Skip to main content

View Diary: The return of Droney (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

    •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (65)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Environment (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Republicans (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Education (23)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Congress (17)
  • Labor (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site