Obama has done more to destroy civil liberties than any Republican ever could have dreamed.
Ridiculous. I understand the perspective that civil liberties online are under a constant assault by the government, but no reading of the actual facts could lead someone to the informed belief that Obama's DOJ and NSA are worse than Bush's, or, for that matter, Clinton's or Bush I's.
The Patriot Act alone is a decent case that Bush and Obama (by passing and reauthorizing, respectively) have been worse than their predecessors. And Obama has taken many transgressions farther than Bush, both in direct actions and in attempts to hide information about actions, including government immunity for surveillance violations , citing exceptions to open record laws , ignoring FOIA requests , prosecuting whistleblowers , use of national security letters, saying that they can't tell us how many Americans they've spied on, etc, etc. The TSA seems to gotten more annoying, too.
Disclaimer: I have very strong disagreements with the President and several of his actions, including the Patriot Act issue (among others). I also agree with many of his social views.
Considering the role of the President properly, including the ways in which certain latitudes of movement (i.e., the ability to fulfill campaign promises or advance new agendas) are circumscribed by congressional action, I don't think asserting that he could have done X were it not for Y is really something that falls in the whether-you-believe-it-or-not category. Not everything in reality is there for you to believe or not believe.
The President does not have the power to just operate in total freedom, doing as s/he will with the office. The President can advance an agenda, attempting to build congressional support, but then has to pretty much wait to see what happens. Where that agenda requires Congress to take it up and act, it's rather disingenuous to blame any sitting President.
Moreover, there is a vast disconnect between the structure and operations of government and the People's perception of its structure and operations. When a sizable majority elects a presidential candidate based on the promises made in his/her platform, [I think] they actually expect to see those promises fulfilled. Unfortunately for the voters, the President doesn't really have the actual power to fulfill most (if not all) of them. This is especially frustrating when one sees a historical moment that could be capitalized upon, but is then reacted to with all manner of obstructing and filibustering that the ousted party can muster (such as that of the GOP focused on their goal of making President Obama a one-termer).
So, a new President enters the office, flying into the White House from the lofty heights of the People's surging will, and then Congress decimates the euphoria by thinking that they can go back to politicking and just ignore that the People voted not just for the candidate, but for the candidate's platform. In this way, the onus is really on the President's party to move forward with legislation that embodies the platform. To this end, the Democratic Party did a poor job.
Of course, this cuts both ways and is a difficult reality. Voters expect to see a President's platform promises fulfilled, and rightfully so. But as far as those who didn't vote for the platform are concerned, it's a tough road that carries with it all manner of Tocquevillian tyranny-of-the-majority concerns. Were Romney-Ryan to win, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see the whole of Congress hunkering down to draft legislation that mirrors the GOP platform, because I find most of it to be utterly atrocious and unconscionable (particularly where social issues are concerned). I want Congress to resist rolling us back to pre-1964/1972 America.
Obviously, the President can reverse EOs from prior Presidents. This, I think, would be an excellent thing for Presidents to actually spend significant time doing. Not just the occasional reversal that we typically see. They could be undoing all the damage wrought by their predecessor insofar as the people have voted with a clear enough mandate for his/her platform as it relates to being opposed to certain prior presidential actions. This is why Gitmo is such a sticking issue (to me, at least).
But where the platform consists of items that require legislation, the President is much more hamstrung to fulfill these promises--which then makes for great, but utterly useless, campaign fodder for his adversary in the next election cycle.
All that said, presidential actions that speak louder than words (or platforms), are another matter entirely. President Obama's actions have, on the whole, brought America back into considerably better standing with the world community than it was under Bush. I've seen quite a bit of press in Europe given to discussions about how much more preferable Mr. Obama is to Mr. Romney. There are plenty of presidential actions that have nothing to do with certain legislative actions--and yet the typical election cycle inevitably focuses on presidential actions that relate to legislation instead of fulfilling the job of being the executive.
I'm aware of the disconnect between intent of the president and what he is capable of, and the promise-party that always takes place before an election is appalling. To see Clinton, who presided over multiple budget surpluses, tow the party line and endorse Obama, who is presiding over four straight trillion dollar deficits with zero real plan for debt reduction (just reducing the yearly deficit and calling it 'debt reduction'), is enraging. But I'm not going to argue about intentions - it's a pointless argument.
In regards to your last point, I will say flatly that I do not care about our perception in the eyes of the 'world community', I merely care about the reality of our situation. I think anyone other than Bush would have 'elevated our standing' with the rest of the world much the same as Obama (bonus 'progressive' points if not white or male). I don't consider much of the rest of the world such a great place that we should be concerned about appeasing them with politics they get to muse about and we have to live with.
> I will say flatly that I do not care about our perception in the eyes of the 'world community', I merely care about the reality of our situation. \
You really should. The perception the world has of America has a great and fundamental impact on the "reality of our situation". We do not exist in a vacuum, and the worse we appear in the world's eyes, the more difficult things can become.
