To those who voted for Obama

[Mister_T]

His lack of spine in the beginning and doing the exact opposite of certain things he campaigned on has left a bad taste in my mouth. At least he managed to get Health Care reform off the ground (albeit, not in the way it should have been done). Still light years better than any of the alternatives that were vying for his spot.

As for who should replace him, no one in the current proposed line up seems promising at all, just more of the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

His lack of spine in the beginning and doing the exact opposite of certain things he campaigned on has left a bad taste in my mouth. At least he managed to get Health Care reform off the ground (albeit, not in the way it should have been done). Still better light years though than any of the alternatives that were vying for his spot.
As for who should replace him, no one in the current proposed line up seems promising at all, just more of the same.

Nothing removes a bad taste faster & better than bacon.
Decades of voting & experimentation cannot be wrong!

 

[gnomon]

How's he doing and who should replace him when his term in office ends?

He's crap.

I for one could care less about the spearheading of the health care plan which will be his major legacy. I voted for this man because I thought we might see a change in the enforcement in the drug laws which target minorities unfairly. These drug laws run absolutely counter to numerous concepts of basic liberty which we have taken for granted. When he appointed Michelle Leonhart as the head of the DEA and basically ignored the problems we have with federal and state drug enforcement I realized we had just another humdrum President. His boondoggle with the health care initiative, by completely bypassing the single payer option, as well as the continuing of foreign affairs set in place by the prior administration, along with the drone issue, etc. of foreign failures tells me that Obama will rank as one of worst POTUS's in the last couple of decades.

What else to expect from a man who, during the financial crisis, found his campaign supported fully by Goldman Sachs and the other guilty parties in that crisis as being nothing more than a political shill.

He's a ******* failure. Anyone who doesn't realize this is either a self proclaimed progressive (modern day racist know nothings) or just a complete fool.

Who should have replaced this man? How about Gary Johnson. But that was just too ******* much for those who thought they knew something. Morons. Let's just continue the abating of human rights in this nation in the name of so called progressive endurance with a failed foreign policy of tying ourselves into conflicts which we do not need to be in. Idiots.

The truth is that Obama offered up nothing more than his idiot opposites such as Bachmann and the Tea Party offered up. Minorities in this nation are still being targeted and imprisoned at a rate in this inane drug war during his administration. That is the litmus. If we cannot care about these people than what does it matter about marriage equality, affordable health care and our foreign policy. If a large segment of our population is experiencing a loss of rights, basic rights, than all the new progressive ones are meaningless.

 

[Riverwolf]

He's a ******* failure. Anyone who doesn't realize this is either a self proclaimed progressive (modern day racist know nothings).

Uh, last I checked, progressives were the people who fight for equal rights, and so aren't racist.

 

[gnomon]

Uh, last I checked, progressives were the people who fight for equal rights, and so aren't racist.

That's the majority view but not mine.

The greatest number of people I've met in my life who pigeonholed individuals into stereotypes were progressives. The greatest number of people I know that adhere to cultural relativism, an inherently racist dogma, are the progressives.

The history of progressivism itself is not a good one. It's an ideological one in which putting people into categories is a necessary reference point to maintain an ideology.

I prefer the libertarians on this issue. That individuals are made by their own personal environment. Even though I disagree with the overall libertarian philosophy.

It is this observation of 40 years of ideological categorization that I will fully state and maintain that progressivism is not, in it's modern political form, one of equal identity. It is one of placing people into stereotype, or fitting the populace into demographics, if you will, that do not adhere to the true concept of individual growth and identity.

I will readily accept that you have a different opinion of progressive philosophy then I do but I will nip in the bud any further argumentation that my own personal experience among many avenues in persuing this political philosophy myself that I find my view to be the accurate one. I am ashamed to say it is not a scientific view but one of a mid life crisis individual who is putting forth several years experience in trying to be part of said group.

 

[Riverwolf]

That's the majority view but not mine.

The greatest number of people I've met in my life who pigeonholed individuals into stereotypes were progressives. The greatest number of people I know that adhere to cultural relativism, an inherently racist dogma, are the progressives.

The history of progressivism itself is not a good one. It's an ideological one in which putting people into categories is a necessary reference point to maintain an ideology.

I prefer the libertarians on this issue. That individuals are made by their own personal environment. Even though I disagree with the overall libertarian philosophy.

It is this observation of 40 years of ideological categorization that I will fully state and maintain that progressivism is not, in it's modern political form, one of equal identity. It is one of placing people into stereotype, or fitting the populace into demographics, if you will, that do not adhere to the true concept of individual growth and identity.

I will readily accept that you have a different opinion of progressive philosophy then I do but I will nip in the bud any further argumentation that my own personal experience among many avenues in persuing this political philosophy myself that I find my view to be the accurate one. I am ashamed to say it is not a scientific view but one of a mid life crisis individual who is putting forth several years experience in trying to be part of said group.

