You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 04:55:06 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?  (Read 3101 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline errantwanderingTopic starter

  • Patron Saint of Vagabonds, Ne'er Do Wells, Insufferable Bastards
  • Suspended
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Location: Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Male
  • Wandering wind swept streets where black rain runs
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« on: September 28, 2012, 05:27:10 AM »
Over the past few years popping in and out of E when I was somewhere with an internet connection, I've really come to respect that while I almost never agree with most of the members that post on the politics board, I can always expect to find a well thought out, well researched rebuttal to my own views.  I've really learned a lot by occasionally lurking, occasionally popping in and butting heads.  Because of this, E was the first thing I thought of after reading this article....there is no such thing as an unbiased set of eyes, but I'd really like to get the take of a few supporters of President Obama on the issues raised by the author.  It's a much more eloquent statement of something I've been trying, and failing, to wrap my head around for quite some time, because while I'd expect this kind of thing from the more rapid of the right wing, the left wing is supposed to be better on human rights, better on the proper use of force.

Anyway, here's the article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/.  Thanks in advance for sharing your point of view with me, I'd really like to understand better. 

Offline Serephino

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2012, 12:55:53 PM »
Admittedly, I only skimmed it, but...

One of the major things was torture.  Yes, that's bad, but do you honestly think President Bush did better?  You just never heard about it.  That whole torture prison scandal, the people involved said they were doing it on orders from higher up.  While the military denied it, I don't doubt it, because see, I don't wear rose colored glasses when it comes to war.  There are thousands of Vietnam Vets with permanent psychological scars because of things they had to do.  My ex-Marine friend believes it too.  He won't say why, just that apparently soldiers have gotten a lot dumber....

Also, read the rest of the threads here.  It isn't about just one issue.  Yes, that one issue wasn't this country's proudest day...  Of course, it wouldn't be an issue had President Bush not been so trigger happy....  Also, we the public don't know about any backroom deals that may have happened.  My Civics teacher was very blunt with us about how politics works.  The Bush administration supported torture, the GOP is just hoping we forget about that.  Maybe they told him if he signed it they'd support something he really wanted.  That sort of thing isn't advertised.  Also, in order for him to sign it, the bill had to be passed by both houses.  It amazes me how people can jump all over the President for signing something, but place no blame on the Congress people that voted for it in the first place.  Of course, there could also be some kind of secret information that led him to believe something was necessary.

No, I'm not saying he's perfect.  It's just, well, it's never smart to judge without all the facts, which we the public aren't allowed to have.  It's difficult to say, however, when voting for the President, one must look at the bigger picture.  Read all the other threads here.  Romney imposed mandatory health care in Massachusetts, and is now blasting President Obama for the very same thing.  He wants to cut spending, which sounds good in theory, but we have the same problem as we did two years ago.  He won't say what he wants to cut, and no one is bothering to ask.  So far it's been cuts to welfare and education. 

The man is pro-business.  The government cannot be run like a business because the main concern of a business is the bottom line, and not what's best for all the people involved.  He said in that taped speech that if you do not pay income tax you are a self-entitled leech, and he isn't going to bother wasting campaign funds on you because there is no way to convince you that the only way to stop being poor is to stop being so lazy.  That in of itself proves that he doesn't have a clue...

He thinks the only free health care we should be entitled to is the ER.  It's been discussed in many threads on here why that's a really bad idea.  And of course, there is the YouTube video of him saying in 2008 that we shouldn't even be entitled to care in the ER because that inflates health costs (well duh).  So, what is a poor and sick person to do?  According to Romney, get off their lazy asses and work a little harder while sick until they can afford sky high private insurance, that's what.

He wants to give even more tax breaks to the wealthy.  Yeah, because that worked so well...  See, that is what we call trickle down economics.  If we make the top rich enough, crumbs will fall off the table for the rest of us.  It sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work so well when the fat cats are trying to keep all the crumbs for themselves.  It's a technique that can work if implemented properly, it's just that for one, you have to keep a little input trickle going to multiple levels, not just the top, and the top can't be too greedy. 

