• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama."

Don't you find it kind of frustrating when you're defending him and then he comes out and undermines what you're defending him for?

I have to say no, I don't find him frustrating at all. Maybe it's because I feel I've known what he's about from the very beginning. Obama, above all else, is a politician, in every sense of the word. His whole personality and pov is about getting by and getting over. So when he does those types of things, all I can think is "I should have predicted that"



For instance, I defended him on staying out of the Syria and Egypt conflict. Then he drew a line in the sand on Syria and the line has been crossed several times until now there is no doubt that Assad is using chemical weapons and yet he is virtually silent and does nothing.....how do you defend him on that?

He doesn't defend Planned Parenthood and now women's rights are being eroded away. I was glad that he appointed women to his inner advisory circle....but he has appointed only men his second term. If he doesn't appoint Janet Yellen, instead of Larry Summers to chair the Federal Reserve, I'm afraid that will be the last straw for me.

He didn't defend ACORN and he should have. Then he comments on Trayvon Martin and gets the black community all excited and then he says nothing about the verdict. Is he now going to wait until black male teens go on a rampage all across America before he finally responds?

I like him....but I dunno.....he makes it very difficult to defend him.

I think he's very likable (see above), but I don't personally care for him.
 
By that logic, FDR, Truman, and even Lincoln were all "scum" as well.

They all waged wars which targeted civilians.

Targeting civilians is a war crime. Whoever does it is a war criminal.
 
Targeting civilians is a war crime. Whoever does it is a war criminal.

You are confusing "civilians" with "non-combatants" and both with "illegal collateral damage".

the Geneva Conventions are fairly clear - collateral damage (non combatants / civilians) killed must be in proportion to the relative military advantage gained. So, for example, if you tie a middle-school-teacher to the front of your tank, that does not place your tank off-limits to enemy artillery; it just means you apparently don't like your school teachers all that much.
 
You are confusing "civilians" with "non-combatants" and both with "illegal collateral damage".

the Geneva Conventions are fairly clear - collateral damage (non combatants / civilians) killed must be in proportion to the relative military advantage gained. So, for example, if you tie a middle-school-teacher to the front of your tank, that does not place your tank off-limits to enemy artillery; it just means you apparently don't like your school teachers all that much.

That's just one restriction. There are others. For example: Art 57 of AP1 to the Geneva Convention reads: "constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian objects.” What specific care is taken to ensure civilians are spared during drone strikes?

Article 51 specifically prohibits carpet bombing, the very crime for which Nixon and Kissinger were responsible.
 
Title says it all really. I'm no Democrat and no liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with him too and this article spells out pretty well why.

As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama | Jeff Jarvis | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Whether or not Obama supports any of these developments is irrelevant. He has no power to resist them.

For example, gradual loss of privacy rights was the logical consequence of the Patriot Act. Once the ball got rolling on that there was no way any of the organizations it created and empowered were going to give back their privileges, and if Obama had tried to fight them then the center-right would have accused him of a weak approach to security and blocked his efforts, citing imagined majorities to support their cause and make him look like a fool.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not Obama supports any of these developments is irrelevant. He has no power to resist them.

For example, gradual loss of privacy rights was the logical consequence of the Patriot Act. Once the ball got rolling on that there was no way any of the organizations it created and emowered were going to give back their privileges, and if Obama had tried to fight them then the center-right would have accused him of a weak approach to security and blocked his efforts, citing imagined majorities to support their cause and make him look like a fool.

Exactly what many of us were warning everyone about back when the Patriot Act first came to be. Now that the chcikens are coming home to roost, all the Bush League Patriot Act defender's who argued, "If you got nothing to hide the Patriot Act should not concern you," are the same people whining about it today.

Every once in a while, you gotta sit back and enjoy the, "neener-neener."
 
Back
Top Bottom