Are we viewing Obama through rose tinted glasses?

[BonzaiDuck]

Being president now a day is pretty much a lose lose situation.
Ok. So Obama can't do anything right.
You think Trump or Jeb or Cruz, or even Hillary will be any different?
You don't think Trump will have his Benghazi's to deal with?
His 911's to deal with?
His mass shootings to deal with?

I say lets keep it simple.
Take gasoline. Gas is under $2 for most of the country.
E-85 is down under $1.50.
Obama has his short comings, and thus democrats as well.
BuT... Do you REALLY want to risk the good times with voting republicans back in?
When what it all boils down, isn't the price of gasoline the bottom line?
Isn't THAT the way to go? Keep the presidency under democratic control?

ISIS, Muslim's, climate change, gay marriage, does any of that really matter in your daily life?
Doesn't the real issue come down to the price of gasoline?
And... keeping that price under $2 a gallon?
Lets not become distracted by nonsense or fail to see the forest for the trees.
There is a huge difference between filling your SUV gas tank for $30 as opposed to $80.
And a democrat is most likely to keep that gas prices under $2, regardless of that being a fluke or hands on management.

Where as, a republican is doomed to screw up a good thing. Especially with their trend in profiteering off gas prices and the American people. And Im not just referring to the Bush family. Donald and Ted Cruz are also knee deep in oil profiteering.
Lets keep it simple. Put Hillary in there, and gasoline will be the last thing you need worry about. And the only thing that matters in your daily life, frankly....

ISIS isn't going to get you. Nor gays getting married. But gas prices will bite you in the butt under a republican president. That has always been the case.
.
.

The President can't control the price of oil and gasoline, unless he was elected as a Shill for Big Oil in the first place. Study your "Industrial Organization." Study the Cold War and the emergence of oil as a strategic mineral. And study the events -- 1953-Iran, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War -- that led us to this place.

Climate-change be damned, there's a reason that the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred for attempting to drill under mile-deep water. And this -- is that reason:

http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-The-Norton-Paperback/dp/0393326470

 

[MongGrel]

NM, that was irrelevant.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[Indus]

Well apparently the Republicans are so infuriated Obama is the best president of their and their families and friends lives, they want to pay him back by not voting on Adam Szubin, the White House’s pick as Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, who would be the government’s point person for international sanctions.

Don't they think national security matters and it would be helpful to freeze and block ISIS's money? I guess not.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Interesting. I can count on one hand the number of long term servicemen I know who would vote for any Democrat fro President. (Of course, I AM in Tennessee.)

I've come across plenty. Two of them have had "public exposure," though.

Colin Powell, and his aide -- Col. Wilkerson.

And Powell had been a life-long Repub-licrat.

Of course, you could play that "card" about Powell. But you could also ask what he was doing in W's administration, too . . .

 

[michal1980]

yes

 

[boomerang]

Will there come a point when we'll take corrective action against the danger that Obama and his policies are putting us in?

DHS Whistleblower: Investigation That Would Have Flagged CA Attackers Shut Down Due To Profiling Fears

Thanks Obama: Former Gitmo Detainee Now An Al-Qaeda Leader In Yemen

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting. I can count on one hand the number of long term servicemen I know who would vote for any Democrat fro President. (Of course, I AM in Tennessee.)

I imagine that your location has more to do with it than anything else, although military veterans do skew modestly more Republican.

I guess it would also depend on what you meant by 'long term' serviceman. 20 years in? 10 years? Re-enlistees? Generally I would agree that military retirees are even more likely to be Republicans than veterans as a whole, but still there are plenty of Democratic retirees out there.

EDIT: There's also the reverse causality question. Does military service make you more Republican or does being a Republican make you more likely to serve?

 

[thraashman]

Will there come a point when we'll take corrective action against the danger that Obama and his policies are putting us in?

DHS Whistleblower: Investigation That Would Have Flagged CA Attackers Shut Down Due To Profiling Fears

Thanks Obama: Former Gitmo Detainee Now An Al-Qaeda Leader In Yemen

I can't find any non partisan information on the DHS story, I only find it mentioned on highly partisan sites like Breitbart that are not known for their honesty.

The Gitmo detainee one however is not hard to find information on. And it's not hard to discover that Ibrahim al-Qosi was tried, convicted, and transferred to Sudan after a trial by military tribunal. The tribunal happened due to SCOTUS rulings and not a choice by President Obama. Oh yeah, and that tribunal charge which is the start of the trial process happened on February 9, 2008, almost a year before President Obama took office. So blaming Obama for something that was put into motion before he took office is idiotic ... and par for the course for conservatives.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I imagine that your location has more to do with it than anything else, although military veterans do skew modestly more Republican.