Another thing he and the right wing want to do is make abortion illegal.  They don't even want to allow it in cases where the mother's life is in danger.  Romney may have said in a few speeches that he would allow it, but you can't take his word, and other GOP candidates that want to write and vote on laws are against it.  My personal morals are against abortion (with reasonable exception), however, there are some things the government just has no business legislating, but they have been...

Mitt Romney has proven he's going to do what's best for him and his wealthy backers.  His wording changes depending on who he's talking to, so he's obviously just trying to make everything sound pretty.  The long and the short of it is with him we will get a Tea Party run government that impose good Christian morals on us all while kissing rich people ass.  When it comes down to what's better for the little people vs. what's better for billionaires, the billionaires are going to win every time with Romney in the White House.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2012, 01:12:44 PM »
Let's see.. Torture. That started under Bush.. convient how folks forget it and it HAS been dialed back.

Drone Strikes. A LOT of folks forget that the Rules of Engagment (RoE) and practice of drone strikes started under Bush also.. and given the 'we got to keep our boy home' and 'We can't trust anyone over there' outlooks how would the writer of that post PROPOSE we handle things?

Me? I would like more oversight and the RoEs being expanded and the actual operation turned over to the DoD rather than the CIA. I dislike the idea of an INTELLIGENCE gathering arm having strike capacity.. always have. Mostly because of the lack of accountability that goes with adding something like that to their balliwack.

I have some major heartburn about the Presidents escapes into Imperial Presidential practices.. but then every President since Carter left has expanded that one.

Looking at Romney.. I see a man who is a bellwether.. he literally will fly the course he thinks gets him into office. He's a man who created a company whose sole purpose was to by and sell for the making of profit for THEM no matter the economic cost to EVERYONE else. I have serious doubts about the firewall between him and his blind trust. I know he wasn't in charge of Bain during it's worst years but he was and still is a major shareholder.

Mitt Romney is a man looking out for himself. If he could have done it by supporting gay marriage and abortion (whcih he has shuffled position on DOZENS of times in the last decade) and being the successor to Teddy Kennedy in Mass.. he would have.  He is loyal to himself and to those who back him.

Otherwise, you're a non-entity to him.

As for Johnson.. I'm sorry.. voting on principal isn't going to work anymore.. the guy has a better chance of getting hit by skylab than getting more than 2% of the vote.

Offline Valerian

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2012, 02:04:49 PM »
As I mentioned in another thread, I'm sort of okay with people voting for Johnson, even though they are throwing away their votes.  He's a bit less radical than Romney, so he'll get votes mainly from those slightly more moderate Republicans who are unwilling to risk voting Romney in as president, but who still don't want Obama to have another term.  Anything that will split the Republican vote.  If Romney loses by a large enough margin, maybe, just maybe, some of the more far-out right-wing factions will actually start dialing it back a little.  Maybe.  Of course, then we may have a flood of Gary Johnson wanna-bes to deal with, but who knows.  :P

But I agree that it's well-written, looking past the hyperbole and doubtful facts.  He presents his views in organized fashion, admits that even the people he's ranting against have their good points, and never seems to be frothing at the mouth like radicals on both sides will.  He isn't neutral, of course, any more than any other columnist.  He has a very specific agenda and knows how to promote it, and part of how he does that is through his apparently neutral attitude (with the occasional dramatic, accusing sentence to keep interest up), that makes people want to keep reading.  By the time he gets to the guilt trip at the end, he hopes that you've decided he's trustworthy and will accept his views without question.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2012, 02:23:41 PM »
Looking at Romney.. I see a man who is a bellwether.. he literally will fly the course he thinks gets him into office. He's a man who created a company whose sole purpose was to by and sell for the making of profit for THEM no matter the economic cost to EVERYONE else. I have serious doubts about the firewall between him and his blind trust. I know he wasn't in charge of Bain during it's worst years but he was and still is a major shareholder.