> I think anyone other than Bush would have 'elevated our standing' with the rest of the world much the same as Obama (bonus 'progressive' points if not white or male).
This is pretty much nonsense. McCain & Palin would not have elevated our standing in global perceptions, but eroded it further instead. World perception does not have to do with whether or not the President is white or male, either. It is built atop the content of ideas and the policies we follow. This is a rather ridiculously cynical view.
> I don't consider much of the rest of the world such a great place that we should be concerned about appeasing them with politics they get to muse about and we have to live with.
Nobody said anything of the sort. Hate to break it to you, though--as much as you don't consider the rest of the world such a great place that is worth being mindful of in our political decision-making, they feel exactly the same way. And they far outnumber us, friend. I think the world would quite unanimously declare the same sentiment:
We don't consider America such a great place that we should be concerned about appeasing it with politics that it gets to muse about and we all have to live with.
Please explain your first statement. I have trouble understanding how simply electing Obama made things easier for us in regards to world politics - that is a very vague and subjective statement, and I haven't seen anything happen in the last four years that only happened because of improved world perception, other than maybe that laughable Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps we experienced far less fallout over intervening in Libya than we would have under a Republican president.
In regards to your second statement, you are likely correct. In comparison to McCain/Palin, Obama definitely improved the perception, if not the reality. And I am cynical, because that is the only reasonable response to American politics at this point.
And in regards to the third, so be it. They shouldn't have to worry about how we perceive their leaders. If they do, it's only because we have the world's most powerful military and both Democrat and Republican alike have shown willingness to use it.
A little bit, but also, they're selling more than their own election; what thwarts the fulfillment of most of these promises is politics. If Obama had a clearer mandate after the election, and, particularly, in 2010, he'd have had more success delivering.
What are you really asking? Do you honestly think Obama didn't want to close Guantanamo?
I think he made a promise to close Guantanamo without thinking it through. Then he changed his mind.
The fact is, when Ron Paul (or someone like him) says he will close Guantanamo Bay, you know they will close it, by executive order if need be. Obama was content to make an attempt and either change his mind or give up. As such, I have either changed my mind about him or given up. Doesn't really matter which - intentions mean nothing in politics at this point.
Neither, really. I was attempting to be a bit more nuanced than that (I was already long-winded as all hell).
> Are you saying that politicians are so out of touch with reality that they don't know what they promise is impossible?
No, I think the vast majority of voters more reliably fall into this camp, actually. Politicians are quite aware that they make unfulfillable promises, knowing much of it is (likely) impossible, but they do it because it has become the expectation in American elections that politicians campaign on issues, and they have to choose issues they think will resound strongly enough with the voting public.
> Or are they being intentionally misleading?
Well, to a certain extent--that extent being to the full degree to which they make unfulfillable promises--yeah, if I was being pedantic about it. I don't think they are completely misleading in that I am certain many candidates do believe strongly in certain issues and are genuinely interested in "fighting" politically for those issues.
With congresspersons, I don't think this problem is as acute as it is with presidents. They make promises that are legislative in nature, and can actually deliver (or be criticized for not delivering).
Unfortunately, campaign promises were adopted into the popular election of presidents, and I think are detrimental for voters and the presidents themselves. Presidents operate within relatively (and sometimes heavily, depending on the political climate) circumscribed spheres of influence. Yes, presidents can (and do) suggest an agenda and even outright offer legislation to Congress, and work to spend political capital to the advancement of that agenda. But, ultimately, Congress has the authority, power, and responsibility where lawmaking that affects the People is concerned. But presidents seem (from the opposite aisle) to receive a lot of unwarranted blame for congressional actions--and then the congressional actors go on to spend many more terms in office.
Where I do believe politicians are being intentionally misleading is on the campaign trail, specifically where contenders take on incumbents and criticize them for mostly legislative actions that are beyond their control, instead of for executive actions. If Mr. Romney wants to attack Mr. Obama for the ways in which he is executing the law, or representing the policies of the nation to other heads of state, etc., okay. But when he attacks the President for things that happened in Congress, it is fundamentally misleading. It leaves people confused about the structure and organization of government, effectively perpetuating the same cycle.
Yes, the Patriot Act sucks, even for many conservatives, but for shit's sake, man up and quit defending him. He had 2 fucking years to make any changes he wanted. Also, the Dems rolled through the entire Patriot Act. So, it seems like your beef is as much with them as with their opponents.
I believe in public schools and guaranteed-issue health insurance more than I believe that the PATRIOT act, which I do not support, is a vitally important issue that is destroying the republic with each passing minute. If we were, instead of making it easier for the FBI to unaccountably streamline judicial oversight --- which, again, is bad --- if we were instead interning Japanese people in camps, or blacklisting people from civil service jobs for supporting unions --- my judgement would be different.
These are, of course, my private political beliefs, and not at all relevant to the thread. They are the kind of thing you get, as opposed to details of the actual bill we're ostensibly discussing, when ask someone on a message board thread to "man up and quit defending" a candidate for office.
