Skip to main content

View Diary: The return of Droney (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, killing lots of innocent people so that (21+ / 0-)

    "our" candidates are sure to be elected is pragmatic.

    It's not exactly what all of us are striving for, however.

    •  I thought I made it pretty clear (6+ / 0-)

      that I wasn't a pro-droner (the commenter I was replying to's label), just that it pro-droner is an incredibly inflammatory use of language. I also made it clear that I struggle with "pragmatic" as a choice -- thanks for totally ignoring that. I'll go back to lurking, I'm pro-lurking.

      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Einstein

      by reginahny on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:23:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For fuck's sake, if somebody posts (15+ / 0-)

        multiple posts in favor of drones, and how they are currently being used by the Obama administration, how else should they be characterized?

        It's a simple statement of fact that they are "pro-drone"

      •  To describe (25+ / 0-)

        smart, informed criticism of drone warfare as "sowing dissent at a critical time" is to be effectively pro-drone. Stop trying to turn Daily Kos into an authoritarian, criticism-free zone.

        •  Really? You think a person can't be against (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          david mizner, blueyedace2, artmartin

          drone warfare but agree the discussion will be more productive in 40 days?  

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:38:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think there's never a wrong time to (27+ / 0-)

            talk about the killing of innocents. I think I've never seen Obama's hardcore supporters acknowledge a good time to criticize the President's policies. I think that what you --and others -- are asking for is a site which lacks criticism of the President's policies for the next month plus. I think that if electing Obama is your overriding concern, then criticism from the left helps him, because drones are overwhelmingly popular with the public, including Democrats. I think I've had enough of progressives claiming they oppose policies but can't abide criticism of said policies.

            •  I recall quite well almost exactly 4 years ago (10+ / 0-)

              I expressed dismay at Candidate Obama's electioneering efforts, which included the vow to attack Pakistan in much the horrific way he has done.

              And was told "the stakes are too high, don't say anything right now (hint, wait until the election is over to hold his feet to the fire so to speak)"

              Or "he's just kidding, you know, taking a hard line to get elected, he'll never follow through . .. . "

              etc etc

              •  I understand your frustration. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                reginahny, Roadbed Guy, atana

                This probably isn't the best President for someone who wants the use of drones stopped. He never has been. But with support for drone warfare as high as it is, we aren't going to change him IMO.  And we don't have a candidate to support if drone warfare is our main issue. But even if it is the most important issue to you there are still other important issues that this election will address.  And supporting the President can help address those issues. It doesn't mean we stop trying to fix the drone problem.  It just means that if we are going to try to fix it politically we've got to do a better job of making it an issue politicians care about in the future.  Refusing to vote when the other very important issues are on the table doesn't make anyone take us seriously. I think we have to change public perception for the issue of drones to become one that will be addressed by a politician.

                "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:21:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I agree that there is never a wrong time. (0+ / 0-)

              I also think that every headline in America screaming about drone warfare for the next 40 days won't change the election much. But there are many, many issues that affect the lives of innocents and drone warfare is one of them. Right now, the problem with drone warfare isn't going to be addressed within the confines of an election while the vast majority of the electorate think drone warfare is a good thing. So those who oppose drone warfare need to stop making it about the President and the election right now.  And I have no problem acknowledging that this election can make a difference to some of the other innocents who would be affected by a Republican victory. I do think that simply attacking the President or any politician isn't a good strategy. We have to change public opinion to change politicians.

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:06:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You did - you saw my diary. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooderservice, david mizner, kurt
              I think I've never seen Obama's hardcore supporters acknowledge a good time to criticize the President's policies.
              I was the first person to bring up the Stanford/NYU study on this site, actually. I am strongly pro-Obama and strongly anti-drone, and have no problem having both discussions simultaneously.
          •  If we acquiesce in waiting 40 days to dissent... (18+ / 0-)

            certain supporters will insist that we wait 40 days more. They simply object to the dissent on any particular day and should admit as much.

