votes of Democrats by being Democrats? That is what we want to know now.
It was easier before when it was only about our politicians adopting GOP money policies (Friedman/Chicago school), that was hold your nose time and the harm to the poor began to hurt, now it has gotten to the point where Democrats directly harm us in ways that only Republicans once did and we are supposed to support it.

When Torture, detention without any rights at all, taking from the elderly and giving to the rich (Simpson/Bowles) becomes our platform, the lesser evil becomes a vote to actively harm others with a not so lesser evil.

It will soon be time to stop being a part and party to hurting people.
It will soon be time to revolt against the lot of them that would harm the non-rich citizens or outright kill them if they are brown.

If they don't stop moving so far right, they will only appeal to righties, how soon that happens depends on the inflation of the dime that is the difference.

We want what they campaign on, we want what they promise and put into the platform, we do not want Republican laws passed by "New Democrats".

You realize this will be the last cycle of faith without works before we will expect our votes to be earned, at least for those that do not believe in Republican ideas.

Some "Democrats" have come from the Republican party purges and they like this new direction, those will be the votes that they can count on in future. The policy they put forth will attract such Republicans and turn away Democrats, perhaps that is the long term plan, I simply don't know anymore.

[Zalatix]

26. Yes, it's the Rightward creep that bugs me deep down.

One thing in that thread that catches my attention is that FDR himself was accused of not being a good liberal.

IIRC, FDR did what he did because he was afraid of a Socialist/Communist rebellion within the United States.

We need to really crack down on this in 2016. Start bouncing Rightward-shifting Democrats out of the game BEFORE they become official candidates. Let's start culling beforehand, not after they get in office.

Cull rigorously.

[Dragonfli]

29. You are what old guys like me used to call reasonable pragmatists.

It has been so long since I have seen one that I had nearly forgotten they ever existed, lately your position has been represented by jingoistic loyalty oath takers that think insulting paleo-Democrats will somehow gain their enthusiasm.

You are helping me to remember a saner time, I will call your POV paleo-pragmatist and mine paleo-Democratic, we are on the same team and always have been, some of these newer to the party nasty types are ruining the reputation of those that have a valid point about pulling the cats together upon occasion while trying to influence our party toward policies indicative of good governance.

Thank you for not being fully extinct.

We could use an influx of communists to influence the party as they once did, FDR saved capitalism by finding an effective mixture of socialism and capitalism, the reason we like to bring up FDR is that our party has forgotten that such a compromise is required for a country to do well without falling into a gilded age ending in revolution or a brutal police state.

[cthulu2016]

6. Maybe I'm naive, but

I always assume that people speaking negatively of Obama from the left are planning to vote for Obama. And of those who are not, I doubt they are persuadable.

To me, the line is that one should never compromise what she believes to rationalize her own vote.

Vote for Obama (the best thing to do, IMO) but say whatever you think is true in specific, whatever it is, without worrying what someone else will make of it.

Some folks might feel that voting in a way not fully consistent with their principles somehow diminishes those principles. I don't see it that way. Voting is a practical act, not an expressive act. As expression it would be like, "Express who you are and the world as you understand it...in 25 words or less...without using the letter E."

So the only meaning to voting is the practical effect of your anonymous vote being in one column or another the next day.

Voting is an action within practical constraints. The two things need not always be aligned. Policy analysis or political analysis or moral analysis or self expression is whatever you make of it. I prefer not constraining thought and expression.

That said, if I had something to say that I sincerely believed would, in the real world, cause people to not vote for Obama I would probably not broadcast it. But I don't think I have any possible utterances that would, even though I am often critical.

[lib2DaBone]

14. Voting for the Lesser or two evils is no longer working..

Obama brought in Repuke heavy-hitters Alan Simpson and Pete Peterson to destroy Soc Security.... why would he do this?

And I know Arrest and Detention of Americians via NDAA is nothing more than the fact that I didn't get my pony.. (yes.. this is snark) but c'mon... Obama has dealt the DEMS a body blow that we may not recover from.

When we needed a leader.. we got "the wolf" in sheep's clothing...

What to do?.. I dont have a clue... wish I had an answer.

[randome]

17. "...to destroy Social Security..." ?

This is why these kind of posts are viewed with suspicion. It's not enough to protest an action, you want to portray Obama as an evil warlord of some sort.

[Zalatix]

19. Good question. I wouldn't call Pres. Obama a "wolf in sheep's clothing"

but I would say Simpson and Peterson are certainly downright anti-American wolves.

[kenny blankenship]

18. "indefinite detention section has been thrown out by a Federal judge"

Don't kid yourself that that's the end of it.

[Zalatix]

21. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[NoPasaran]

22. There are NO Democrats sick of President Obama

Only crackpots, trolls, and fifth columnists.

[Dragonfli]

28. Is that so? Every Democrat agrees with NDAA? Chicago school of economics?

Ignoring the rule of law? Simpson/Bowles? Busting Pot grannies?

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

[FarLeftFist]

23. And let me add that the weight of Liberalism and Progressivism rests on Obama's shoulders.

If he fails not only will it deal a huge blow to Lib/Progressivism but it will be decades until another one is nominated.

[marmar]

27. "will be decades until another one is nominated."

A mainstream centrist Democrat? ...... I support President Obama but I'm under no illusion that he's been a liberal/progressive, at least not how I define one, as president.

[FarLeftFist]

30. Yeah but everyone else IS under that illusion. So if he fails we'll have nothing but centrists for

decades. Obama is currently who the mainstream public see's as defining Liberalism.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

24. The rule of law is the result of compromise.

The Democrats who want to the rule of law to be applied are not rejecting of the concept of compromise. And they are not from the far left, nor are they "purists."

It is not a far-left (or "purist&quot position to believe that the rule of law should be followed instead of
giving defacto immunity to admitted war criminals,
giving billions in bail-outs (with taxpayer funded bonuses) to banksters,
giving more profits to war profiteers with endless wars.

So now we are down to the choice between Rmoney and President Obama. The rule of law is crumbling underneath us, our system of civilization is crumbling, and - to add insult to injury - we are not told by some that we are not pragmatic enough.