I guess it would also depend on what you meant by 'long term' serviceman. 20 years in? 10 years? Re-enlistees? Generally I would agree that military retirees are even more likely to be Republicans than veterans as a whole, but still there are plenty of Democratic retirees out there.

EDIT: There's also the reverse causality question. Does military service make you more Republican or does being a Republican make you more likely to serve?

Well if they were bright, they likely wouldn't sign up to kill brown people for corporate profit.

There are generally two types of people that sign up for the us military.
Dumb gullible people
Poor people with few alternatives

 

[fskimospy]

Well if they were bright, they likely wouldn't sign up to kill brown people for corporate profit.

I like to think of myself as reasonably bright and I signed up. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.

People join the military for a lot of reasons, but so far I've never met a single one that signed up to kill brown people for corporate profit. I always find it amusing that very liberal people can be just as bigoted as very conservative people, just about different things.

 

[boomerang]

The Gitmo detainee one however is not hard to find information on. And it's not hard to discover that Ibrahim al-Qosi was tried, convicted, and transferred to Sudan after a trial by military tribunal. The tribunal happened due to SCOTUS rulings and not a choice by President Obama. Oh yeah, and that tribunal charge which is the start of the trial process happened on February 9, 2008, almost a year before President Obama took office. So blaming Obama for something that was put into motion before he took office is idiotic ... and par for the course for conservatives.

Fine, perhaps a bad example on my part. If you had provided a link or links, I may have had the opportunity to discount them along similar lines you used to discount my first example, an example that has a video in it.

Daily Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 12/10/15

Q The Long War Journal has published a story reporting that a former detainee at Guantanamo released by the Obama administration has resumed an active war fighting role with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. Can you confirm that story?

MR. EARNEST: I’ve seen those reports, but I’m not in a position to confirm that particular story. Obviously, any report about a former Gitmo detainee reengaging in the fight would be a source of significant concern and something that we would take quite seriously.

Based on what we know so far, more than 90 percent of those who have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay have not reengaged in the fight, but we are certainly paying close attention even if we find unconfirmed reports about those who may have.

So, is a 10% rate acceptable to you?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I like to think of myself as reasonably bright and I signed up. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.

People join the military for a lot of reasons, but so far I've never met a single one that signed up to kill brown people for corporate profit. I always find it amusing that very liberal people can be just as bigoted as very conservative people, just about different things.

Also responding to mysticbird . . .

It was a fictional script-line in a contemporary movie, but there's logic to it:

Some join because they're patriots and want to serve their country. Some join because they want a job. There's a handful of others who join because they want an opportunity to kill somebody.

Now obviously, most all will fit into the first two categories.

It also varies by service branch as to which way they lean on political fence.

But the remark about "corporate wars" raises a possible discussion, and one going back to a book written around the 1930s by a veteran and cited by Kuznick.*

If it becomes generally known that all decisions for going to war involves some industry or institution's profit-making opportunities, it damages the military and public attitudes toward the military. And if a war unravels into a failure with those perceptions in the background, you're going to have a lot of pissed-off families linked to the casualties, and you're going to waste a lot of money and lives in the process.

And that's approximately where we are. The furor over Benghazi was no accident, coming at the highpoint of the 2012 campaign. The underlying, unspoken intent behind the argument of a difference between the perpetrators as Al Qaeda versus "some guys out for a walk bent on killing some Americans:" "Bush wasn't wrong, ya see?! You should've elected McCain in 2008!" The propaganda may have affected some voters, but it didn't convince enough of them. The electorate also perceived other things, like Romney's "47%" remark.

The underpinnings of covert "corporate" motives behind the decision to go to Iraq are clear from the record, as reported by some who were witness to the deliberations about it.
------------------------------------------------------
* Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, "War is a Racket," 1935.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

 

[thraashman]

So, is a 10% rate acceptable to you?

Well the options are either try, convict or acquit, and then sentence or release; or detain indefinitely without any form of trial. The second option goes highly against what we as a nation stand for and the Supreme Court has ruled that detainees have the right to know the allegations against them and challenge them. And the US recidivism rate in our prison system is 43.3% as of 2011, so 10% is actually quite the improvement.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Not directly related to the discussion as an Obama appraisal, or probably more relevant to threads about the Great Muslim Scare.