            Life is the ultimate economic bubble; we leave this life with all the capital we initially invested: none.

            by Superskepticalman on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:51:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And if they do that I think you have a very good (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              artmartin

              argument that they aren't being honest about their intentions. However, it doesn't take a PhD in political science to see why the next 40 days are extremely important. So the request to wait doesn't see that unreasonable to me.

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:09:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If? This is a constant thing (11+ / 0-)

                Throughout this administration three has been a constant drum beat against criticizing Obama, regardless of when it has been.  First it was too soon, then there were the midterms, then the election started. LGBT activists were attacked for making noise, until Obama changed his positions, then they were a great example of how to do things, just not now.

                The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:20:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe because it goes to credibility. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  reginahny

                  The first diatribe I saw here about the President failing the left was 12 days after the inauguration.  With the support for drones at the level it is it won't make a bit of difference if the criticisms continue for the next 40 days. You of all people should know it isn't about complaining...it's about what you can actually get DONE.  If people want to complain for the next 40 days and secretly (or openly) hope the President isn't re-elected then they are certainly free to do that.  If they think that strategy will in anyway affect the usage of drones I think they are wrong. Losing credibility by complaining when it has no effect isn't helpful. I personally think there is no loss in waiting until the election is over. Then the burden of explaining why it "isn't the right time now" will dramatically shift. I personally think going after the problem from the top down (ie the President) is counterproductive. I think we need to change public opinion and perception rather than demand that elected officials go against the tide of public support.

                  "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                  by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:33:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK (13+ / 0-)

                    This is such a cop-out

                    You of all people should know it isn't about complaining...it's about what you can actually get DONE.
                    Getting stuff "done" actually involves sticking to their convictions no matter who is in charge because one thing that is true is that those issues will be there no matter and will only stay at the forefront if people don't turn a blind eye and accept that as the way of the world.

                    There are no sacred cows.

                    by LaEscapee on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:41:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Just curious, why was that? (11+ / 0-)
                    The first diatribe I saw here about the President failing the left was 12 days after the inauguration.
                    was it due to his blanket endorsement of torture by giving immunity to anyone in the CIA who tortured?

                    or was it due to his quickie approval of 42 out of 46 MTR coal mines?

                    or perhaps doubling down on Bush's idiotic education policies in the person of Arne Duncan?

                    •  "why" is unimportant. (5+ / 0-)

                      ...that it was twelve days (omg!!1!!) is all that mattered.

                      •  I'm sorry, obviously I am more forgiving than you (0+ / 0-)

                        think I should be. I never expected the President (or any politician) to not disappoint me.  I never expected him to do everything I wanted--or even most of it. I certainly never expected him to get things absolutely right right off the bat. Obviously others aren't like me. I think if you are going to teach a politician to tie his shoes you have to accept that it's progress if he simply sits down in the same room with his shoes.  Very little has been done by fiat. Almost all progress has taken time and been incremental. Though this is not a diary about how the President shouldn't be re-elected (at least I think it isn't) if you want my view on whether we should support him the answer is yes.  And the reason is that change takes time. Lots of it.  Especially when our opponents are rich corporations. So being displeased after 12 days I totally get.  Giving up after 12 days--not so much.

                        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                        by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:56:43 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  If I recall correctly it was about his selections (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Roadbed Guy

                      of men from the financial sector for his cabinet.  If your ultimate position is that you don't like President Obama and his policies and don't want him elected just say so. I'm just saying I wish we could have a discussion about drones without it being linked to either supporting or not supporting the President. I am hoping there is a way to support the best candidate who can be elected and still try to address the problem of drone warfare. Even IF drone warfare were my only issue it still can't be addressed within the confines of this election.

                      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                      by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:48:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  he hehe hehe eh (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        stellaluna, gooderservice, Aspe4

                        I forgot about Timmy, d'ohh!!!

                        but don't worry, he'll be on the list next time . ..

                        •  And for all of my support of the President being (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Roadbed Guy

                          re-elected...I haven't forgotten Tim. : )

                          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                          by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:58:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the bottom line is that every single DKer (5+ / 0-)

                            is going to hold his or her nose (if that's what it takes) and go out there and vote for the POTUS (and down-ticket as the case may be).

                            Simply because we're non-stupid enough to know that the alternative is so much worse.