Do you really think he's influencing the trends and leading the 'flock' - or is he actually the one being led?  I think he's reading the vocal (and profitable) constituents and catering to them, rather than forging anything himself.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2012, 02:28:53 PM »
Do you really think he's influencing the trends and leading the 'flock' - or is he actually the one being led?  I think he's reading the vocal (and profitable) constituents and catering to them, rather than forging anything himself.

He follows whoever seems to have the largest portion of the GOP pack.. did I get the term wrong? (Bellweather I mean)..he has sold his intergrity many times over to get to where he is now. To the point that some of the local conservatives don't like him..

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2012, 02:41:14 PM »
He follows whoever seems to have the largest portion of the GOP pack.. did I get the term wrong? (Bellweather I mean)..

It was unusual enough for me to look up, and the definition at first glance seems to be that a bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings.  That, or it's a castrated male sheep that leads the flock (Middle English).

It seems to be used more passively in politics than in sociology, now that I look closer - Missouri was known as a 'bellwether state' for a while, because the Missouri vote closely paralleled the national outcome of elections.  Nevada, Ohio, and Guam (who knew?) currently have a slightly better record.

I suppose it could just as easily apply to someone who is highly visible that moves with the trends (under the 'presage future happenings' bit).

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2012, 02:47:45 PM »
It was unusual enough for me to look up, and the definition at first glance seems to be that a bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings.  That, or it's a castrated male sheep that leads the flock (Middle English).

It seems to be used more passively in politics than in sociology, now that I look closer - Missouri was known as a 'bellwether state' for a while, because the Missouri vote closely paralleled the national outcome of elections.  Nevada, Ohio, and Guam (who knew?) currently have a slightly better record.

I suppose it could just as easily apply to someone who is highly visible that moves with the trends (under the 'presage future happenings' bit).

Oh.. so I did get it wrong.. hmm.. must have gotten it mixed up with another term..that will bug me ALL day.

He and his VP are the same..they follow the polls within the party to get their position. Personal values aren't too big on men like them who live by the Polling data...

Offline Stattick

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2012, 03:40:59 PM »
I've heard the argument before. It's a nonstarter. The vast majority and the mainstream stance of the Republican party is just as bad if not worse for personal liberty as the president's. Romney is very much trying to stick to the mainstream values of his party, that is when he isn't flipflopping like a fish on dry land. He dances his pathetic dance, first left of the GOP plank, then right, doing a political hokie pokie dance to try to trick more people into voting for him, and making himself to look the fool.

So, if we elect Romney, we have to ask which Romney we'll get in the White House. Are we going to get the Romney that's a GOP lackey, that does exactly what they ask of him? If so, he'll ruin this country, and plunge the world into the economic depression that Obama's been trying to avoid since he was elected. It'll be the sort of depression where starving people in the US and Europe will be standing in lines for hours on end to get a loaf of bread. The sort of depression that led up to WWII, just a generation after a war that was so horrific, that it was said in it's time to be the war that would end all wars.

Maybe we'll get the Romney like the one that governed Massachusetts, a weak willed and passive leader that spent more time out golfing and fucking off than actually leading. A leader who sometimes went with a somewhat more mainstream policy than his party would dictate, but still managed to ruin the state's economy with his "pro-business" policies. He's just as likely to ruin the nation's and world's economies and to lead to a second Great Depression as the first Romney.

We know what the Republican's platform is. Quite simply, it's wrong on every single plank. They're for cutting taxes to the rich and raising taxes to the middle class. They're for eliminating the FDA. They're anti-women's health. They're against equal pay for equal work. They're anti-gay. They're anti-social safety net (including being against the sort of universal health care that's been the norm in every civilized country for decades - there's something terribly wrong with your country when Russia, and half of Latin America has better health care than you do). They're "pro-life" until the child's born, and then the kid and parent is on it's own (did you know the US has the highest infant mortality rate among first world countries?). They're anti-science. They're for teaching creationism, along with indoctrination via prayer in public schools. They're not just anti-environment, they actually want to eliminate the EPA. They want to return to the economic policies that brought about the current world wide economic crisis. I could go on... but it's sufficient to say that we as a nation have an imperative to save ourselves and the world from the economic collapse that the "not based in reality" crowd of the Republican party is threatening to bring us.