Well, I won't continue the subject here, because I don't want to derail the thread.

Thanks for clarifying your views.

 

[gnomon]

Well, I won't continue the subject here, because I don't want to derail the thread.

Thanks for clarifying your views.

I admit I'm a bit snobbish along these lines and there are a lot of personal experiences within certain circles that developed my views.

I should contain them forgetting that others who have pursued a progressive philosophy have held to those great ideals but......now I feel I ruined the rest of that post with that one line. Damn me.

 

[Apex]

Uh, last I checked, progressives were the people who fight for equal rights, and so aren't racist.

Supporting equal rights and racism are not mutually exclusive.


As far as Obama and how he is doing, I thought this article was interesting today:
Opinion: An Obama voter's cry of despair - CNN.com

But, after the countless times in which I have found myself defending the Obama administration to colleagues and peers, I've reached a limit to the explanations that I can provide. I've reached a point of political despair. Republican obstructionism cannot explain allowing the bugging of foreign leaders, nor having drones strike innocent children overseas. It cannot explain having the National Security Agency collect data on the private lives of Americans, nor prosecuting whistle-blowers who reveal government wrongdoing. It cannot account for assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without a trial, nor shirking public funding and spending limits during presidential campaigns.
It cannot justify the findings of a report that says the White House's efforts to silence the media are the "most aggressive ... since the Nixon Administration".
And, most recently, it cannot excuse the failure to design a simple website more than three years since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law.

 

[Amechania]

Obama has checked out. He got his health care plan and so has earned his place in the pantheon of the Democratic Party. Hilary Clinton is the obvious choice but will she run?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

IMO he's done more and made more progress than any other President. Passing it nationally wouldn't have gone over very well in the SCOTUS. States are moving right along on the front...(Welcome NJ)...

Other than "don't ask don't tell" and being publically for it I don't think he has done very much. Him as a symbolic figurehead being in support does wonders but I wished he had pushed more for it. I am mostly hopeful that we will get a new Justice or two and the new Supreme Court will claim it unconstitutional to not allow marriage equality. That is the fastest and most likely route for National Marriage equality.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I cannot stand him, just like I could not stand Jimmy Carter. I cannot wait until 2014, I hope the Republicans take back the Senate, and I am becoming more impressed with Rand Paul of Kentucky. I would not be surprised if he does well in the next Presidential election, and I have already signed up on his website.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Obama has checked out. He got his health care plan and so has earned his place in the pantheon of the Democratic Party. Hilary Clinton is the obvious choice but will she run?

Actually there are a few others in the Democratic party that are vying for that position. Hillary is obviously the big name but Joe Biden is another "obvious" choice. Elizabeth Warren has a lot of support. I don't think she'll run as she seems more interested in congress than Presidency but who knows.

 

[gnomon]

Other than "don't ask don't tell" and being publically for it I don't think he has done very much. Him as a symbolic figurehead being in support does wonders but I wished he had pushed more for it. I am mostly hopeful that we will get a new Justice or two and the new Supreme Court will claim it unconstitutional to not allow marriage equality. That is the fastest and most likely route for National Marriage equality.

I strongly recommend that people in this nation look at what it is that the President actually does. Supporting marriage equality, I hate to say it, was easy for Obama. It required nothing from what his administration does other than withholding the Justice department from adhering to the idiotic law passed so many years earlier.

However, people should look at his appointment of Michelle Leonhart into the DEA. Here was a prosecutor with a checkered past put into a position solely responsible to the Executive Branch which determined to uphold the same failed policies of drug laws that were put into precedent decades before Obama's Presidency. Even looking at videos of Obama's view on the issue of drug enforcement after his election we can see that he was not going to touch the draconian measures put into place by his predecessors which clearly abridged the rights of many citizens as well as placing certain citizens based upon their ethnic identity into a greater danger under federal law.

His pre-election shots on the issue presented a man who was willing to overturn the status quo on the issue but after his election and when he put certain people into power it was certain that he did not follow such concepts. Given the fact that so many elected this man as the first African-American with a view on such issues that they would be addressed appropriately we were deceived on those issues. Too many were fooled by his health issue and his backing of marriage equality. Which meant nothing if minorities were still being wrongly addressed under the federal drug laws.

Seriously, what so called progressive could give a damn about marriage equality when minorities are still being wrongly prosecuted under federal drug laws. It doesn't exist. If you cannot stand for basic rights regarding privacy laws than who gives a damn about federal marriage recognition laws extending financial benefits when blacks, hispanics, etc. are being denied their basic rights to life.