                            But, shit like this really, really makes it much more difficult to go out there and enthusiastically make the case to the proverbial undecided voter that there really is any substantial difference between the parties (unless someone happens to care about the supreme court, which surprisingly few people do . . .)

                          •  But I'm not having to hold my nose. (0+ / 0-)

                            For a Presidential candidate he has disappointed less than most. The nose-holding comes to politicians in general. Probably because the majority of the people they represent don't think like me.  And I disagree that the undecided voter doesn't see the difference between the parties.  The poll numbers wouldn't be what they are if that were the case. I think the poll numbers absolutely reflect the perceived difference between the parties as it has become more glaring as every day has passed. With that said, it doesn't mean their isn't a lot of work to be done when dealing with politicians.

                            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                            by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:08:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's why I said "if that's what it takes" (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            stellaluna, gooderservice, Aspe4

                            because I have no problem is there are people out there who are geniunely ethusiastic.

                            Just saying, for me, the only substantial way that Obama has been unambiguiosly better is through his SC appointees (which is actually quite a big deal, but still!!!)

                             

                          •  Oh yeah, and when the Dems outsource (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gooderservice, Aspe4

                            your job, they're happy to give you 99 weeks of unemployment benefits rather than the 6 months the Repubs begrudge you.

                            Geez, how could I have forgotten that?

                          •  I almost agree (5+ / 0-)

                            My one beef is that those that claim they care about the supremes ar ignoring the fact that it's been a long time since a Democrat even offered up a liberal

                            There are no sacred cows.

                            by LaEscapee on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:12:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, that is a problem (4+ / 0-)

                            Dems tend to appoint totally competent, solid centrists who in a vacuum would be excellent appointees.

                            But in the "big picture" they tend to be to the right of who they are replacing, thus consolidating the court's march to the right.

                            But still, with a Republican POTUS things would be MUCH WORSE (yeah, the "lesser of evils" argument wears thin, but heck, what are we supposed to do?)

                          •  You are so correct. But it is still a difference (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy

                            by comparison. I think the President wasn't willing to expend political capital on an ugly fight for confirmation. I wish he would have but I can see why he didn't. If I am right (and I could be wrong) the political capital isn't as much of a problem as it is when re-election is looming. His choices have been good on some criminal issues though. It may be dreaming but his history suggests things could be better in that arena the next four years. Just as his history as a pragmatic, patient non-controversial candidate predicted the first four years. At least I hope.

                            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                            by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:21:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm assuming that the key word is "some" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gooderservice, kurt
                            His choices have been good on some criminal issues though.
                            because his stance on non-violent drug offenses has been totally baffling . . ..
                          •  I'm referring to SC decisions as being somewhat (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy

                            positive. But we will see on 4th Amendment issues to be decided shortly. DOJ is a disappointment. But in his defense it would need a top to bottom cleaning out of Bush hires and I don't think he's had time for that. I do think the financial crisis changed who the President could be and what risks he could take.

                            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                            by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:31:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You do seem to have an endless supply (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LaEscapee, Aspe4

                            of excuses for Obama.  I find that truly amazing.

                            But in his defense it would need a top to bottom cleaning out of Bush hires and I don't think he's had time for that.
                            He hasn't has "time" for it?  Top to bottom?  How about starting with asking for Holder's resignation like a long time ago.  

                            You make it seem like Obama has no responsibility for the DOJ, none, whatsoever.

                            Yet somehow Bush was criticized when Bush had his own clowns running the DOJ.

                            There was no better time for Obama to delegate the cleaning house of the DOJ than the first two years with the huge number of Dems we had.  He obviously didn't do because he didn't want to.  That's troubling.

                          •  Well the point I had tried to make about this (0+ / 0-)

                            issue was that Ithought it would be more productive to have a conversation about the use of drones without the pro or anti Obama distraction.  It seems that in continuing the conversation with Rustbelt Dem about unrelated matters I have offended you by seeming to make "endless" excuses for President Obama.  I won't defend myself or him on this point to you since I think it is counter-productive to the discussion of drone warfare.  

