The President Obama Thread: "Election Year" Edition

[Axl Van Sixx]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

Good article about Paul and Obama:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/prog...aul_fallacies/

You beat me to the punch! Good to see someone else linking to one of Glenn Greenwald's articles. He's one of my favourite writers and that's a great article.

The biggest political arguments I've had lately are all with liberals who support Barack Obama and are aghast that I would choose Ron Paul over him. The cognitive dissonance is truly astounding. The same people who claim to be antiwar defenders of civil liberties and critics of Wall Street are rushing to vote for the war-starting, Constitution-shredding bankster puppet rather than the only principled voice on the national stage who's criticizing any of that.

Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed“a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.

The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts — like the history laid out by Stoller in that essay — negate that desired self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist. And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who insist that they not be ignored.

The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Oruku Saki

Does anyone know when the "puppets" started in the white house? Was it with Reagan or before?

It depends greatly on the person. Some early presidents were puppets, some even to their wives... Others were definitely not. Compare Nixon to Bush. Some lead, some are glorified figureheads.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Oruku Saki

Does anyone know when the "puppets" started in the white house? Was it with Reagan or before?

Woodrow Wilson was a puppet for the bankers. He signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.

[Schlosser85]

Um puppets have been in the White House a hell of a long time before Reagan.

[LOBO3315a]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

You beat me to the punch! Good to see someone else linking to one of Glenn Greenwald's articles. He's one of my favourite writers and that's a great article.

The biggest political arguments I've had lately are all with liberals who support Barack Obama and are aghast that I would choose Ron Paul over him. The cognitive dissonance is truly astounding. The same people who claim to be antiwar defenders of civil liberties and critics of Wall Street are rushing to vote for the war-starting, Constitution-shredding bankster puppet rather than the only principled voice on the national stage who's criticizing any of that.

It's almost comical to watch the intellectual dishonesty at work. If these people couldn't vote it would be comedy of the highest order. Instead it's sad and almost disturbing.

[Marx]

UPDATE: SANTORUM SUGGESTS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD BE PRO-LIFE BECAUSE HE'S BLACK?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1178577.html

Uhh...what?

[enterthemadness]

Um, did Santorum just get...uh...the ''R'' word there?

[Marx]

I'd say so.

[Marx]

UPDATE: PRESIDENT OBAMA PREPARES FOR IOWA CAUCUS TELECONFERENCE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...eleconference/

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Marx]

UPDATE: PRESIDENT OBAMA "RECESS APPOINTS" RICHARD CORDRAY TO CONSUMER BUREAU DIRECTOR POSITION
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news....htm?hpt=hp_t3

[DACrowe]

OBAMA UNVEILS PLAN TO PARE DOWN MILITARY AND END THE CAPACITY TO COMMIT TO TWO WARS IN THE FUTURE
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politi...html?hpt=hp_c1

You'd think the Ron Paul supporters would love this. You would think.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

OBAMA UNVEILS PLAN TO PARE DOWN MILITARY AND END THE CAPACITY TO COMMIT TO TWO WARS IN THE FUTURE
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politi...html?hpt=hp_c1

You'd think the Ron Paul supporters would love this. You would think.

Just preparing for a war with Iran. The U.S. and Israel are already conducting a covert war in Iran, and the sanctions against Iran are a hint of what is coming in the future (we sanctioned Iraq before going to war with them).

[Matt]

My concern is ending the capacity to do it. What if the day comes when there is a legitimate need to fight two wars at once (a Germany/Japan situation)? I see it as better to be overprepared than under.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Matt

My concern is ending the capacity to do it. What if the day comes when there is a legitimate need to fight two wars at once (a Germany/Japan situation)? I see it as better to be overprepared than under.

We spend $600-700 billion per year on the military. China spends $100 billion per year and is by far the second biggest military spender on the planet. We don't "need" to keep spending such a ludicrous amount on our military adventures overseas. Please take a look at the below list and tell me we still need to spend that insane amount of money on the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

[Matt]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

We spend $600-700 billion per year on the military. China spends $100 billion per year and is by far the second biggest military spender on the planet. We don't "need" to keep spending such a ludicrous amount on our military adventures overseas. Please take a look at the below list and tell me we still need to spend that insane amount of money on the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

I agree that there is room for cuts. My concern is eliminating the ability to be able to fight two wars at once. To completely eliminate the ability concerns me.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Matt

I agree that there is room for cuts. My concern is eliminating the ability to be able to fight two wars at once. To completely eliminate the ability concerns me.

It won't be eliminated with the likes of Obama and Romney in the White House. They work for the MIC just like they work for Wall Street. Whatever cuts are made will be small compared to what Ron Paul would do. Obama even admits that the "cuts" are actually just cuts in the INCREASES of the budget. The budget will still increase.

[LOBO3315a]

We should be prepared for war at all times.

That being said, there isn't a need for us to be overseas like were was after WWII. The nature of war has changed drastically since that time. We don't need to keep open derelict bases whose only purpose is to infuse the local economy with U.S. money. We need to always research and develop new weapons, methods, and train our military to be ready to defend us at all times.

War should be a last resort, when all other avenues of negotiation have failed. Then it should be waged in such a way, that no one ever wants to go to war with us again. I don't mean genocide or scorched earth, but going to war with us, shouldn't be seen as a way to get aid from us afterwards. It should be seen that negotiation, and compromise is more beneficial than armed conflict.

[8wid]

He's obviously trying to take the ideas of a smaller military from Ron Paul now.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Marx

UPDATE: PRESIDENT OBAMA "RECESS APPOINTS" RICHARD CORDRAY TO CONSUMER BUREAU DIRECTOR POSITION
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news....htm?hpt=hp_t3

Just watch the courts overturn that decision.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

OBAMA UNVEILS PLAN TO PARE DOWN MILITARY AND END THE CAPACITY TO COMMIT TO TWO WARS IN THE FUTURE
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politi...html?hpt=hp_c1

You'd think the Ron Paul supporters would love this. You would think.

They would...if Obama hadn't suggested it. I think it's a good idea to scale back our military. As others have said, the dynamics of war have changed quite a lot since WWII.

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Just watch the courts overturn that decision.

Can the courts overturn a recess appointment? I'm drawing a blank.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Marx

Can the courts overturn a recess appointment? I'm drawing a blank.

Yes because Congress was not in recess.

[LOBO3315a]

Originally Posted by Marx

They would...if Obama hadn't suggested it. I think it's a good idea to scale back our military. As others have said, the dynamics of war have changed quite a lot since WWII.



Can the courts overturn a recess appointment? I'm drawing a blank.

*Brain explodes as he realizes Marx has quoted him*

[Marx]

[Paradoxium]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

OBAMA UNVEILS PLAN TO PARE DOWN MILITARY AND END THE CAPACITY TO COMMIT TO TWO WARS IN THE FUTURE
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politi...html?hpt=hp_c1

You'd think the Ron Paul supporters would love this. You would think.