But "History Channel" or AHC/AHC-HD has featured two three-part series recently which serve as a propaganda of the Truth: "Auschwitz: Hitler's Final Solution: {"Origins," "Deportation," "Expansion;"} and "Nuremburg: Nazi Judgment Day: {"Albert Speer," "Goering," "Rudolf Hess."}

It is clear that the Allies thought Nuremburg was important -- for precisely the reason I cite the documentaries important. It was a Propaganda of the Truth, and they wanted to do everything possible to diffuse, disparage and discourage support for the Reich in post-war Europe.

These documentaries also show how the historical research has been unrelenting. Every document, every film-footage, every architectural drawing, together with archeological excavations, lays out the detailed chronological history and culpability in detail.

But the point of it: How would something parallel applied to the detainees serve effectively? Would the condemned be somehow seen as martyrs, as opposed to repulsive criminals? I would think it would affect most sane people in the intended manner.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can't find any non partisan information on the DHS story, I only find it mentioned on highly partisan sites like Breitbart that are not known for their honesty.

The Gitmo detainee one however is not hard to find information on. And it's not hard to discover that Ibrahim al-Qosi was tried, convicted, and transferred to Sudan after a trial by military tribunal. The tribunal happened due to SCOTUS rulings and not a choice by President Obama. Oh yeah, and that tribunal charge which is the start of the trial process happened on February 9, 2008, almost a year before President Obama took office. So blaming Obama for something that was put into motion before he took office is idiotic ... and par for the course for conservatives.

Yeh, One of those crystal ball "I woulda saved the world if Obama hadn't stopped me!" routines, followed by the usual blame shifting song & dance.

One of the more interesting things about Gitmo is that Conservatives think it really made or makes some difference in the WoT when it was always about domestic politics. It had negligible real effect in the effort against terrorism but huge effect on voters already whipped into a frenzy with 9/11 fear mongering & blood lust.

The fact that it worked & that politicians still find it useful says things about America that rank & file Conservatives can't own up to.

 

[shortylickens]

I imagine that your location has more to do with it than anything else, although military veterans do skew modestly more Republican.

I guess it would also depend on what you meant by 'long term' serviceman. 20 years in? 10 years? Re-enlistees? Generally I would agree that military retirees are even more likely to be Republicans than veterans as a whole, but still there are plenty of Democratic retirees out there.

EDIT: There's also the reverse causality question. Does military service make you more Republican or does being a Republican make you more likely to serve?

Shorty did nine years and is an independent.

 

[werepossum]

I've come across plenty. Two of them have had "public exposure," though.

Colin Powell, and his aide -- Col. Wilkerson.

And Powell had been a life-long Repub-licrat.

Of course, you could play that "card" about Powell. But you could also ask what he was doing in W's administration, too . . .

Oh, there are tons of Democrats when you get to field grade and above. I just don't know many of them, and most I do know are Guard.

I imagine that your location has more to do with it than anything else, although military veterans do skew modestly more Republican.

I guess it would also depend on what you meant by 'long term' serviceman. 20 years in? 10 years? Re-enlistees? Generally I would agree that military retirees are even more likely to be Republicans than veterans as a whole, but still there are plenty of Democratic retirees out there.

EDIT: There's also the reverse causality question. Does military service make you more Republican or does being a Republican make you more likely to serve?

For the first, no doubt. This is a very conservative state; I consider myself to be pretty conservative (except socially) and I'm considered a liberal commie tree hugger by a LOT of people. For the second, generally ten to twelve years minimum, but it's more an attitude. Some people want to retire in trace but are RIFfed or retired medically or run into career dead ends (often just one rating of less than walks-on-water) or get out because their families can't handle it. Those people I know who are more liberal tend to be those who enlisted with a specific, non-military goal in mind. But again, I'm in Tennessee; YMMV.

Well if they were bright, they likely wouldn't sign up to kill brown people for corporate profit.

There are generally two types of people that sign up for the us military.
Dumb gullible people
Poor people with few alternatives

Thou art an idiot. Servicemen and -women are on average brighter, more educated, and better adjusted than the rest of us. Field grade officers in particular tend to bristle with degrees, especially those not in combat specialties, but you would be surprised at how well read and well educated is your average six year grunt. Almost everything one does in the military is more difficult to do than in civilian life - try setting up a water purification and distribution system under occasional sniper fire with the spare parts half a world away, or setting up and maintaining a phone/IP network serving a half dozen different nationalities (which come and go) using disparate equipment never designed to be compatible with yours under sporadic mortar fire, or making your shiny new fire control computer work reliably with your 1960s radar set. Yet things get done, often in areas where the grid varies plus or minus 30% rather than 10% and your area might only get a few hours of electricity (assuming you even have any electrical service) and/or irregular POL shipments to run your generator. Most civilians break down when freakin' Facebook goes down.