Now I won't lie. I don't like the erosion of civil liberties the Obama administration has brought us. In most cases, they've just kept on following Bush the Lessor's policies. In other cases, they've actually tried to improve things, but mostly been blocked by the GOP. And in some instances, they've made things worse. But as I said above, the GOP in general, is worse on these issues than the Obama administration is. A vote for the typical GOP candidate isn't going to improve anything. Romney's given no indication that he'd be an improvement on these issues, and we already know that Romney would definitely be worse on some issues that Obama's correct on, and Romney might be worse on most or all of the issues.

As has been stated before, one could always just throw away your vote by voting for a third party candidate. Or write in Mickey Mouse on your ballot or something. It's a foolish thing to do as it doesn't help anything. We have a two party system in this country. The Constitution was written to create exactly this two party system, with the reasoning being that we'd always have a conservative party and a liberal party. Well, that's what we have right now. Well, sort of. We have a radical, ultra conservative party, and we have a party that's just a little more liberal than dead center. We have a president that's almost exactly dead center in his policies, despite the lies that Fox News would have you believe that he's liberal. Obama's liberal only in comparison to the radical right that's taken over the GOP. If we want to have a viable system of government in this country that has more than two political parties, we're literally going to have to rewrite the Constitution to change to a parliamentary style of government, something like what they have in the UK. Until then, we're going to be a two party country, just as we've always been.

So, this election, you have a choice. You can vote for the centrists that are trying to fix the economy (despite unprecedented obstruction from the GOP, who keeps blocking job creation legislation). You can vote for the people who destroyed our economy, and put them in a position to finish the job. You can throw away your vote on a third party candidate, or by writing in the cartoon character of your choice on the ballot. Or you can stay home and watch reality TV. The choice is yours.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2012, 07:01:05 PM »
A vote for Romney or Obama is a vote for these guys: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/
and these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants

They own the Democrats and Republicans, and all the major media in America.  Obama and Romney are their front men.


Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2012, 07:02:43 PM »
A vote for Romney or Obama is a vote for these guys: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/
and these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants

They own the Democrats and Republicans, and all the major media in America.  Obama and Romney are their front men.

Stop. Please.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2012, 07:06:56 PM »
Stop. Please.

Then riddle me this: why does nothing change regardless of who we elect?  Why are third-party candidates not allowed in the media or in debates?  Do you see Gitmo closing?  The Patriot Act repealed?  Any major change other than more government control and more inequality of wealth in the past three decades?

Here's one for you:

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2012, 07:10:31 PM »
And another.  Why do we never hear about third-party candidates?  Here's why:


Offline Valerian

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2012, 07:11:57 PM »
Then riddle me this: why does nothing change regardless of who we elect?  Why are third-party candidates not allowed in the media or in debates?  Do you see Gitmo closing?  The Patriot Act repealed?  Any major change other than more government control and more inequality of wealth in the past three decades?

If you're politely asked to stop beating a dead horse, then please do so.  You've stated your opinion and we all know where you stand.  If you have nothing new to add to the discussion, then there's no need to post the same things over and over again.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2012, 07:15:39 PM »
Then riddle me this: why does nothing change regardless of who we elect?  Why are third-party candidates not allowed in the media or in debates?  Do you see Gitmo closing?  The Patriot Act repealed?  Any major change other than more government control and more inequality of wealth in the past three decades?

Here's one for you:


Cute picture.

Let's see.. why have the inequalities gone up over the years? Let see.. you could argue the split between the intellectuals of the democratic party and the labor roots (ie Unions)_ left the business interests with no counter to their steady plan of more anti-labor measures, and deregulation despite proven issues that show the 'self-regulating' industry model is a myth at best and a lie.

