You know, the ones who remember when being a Democrat meant representing the working class

...about Democrats and the President aren't 'real' Democrats? Oh, and they don't support the working class (of which I am a lifetime member)? Anything else you'd like to add about these nonDems?

Wow. I've been a Democrat for 48 years. Never knew that you weren't allowed to be supportive of Democrats to be one.

I think you can build up your Dem cred if you participate in the pile-on threads.

And remember to high-five the cool kids when they post a good Dem/Obama insult.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Why would I high five anyone that has nothing else to say but negative crap?

Did you misread my post or did I misread yours?

"genuine" Democrats can't be bothered to post on non-President Obama/Democratic Party critical threads? Got it!

FDR style Democrats can't be faulted for that

Now if you're going to fault them for not K&Ring the frivolous 'OMG Obama is DREAMY' threads, I don't know what to tell you

No one...not even the OP said anything about occasional or pointed out criticisms or talking about policy that needs improving, holding anyone's feet to the fire. He was zeroing in on the criticism 24/7, 99.9% of the time, crowd. The ones that only live and post to find fault. Never, ever a shred of positive even in their own OP or in a response to an OP.

And I agree with this OP....realizing there's lots of that going around and it's pretty predictable who those posters will be.

though NO ONE can do any rational thinking that differs with their own O-hate independently and honestly.

It's a very paternalistic attitude that smacks of a lot that some who hold it claim to hate in others: bigotry and fascism founded on assumed authority. The complete opposite of anything having to do with diversity.

process that can be applied to anything. One example of dialectic is seen in Marxist Dialectical Materialism, Marx was influenced by the philosopher Hegel and I think there are even older traditions for the concept that go back to a form of Jewish Mysticism known as the Kaballah.

The RISKS of identifying the "third way" are very demanding, so the processes require intellectual rigor, honesty, and responsibility, so, yes, when certain kinds of moderates try to hide behind "third way" window dressing, I get nervous, because not just anyone is up to the kind of authentic synthesis that third-way requires. I hate how people pretend to be engaging in the process and then cop-out with somekind of leap to a likely pre-determined presto-changeo "Tahdahh!! THE! ANSWER!!" that's really just somekind of cop-out.

But the beauty of Third-Way is that when done with integrity, strength, courage, honesty, and true acuity of intellect, the product, the "third thing", the synthesis, is something grounded in BOTH of the predecessor elements. That is, the opposing elements BOTH have a buy in and that's a good thing, because it increases the probability that the new policy, that newly synthesized third thing, will survive its founders into perpetuity. This is because it has more of a life grounded in more of the people, not just only a current power clique that aggrandizes power by exclusion and thus has less of a constituency when it passes out of power and it's exclusionary policies are left without enough constituency to survive.

TRUE! It is not always possible, given certain circumstances, to synthesize the third-thing out of just ANY situation, so responsible constituencies should ride herd on that very proactively, but the benefits of identifying authentic and salutary third-ways can outweigh the old zero-sum, mutually assured destruction models by so much that dialectical processes themselves can be a VERY valuable effort.

Though, that said, the whole dialectic/third-way model definitely is different from conventional winner-take-all in that it also implies non-stop evergreen proactive responsibility from ALL constituencies or it can regress back to the old zero-sum, false dichotomy, mutually assured destruction paradigm. There are examples of this kind of stuff in quality control research, but perhaps a most notable effort would be seen in the kinds of things that grew out of the work of W. Edwards Deming.

on an internet forum.

I couldn't sleep last night.

i couldn't have the patience to do cross-referencing, archive mining, and whatever assorted nonsense people do.

Not so much now -- too many people here have gotten too entrenched in their own opinions for my research to make as much difference. But still appreciate it when people make an effort.

I post in threads about the GOP, but I often don't get replies.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2286350

Another point is that political give and take is mostly happening *within* the Democratic party these days, the Republicans give nothing and take everything, that really only leaves the Democratic side of the aisle where there's even any point in discussing policy differences.

Moving politics these days is about pushing the Democrats one way or the other, the Republicans are totally ossified and immovable.

"A lot of people come to online forums in order to argue"
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

so I don't open their posts. More like their posting style and their remarks to other DUers turn me off. Obama has nothing to do with it.

Those who are the most Pro Obama, in the sense that for them he can do no wrong and every critic of him is a hater, have been on my ignore list for years. I don't even see their posts anymore. Perhaps it it is that way for others. For me it is about issues and not about personalities.

If it wasn't drones, it would be something else. And honestly, there is no human alive that could live up to their idealized view of what a president should be. Anyone who doesn't come close is a corporate shill, war monger, etc.

Some remind me of the self-righteous Presbyterian and Baptist preachers I knew as a kid.

They were the pure authority on all things, and those who dared disagree with them, were obviously destined for an eternity in Hell.

And they sat in judgement, condemning the unpure sinners.