                            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                            by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 01:02:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The drones didn't go rogue. (0+ / 0-)
                            Ithought it would be more productive to have a conversation about the use of drones without the pro or anti Obama distraction.
                            I hope you're not saying the drones are killing innocent people and Obama has no earthly clue it's happening, and I hope you're not suggesting that he alone can't stop it.
                            It seems...I have offended you by seeming to make "endless" excuses for President Obama.
                            I do find the use of excuses to be offensive, not that you personally offended me.  
                          •  Oh yeah I get it stella (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy

                            and I'm sorry for coming off so contentious in the beginning. I totally get it and would never want the R's in charge, I just tend to get upset when people I know to be on "our side" act like the other side. Demanding fealty was the exact reason my first vote a against my grandfather, he supported something I didn't I was of age that's a wrap.

                            I actually wrote a diary stating that I will not vote for this President, it won't matter I'm not in an important state. I'll vote down ticket that won't matter either because I vote left in a right world and until others admit that voting center right is the problem we get what we get.

                            There are no sacred cows.

                            by LaEscapee on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:35:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I also don't agree to the fealty requirement. (0+ / 0-)

                            But I also don't expect politicians to be anything other than politicians.  And I found out a long time ago that my issues are not always aligned with the majority of voters.  But just because politicians aren't ever going to do everything I want doesnt mean I'm going to stop trying to get them to.  But more importantly, I think our best gains are made when we can show that the electorate has moved to our side.  When that happens the politicians will follow in large part.  So on this drone issue I think the best thing we can do is make sure people know and understand what is going on.  And make sure they understand that drones are not making us safe.  If they aren't.  So my discussion advocating that we not make the President and this election the focus of our attentiion is more that I don't think it is helpful.  And fighting other progressives over the President is not helpful.

                            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                            by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 01:17:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stella what you seem to miss in this convo (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BradyB, kurt

                            is that no one is arguing against this president specifially, at least I'm not. I argue against the policy that so many have come to accept because our guy is in charge. Just like any President says "I wouldn't that" it's bs because the next will and will have the power to do so because the before provided that option.

                            There are no sacred cows.

                            by LaEscapee on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 03:06:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  IF? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LaEscapee, ffour

                there isn't an issue from drones to glbt rights that hasn't been met with a WAIT!!! NOT NAO!!!

            •  It's the (7+ / 0-)

              'keep your powder dry'  argument and it's been going on forever. When the RW is in power the 'loyal opposition' the Dems refuses to fight them or offend them. When Dems are the majority we have to compromise with them and not offend them? Fuck that man. What's the point of winning if the Dems implement the same fucking policy and call it yankee doodle or affordable or inevitable.

              Cowardly to want everybody to just roll over and accept anything that's done by this Democratic administration as good or at least better then. It's pure evil and calling it pragmatic and asking people to go along with it doesn't change what it is. Public opinion does not trump the universal laws or human and civil rights. After the election everything this administration does will above criticism or dissent as once again we all need to do the 'two legs better dance. Any demands will once again be ponies and the litany of excuses and justifications all totally will continue. Ass backward politically.    

          •  In a democracy (11+ / 0-)

            Usually the best time to win promises from politicians is just before an election, when they most need your support.  It's the point of maximum leverage.  

            •  Not when over 60 percent of the electorate (0+ / 0-)

              supports the use of drones. If you want to make it about political influence then it has to actually influence something.

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:13:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, perhaps some education is in order (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gooderservice, Aspe4

                considering that most people's exposure to drone strikes is limited to rather benign purposes liking parking enforcement in NYC

                •  Absolutely. And Iraq and Vietnam show it can (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy

                  be done.

                  "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                  by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:59:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Education Would be Useless (0+ / 0-)

                  The reason many people disfavor war is because their friends and family are the ones who will have to fight and die in it. That's even more true when the military conscripts the troops. Drones don't have family or friends that will miss them while on deployment. It's cynical but people have to be personally affected by something before they care.

                  "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

                  by Aspe4 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 11:43:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  60 percent support what now? (0+ / 0-)

                Is that like how the majority of people say they hate Obamacare, until you explain what it actually is?