Or.. Voter Apathy since Watergate has made us the the least participatory democratic republic in the 1st and 2nd worlds? That we've allowed the policital parties to regulate the process down to the point where money = speech? A steady lack of actual voter participation and apathy has let the few who have money and DO vote circumvent the process to the point where they are the only ones that matter?

Sorry.. I don't buy the entitled illuminati conspiracy.. I believe that we've LET special interests hijack the process over the last 70 years to the point where if we don't institute reforms like  1 person 1 vote = only people who live, breath and bleed can donate to politicitians. NO MORE organizations, Unions or Corps, can donate ANYTHING to ANYONE. PERIOD.

You bring NOTHING to the discussion. I disagree with some of the others, quite vocally in some cases. But all you bring to the table is 'the sky is falling and we can't do ANYTHING to fix it' .


Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2012, 07:17:01 PM »
And another.  Why do we never hear about third-party candidates?  Here's why:



Want to fix that? I got a fix. Based on a supreme court decision.

Break them up. Return to the 'No more than X% of the market share for any company' rule that was in place before Rupert 'Blofeld is my idol' Murdoch came to our shores.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2012, 07:23:45 PM »
Callie, Valerian has already suggested that OSG listen to your 'stop it, please' post. That means you should drop the matter as well.

Offline Stattick

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2012, 07:28:34 PM »
Want to fix that? I got a fix. Based on a supreme court decision.

Break them up. Return to the 'No more than X% of the market share for any company' rule that was in place before Rupert 'Blofeld is my idol' Murdoch came to our shores.

That sounds pretty good to me. I don't like that Murdoch controls so much of the media, and enforces a policy of reporting propaganda at the expense of truth. I don't like that companies like Disney control major news sources. It's ridiculous.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2012, 07:31:15 PM »
Callie, Valerian has already suggested that OSG listen to your 'stop it, please' post. That means you should drop the matter as well.

Sorry.. I was posting at the same time.

I'm thinking I'll be sitting the rest of the night out. Too many things getting to me tonight.

Offline errantwanderingTopic starter

  • Patron Saint of Vagabonds, Ne'er Do Wells, Insufferable Bastards
  • Suspended
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Location: Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Male
  • Wandering wind swept streets where black rain runs
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2012, 08:15:36 PM »
Here's the thing that has me confused.  Bush started two wars with congressional approval that he got with shaky, misleading intelligence.  Obama got us involved in a third, albeit shorter conflict in a manner that flew in the face US Law (IE The War Powers Act).  Bush used a shady backdoor deal to carry out drone strikes in Pakistan...Obama has had six times more drone attacks conducted during his term than during all 8 years during the Bush administration, has continued despite Pakistan's parliament demanding that we stop in no uncertain terms and requesting an apology.  He also implemented new policies saying that drones can target unidentified people if they are "acting suspicious", and that all male casualties are to be counted as terrorists unless posthumously proven otherwise, leading to much larger numbers of civilian casualties in Pakistan and Yemen.     Under Bush our right to privacy came under massive attack, and whistleblowers were attacked.  Under Obama the NDAA passed, allowing for the indefinite detention of anyone, including US citizens, if they were suspected of terrorism, and he not only signed it, his administration wanted it strengthened.  Bush had people tortured, but under Obama there is now a precedent for the targeted assassination of US citizens with no due process whatsoever...

Bush was a terrible President, and Romney would make an awful President, but isn't a vote for Obama an endorsement of these criminal policies, especially given how much his "progress" in the monumentally stupid Global War on Terror has been so emphasized during his campaign? 

Offline Vekseid

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2012, 09:35:27 PM »
I've been lectured by a German who insists that "If you do not use every conceivable means possible to stop this, you are guilty."

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But the lesser of two evils is, really, doing absolutely nothing. IP law is important, but I'd still vote in Al Franken over Norm Coleman.

Should Obama be held responsible for not pressing torture charges due to (apparently) fears of a coup? Maybe.