I cannot. This is a litmus test. Since Hernandez was shot and killed by Marines on his own property to this very day we have not seen a change in these laws. Since Maye was wrongfully convicted of murder for protecting himself, since the Tulia residents were wrongfully round up in a corrupt drug sting, since a pastor in Georgia was shot to death by plains clothes narcotics officers, etc. we have not seen a true change in our federal government.

This is the litmus test. If you can't change this than nothing else matters. All the States changing their marriage laws and all the people backslapping ourselves for diversity will mean nothing. If the citizens of this nation cannot be secure in their person and property without the damaging nature of the drug laws and RICO laws it doesn't matter.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He's crap.

I for one could care less about the spearheading of the health care plan which will be his major legacy. I voted for this man because I thought we might see a change in the enforcement in the drug laws which target minorities unfairly. These drug laws run absolutely counter to numerous concepts of basic liberty which we have taken for granted. When he appointed Michelle Leonhart as the head of the DEA and basically ignored the problems we have with federal and state drug enforcement I realized we had just another humdrum President.

I understand where you're coming from but from what I can tell he and many in the administration are actually addressing it....at least better than those before them. I can't imagine it would be easy.....

Holder directs U.S. attorneys to seek reduced sentences in current, pending drug cases - Washington Post

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday he has directed U.S. attorneys across the country to review and possibly refile charges in ongoing drug cases so that low-level, nonviolent offenders will not face severe mandatory sentences.
The policy change will be applied to suspects in drug cases who have been charged but not yet tried, as well as to individuals who have been convicted but not yet sentenced. The directive does not affect offenders already sentenced or serving time in prison.


As part of a sweeping new policy shift, Holder announced last month that, in future drug cases, low-level, nonviolent suspects would no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences. The new directive marked an expansion of that effort, ordering U.S. attorneys to apply the policy retroactively.

His boondoggle with the health care initiative, by completely bypassing the single payer option

I see your point here as well....but if he couldn't get Republicans on board with an idea that sprang forth from themselves I don't think he would have been able to pull off single payer. Democrats seemed to be against it. Now that the ACA is here that's all Democrats in the Senate and House are talking about...about how we need single payer...but when we controlled both houses we were too chicken_______(fill in the blank) to actually make it happen.

as well as the continuing of foreign affairs set in place by the prior administration, along with the drone issue, etc. of foreign failures tells me that Obama will rank as one of worst POTUS's in the last couple of decades.

I'm not to happy with that either. I think we need to get the heck out of the middle east and take our money with us....but if Syria stays on track with destroying their chemical weapons and if we see some positive movement in Iran he just might have something to talk about. But I suspect the next war mongering president will reverse all of that (back to square one).

What else to expect from a man who, during the financial crisis, found his campaign supported fully by Goldman Sachs and the other guilty parties in that crisis as being nothing more than a political shill.

Yea, if this true, then no argument here...

He's a ******* failure. Anyone who doesn't realize this is either a self proclaimed progressive (modern day racist know nothings) or just a complete fool.

Ouch!......

Who should have replaced this man? How about Gary Johnson. But that was just too ******* much for those who thought they knew something. Morons.

Well I prefer Gary Johnson over Rand Paul any day. I would be interested to see what Johnson would do as President.

Let's just continue the abating of human rights in this nation in the name of so called progressive endurance with a failed foreign policy of tying ourselves into conflicts which we do not need to be in. Idiots.

Yep..I'm so done with anything outside our borders. I'm starting to develop this isolationist mentality....:sad:

The truth is that Obama offered up nothing more than his idiot opposites such as Bachmann and the Tea Party offered up. Minorities in this nation are still being targeted and imprisoned at a rate in this inane drug war during his administration.

Yea...but it takes much more than just his say so....We have to attack this issue from multiple angles. I like the slogan.."All politics is local"...we really need to start there as well as at the federal level. Many of these state legislatures are controlled by people that want nothing to do with what you or this president suggest. Shucks...we even have the National Guard in some southern states refusing to follow federal law.

If we cannot care about these people than what does it matter about marriage equality, affordable health care and our foreign policy. If a large segment of our population is experiencing a loss of rights, basic rights, than all the new progressive ones are meaningless.

I agree. But I so no reason we can't work on all of these initiatives...especially those targeted for minor drug possession and those targeted in stop and frisk...as well as stand your ground.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Seriously, what so called progressive could give a damn about marriage equality when minorities are still being wrongly prosecuted under federal drug laws. It doesn't exist. If you cannot stand for basic rights regarding privacy laws than who gives a damn about federal marriage recognition laws extending financial benefits when blacks, hispanics, etc. are being denied their basic rights to life.

But there isn't just one progressive group fighting for everything under the sun. There are multiple progressive groups fighting for a vast array of issues. Some more local and other notationally..as well as internationally. But I agree....they really do need to attack these laws and have them done away with. We also need to be focusing on the money, contracts etc...surrounding the prison industrial complex. A lot of these prisons are federal...but may are privately owned concentration camps for profit.

