Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why should I endorse, or vote for, a President who signs this into law? [View all]joshcryer
(62,269 posts)35. The question did not ask for argument. If asked "what convincing reasons might I have to vote?"...
...I might be more amiable to respond argumentatively. The question was whether or not they should do something they didn't want to do based on their own perceptions.
It is and continues to be a highly privileged view.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
188 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why should I endorse, or vote for, a President who signs this into law? [View all]
MadHound
Jan 2012
OP
Why sign a bill that is "positioned for a court review"? Besides the courts have done terrible
rhett o rick
Jan 2012
#21
He didnt need to sign the bill to tell everyone that he wasnt going to enforce it. If his veto was
rhett o rick
Jan 2012
#63
Good grief. You are desparately trying to rationalize why he should have signed that horrible bill.
rhett o rick
Jan 2012
#115
Because the clause putting Sec Def in charge of detentions was replaced with an elective position
patrice
Jan 2012
#47
Ooo, replaced the Secretary of Defense with the President, now that just inpires confidence,
MadHound
Jan 2012
#82
The court issues outlined in the signing statement were too arcane for me, but if
patrice
Jan 2012
#93
You display your prejudice that it is party interests and not considering that someone CAN
patrice
Jan 2012
#98
That's pretty funny given OP. So . . . if not display, what IS your purpose? nt
patrice
Jan 2012
#108
Is there some reason I should not "display"? Pray, tell!! I missed it. Am I not qualified
patrice
Jan 2012
#110
So anyone who disagrees with you is anti-Constitution? There are major social justice sources like
patrice
Jan 2012
#107
I don't dispute the criticisms. I dispute what to do about them, as though the whole path initiated
patrice
Jan 2012
#123
A peace symbol does not mean that you forsake the struggle for truth. It does mean that you engage
patrice
Jan 2012
#149
Do you think most people, even those that vote, know or care what the NDAA is?
CrispyQ
Jan 2012
#136
Because more people will know more about the WHOLE thing because of court review. nt
patrice
Jan 2012
#50
I am sorry but no. How many people know where the courts stand on Hamdi and Padilla?
rhett o rick
Jan 2012
#65
You're making perfect the enemy of better. Increasing awareness is a good thing, especially
patrice
Jan 2012
#76
Ilove the way you say you want a civil discussion and you lead your response with ridicule
bigtree
Jan 2012
#96
I love the way you try to slip out of questions and criticism by creating strawmen
MadHound
Jan 2012
#100
Are you really looking for a response with a reason you might consider? Or just trying to win
gateley
Jan 2012
#13
why should we care about the particular unfactual hyperbole of a particular anonymous poster?
grantcart
Jan 2012
#14
It appears that no one can give you a good answer. Criticism, yes. A good answer, no.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#15
The signing statement makes it impossible for American citizens to be held indefinitely
WonderGrunion
Jan 2012
#16
It does no such thing. Obama himself is under no obligation to hold to it.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#73
Insofar as you seem to be complaining of a bill that contained waffle-language, to the effect
struggle4progress
Jan 2012
#17
As passed, HR 1540 (the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012," signed
struggle4progress
Jan 2012
#168
I think there's still a functional difference between parties, but that doesn't merit...
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#31
Because with a Republican, you get the same decision plus a lot of crap that is far worse
eridani
Jan 2012
#30
Please note: no one is seriously arguing with you. They're going limp.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jan 2012
#34
The question did not ask for argument. If asked "what convincing reasons might I have to vote?"...
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#35
It is a shitty position to be in as a voter who cares about the Constitution, but...
Poll_Blind
Jan 2012
#48
Because LIFE is about degrees of "the lesser of two evils", that is, unless you support genocide
patrice
Jan 2012
#56
Exactly. Which is why the President should have chosen the lesser of two evils and VETOED it. nt
Poll_Blind
Jan 2012
#58
That is an absolutist and, hence, oppressive position.Whose evils? How much greater or lesser? When?
patrice
Jan 2012
#67
Deflection- such as turning my distaste for an unconstituional law into an issue about veterans...
Poll_Blind
Jan 2012
#75
Not nearly the deflection of trying to turn it to Recess Appointment. BTW, NDAA = FUNDING, so
patrice
Jan 2012
#78
The answers to your questions is absolutely. Would I rather there be a delay in military spending
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#81
That's your right, but it's not your right to REQUIRE that of others. If you have a right to
patrice
Jan 2012
#88
Without the rule of law, there is no framework available for deciding for ourselves save strength of
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#187
But then perhaps I'm making a mistake in thinking your concern is freedom and not a
patrice
Jan 2012
#97
There is no freedom in being permently detained without charge, much less trial.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#188
Everyone repeats that "lesser of two evils" line like there is great unquestionable wisdom in it.
patrice
Jan 2012
#70
I don't believe any court will hear the case until someone is victimized by it.
Poll_Blind
Jan 2012
#60
Because reducing voter turnout can be harmful to other voters' personal issues & to America.
patrice
Jan 2012
#62
Again, agreed! Which is why I was surprised to see so many telling the OP NOT to vote for Obama!
Poll_Blind
Jan 2012
#66
"...why should I support or vote for somebody, anybody, who signs this kind of legislation?"
unkachuck
Jan 2012
#68
I suppose either "You're pleased with Obama's performance" or "You're a Republican dupe."
Poll_Blind
Jan 2012
#113
You understand this has been in play since the AUMF was passed, right? n/t
Bolo Boffin
Jan 2012
#117
He would love to, but all he has is Harper, being a Conservative neo-liberal in Canada and all.
Dragonfli
Jan 2012
#173
Well, looks like your options are vote for someone who has no chance of winning, or...
MilesColtrane
Jan 2012
#124
Some of those recs are people who disagree but appear to rec for other reasons.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#130
You ask a good question, at the heart of what's wrong with the Democratic Party.
Octafish
Jan 2012
#137
don't--vote for Romney or vote for someone on the left who has no chance of winning
WI_DEM
Jan 2012
#141
Mischaracterizations such as "fine with this bill" do nothing for any case. In fact, it is possible
patrice
Jan 2012
#177
Whatever you decide please let us know in the same dramatic fashion.
great white snark
Jan 2012
#183
Let's see how mighty thin the lesser of two evils argument is under President Santorum.
ClassWarrior
Jan 2012
#184