Should Obama be held responsible for not closing Gitmo due to Republican grandstanding on a platform of cowardice? Maybe.

Should Obama be held responsible for allowing drone attacks to continue? I'd have to know more of what he knows to judge, but my gut instinct says 'probably'.

Is voting for Romney going to make the above situations at all better? I've never heard anyone argue for 'yes'.

Is voting for Romney going to make any situation better? He's promised to take a harsher stance with China with respect to currency manipulation. Outside of that, however, every other policy proposal of his is a walking disaster. The man is horrific at diplomacy. He's got an atrocious disconnect with the average person. "Want to start a business? Borrow money from your parents!" ...

Offline Serephino

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2012, 01:38:29 AM »
Actually, his sending troops out is not a violation of anything.  If I remember correctly, the President is allowed to send military personnel anywhere he damn well pleases without approval from anybody for a certain period of time (I want to say 20 days).  Only Congress can declare war, but the President can have them do anything short of that.  He would just need Congress approval to keep them there longer than that time.  Bush did the same thing.  He moved troops to the border of Iraq just because, and I'm not even sure he even got Congress approval to invade.  If whatever he did in Libiya? lasted less than 20 days, Obama did nothing illegal.  He sent aircraft to aid the rebellion, nothing more, nothing less.  Of course, the GOP would love for everyone to think moving of troops is overstepping Presidential power, but it's not.       

Offline errantwanderingTopic starter

  • Patron Saint of Vagabonds, Ne'er Do Wells, Insufferable Bastards
  • Suspended
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Location: Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Male
  • Wandering wind swept streets where black rain runs
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2012, 02:16:17 AM »
Actually, under the War Powers Act the President can deploy US troops for up to 60 days before he has to request either permission from Congress, ask Congress to declare war, or have Congress authorize an extension.  If permission is not granted the President has 30 days to recall all US forces.  Not only did Obama not request permission from Congress at 60 days, we were there for significantly longer than 90 days.  The legal justification by the Obama administration was that because we were merely engaged in "kinetic actions", IE aerial attacks, bombardments, drone strikes, and general support, and only had "boots on the ground" in very specific, limited instances.  So, by the legal analysis of the Obama administration, the War Powers Act only governs use of ground-based forces, also known as a tiny part of our overall military strength, and any President has the authority to turn a nation to glass with no Congressional authorization whatsoever. 

As a side note, Bush doing terrible things to the rule of law is irrelevant to Obama doing even more terrible things to the rule of law, but even if Bush's transgressions magically made Obama's better, Bush got authorization for the invasion of Iraq via the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002...it passed Oct 16 2002. 

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2012, 09:05:26 AM »
Both Presidents abused the law, but so has everyone since Reagan. An increasingly 'Imperial' outlook of the president isn't accountable to the law has been fostered since the 80s and continues to be. The scope has grown and been fostered.  The GoP doesn't push it too far since they are the primary builders of the 'Imperial'presidency.

Offline Stattick

Re: Is Voting for Obama Better than Voting for Romney?
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2012, 12:55:09 PM »
Both Presidents abused the law, but so has everyone since Reagan. An increasingly 'Imperial' outlook of the president isn't accountable to the law has been fostered since the 80s and continues to be. The scope has grown and been fostered.  The GoP doesn't push it too far since they are the primary builders of the 'Imperial'presidency.

I thought there was a big controversy under Reagan about the Grenada invasion, but frankly, I was too young to have been paying much attention. Reagan also presided over the Iran-Contra scandal.

I think Reagan did a lot of good for this country, but I sort of cringe at the canonization that he's received from some quarters. He also did a lot of bad things too... we just tend to forget about those things in comparison to him winning the Cold War and burying the hatchet with the Soviet Union. He humanized the evil empire that might launch nukes at us at any moment and end the world, and got them to stop ramping up the cold war. He got both sides to agree to unprecedented levels of disarmament. One could make the argument that Reagan saved us all. But he was far from perfect, did plenty of bad stuff, and we should remember that too.