 

[Riverwolf]

Seriously, what so called progressive could give a damn about marriage equality when minorities are still being wrongly prosecuted under federal drug laws.

We all pick our battles based on our abilities. Beware the No True Scotsman.

We can't wait for a particular issue to be 100% fixed before moving on to another; we'd never get anything done. That's ESPECIALLY true now, with what might be called all-out wars being fought for net neutrality, etc. If we only tried to fix one issue at a time, and not move on to others until a certain issue is absolutely perfect, not only would we never move on at all, but Big Brother would take power before long.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I strongly recommend that people in this nation look at what it is that the President actually does. Supporting marriage equality, I hate to say it, was easy for Obama. It required nothing from what his administration does other than withholding the Justice department from adhering to the idiotic law passed so many years earlier.

However, people should look at his appointment of Michelle Leonhart into the DEA. Here was a prosecutor with a checkered past put into a position solely responsible to the Executive Branch which determined to uphold the same failed policies of drug laws that were put into precedent decades before Obama's Presidency. Even looking at videos of Obama's view on the issue of drug enforcement after his election we can see that he was not going to touch the draconian measures put into place by his predecessors which clearly abridged the rights of many citizens as well as placing certain citizens based upon their ethnic identity into a greater danger under federal law.

His pre-election shots on the issue presented a man who was willing to overturn the status quo on the issue but after his election and when he put certain people into power it was certain that he did not follow such concepts. Given the fact that so many elected this man as the first African-American with a view on such issues that they would be addressed appropriately we were deceived on those issues. Too many were fooled by his health issue and his backing of marriage equality. Which meant nothing if minorities were still being wrongly addressed under the federal drug laws.

Seriously, what so called progressive could give a damn about marriage equality when minorities are still being wrongly prosecuted under federal drug laws. It doesn't exist. If you cannot stand for basic rights regarding privacy laws than who gives a damn about federal marriage recognition laws extending financial benefits when blacks, hispanics, etc. are being denied their basic rights to life.

I cannot. This is a litmus test. Since Hernandez was shot and killed by Marines on his own property to this very day we have not seen a change in these laws. Since Maye was wrongfully convicted of murder for protecting himself, since the Tulia residents were wrongfully round up in a corrupt drug sting, since a pastor in Georgia was shot to death by plains clothes narcotics officers, etc. we have not seen a true change in our federal government.

This is the litmus test. If you can't change this than nothing else matters. All the States changing their marriage laws and all the people backslapping ourselves for diversity will mean nothing. If the citizens of this nation cannot be secure in their person and property without the damaging nature of the drug laws and RICO laws it doesn't matter.

I agree we need to push for other laws as well. But that doesn't mean marriage quality isn't an issue and doesn't deserve effort.

 

[gnomon]

I agree we need to push for other laws as well. But that doesn't mean marriage quality isn't an issue and doesn't deserve effort.

It absolutely does deserve attention. But the false accreditation of credit given towards this administration and praising it for civil rights when a far more important issue of basic civil rights is ignored by this administration only lives to fuel a false ideological point of view.

One which I will not give credit towards this administration. The issue of marriage equality is being one among the States. Not the federal government. As more and more States go over towards the more liberalized view it is a given that the federal administration will accept it no matter if it was a Democrat or a Republican in charge. Yet the issue is overshadowing the failure of this administration's view towards those laws, especially drug laws, RICO laws, etc. that are continuing to uphold draconian principles.

Don't give credit where it isn't due. Marriage equality laws are those that are winning without federal support. I will recognize that Obama's administration on this issue has stepped aside to let the issue develop on a State by State basis given it's success. But the fact remains that the prison population or our nation and the enforcement of drug laws represent a huge disparity in minority representation in the enforcement of those laws. They are a stain whose source is at the strongest the federal level. Obama's purview. And he ignores it.

That's the fact.

Let's not even bring in the issue of the use of military drones, the continuation of failed foreign policies, etc.

 

[Riverwolf]

It absolutely does deserve attention. But the false accreditation of credit given towards this administration and praising it for civil rights when a far more important issue of basic civil rights is ignored by this administration only lives to fuel a false ideological point of view.

Huh. I've never seen Obama's administration praised for its civil rights.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He's been a mediocre president, maybe abit better than mediocre. He has done alot I do not like, such as continuing the wars and spying, and using the gay community for easy votes. But he also bailed out the auto industry, and he got some very desperately needed changes to insurance with the ACA (such making it so insurance can't screw those of us who are high-risk or have pre-existing conditions). He hasn't been the best president, but he also is not the worst (and probably much better than Romney would have been).