Ok, fair enough. You covered a lot in that comment, and I think I agree with a lot of it, even though I'm conservative.
And, my opinion on who/what is destroying our "republic with each passing minute" is much different than yours, but that's why we live here. :)
I agree, this convo has completely diverted from the original thread topic, but my comment was in response to your comment about civil liberties, etc. I'm happy to listen in to the other stuff, but when you venture out into other political philosophies, be prepared to debate. I don't care how smart you think you are :).
But, I stick by my original statement of, "man up and quit defending him." My gut tells me you're somewhere in-between, like I am, but only you can answer that...
I have a lot of respect for conservatives. I am most definitely not one of them, but many of my smartest friends are. I think conservatives are wrong; I don't think that they are part of a secret plot to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
My mindset qualifies as "in between" on the Internet, but I am probably about as close to a mainstream Democrat as you could find in the real world.
I'm curious...My entire extended family is "traditional Democrat" yet they live conservatively with the values of conservatives not liberals. Yet they insist on voting straight Democrat, as if Jfk were in office. What is it about the Democratic party that you're attracted to? You've mentioned education and health care before...is that all?
I'm socially liberal and believe in a carefully regulated free market, as well. I don't think civil liberties are an issue that bind strongly to either party; there are principled advocates for civil liberties coming from both directions.
no reading of the actual facts could lead someone to the informed belief that Obama's DOJ and NSA are worse than Bush's, or, for that matter, Clinton's or Bush I's.
Oh? What about everything related to civil liberties going severely downhill since Bush? Take the NSA "spy center" in Utah we're all aware of by now. How's that for Change You Can Believe In?
Now, why is it that whenever there's a post about the US government being up to no good, you are all over the place defending the government or making things seem less serious, or like this time, just mixing things up?
Are you some kind of perception management agent or what?
Last time there was a post that um.. required your intervention, the thread was like half-full of your posts. Seriously. What the fuck? What are you doing?
Everyone who lives in reality knows you've got quite a police state going on over there. Everyone knows your government is totally owned by Wall Street and other elites . Everyone knows your police force is full of thugs that tase people to death for fun. Countless Americans have had their houses fraudulently foreclosed on by the banks.
America is swirling down the drain. What the hell are you trying to accomplish here on Hacker News by trying to polish the turd of reality?
 Well, except for Ron Paul and a couple of other people.
Would you define reality as what the media is telling you or do you have experience living in America? I'm just not sure, but your post implied that you don't live here and get many of your facts from the news. That doesn't give an accurate representation of life in America.
get many of your facts from the news. That doesn't give an accurate representation of life in America.
Nope. Quite the contrary. I'm aware that the main stream media is mostly just a tool for controlling the masses. The issue here was tptacek always rushing in to defend The Establishment in whatever is happening.
An easy way to always sound like you're defending the establishment in threads like these is to read the bill before commenting. I don't mean this in a snarky way at all; I'm not saying "you could only oppose this bill if you haven't read it". I oppose the bill. But because I've also read the bill, I cannot project onto it as broadly as most of the thread can.
No, the NDAA did not allow the President to do that. The 2002 AUMF that started the Iraq War did. What Obama's detractors are mad about W.R.T. the NDAA --- apart from the ones who don't understand what the NDAA is, and believe that it is actually a bill that specifically authorizes the President to bomb people from drones --- what they're mad about is that Obama did not VETO the NDAA in order to RESCIND the authority that the executive ALREADY HAD from the AUMF.
Vetoing the NDAA, which passes every year, would have involved not paying soldiers. In the United States, it's the legislative branch, not the executive, that gets to decide the terms on which we pay people.
No, the NDAA did not allow the President to do that. The 2002 AUMF that started the Iraq War did.
It seems both did.
what they're mad about is that Obama did not VETO the NDAA in order to RESCIND the authority that the executive ALREADY HAD from the AUMF.
You say it like there's nothing wrong with the authority to detain citizens at will because it was already in place.
Also, what I said about your behavior is accurate. You always do spring into action whenever bad things The Establishment does are discussed.
Why is that? For example in this case, it doesn't really matter that the AUMF had already "legalized" something that just should not happen at all. The point is that nasty shit is afoot. It's irrelevant exactly how and when your government "authorized" itself to do it.
Vetoing the NDAA, which passes every year, would have involved not paying soldiers.
Your "defense" budget could certainly use a hefty cut, but then you might have (even more) trouble maintaining your global Empire.
But surely they could work around this issue if they wanted to de-authorize the government from shipping any old innocent bystander (or unharmonious troublemaker, as the case would be) off to Guantanamo on a whim.
If you're going to actually read these (and you should, if you care about computer security regulation, but maybe not otherwise since these really aren't far-reaching bills), note that the final CISPA bill the house voted on had several amendments not in the base text; for instance, the final version explicitly struck mention of "intellectual property protection" (not because the House caved, but because the House meant something different by IP protection than what everyone took the text to mean)