General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: An open letter to folks like myself who cannot in good conscience vote for Obama [View all]Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Please note that I said my OP that I didn't want to have this argument, I simply wanted to explain why, despite my objections, I would in fact vote for Obama. The point of the post was to help people who had similar objections by giving them an ethical justification to vote "for" rather than "against".
But people refused to accept this. They demanded to know WHY I held my view, and then they decided to tell me why I was "wrong" as you are doing here when I explained why. Apparently, my vote is not wanted unless I worship at the Obama Altar without question.
A number of people in this thread did see my point and will now vote for Obama. I would think this would make Obama supporters happy, but it doesn't for some strange reason.
So, on to your rebuttal:
Obama never actually claimed to be a progressive
Never claimed he did. Obama is definitely right of center. I recall making this point when he ran in 2008, and got a lot of similar abuse.
You may disagree with the law (I do, personally), but expecting something different to happen without sufficient political will to overturn the act (either by the Supreme Court or by an act of Congress) is frankly, well, naive.
Actually, what he has to do is simple: Nothing. He needs to STOP appealing court decisions that say he does not have the right to hold people forever without trial. He is fighting to keep people at Guantanamo. All I ask that he do is STOP THAT. Take the court ruling and say, well, the judge said we (actually Bush) were wrong.
Not an unreasonable expectation. He actually did do precisely this with DOMA. Why can't he do it with illegal detention?
Which is different to a president appointing a GM executive to the Department of Commerce or a former JP Morgan banker to the Treasury how, exactly?
You will have to give me some context for this. Who did the appointing? Just off the top of my head the answer would be that there is no difference and it would be just as wrong which is why he should not do it.
See Paul Krugman on free trade and comparative advantage, here: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm This amounts to "I don't understand economics".
I do believe that Krugman does make distinctions between "free trade" as practiced, and "fair trade" which is the better solution, but hell you can have this one.
One's view on this largely depends on whether you accept the argument that the drones are being used to target "enemy combatants" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like it or not, the US is at war in Afghanistan against an insurgent enemy. Whether you think we should be there or not (I don't) some level of collateral damage is unavoidable and targeting with drones means fewer American casualties.
I have heard these kinds of legalistic arguments before. Didn't buy them from John Woo, don't buy them from Obama. As I recall, they didn't accept these arguments at Nuremberg either.
Which is disappointing but then the expansion of the national security state tends to go in one direction; it's not any different to the use of domestic wiretaps of civil rights organisers by the FBI under JFK.
Which in no way obviates Obama from refraining from the practice. The "everybody else did it" justification is very first grade-ish.
No US president is going to investigate putative war crimes that may have been committed by his predecessor or by American troops. The most that might happen is a few token trials of individual soldiers for specific actions without any recognition that those actions were due to any official policy.
I seem to recall soldiers in Vietnam being tried for waterboarding Vietnamese back in the 60s, so this is simply not true. I am sorry, so very sorry, that Obama is a moral coward on this issue, as he opens the way for more and worse abuses in the future.
"Fraud" is by and large an overstatement. There was a lot of money lost in questionable investments in the financial crisis; the actions that led to that money being lost were all perfectly legal thanks to deregulation of the financial sector.
A number of financial reporters such as Matt Taibbi beg to differ. Also, when individual states' AGs began criminal investigations, the Obama "Justice" department did everything in its power to thwart them, and persuade them to take civil settlements instead.
Because not ensuring liquidity and the overall stability of the banking system would be a much better option.
In Iceland, they refused to bail out the banks, and they prosecuted the bankers. Their economy seems to be coming along swimmingly. Currently, the top 25 banks (assets $11 trillion) are sitting on "derivatives" (wild ass bets) equal to $233 trillion. Are we to pay for that when it blows up as well?
You know who FDR appointed to head the Securities and Exchange Commission? Joe Kennedy.
You have a point there. It takes a thief to catch a thief. Trouble is, Geitner, et al, don't want to catch anyone or reform the system. Somehow, FDR got reform with Joe Kennedy.
The votes weren't there for single payer, and the ACA was the best option available. Sometimes you have to be a pragmatic incrementalist.
And Obama made ZERO attempts to fight for it when he had the political capital. Also, once you invite the insurance industry to write the law, you can be DAMNED sure the votes won't be there since "single payer" won't be there.
It's great that you've reconsidered your position, although considering the state of American politics generally, I would seriously have to ask you: do you have any viable options?
No.
And we never will as long as "pragmatists" keep telling us it can't be done.
OK, you have the vote. May I suggest you quit while you are ahead?