US Presidential elections 2012

[eFestivals]

He still sanctions drone attacks all over north west Pakistan. Killed a few thousand since he took office. Most of them militants but they killed a civilian and 3 cows last week.

yep, he sanctions them. He probably even wrongly believes that most killed are militants just as you appear to, but that's probably the result of what he's told is happening on the other side of the world by the military guys with their own agendas.

Obama still sees America as the overlords of the world too which is the deepest conservative groove in America.

Yup. As I said above, he's a right-wing even within the Democratic Party. He only looked less of that because of the nutters he's been up against.

[zahidf]

oh, I know all that. But he gave up because of the stupidity of the USA public* rather than because he blanket-supports detention without trial as you suggested he did. The 'smart' politician is the one who doesn't take on battles he can't win**

(* the UK public would be no less stupid in the same circumstances).

(** that doesn't mean I approve of that 'smart' method btw)

[abdoujaparov]

oh, I know all that. But he gave up because of the stupidity of the USA public* rather than because he blanket-supports detention without trial as you suggested he did. The 'smart' politician is the one who doesn't take on battles he can't win**

(* the UK public would be no less stupid in the same circumstances).

(** that doesn't mean I approve of that 'smart' method btw)

Edited November 8, 2012 by abdoujaparov

[eFestivals]

Orwell would be proud of Obama...it's a classic case of doublethink. He apparently believes in closing Guantanamo and, at the same time, believes it is necessary to firmly cement in place indefinite detention without trial. Whether consciously or unconsciously, Obama supports indefinite detention without trial....

http://www.washingto...hqzO_story.html

As I keep trying to get thru to you, there's a difference between supporting something and recognising the political reality.

He could not release them if he wanted to, because of the stupidity of the American public combined with the stupidity of the media which led them there. GW has ensured they can't be put on trial in the USA. So what's he going to do?

He's at least created a formal structure to their detention, which for some at least means that they have a route of exit from Gitmo. The others will remain there because the USA can't find someone to take over responsibility for them (a meaningless exercise in reality, but one that gets the person who signs the release order off the hook for any comeback).

It's about real politics in the face of public stupidity.

That's not me trying to say that any of that is good or right, but it's a better situation for the gitmo detainees than existed before that, and it's not what you presented it as being (and why i responded).

[Wooderson]

Oh its still conservative of course.

[The Nal]

Incorrect.

[Wooderson]

How so?

[The Nal]

60% of voters described themselves as liberal or moderate.

[eFestivals]

60% of voters described themselves as liberal or moderate.

yeah, but my nutty neighbour who screams at other neighbours over the fence (to the extent that the police get called) is normally ranting "we are reasonable people, you're not. You are unreasonable for allowing your children to play in your garden on hot summer's day because they are making a noise".

The nutters rarely think they're nutters.

[Wooderson]

Popularly held belief is that the country is centre right, but 39% of voters identified themselves as "conservative" when asked during this election. I guess when someone is asked: "Do you identify yourself as conservative, liberal or moderate?" their interpretation of the meaning of each of these will colour the results.

It is a "soft" statistic alright, no question, but what other way could they determine this aspect of their society?

Voters in 4 states passing same-sex marraige in the US has gotta be signifier of some broader cultural shift.

[The Nal]

yeah, but my nutty neighbour who screams at other neighbours over the fence (to the extent that the police get called) is normally ranting "we are reasonable people, you're not. You are unreasonable for allowing your children to play in your garden on hot summer's day because they are making a noise".

The nutters rarely think they're nutters.

[abdoujaparov]

As I keep trying to get thru to you, there's a difference between supporting something and recognising the political reality.

He could not release them if he wanted to, because of the stupidity of the American public combined with the stupidity of the media which led them there. GW has ensured they can't be put on trial in the USA. So what's he going to do?