Most of us will never in our entire lives have the level of life and death responsibility that a twenty year old Marine corporal bears every day. This is REAL public service, and those who serve deserve our thanks and respect for that service, not some outdated draft era bullshit that was largely untrue even then and bears no resemblance to our armed forces today.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Kennedy had cashiered General Edwin Walker, who had commanded part of US forces in Germany, for passing around right-wing political propaganda to the troops.

It's been traditional for elements of the military to support the party more eager to spend money on defense.

And all of this would vary widely between a time of a large draft, and a time with a volunteer- military.

And then -- well -- is there a thread for the Bergdahl case?

ADDENDUM: The one thing that is essential in military training is a doctrine. The doctrine says you're not there to think about anything other than the weapon, the weapons system, military administration and the imperative for this or that military conflict. You do as the Commander-in-Chief orders. If there's some question about the objective or the definition of the Enemy, it is settled for you in the civilian sector. And if you question it, you're supposed to keep your mouth shut, keep your head down, and keep pulling the trigger with everyone else.

But what active military think on their own, how they vote -- that's their business.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"Nato ally" is pure bullshit. If that's what happened in Ukraine, then the same thing happened in Georgia in 2008.

Oh, I forgot. Facts don't matter. Only spin matters.

Hey Einstein, I'm talking about Poland.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey Einstein, I'm talking about Poland.

Poland is still there as they were before Obama took office. You must be talking about the scrapped anti-terrarist! ABM system that would have put them right at the top of the first strike list should war break out between Russia & NATO.

I figure Poles who have good sense are more relieved than disappointed.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I knew people who went to Russia in the mid-90s -- Repubs who thought to lecture them about business, markets and other things.

There was no Paris, no Dresden, no Berlin. The USSR just fell apart. So there was no Marshall Plan, even for some of our Anantech friends from Poland.

I think it was all mismanaged. And we're talking about spheres of influence. We have a history ourselves of meddling in the affairs of neighbors. A second invasion of Cuba was planned -- that's a fact.

Now the Russians are reacting with an emergence of nationalism. You know about the little neighborhood or school-groups being organized there, don't you? Taking apart AK-47's on their parents' dining table?

After something my hair-stylist/barber said to me (imagine the Progressive commercial: "Sure. But only if you do somethingk with dis! . . . Da!") I'm more puzzled as to whether a Taco-Bell taco in Moscow would taste like a Taco-Bell taco here in So-Cal. If I remember, they had to change the taste of Coca-Cola slightly to favor the Russian palate.

Of course, Putin retaliated by discarding American food shipments, and I don't know what else.

 

[MongGrel]

Well if they were bright, they likely wouldn't sign up to kill brown people for corporate profit.

There are generally two types of people that sign up for the us military.
Dumb gullible people
Poor people with few alternatives

I'm a former Marine who is a Democrat and joined as a patriot at the time and did my 4 years.

You're not going to gain much in the way of empathy with that type of a attitude.

I actually do not like you all ready for that statement, to be honest, I do not need an explanation of the corporate leanings over history.

 

[TheSlamma]

I voted for him and I am disappointed in Obama, what I see is the same middle east tactics that we have used for decades that get nowhere and just create stronger radical groups and his appointments have been hilariously bad also... Holder, Clinton, Lynch, Michael Taylor and Archuleta. His 2 terms haven't been completely bad but it just hasn't been that good either.

Yes OP you and your party members have rose colored glasses.. don't worry though, same thing happened with repubs and Bush.. it's just part of being party bias and protecting your team. Blame the other party and can do no wrong.

 

[Indus]

it's just part of being party bias and protecting your team. Blame the other party and can do no wrong.

I don't think we've seen bipartisanship since the days of LBJ and Great Society and Civil Rights but then again we haven't seen total gridlock that the Senate won't even vote on nominees. I thought if you didn't like someone, you just voted no but not bringing them to a vote has got to be unconstitutional.

Will the gridlock get worse after Obama leaves office? It may very well turn out these days under Obama were the good old days and we'll hunger for these again. I say that because I know how bad Bush was and the Republican partisanship has shown the democrats how to be evil when in control and get away with it.