I'm kind of surprised no one questioned Shanesan's claims. Some of them are legit problems, but again like I mentioned they are not black and white issues. I already said conservatives are horrible when it comes to this. Most of the issues you brought up have huge gray areas and complexities that Republicans don't want to admit to. Using some of them to attack Obama is a cheap shot. Especially when some problems didn't even start with Obama. He's just expected to clean up the mess in his first 3 years.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
Obama backed off on closing Guantanamo.
He continued indefinitely detaining alleged terrorists, WITHOUT TRIAL.
Obama protected the Bush administration from prosecution for torture.
Obama fought for, and won, the right to deny habeas corpus to detainees.
He blocked UN human rights investigations at Guantanamo.
He dropped charges against the CIA for destroying videotapes documenting torture of detainees.
He continued rendition of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured.
|
He also passed an executive order to
mandate periodic review. Currently there are
171 detainees there of which
88 are cleared for release. Basically it's a very complicated matter that both conservatives and liberals attack each other with. It does seem like the camp is winding down, but at the same time I hate to play devil's advocate that some of the people held there are people who would go back into fighting the US if sent home. (A very small percentage though since the numbers are questionable about how many have already done that). I'm against torture so this is a problem I've always had with Obama. However, you have to see things relative.
The majority of Republican support torture as
do the candidates when they were asked if they did during the Republican debates. (Romney wasn't there).
Originally Posted by Shanesan
Obama backed off of his promise to keep lobbyists out of his administration.
|
Heh you have articles like this which beg to differ. It's important to remember how many lobbyists there are for the legislature. Small changes like the recent STOCK act, which stops insider trading, is a good first step. Personally I think the only way to fully fix the problem is to mandate that senators and congressmen can't take in outside income for life if they choose to take the job.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
Obama authorized the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad.
|
This is a point I strongly agree with you on. Playing the Devil's advocate though is very easy to see why two of them were killed. The 16 year old killing is more unjustifiable though and is impossible to rationalize. I'm actually kind of surprised Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't arrested. It's was well known where he lived in Yemen.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
Obama rescinded on his promise to not prosecute marijuana users in states where it is legal, and pushed for a 5 year prison term for a California-legal medical marijuana dispensary operaton.
|
Yeah unescusable. The US's stance on these topics is horrible.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
Obama prosecuted child-soldier Omar Khadr using evidence gained through torture.
|
I don't have enough information about this to say anything. Sounds pretty bad though since the evidence during the case wasn't very good.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
Obama granted 27 waivers to oil companies drilling in the weeks following the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
|
How is this a problem? The Deepwater Horizon disaster is separate from other drilling. It would be like taking the Japanese approach and decommisioning all the Nuclear Reactors because one breaks. Kind of going overboard. (Also Republican would call him out if he stopped drilling. They like drilling or something. Obama gave a few speeches about drilling earlier this month).
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He extended the PATRIOT Act, with no reforms.
|
I don't want to justify his actions, but the
Legislature also passed it fairly easily on both sides. You have to ask yourself, would a Republican do anything different? (Or just check how most of them voted).
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He dramatically increased government secrecy, denying more Freedom of Information Act requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008.
|
Wasn't there more requests during his presidency? This seems like a relative issue. I ask because I think that was the case, but can't find a chart for the number of requests or where people are getting numbers.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while still campaigning on its behalf...
|
It was a compromise between insurance companies and hospitals I believe. What specifically was bad about this? Not to mention the huge republican opposition to a public option. Obama did the most reasonable thing I believe.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He defended Don't Ask Don't Tell from legal challenges and then "celebrated" its repeal.
He reaffirmed his opposition to same-sex marriage though he campaigns as if he supports it.
|
To be fair most politicians are horrible with this topic. The only politicians I've seen that have strong positions are either very religious or had one of their kids come out creating the extremes. And then there's Hillary who is for all human rights generally.
This recent piece from today covers a lot of things. You get the feeling he doesn't want to say anything or do anything to give a reason for attack on the subject. That and he has shown he doesn't want an ammendment either way with his stance on the Defense of Marriage Act. For now it seems like a state issue.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He granted waivers to 30 companies, including McDonalds, exempting them from health care reform.
|
Woah, I never heard of that.