He's at least created a formal structure to their detention, which for some at least means that they have a route of exit from Gitmo. The others will remain there because the USA can't find someone to take over responsibility for them (a meaningless exercise in reality, but one that gets the person who signs the release order off the hook for any comeback).

It's about real politics in the face of public stupidity.

That's not me trying to say that any of that is good or right, but it's a better situation for the gitmo detainees than existed before that, and it's not what you presented it as being (and why i responded).

[eFestivals]

Voters in 4 states passing same-sex marraige in the US has gotta be signifier of some broader cultural shift.

well, its got to be better than none at all, but it is just 4 states.

While I know they weren't all having votes (so that 4 doesn't mean too much), it's also not hard to know how the vote would go in some particular states.

But overall it's probably the case that a majority within the country have been in favour of it for a long time (that's certainly been the case in the UK) , but the nutters always shout loud, and once you mix religion in they can start throwing around "godless", "satan's helper" and other such niceties to try and undermine any reasonable debate with a democratic outcome. It's not rally much different in style to that guy on Fox news trying to suggest that all the non-whites who didn't vote republican only did so because they think they'll get 'stuff' because of it - it's designed to stop a fair outcome, not reach one.

[eFestivals]

I understand exactly what you're saying, but I interpret it in a different way. If Obama didnt tacitly, at least, support detention without trial he would have done more to see through his commitment to close Guantanamo. Rather than continue to pursue that aim, he has taken steps which will almost certainly mean that detainees at Guantanamo are kept there with no wait out possibly for the rest of their lives.

Whether he believes wholeheartedly in indefinite detention without trial, or simply accepts that the poilitics mean he cannot end it, the outcome is no different....

that's all very well, but there's a big difference between saying you'll shut down gitmo and the reality of being able to do it. Because of what Bush did, the only legal option is to set them all free immediately.

And no matter how much Obama might see that as the right outcome (tho I know he y doesn't), he can also see that would be completely unacceptable to the american public.

As a democrat, is the right option once voted into office to use that power how you decide, or is it right to use it as 'the people' might want you to use it? That's the political dilemma. How that politician arrives at his answer is, amongst other things, dependent on a country's politics.

Obama had promised to shut it down, but he'd also promised to put them on trial. But he can't put them on trial, so he can't shut it down - that's what's Bush left him with. The only way out of it is to create new legal options, but the sorts of options it would need are again politically unacceptable in the short term ... so he's created a step towards that, which makes that later smaller step a lesser political challenge.

I strongly suspect that before his next four years are up, the legal solution to the shutdown will be in place, even if the shutdown itself hasn't happened by that point.

[AcademicPistol]

Did anyone see this? >

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/nov/08/nate-sliver-predict-us-election

[abdoujaparov]

that's all very well, but there's a big difference between saying you'll shut down gitmo and the reality of being able to do it. Because of what Bush did, the only legal option is to set them all free immediately.

And no matter how much Obama might see that as the right outcome (tho I know he y doesn't), he can also see that would be completely unacceptable to the american public.

As a democrat, is the right option once voted into office to use that power how you decide, or is it right to use it as 'the people' might want you to use it? That's the political dilemma. How that politician arrives at his answer is, amongst other things, dependent on a country's politics.

Obama had promised to shut it down, but he'd also promised to put them on trial. But he can't put them on trial, so he can't shut it down - that's what's Bush left him with. The only way out of it is to create new legal options, but the sorts of options it would need are again politically unacceptable in the short term ... so he's created a step towards that, which makes that later smaller step a lesser political challenge.

I strongly suspect that before his next four years are up, the legal solution to the shutdown will be in place, even if the shutdown itself hasn't happened by that point.

[eFestivals]

The fact is that you either object to something, on principle, and do everything you can to get rid of it. Or you dont act on your principles, for whatever reason, and you tolerate it. Or there's a third approach, which Obama has taken, which is to accept that it will stay in place and (as the second Washington Post article I linked to makes clear) put in place legal arrangements which recognise the fact that it is a permanent feature of the landscape.

