Profile
Search
Register
Log in
National Defense Authorization Act
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

If Bush did this people would be losing it.
Post Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
adic



Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC
 Reply with quote  

Although I've been hugely disappointed in Obama, I was still planning on voting for him again, after this I don't think I can though...
Post Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

Oh yeah, he also just signed off on sanctioning Iran.

Iran will now block the oil export route out of the gulf.

Happy New Year everybody!
Post Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rob-Raz



Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 151
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
 Reply with quote  

I guess he clarified his stance a bit. But what about the next administration?

"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in a statement Saturday. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/31/politics/obama-defense-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Post Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

And you believe him?
Post Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:12 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rob-Raz



Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 151
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
 Reply with quote  

Plum Puddin' wrote:
And you believe him?


Well.....he is a politician, so not really. Just had not seen a formal response from him before on this aspect of the bill so I was puttin that out there.
Post Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:23 am
 View user's profile Send private message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

That's just his undercover way of saying "the reptiles made me do it".
Post Sun Jan 01, 2012 4:21 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19362
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

1. I don't believe him and I'm sure he already HAS authorized said detentions
2. If he won't, the next guy will. Obama had a chance with his administration to reverse course on this road to tyranny but in the end was too chickenshit to make a stand about it, and now all that shit that scared the crap out of us about the Bush administration will be completely legal for President Gingrich etc.

There's no way I'm voting for him. I don't care if he's running against Hitler. I'll be voting for a third party. And if there's not one, I'll write one in.
Post Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:55 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
xGasPricesx



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1543
 Reply with quote  

Found this on reddit and thought it was some pretty good insight into how Obama was pretty much forced to sign this bill.

"He signed it because if he didn't, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I'll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President's wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.

You'll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn't coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President's stated mandate - they are effectively a giant 'fuck you' to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President's support with his own base.

Observe:
Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.

Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.

Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)

Here's where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party's base and the opposition's. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to 'Keep America safe' and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent's liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that's what they care about most. You've designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don't even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.

Pass the 'parent' legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military's operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent's base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won't matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.

Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It's a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.

This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don't know or don't care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this 'corporate shill', congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don't seem to see that. You don't have to like your country's two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it's being used like this."



(Edited to make it a little easier to read.)
Post Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367
 Reply with quote  

Vetoing the NDAA would not have been "political suicide." That is apologetic bullshit. The president who took out Bin Laden and most of the Al-Qaeda leadership is simply not vulnerable to the "soft on terrorism" smear.


I agree though; the real fury should be directed towards Democratic legislators who voted for this crock of shit.
Post Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
xGasPricesx



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1543
 Reply with quote  

MCGF wrote:
Vetoing the NDAA would not have been "political suicide." That is apologetic bullshit. The president who took out Bin Laden and most of the Al-Qaeda leadership is simply not vulnerable to the "soft on terrorism" smear.


I agree though; the real fury should be directed towards Democratic legislators who voted for this crock of shit.


I think it might have been to a certain extent, vetoing the defense budget and cutting off veteran's benefits doesn't really look good, no matter what is attached to it. He has definitely been criticized throughout his presidency for "being soft on terrorism" too, not just by Fox News either. Even if he did veto it though, Congress would most likely have gotten the 2/3rds they need to override it.
Post Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:07 am
 View user's profile Send private message
desert penguin



Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 1104
 Reply with quote  

The democrats' defense is always "the republicans are better at politics than us."

Well, then, fuck.

That admission is really not going to win my vote back.
Post Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:45 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon