2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

It would have, but then one has to ask which is more important, violating Libyan Airspace, or saving American lives.

If you think that decision is as clear-cut as it first appears, then one must ask, how much do you really know about foreign policy?

[Lady Vulpix]

OK, quench those flames... again.

Roy, the use of the word "retard" as an insult was uncalled for. The only reason you're not getting an infraction is because it was aimed at a politician and not a TPM member.

Plantae, however, gets an infraction for calling Roy a bigot. If someone does something wrong, you don't fix it by insulting him.

[Roy Karrde]

If you think that decision is as clear-cut as it first appears, then one must ask, how much do you really know about foreign policy?

I can merely look at the evidence and see it was clear cut, you had a embassy under attack, unknown amount of Americans inside that could be dead or dying. You had Jets that could easily be scrambled and there within a hour or less, such a tactic has been used in the past to disperse crowds. And if the crowds did not disperse the jets could have fired upon them. The President's top priority is to protect American lives, he failed in that.

[Plantae]

I can merely look at the evidence and see it was clear cut, you had a embassy under attack, unknown amount of Americans inside that could be dead or dying. You had Jets that could easily be scrambled and there within a hour or less, such a tactic has been used in the past to disperse crowds. And if the crowds did not disperse the jets could have fired upon them. The President's top priority is to protect American lives, he failed in that.

I understand why you'd make this argument. And you're right, that is a president's duty. But I can also imagine a number of ways that others would make different conclusions based on the same evidence. Personally, I don't think there's anything exceptional about American lives, as opposed to the lives of other human beings.

OK, quench those flames... again.

Roy, the use of the word "retard" as an insult was uncalled for. The only reason you're not getting an infraction is because it was aimed at a politician and not a TPM member.

Plantae, however, gets an infraction for calling Roy a bigot. If someone does something wrong, you don't fix it by insulting him.

Thank you, Lady Vulpix. I'm sorry for making your job difficult. And I don't envy the role you're forced to play here.

But I also know that you're a human being. So I'll make it clear that I don't apologize for my comment. In fact, I think if someone does something wrong, then sometimes, the only correct response is to get angry about it. I don't think it's fair to insult anyone without reason. But I will call a spade a spade.

[Roy Karrde]

I understand why you'd make this argument. And you're right, that is a president's duty. But I can also imagine a number of ways that others would make different conclusions based on the same evidence. Personally, I don't think there's anything exceptional about American lives, as opposed to the lives of other human beings.

I am not saying there is, but the President has sworn a oath to protect American lives first, and mind you a mere run from jets can disperse a crowd. Not to mention these are innocent lives inside the consulate being attacked by terrorists, do they not deserve armed protection to prevent their deaths?

[Plantae]

I am not saying there is, but the President has sworn a oath to protect American lives first, and mind you a mere run from jets can disperse a crowd. Not to mention these are innocent lives inside the consulate being attacked by terrorists, do they not deserve armed protection to prevent their deaths?

Of course they do. But the president is operating in an environment where a rash foreign policy decision could result in the loss of more life, not less. There are repercussions and future consequences that must be taken into account. There is a reason these decisions are so fraught. They're not as easy as they sometimes seem. I also agree in this instance that the president made a mistake; but he did out of a desire to fulfill his duty, not a desire to avert it.

[Roy Karrde]

Of course they do. But the president is operating in an environment where a rash foreign policy decision could result in the loss of more life, not less. There are repercussions and future consequences that must be taken into account. There is a reason these decisions are so fraught. They're not as easy as they sometimes seem. I also agree in this instance that the president made a mistake; but he did out of a desire to fulfill his duty, not a desire to avert it.

His duty is to protect American lives, not to playcate the Libyan Government. If he placed the happiness of the Libyan Government over the lives of American men and women then he is not fit to hold office.

[Lady Vulpix]

Thank you, Lady Vulpix. I'm sorry for making your job difficult. And I don't envy the role you're forced to play here.

But I also know that you're a human being. So I'll make it clear that I don't apologize for my comment. In fact, I think if someone does something wrong, then sometimes, the only correct response is to get angry about it. I don't think it's fair to insult anyone without reason. But I will call a spade a spade.

Yes, I'm a human being, thanks for noticing! But you're not making it sound like a good thing.

Anyway, spades won't fight back, but people will. If you insult someone, you're not encouraging to improve his behavior. On the contrary, he'll now be more likely to respond in kind.

Anyway, I don't want to dreail the thread. I must admit I don't know enough about the USA's political situation to contribute something useful to the discussion (Argentina's politics are baffling enough to require most of the political section of my brain at this time). I'm in favor of same sex marriage being legal (it's already legal here) and against war of any kind. But the subtleties of their respective policies still escape me.

[Plantae]

Yes, I'm a human being, thanks for noticing! But you're not making it sound like a good thing.

Anyway, spades won't fight back, but people will. If you insult someone, you're not encouraging to improve his behavior. On the contrary, he'll now be more likely to respond in kind.

I didn't mean it to sound patronizing. I'm simply suggesting that I'm not so cowed by this infraction that I don't think this a point worth arguing.

There's a difference between an insult, which is generally unfounded, and an indictment of character. It's not possible to address the wrong action without addressing the actor. There's no way to address bigotry without implying that someone is a bigot. And not calling someone out on this fact is doing absolutely nothing to end the persistence of bigotry.

It's true, a positive tact is often better. People can be coaxed, encouraged to improve themselves. But not in every instance. And when something is heinous enough, fault is warranted.

But I completely agree that what I said was a violation of the policy here against flaming.

His duty is to protect American lives, not to playcate [sic] the Libyan Government. If he placed the happiness of the Libyan Government over the lives of American men and women then he is not fit to hold office.

If. The argument you present here is a straw man. It's not as if it was a simple trade-off of "placate" or "protect." I doubt the intention by the president was this simple, or that the foreign policy concerns of the attacks were so readily truncated. But even if it they were, it is also entirely possible that the president thought he was taking the best course, which would succeed in achieving both those aims.

If we judged presidents solely on the basis of their foreign policy decisions, and moreover, on the basis of their worst foreign policy decision, I assure you that absolutely none of them would be fit to hold office. Instead, we hope, against hope, that they will do the best they can under the circumstances. Oftentimes, they disappoint us. And they should be held accountable. And we should be angry. But that doesn't mean that the same presidents that disappointed us aren't capable of making the right decisions, or choosing the right policies. Mistakes are learned from, not forgotten.

[Roy Karrde]

If. The argument you present here is a straw man. It's not as if it was a simple trade-off of "placate" or "protect." I doubt the intention by the president was this simple, or that the foreign policy concerns of the attacks were so readily truncated. But even if it they were, it is also entirely possible that the president thought he was taking the best course, which would succeed in achieving both those aims.

In which case impeachment proceedings should proceed as he has failed the office to take even the most basic options to protect Americans.

If we judged presidents solely on the basis of their foreign policy decisions, and moreover, on the basis of their worst foreign policy decision, I assure you that absolutely none of them would be fit to hold office. Instead, we hope, against hope, that they will do the best they can under the circumstances. Oftentimes, they disappoint us.

Yet even here he has failed in the most basic principal of the Presidency which is to protect American lives and property. He had the means and opportunity to do so, and he did not do it.

[Plantae]

In which case impeachment proceedings should proceed as he has failed the office to take even the most basic options to protect Americans.

Not taking the "most basic options" would mean not providing any support, whatsoever. There were provisions for security. Were they adequate? No. But the "most basic options" were certainly provided here. Any additional security would have been more than "most basic."

Yet even here he has failed in the most basic principal of the Presidency which is to protect American lives and property. He had the means and opportunity to do so, and he did not do it.

The suggestion here seems to be that the president believed the ten-member CIA team present at the consulate would be enough to repel the attack.

[Roy Karrde]

Not taking the "most basic options" would mean not providing any support, whatsoever. There were provisions for security. Were they adequate? No. But the "most basic options" were certainly provided here. Any additional security would have been more than "most basic."

Most basic options during a ATTACK would be providing necessary military back up to save the lives. That above else has to be the most basic option. Again remember his first duty is to the safety and security of the people in those buildings. And I will remind you there were multiple warnings before the attack that the security was not enough to prevent a attack, and that their Libyan protectors were looking like they were going to turn on them. As such the embassy did not even provide the most basic security.

The suggestion here seems to be that the president believed the ten-member CIA team present at the consulate would be enough to repel the attack.

The real time data provided by the drone should have been more than enough to dispel that belief. Such things such as the size of the force, the calls for help, and the fact the Consulate was on fire all should contribute to the belief of the need for a rescue.

[Plantae]

Most basic options during a ATTACK would be providing necessary military back up to save the lives. That above else has to be the most basic option. Again remember his first duty is to the safety and security of the people in those buildings. And I will remind you there were multiple warnings before the attack that the security was not enough to prevent a attack, and that their Libyan protectors were looking like they were going to turn on them. As such the embassy did not even provide the most basic security.

They did provide military back-up. They sent Delta Force commandos from Fort Bragg to Sicily, but they didn't arrive in Benghazi in time. The battle fought at the consulate was not a continuous one. It was two, punctuated attacks, with a long pause in between. This article offers other reasons for the slow response that make it clear that President Obama did everything he could. I don't think it's an exhaustive investigation by any means, but there are clearly other reasons for the lack of security.

But as both you and this article point out, the real failure here is the fact that the response was so delayed, as a result of a larger failure of security in the African region.

The real time data provided by the drone should have been more than enough to dispel that belief. Such things such as the size of the force, the calls for help, and the fact the Consulate was on fire all should contribute to the belief of the need for a rescue.

And maybe that was the case. But it doesn't seem that it was possible for any additional aid to arrive in time.

[Roy Karrde]

They did provide military back-up. They sent Delta Force commandos from Fort Bragg to Sicily, but they didn't arrive in Benghazi in time. The battle fought at the consulate was not a continuous one. It was two, punctuated attacks, with a long pause in between. This article offers other reasons for the slow response that make it clear that President Obama did everything he could. I don't think it's an exhaustive investigation by any means, but there are clearly other reasons for the lack of security.

And as noted, there were the ability to provide Airforce fly overs, something that has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past to disperse crowds and could have gotten there within minutes if not a hour at most. There is no reason why not to provide air support while the Delta Force Commandos were being prepared.

But as both you and this article point out, the real failure here is the fact that the response was so delayed, as a result of a larger failure of security in the African region.

And maybe that was the case. But it doesn't seem that it was possible for any additional aid to arrive in time.

So you deny that there is a Airforce facility that has helicopters and jets at the ready, merely a hour away from Libya?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...hazi-2#slide-2

As Popular Mechanics notes "There seems to be little downside to sending warplanes to Benghazi. Perhaps such a demonstration could have prevented the attack on the CIA safe house, saving two lives and halting the loss of a critical intelligence operation."

[Dark Sage]

In which case impeachment proceedings should proceed as he has failed the office to take even the most basic options to protect Americans.

Not going to happen. I don't think Boehnir will take that step. After all, no-one even considered taking that step against Bush after we found out that he had ample warning of the attack that caused thousands of American casualties.

[Roy Karrde]

Not going to happen. I don't think Boehnir will take that step. After all, no-one even considered taking that step against Bush after we found out that he had ample warning of the attack that caused thousands of American casualties.

Once the attack was known, Bush did not prevent the military from saving lives. Infact the shoot down order was given close to the time the 4th Plane Crashed. Infact he initially believed that the plane was shot down from military aircraft as following his order.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...lane-shot-down

[Heald]

The angst of the losing team is almost too much to bear, both in the media and in this thread. Karl Rove and Donald Trump's respective melt-downs as the result became apparent were hilarious.

I hope that those in this thread whose jimmies are seriously rustled can calm down over the coming weeks and realise that this isn't the worst thing in the world to ever have happened. This is no time for pointless hyperbole, such as screeching that Obama sat there happily watching Americans getting slaughtered, or that the American economy will be non-existent in four years time. This isn't particularly helpful to informative debate.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah, Heald. Karl Rove is upset because his company spent $300 million on a project that yielded less than a 1% return.

I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when his board of directors gets their hands on him.

Like I keep saying, the GOP's biggest flaw was thinking that money could buy anything, including this election. It's a very shallow and untrue belief.

[Roy Karrde]

Like I keep saying, the GOP's biggest flaw was thinking that money could buy anything, including this election. It's a very shallow and untrue belief.

Wasn't that Obama's belief when he did not use matching funds in 2008?

[Dark Sage]

Wasn't that Obama's belief when he did not use matching funds in 2008?

Okay Roy, this time, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

For someone who dislikes Mr. Obama so much, you seem to have studied him a great deal if you profess to know about every illegal and immoral thing he has done.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay Roy, this time, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

In 2008 Obama once agreed to use matching funds, but later decided against it so that he could raise more money.

"Obama's decision to become the first major-party candidate to opt out of public financing for the general election frees him to continue his record-shattering, Internet-driven fund-raising until November - and probably to outspend McCain by a vast amount. But it opens the Democrat to accusations of an about-face on past statements that he would take the public grant and limit spending to that amount if the Republican nominee agreed to do likewise."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ing/?page=full

For someone who dislikes Mr. Obama so much, you seem to have studied him a great deal if you profess to know about every illegal and immoral thing he has done.

I just merely have a good political memory, that should be self evident by now.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, Mr. Obama never bought the election in 2008.

He won because the GOP's reputation was at an all-time low, thanks to his predecessor.

Not to mention a lot of dumb things that McCain did.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, Mr. Obama never bought the election in 2008.

He won because the GOP's reputation was at an all-time low, thanks to his predecessor.

Not to mention a lot of dumb things that McCain did.

He was able to vastly outspend McCain because he went back on his promise on matching funds. If you are going to accuse one side of trying to buy a election due to their cash, you cannot deny Obama tried the same thing.

[Dark Sage]

Yes I can, and I will.

The GOP was so happy when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor on Super PACs, and they're going to have to think twice about using them from now on, seeing as the whole idea seemed to have been a dud.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes I can, and I will.

The GOP was so happy when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor on Super PACs, and they're going to have to think twice about using them from now on, seeing as the whole idea seemed to have been a dud.

And? That has nothing to do with the fact that Obama went back on his promise to gain a unseenly about of money in a hope to swamp McCain with ads and win the election.

[Dark Sage]

Give it up.

It was small potatoes compared to the Super PACs pouring $390 million into Romney's campaign in an effort to get him elected.

I still say it shouldn't have been legal. Corporations are NOT people. It completely defies logic.

And before you say that it was legal, so was what Obama did.

If what Obama did was legal but wrong, then what the Super PACs did was legal but about ten times more wrong.

[Roy Karrde]

Give it up.

It was small potatoes compared to the Super PACs pouring $390 million into Romney's campaign in an effort to get him elected.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008...ising_tot.html

And Obama's Campaign raised close to 750 million dollars.

I still say it shouldn't have been legal. Corporations are NOT people. It completely defies logic.

And before you say that it was legal, so was what Obama did.

You seem to forget some of the problems if not illegal problems that plagued Obama's 2008 Campaign when it came to raising cash online.

"The potential for the FEC's audit became increasingly more likely as the FEC questioned some of Obama campaign filings. In all, the FEC wrote 26 letters to Obama for America warning the campaign that if it did not adequately respond to the agency's questions that it "could result in an audit or enforcement action."

These letters totaled more than 1,500 pages of questions and data that outlined compliance concerns — including the longest one ever sent to a presidential candidate."

http://www.rollcall.com/news/FEC-Lau...-205014-1.html

If what Obama did was legal but wrong, then what the Super PACs did was legal but about ten times more wrong.