It doesn't much matter what Obama's principles might say, he can't just abolish it. 'The people' just wouldn't have it.

So it needs another legal framework that allows it to be dismantled. And what Obama has done puts in place legal arrangements that *allows* it to be a permanent feature, but doesn't state that it definitely is. That addresses the public's concern, while also creating an happy-medium exit route for the detainees that the public will accept. Once there's no detainees, then gitmo doesn't need to exist.

It would be great if the world could operate by high-minded principles, but if it did we wouldn't be having this convo. My principles are in about the same place as you're saying, but I'm putting those aside and recognising the political reality - which is what Obama has had to do (and is very standard within politics). While principles are great, in the real world things get done by playing the game that reality dictates.

I'm a long way from crediting Obama as perfect, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one for 4 more years. Where the major fuck-up will come will be him not being around to dismantle the framework he's had to create (and history is full of similar things).

[abdoujaparov]

It doesn't much matter what Obama's principles might say, he can't just abolish it. 'The people' just wouldn't have it.

So it needs another legal framework that allows it to be dismantled. And what Obama has done puts in place legal arrangements that *allows* it to be a permanent feature, but doesn't state that it definitely is. That addresses the public's concern, while also creating an happy-medium exit route for the detainees that the public will accept. Once there's no detainees, then gitmo doesn't need to exist.

It would be great if the world could operate by high-minded principles, but if it did we wouldn't be having this convo. My principles are in about the same place as you're saying, but I'm putting those aside and recognising the political reality - which is what Obama has had to do (and is very standard within politics). While principles are great, in the real world things get done by playing the game that reality dictates.

I'm a long way from crediting Obama as perfect, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one for 4 more years. Where the major fuck-up will come will be him not being around to dismantle the framework he's had to create (and history is full of similar things).

[zahidf]

Look: Obama is probably the best president they've had for god knows how long. He seems more principled than Bill Clinton for example.

[eFestivals]

It's irrelevant, because neither of us is a US citizen and neither of us has a say, but you are clearly more forgiving than me

nah. It's the yanks. Same shit, different day.

I didn't have high expectations in the first place, hence me not being surprised when it didn't happen immediately. So i had little to forgive.

The fact is that Obama has changed the status of gitmo and the detainees from unresolvable to close-able. It's a step in the right direction towards closing gitmo, even if there's potential consequences elsewhere off the back of what has had to be done (like most politicians towards the unintended consequences of a new law, he probably takes the view that it'll never happen ).

And like it or not, to the average yank gitmo is all about the still highly emotional subject of 9/11. That's something which is going to take time and slow steps to get around. The problem is ultimately the people, and not Obama.

You get politics from politicians, not principles.

[eFestivals]

Look: Obama is probably the best president they've had for god knows how long. He seems more principled than Bill Clinton for example.

nah, it's "just politics" with both of them. They're no more or less principled than the average intelligent/educated person, but principles don't get things done in politics.

Gawd, that sounds very Blair of me.

That's not what i'd do, but it is what I expect of politicians.

[The Nal]

Look: Obama is probably the best president they've had for god knows how long. He seems more principled than Bill Clinton for example.

[Uncle Liam]

Tut!

Time for some proper electoral analysis

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/what-the-unthinkable-means?fb_action_ids=10151201033310896&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151201033310896%22%3A286287854823753%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151201033310896%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

[zahidf]

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/Ted_Nugent_said_hed_be_dead_or_in_jail_if_Obama_won_So_whats_it_gonna_b

Ha ha ha ha

[zahidf]

whatever Obamacare is, it's a broad idea that just about every President of either side has championed over decades, but not been able to make happen for various political reasons.

What makes it such a big success is Obama having been able to get it thru at a time of greatest resistance from Republicans ... but come the next election it won't be a political issue at all. The argument has been won and the idea will be entrenched by then.