Apparently it's around 1000 companies, not 30. It's a "one-year exemption". Their reasoning seems legit though. I don't see the problem. Sounds like the changes need some time.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He announced the single largest arms deal in history, of $60bil worth of arms, to Saudi Arabian dictatorship.
|
That's a lot of exports. Not gonna lie. It's a hard deal to turn down. That and Saudi Arabia is like the strongest middle eastern ally I believe.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He gave permits to BP and other oil companies, exempting them from environmental protection laws.
|
That was a misconception. The exemption that was cited was for a tested project that was funded with the stimulus. The exclusion was not related to oil and was merely to allow the project to be done. (It was an untested project before and it had a risk involved).
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He appointed Monsanto executive Michael Taylor to the FDA.
He appointed a former Monsanto lobbyist as Chief Agriculture Negotiator.
|
I think this is why some lobbyists are afraid to register. It's a stigma that really holds some politicians back. Did they do something bad or is it the perceived conflict of interest?
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He appointed Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury.
|
I wouldn't worry about it. whatever conservatives thought he did on purpose seems to have hurt him severely.
He already mentioned Obama isn't going to select him again. Probably because of the controversy. If you have more information about the case I'd be willing to read it as the whole thing confused me.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He increased the use of combat drones in Pakistan.
|
It's been going down now after recent incidents. I think a lot of it has to do with the poor border between the countries and Pakistan's apathy toward harboring terrorists. That is they tend not to do anything about it.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He passed a massive Wall Street bailout at the expense of the taxpayers.
|
You should research this more. It actually didn't effect taxpayers at all. I think this misconception came from a
Santorum ad. The $250 billion Wall Street bailouts from TARP were paid back in full with interest.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He played down the importance of the WikiLeaks documents.
|
To be fair they were essentially a random set of 250K documents. He was probably told about the contents of them and the security implications. Most of the stuff I've actually read was useless information.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He pushed for mandatory DNA testing for those arrested for crimes, even if they have not been convicted.
|
I really don't see the problem with this. DNA testing is a valid reason for conviction and must be done before a conviction to link evidence.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He undercuts whistleblowers.
|
To be fair some whistleblowers are breaking laws while doing so. Not condoning any of them sets an interesting precedent that could be exploited with false whistleblowing. There are numerous laws in place (some contradictory) that allow whistleblowing without reprecussions for instance in the US militrary and government. I guess it would depend on which case you were talking about.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He promised $30bil in military aid to Israel over the next decade.
|
Yeah that's the one where they must use a lot of it to purchase weapons from us. We have a fairly advanced weapons program that is mostly subsidized by such deals. It's actually not as bad as it sounds. It was actually one of his campaign promises to keep Israel as a close ally. Most of the money essentially goes back into the US economy indirectly. I'm not a big fan of Israel, but from the people I talk to from there online they seem far more stable than the surrounding countries. (Even if some of their decisions are questionable).
Originally Posted by Shanesan
He gives $250,000 to Chevrolet every time they make a Volt.
|
That number was grossly exagerated you realize that right? It was mostly a sensationalized headline to get readers and assumed only 6K cars would ever be produced.
This article explains the flawed math pretty well.
Originally Posted by Shanesan
I have links for all those.
|
Sigh, why didn't you link them all. It would have saved time.
Originally Posted by Sobekeus
A national sales tax is the way to go, but it needs to be capped (as in Amendment) so the greedy elected 'elite' cant grab more and more of it.
|
You realize that would mean switching from a progressive tax system to a regressive tax system. Poor people aren't taxed currently so the change would basically just tax them more while removing current taxes on the wealthy (since their investments wouldn't be taxed. Only their purchases). This allows the wealthy to accrue wealth more easily. Basically your stance on this depends on if you think wealthy people are being held back by a progressive tax and could do more for the economy. A lot of conservatives believe that. It's a very complex subject so I'd recommend for you to read up on it. (I've already stated I prefer progressive tax systems since they've been proven to create a more linear wealth distribution rather than gaps, but it's mostly based on an idea for increasing overall quality of life).
Originally Posted by Malorn
He's also already made his fortune so its not like a higher tax is going to really affect him.
|
Buffet has talked about long-term capital gains taxes actually in this regards. Those kinds of taxes would affect him and he understands that and talked about them before.
2012-04-13, 03:13 PM
Linear Mode