                People don't KNOW what we are actually doing with drones. If they did, they would not approve. Yet you don't want us talking about it. How will they ever learn?

                Or do you really think the American people know full well we are murdering civilians with drones, and they support it?

                •  60% of the people apparently can discern between (0+ / 0-)

                  the delivery system and the act.

                  The focus on the "drones" part is why those numbers are skewed; people like the idea of carrying out missions where the pilots' lives are not at risk.

                  If you asked "do you like bombing civilians" (as if we are purposely bombing weddings), the answer %'s would very likely be different.

          •  The pragmatism of murder (5+ / 0-)

            Look, we have an election to win, we can't talk about murdering civilians now!

            Your post made me throw up in my mouth a little. NO. You can not be against drone warfare and murdering civilians and think there is a better time than now to talk about it.

            If you even imply there is a reason to shut up about it, EVER, you are for murder by drone.

            Say "winning an election is more important than preventing murder." Say it. Go ahead. Don't beat around the bush, say "Winning an election is more important than TALKING ABOUT preventing murder."

          •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

            The best time to exert leverage is when a politician wants something (votes or money) from you.  That is pragmatism.

            And I'm guessing the people who have had their family and friends murdered under President Obama's orders don't think it's all that productive to wait.

            What's wrong under Republicans is still wrong under Democrats.

            by gila on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 10:50:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I really wish you wouldn't lurk. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        artmartin, reginahny

        I would really like to have a conversation about drone usage that doesn't involve accusations of "pro-drone" and propaganda peddling.  I would love to see a discussion of drones that actually acknowledges that there are terrorists who still want to hurt the US. Or at least a discussion about how that is not the case. Maybe even a discussion about combatants who hide among civilians. Or whether or not that is even the case. Instead the discussion always devolves into accusations of pragmatically supporting this President even though he is a sadistic killer.  So I wish you wouldn't lurk.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:34:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've never seen (16+ / 0-)

          a single person, not one, say there are not still terrorists out there who wants to harm the U.S. Indeed, one of the most common and persuasive anti-drone arguments come from those who say President Obama's drone-heavy dirty wars are creating more terrorists and more people who are furious at the United States. Hawks like Dennis Blair, Obama's former Director of National Intelligence, make his case. You need give a toss about the lives of Muslims oppose our dirty drone wars. All you have to do is care about the safety of your family.

          •  Since you know absolutely nothing about me it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            artmartin

            it would best promote civil discussion if you didn't accuse me of not giving a toss about the lives of Muslims. Muslims also die at the hands of religious extremists. I tend to agree that the use of drones is counter-productive.  But I am not willing to accept that nothing should be done about the threat of terrorists.  And though I completely disagree with the "War on Terror", I also don't think terrorism against the US ended 11 years ago. I for one would love to see more transparency about the use of drones and the intended and unintended results of drone strikes. I think more information would reduce the overall support for drone warfare. And just for the record my opposition to drones as used now has nothing to do with concern about my own family and everything to do with my concern for the innocent Muslims lives affected. Your implication that I could only be motivated by self interest is insulting.

            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

            by stellaluna on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:52:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Want to know what (15+ / 0-)

        is inflammatory? Having your family or friends or neighbors blown up by Hell Fire.  How is killing people with drones in the ME and declaring them terrorist's pragmatic? How is this even a war? A war with an Orwellian nebulous, ever changing, always alive  enemy that may terrorize the US in the future or is an 'insurgent, or a 'belligerent' to our invasions and killings is neither pragmatic or war.  

        This is not pragmatic it's immoral, illegal and makes the US the terrorists. Not to mention the blow back from terrorizing people who happen to live in these countries. Are we killing these people there by air so they won't put bombs in there underwear and get on a plane to NY and kill yer family?

        To add insult to injury we act like the people we attack invade and terrorize are supposed to just roll over and not fight back. How crazy to say we shouldn't discuss what is done in the name of security because the Republicans will not like it and use it. Bejeezuz even a a political level this is not pragmatic.        

      •  Language isn't the issue. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpecialKinFlag, kurt

        It's the unnecessary deaths that are the issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site