Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
zherok:
--- Quote from: 5Cats on November 04, 2012, 05:01:46 AM ---That's RIGHT @zherok! Because in 2004 the Democrats wanted Bush to win! It's the opposition party's DUTY to re-elect the OTHER SIDE'S candidate!
I plumb forgot! How silly to think they'd want their candidate to win! Those stupid Republicans! The Democrats would NEVER do that!
End sarcasm...
--- End quote ---
Don't be daft. Your party put a huge effort into gridlocking the government, practicing brinkmanship, an unprecedented number of filibusters, and even stating the first day that their priority was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. If you think anything the Democrats did in comparison was equal, you weren't paying attention.
--- Quote ---Hell yes we should be wary! He's a politician! Our job is to HOLD HIM to his word.
--- End quote ---
Romney hasn't even been able to hold the same opinion for more than a month at a time, never mind trying him out just because he's different than Obama.
--- Quote ---That's why he's got to GO! His record is Ghod-awful. He lied, his party violated the Constitution, HE violated it! Your children have 6+ trillion MORE debt on their heads than 4 years ago: Obama promised it would be (apx) 1.2 max! That alone should boot him from office.
Obama HIMSELF said he should only be a one-term President if he failed to fix the economy in 3 years, and he has failed by ANY measure.
--- End quote ---
The economy has improved under Obama. Government has grown slower than any recent presidency. Yelling FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT while actively obstructing him is a shit metric for Republicans to judge him on.
And here's why Romney is such a joke: cutting Obamacare at this point is reported to increase the deficit, not lower it, according to the CBO. It's pretty much a token gesture, kick the Democrat's program (modeled after his own program) aside, and then offer vague promises to do it one better. Ryan's plan doesn't even begin to par down the deficit for decades, and seems a lot like it's aimed at appeasing current seniors at the cost of the generation behind them. But that's not even it, you toss the revenue cuts and the increased military spending, and how is Romney supposed to be serious about the deficit here?
It's nothing new. Republicans turn into deficit hawks when a Democrat is in power, but it suddenly becomes unimportant when they have control. Romney can't even be bothered to wait till he's in office to tip his hand; instead opting to see if he can softsell a plan that doesn't even try to justify how it'd actually add up.
I'll take Obama's record over that. Romney would have to offer something that at least pretends it's got something more behind it than seeing income inequality rise.
--- Quote ---The reasons for "enforcing the UN articles of cease-fire" on Iraq take a looong time to explain and have NOTHING to do with 'weapons of mass destruction' being found or not.
Another time, or a PM, but this is an election thread and even I don't want to stray THAT far off topic! Lolz!
--- End quote ---
Yeah, it was certainly a bit too time consuming for Bush too, since that definitely wasn't the pretense he went under. And he certainly tried to provide evidence of WMDs so far as I can recall....
xfreidax:
--- Quote from: 5Cats on November 04, 2012, 05:01:46 AM ---Afghan: Bush Prez, Nato run, No UN, Congress approved, Obama supports.
Iraq: Bush Prez, UN sanctioned, Congress approved, Obama opposes.
Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN, NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS) Obama = not his fault.
--- End quote ---
UN sanctioned? Care to point me to the appropriate security council resolutions?
sdedalus83:
--- Quote from: xfreidax on November 04, 2012, 05:56:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: 5Cats on November 04, 2012, 05:01:46 AM ---Afghan: Bush Prez, Nato run, No UN, Congress approved, Obama supports.
Iraq: Bush Prez, UN sanctioned, Congress approved, Obama opposes.
Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN, NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS) Obama = not his fault.
--- End quote ---
UN sanctioned? Care to point me to the appropriate security council resolutions?
--- End quote ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1483
The invasion wasn't, but the occupation was retroactively sanctioned.
xfreidax:
If the invasion wasn't, then sanction of the following occupation is kinda irrelevant and after the fact. Not that UN resolutions mean much in the first place. But when he said UN sanctioned, the implications were the UN said "Go ahead invade Iraq". When in reality, the opposite happened. :P
Nikkoru:
Libya was supported by the UN, NATO, and the Arab league. Just about the only one who didn't vote for it was Congress.
I would agree that that shouldn't be and executive power has increased dramatically as time marches on by use of sketchy legal arguments, particularly since 9/11. The fact remains Obama didn't have to seek out Congress according to an astounding amount of legal precedent -- there have been dozens of similar actions taken without Congressional approval since the Republic was formed. Notably, in Korea, Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, Panama, Libya (in 86), and Lebanon -- and that's just in the last 60 years or so -- all without Congressional approval. Let's face it, it's easier for a sitting President to go to war backhandedly than a woman to get an abortion legally in most Red States.
Outside of ignoring Congress, Obama carried on most of Bush's new police powers. Romney, such as he is, has approved everything of consequence Obama has done regarding this. I don't think anyone short of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich is going to permanently limit the executive branch with greater restrictions, at least intentionally.
As I've said though, it doesn't matter. Americans support war when the cost isn't prohibitive and you can give a half-assed reason why. The legal justifications are more or less white noise for Libya now, something leftists and libertarians intellectuals give a damn about while everyone else has patted themselves on the back for work well done as they did with Kosovo. Iraq would've been the same, Saddam Hussein being dead and oil for all, it was epic incompetency that makes it stick out like a sore thumb.
Libya was irrelevant to me, personally.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version