Really we are getting into the realm of "Super Double Decker Wrong with no Take Backs?"

[Dark Sage]

Yeah.

I doubt that Rove's investors are going to get that $390 million back.

[Roy Karrde]

You know if it was not so freaking funny if it wasn't so sad...

October 5th: Unemployment dropped to 7.8% everything is great!

November 2nd: Job hiring is up! The economy is really coming back!

November 6th: Election is held, Obama is reelected

November 8th: Holy Shit! The economy is heading into a second recession!

All the problems investors face—from a fiscal meltdown to the various economic woes around the world—add up to one daunting prospect: Another possible recession just over the horizon

As the financial world puts Tuesday's presidential election behind it, the light in the tunnel could be an economic freight train.

....

With current U.S. gross domestic product growth at just 2 percent, that's not enough to battle through problems as steep as the fiscal cliff of tax increases and spending cuts, as well as storm damage and weakness in global markets.

"There's no question that if we get the fiscal cliff that we're going to get recession next year," Rosenberg said. "The only question is how deep."

Rosenberg is not alone: Strategas earlier this week said it expects a recession early in 2013, and University of Maryland economist Peter Morici said that "the President and Congress will not be able to raise taxes — be those on the wealthiest of the wealthy or anyone else — and cut spending without risking a second recession, deeper and more painful than the Great Recession."

Even if the cliff gets fixed, that in itself will mean the economy will slow even further.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49745604

[Dark Sage]

The House GOP would have avoided that if they had been willing to work with the President, Roy, instead of focusing all their energy into making sure he was a one-termer.

Now they'd best stop being the Party of No and turn into the Party of Compromise.

And I say this with a voice full of incredible rage and contempt towards Boehner and the rest of the House.

[Roy Karrde]

The House GOP would have avoided that if they had been willing to work with the President, Roy, instead of focusing all their energy into making sure he was a one-termer.

Now they'd best stop being the Party of No and turn into the Party of Compromise.

And I say this with a voice full of incredible rage and contempt towards Boehner and the rest of the House.

Working with the President like say... creating the Sequestration? You know the thing that is described as one half of the fiscal cliff coming at us? And you know the Sequestration that was proposed by the President?

Mind you this all has nothing to do with the fact that the media puts such a horrible economic story out days AFTER the election, while just days BEFORE they were trumping up the economy.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, keep one thing in mind...

Romney winning the election would not have prevented the bad news coming out of Europe.

If he had won, the crisis would have been his problem. And if it did indeed cause a new recession, we would have seen just how much his tax plan (which every analysist I've heard from says would not work) would have fixed it.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, keep one thing in mind...

Romney winning the election would not have prevented the bad news coming out of Europe.

If he had won, the crisis would have been his problem. And if it did indeed cause a new recession, we would have seen just how much his tax plan (which every analysist I've heard from says would not work) would have fixed it.

I have no doubt it would be his problem, just like the 2008 Recession was Obama's problem. But part of Obama's victory was the misinformed belief the economy was doing better. The Media hanging on to reports like this showing it is not, is Journalistic Mal Practice at best, Naked Partisanship at worst.

[Heald]

The Media hanging on to reports like this showing it is not, is Journalistic Mal Practice at best, Naked Partisanship at worst.

Any proof that 'The Media' was holding onto this damning report in order to grant Obama victory?

Besides, this report is in direct contradiction with leading projections that, whilst growth will slow next year, the US will not enter recession and should pick up speed post 2014, this is including the fiscal cliff being taken into account. The fiscal cliff will largely lead to unemployment remaining static and I doubt unemployment will fall below 7% before Obama leaves office, but it shouldn't go any higher than 9% and definitely nowhere near 10% unless there are severe shocks to the system. A couple of economists making speculation isn't exactly revelatory, especially given the failure of any economist to make any consistent, useful predictions regarding the economy over the past decade.

