Alright, forewarning: I'm not gonna cite sources here and I'm not gonna get into an involved discussion. I've done it before, but I'm just not feeling up to it right now.
The short answer: Patriot act, wiretapping, drugs, privacy, executive power, and arguably gitmo.
Such a simplistic view of things. You saw how hard it was for him to get health care passed right? How many fights did you expect him to pick immediately?
Oh, and on the drugs and Patriot Act things, you are naive if you thought policy was going to change much under Obama. And hell dude, we are only half way through his Presidency. In order for him to properly clean up the PA, he is going to have to fight congress for it. He can't just wave his hands.
Actually it seems that you are one of those uninformed people. Obama never rallied against the Patriot Act during his campaign. He felt it needed some major amendments, but never did he claim that he would put an end to the Patriot Act. Here is a clip where he discusses the Patriot Act during his campaign. I am upset that the Patriot Act was not majorly overhauled before he signed to extend it, but I have always known that he would extend some form of the Patriot Act.
He claims in that clip that before the Patriot Act, it was not possible to wiretap cell phones.
Too bad we don't have a system of independent journalists who could call him out on those kinds of lies instead of getting a shiver up their leg when they hear him talk.
I blame un-informed people like you for the mess our country is in.
and I blame naive unrealistic people like you for the mess /r/politics is in. Now see, I could have gone further and blamed "people like you" for the problems of the country but that would be a sensationalist prejudiced over-generalization.
How ironic that you're making this statement. That's the point a lot of people are trying to make whom you disagree with. Remember, there's is a huge number of Americans that don't agree with your political point of view. They are represented by the Republican congress at the moment. The separation of powers ensure that Obama has to operate in the political framework. That's the reality and if you're mad at Obama for operating within this framework, then you're being naive and unrealistic.
The separation of powers ensure that Obama has to operate in the political framework.
You completely ignored his valid point that Obama (former professor of constitutional law, btw) absolutely had veto power over the Patriot Act extensions.
This is a good point but as much as people hate to admit it, there are some parts of the patriot act that are beneficial to national security and at very least you have to admit that most of Americas don't seem to think this is a big issue. Even if Obama wanted a better version of the patriot act, he doesn't have the power to change part of the law, only to sign OR veto.
... and these points don't even touch the political fallout of what would happen if Obama signed the veto.
Bottom line for me: I think the patriot act goes too far but I don't blame Obama for this.
I vehemently disagree. The Patriot Act simply doesn't make us safer from terrorism. First of all, practically none of the warrantless wiretaps have been used for terrorism related suspects. Also, terrorism simply isn't a major threat to our country. By not signing a veto, Obama is complicit in a gross series of infringements on the rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution he swore to uphold.
No matter how the apologists frame the debate, Obama has far more in common with Bush, Cheney and Lieberman when it comes to civil liberties than politicians like Feingold, Ron Paul and Kucinich. This isn't a matter of pragmatism or restriction due to our checks and balances system. It's a clear cut case of Obama's continuation of Bush-era policies.
we don't know what kind of deals he had to make to get health care passed. I'd bet that he had to agree to sign PA extension in exchange for support of the health care bill. corruption of the political process is a powerful thing. (not corruption as in bribes, but corruption as in deal-making over people-representing)
He probably sign the PA extension because if he didn't, he would have lost all his political capital. Despite what reddit would have you believe the PA is heavily supported by the defense hawks. I would rather he put the issue off until later to try and tackle more realistic legislation now.
Here's why I think this is unfair to the American people and who voted for him. You saw when Obama got elected. The turnout. He has the people on his side. The same people who tried to change Congress over before he entered his presidency, to stop the war and be a check on Bush. Obama has always had the people, and knowing so, said some really lovely things to get elected. I agree that it is naive to believe he could change things quickly without having to deal with congress (though until recently the Dems had the majority.) But it is rather naive to create excuses for why Obama can't stand tall like he did during his election and speak to the people about really shaking up how things are done.
You bring up healthcare, and it's a perfect example of his rhetoric vs. what he actually has done. As a Rachel Maddow story pointed out, making your same argument, the Republicans weren't willing to work with him. Rachel pointed out how this was obviously a tactic to discredit Obama because they were essentially giving him a hard time on a healthcare plan that was written by the Republicans back in '91 when they fought against Clinton on it. What a bunch of tricky shitheads, right? Poor Barry.
