Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The really sacry thing would be basing U.S. policy on what that (or any other) tiny minority in the nation thinks.
Well, that's not the point. The point is, as has also been mentioned by others, Obama has trouble with his base on this, as he has with NSA.
The really sacry thing would be basing U.S. policy on what that (or any other) tiny minority in the nation thinks.
Well, that's not the point. The point is, as has also been mentioned by others, Obama has trouble with his base on this, as he has with NSA.
Latest poll I saw of the American public on the issue of Syria was that 56% opposed Obama's proposal and 19% approved with the other 25% undecided.
Sometimes the American people, as a whole, are smarter and more perceptive, less invested in political games, and should be listened to. It might have saved your country from Obamacare in its current form, had politicians listened.
Well, that's not the point. The point is, as has also been mentioned by others, Obama has trouble with his base on this, as he has with NSA.
That's a good thing, isn't it? The whole idea of democracy is that our leaders should, hypothetically, represent the interest of the voters. It is better to see a President losing support than to see voters going along for the ride because they supported Obama in his reelection campaign. I'm proud of the Democratic base, they didn't think war with Iraq was justified and they don't think war with Syria is justified, either. I believe that there can be action taken against Syria that doesn't make the United States responsible for their security. Within those bounds, I'd be happy to support action against that awful government.
Obama's "base" is considerably larger than this tiny subset of left wing loons.
Well sure, of course I know that.
Obama's base is neither going to switch to voting for republicants nor are they going to stop supporting demorats.
And I do know that too!
At the very least this demonstrates why Obama is not the most liberal president in American history like some on the right are constantly saying. If he was, why would so many liberals be fed up?
Progressives are usually wary of military intervention and presidential war power, so this is nothing new.
What is new is that conservatives -- because of the pathology of Obamaphobia -- are all over the map on the Syrian issue. The conservative tendency is to push for war and demagogue a military issue to claim that Democratic presidents are weak unless they blow something up. But since Obama seems intent on blowing something up, conservatives had to put on the brakes and attack Obama for wanting to blow something up, pretending that they -- the party of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld -- is reluctant to strike an Arab country.
So the really funny thing here is the total incoherency of the conservative message and how these freaks are tying themselves into knots trying to pretend they are acting on principle. This is what happens when your philosophy is defined by vapid memes instead of thoughtful principles.
The last President to hold office that did not have a member of the military killed in action during his term (actually two) was....not a progressive....not a Democrat..he was GOP. Ike.
I know, that fact doesn't fit your theme but then facts usually don't. Carry on with your story, we all know you will tell it exactly how you want.
You damn right winger...always trying to CB Obama. Its his race, isnt it?how many - from whatever lean - actually thinking getting involved in syria is a good idea?
we learned from vietnam ... at least until iraq
now maybe from iraq and afghanistan our citizens have learned again to mind our own damn business
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?