Besides, even if it was true that 'The Media' was withholding a single economist's opinion for a few days until after the election to give Obama the victory, it would be small beer compared to a lot of the sensationalist stories that have appeared (mostly thanks to Fox) that later turned out to be either completely untrue or widely exaggerated throughout the last year. True journalistic malpractice is calling people like O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity 'journalists' and their reporting 'news', especially after their disgusting comments in the aftermath, making generalisations about black, hispanic, women voters, calling all of the people who voted for Obama 'delusional', comparing Obama voters to domestic abuse victims. Fox News even went as far as saying Obama voters were shallow because they were only voting for him because of his response to Hurricane Sandy, without any justification for that comment.

[Roy Karrde]

Any proof that 'The Media' was holding onto this damning report in order to grant Obama victory?

Any reason a story that has largely been out there for months should wait until AFTER the election?

Fox News even went as far as saying Obama voters were shallow because they were only voting for him because of his response to Hurricane Sandy, without any justification for that comment.

"Exit polls by CBS News reveal that Superstorm Sandy, and President Obama’s response, was a crucial factor for two in five voters nationwide. This recognition comes despite the Obama campaign decision to downplay the growing crisis of climate disasters and to minimize the actions of the Obama administration to build climate resilience. With Obama and Romney neck-and-neck in the polls, the reality of climate disasters and the need for strong governmental response may turn out to be the deciding element of the 2012 election.

Twenty-six percent of those polled said Obama’s broadly praised response was an important factor, and 15 percent — about one in six voters — said it was the most important factor in their vote:"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ion/?mobile=nc

Pretty much the only time Think Progress and Fox News will agree

[Heald]

Any reason a story that has largely been out there for months should wait until AFTER the election?

Absence of evidence against is not evidence for. Also, as I said, this isn't a story, it's one economist's opinion, it's not evidence that the economy is going to crash next year.

"Exit polls by CBS News reveal that Superstorm Sandy, and President Obama’s response, was a crucial factor for two in five voters nationwide. This recognition comes despite the Obama campaign decision to downplay the growing crisis of climate disasters and to minimize the actions of the Obama administration to build climate resilience. With Obama and Romney neck-and-neck in the polls, the reality of climate disasters and the need for strong governmental response may turn out to be the deciding element of the 2012 election.

Twenty-six percent of those polled said Obama’s broadly praised response was an important factor, and 15 percent — about one in six voters — said it was the most important factor in their vote:"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ion/?mobile=nc

Pretty much the only time Think Progress and Fox News will agree

Again, Fox News said it was the only reason they voted for Obama, or at least a significant proportion of Obama voters, whereas the actual truth is that it was a significant factor in their decisions, and that's not even taking into account issues with polling the exit voters themselves. The fact that Fox News decided to label Obama voters as 'shallow' for this anyway is disgusting in itself.

[Roy Karrde]

Again, Fox News said it was the only reason they voted for Obama, or at least a significant proportion of Obama voters, whereas the actual truth is that it was a significant factor in their decisions, and that's not even taking into account issues with polling the exit voters themselves. The fact that Fox News decided to label Obama voters as 'shallow' for this anyway is disgusting in itself.

To be fair he said "Then we are the shallowest country in the history of man, one photo op of him walking over a 2x4 and suddenly he is handling the storm, which hasn't been handled well!"

[Dark Sage]

Oh, so now we're getting into the tired old "it's the media's fault" excuse?

Roy, politicians haven't used that line in decades.

[Roy Karrde]

Oh, so now we're getting into the tired old "it's the media's fault" excuse?

Roy, politicians haven't used that line in decades.

Merely pointing out the media was trumping up the greatness of the economy up till the election and then....

[Dark Sage]

Roy, you're getting dangerously close to sounding like the morons who try to insult our intelligence with conspiracy theories about the President.

The media was "hiding" a story about the economy that Fox and other conservative networks didn't know anything about so that Obama would win? Come on... You'd think that some news agency that was supporting the GOP would have found out something about this if it had been known for that long.