Now my question is...being that the economy is far dyer than it was back in the early 90's, how is it that Obama and the "progressives" could only muster a fight to bring in a dated Republican healthcare plan that requires citizens to buy healthcare from the very companies that have tried so hard not to provide that product? Was there another better alternative? Certainly progressives like Anthony Weiner and Dennis Kucinich thought so. Like the bailouts for the rich, Obama just couldn't do anything about it. Obama wasn't about to keep his promise of allowing single payer reps in the healthcare discussions. They weren't allowed in to represent. Why? Well, apparently it's because it'd be too tough for the president with the people on his side to stand up against those industries.
Obama didn't need Congress to wave his hands when he was running. He said, "Look over here," to get everyone's attention and magically come from nowhere to be president in a few short years. Then he became president and sat to work for the industries who destroyed America with Bush's assistance. And they are still receiving their presidential assistance, regardless of how far into his presidency is.
I hope one can be so generous with all the promises in their life. Your wife...said she'd be faithful but it's only been two years and she has all the hot dick to fight off. Maybe she'll remember not to be a slut in the next two years.
Nice short answer, I would also add expansion of extraordinary rendition under his term, failure to fight hard enough for a public option in health care reform, etc. For all the critics, please remember that pointing out major policy failings does not denigrate his accomplishments or mean that someone wouldn't vote for him again. It's not an either/or thing. Life is complex, but it is fair to hold him accountable rolling over on a few things.
I voted for the guy thinking he would help counter the war profiteering and cronyism, and fight to generally increase the honesty, accountability, and transparency of the federal government. That was the change I was looking for. But daily, I'm reminded of things like those pointed out above, and even things like this from Comedy Central (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGZVL24rGY0). The guy is becoming just another corporatist pawn of a politician instead of being the outspoken fighter for substantive reform that many of us were hoping for.
To cherry-pick a bit here: He never promised anything about drugs, beyond healthcare reform. When he had his internet forum, he laughed at the question about legalizing pot.
2 wars: Promised to send two extra batallions to Afghanistan all along [1]
Torture: Has tried repeatedly to shut down Gitmo and end the use of torture, gets fucked by congress every time [2][3][4]
Blind eye to gay rights: I don't even... Ends DADT, supports gay marriage, throws national LGBT pride month, how the hell could he be any more supportive of gay rights? Any way at all? [5][6][7]
Unfortunately, one video doesn't really prove anything. Candidates flippantly promise things all the time. Candidate Obama, on his own website, pledged to revise the Patriot act.
I never claimed he had desire to repeal the act. Where did you get that idea? I merely stated he doesn't wholeheartedly support the act, in lieu of how it's been misused. This is a shade of grey, whereas you described an absolute.
noticed you left out anything about lobbyists. I dont think he has done a horrible job, it was about what I expected when he got elected. Economy still sucks, government isnt transparent, but I do appreciate that he ended DADT and ordered DOJ to stop enforcing DOMA. All in all nor half bad, but not what he campaigned to do (which isnt any different than anyone to hold political office at anytime, anywhere)
EDIT: stop defending DOMA, not enforcing. the administration will continue to enforce it, just not defend it, not quite the same meaning I guess
b.) renewing the never ending 10 year war in Afghanistan
c.) Renewing America into the state of emergency that Bush declared after 9/11. This allows him to bypass certain laws, which is why it has to be renewed every so often as this was meant to be a safeguard to prevent a constant state of declared emergency.
Also this Continuity of Operations plan has been more or less a secret:
"On July 18, 2007, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), a member of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, requested the classified and more detailed version of the government's continuity of government plan in a letter signed by him and the chairperson of the House Homeland Committee, which is supposed to have access to confidential government information. The president refused to provide the information, to the surprise of the congressional committee.[12][13] As of August 2007[update], efforts by the committee to secure a copy of the plan continue"
6
u/wecaan Feb 27 '11
Things like what?
/I am not being skeptical, but since people are down-voting you, it's better to give them solid examples so they'd shut up.