Having such power, standing so high above the rest ... its a powerful feeling.

it would be one big Barack Obama Group, a DU group that shows very little activity.

but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those that ignore any and all positive and dwell on any and all negative.

Some of us are torn. I have voted democrat all my adult life, but have become disillusioned with the party. I see democratic politicians who allow corporations to write public policy. I see democratic politicians who allow republicans and corporations to privatize public institutions. I pay $925/month for health insurance because we don't have any democratic politicians willing to fight for single payer healthcare, and my autistic son who is in special education is being forced to take classes and tests he is not ready for because democratic politicians are complacent in the privatization of our public schools. I want to vote democrat. I want to be a democrat, but I have been near the edge of my breaking point for a few years now. It's hard to break away. I don't want to beak away, but I may have to. When will the democratic politicians represent the people and not the corporations? That is my question.

You can try to order Lobster Thermidor at your local McDonald's but you aren't gonna get it.

Furthermore the process which determines what the choices are that end up on the final ballot is governed by money, money, more money, and a dollop of access to political and media power. Without those things it is all but impossible to even make it on to the ballot. Which is why we end up with 2 mildly different flavors of status quo.

the presidency and white house are in Democratic control and are making policy.
It is going to be discussed and repuke proposals will be too.
You are over thinking things.

If you had been then you would know of the huge flame wars and attacks that caused the creation of a forum called General Discussion Politics - what is currently called Politics 2013 (the name changes all the time). You would know that a lot of people wouldn't go into GDP because of all the acrimony left over from those attacks and flame wars. Just as there were people wouldn't wouldn't go to GD for the same reasons. The separation actually brought a measure of calm to the board. That was a good thing.

Habits die hard. People still stay away from certain forums regardless of what they're now called.

You can now factor in something you didn't know but do know now into your findings.

A lot of people who haven't been around for the evolution of DU take a lot for granted without knowing the full history. It's understandable. If you weren't around then you can't possibly know.

Since it's about DU and DUers.

Mods ... please feel free to place this post in the proper forum.

It will probably be locked by a host at some point and you can repost in Meta if you wish.

I've already noticed one GD host posting in this thread.

many if the pro-paryy/anti-gop threads boil down to a lot of self-congratulatory backslapping and high-fiving, rather than discourse on differing positions which more, shall we say, controversial topics might have.

and insulting if certain posters don't live up to their certain standard.

I suppose I prefer a big tent, rather than an echo chamber.

You opinion is duly noted.

finally getting a democrat, i have walked away from the politics. like i am gonna argue this stuff with supposed dems when i have a real life world of it.

stroking someones ego. They expect the liberal president they voted for have those same key values and it makes them angry when things like social security, medicaid, medicare, the right to a trial, and basic human rights through continuous war are constantly placed on the table in the meaningless category.

How handsome the presidential couple looked at the inauguration isn't as important to them. This is not a sporting event where you cheer your team no matter how badly they're doing just because it's your team. This is our life. The lives and well being of people all over the world fall onto the shoulders of our president, and yes he needs to be held accountable to and for is campaign promises's of change and a better more peaceful world.

What's a person called who promise's something to get something and then does the opposite?

A LYING REPUBLICAN!

I'd like to keep it that way.

I catch myself spending more time elsewhere due to that very thing where for the most part I used to only come here.
I don't have any answers nor do I have many questions, just saying that I agree with you.
I just cleared my ignore list the other day because it had gotten to where I wasn't seeing too many new posts and I was beginning to think that maybe there isn't as many posting here anymore. I know the feel of the place is nothing like it was years ago when I first came here. I don't have a lot to add to the conversation except attaboys and fuck thats but I do read a lot. I like our President, support our President and know that our President sees a whole different set of criteria than we see so he is not going to always do what I'd like. I do trust him to do the right thing. We all have to remember he is the President of all us citizens.

To me I see you as a very good Democrat who I am proud to be a fellow member along with and am happy that you found this place. In the relatively short time you've been here you've added a lot.
Peace

or doesn't do. I rarely read their posts because there usually isn't much real content there. I usually post when my opinion differs from the OP, and when my point of view hasn't already been covered by someone else.

It is not worth even reading their posts, they always say the same things, with nothing intelligent or interesting to say.

there are some posters who will be critical of President Obama, regardless of what he does or doesn't do?

No less than 17 cat posts in the lounge in the past 24 hours and I did not respond to a single one of them.

They are detrimental to a functioning political system, as witnessed by what happened when the right wing allowed their extremists a shot at governance.

... the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -George Bernard Shaw

An exchange we had in which you and I disagreed strongly was very useful to me. It was forwarded to places and people, it's one degree of separation for me. . So thanks.
I sure liked the Inaugural speech and events. Very much so.

though I think you misunderstood my position ... I am not the dismissive homophobe that I suspect you think I am.

Can I ask how it was useful?

In a Democratic forum Pro-democrat threads are typically not very interesting discussions. What's to say?

Since I post more disagreement than agreement you would want to find me posting more in anti-Dem threads.

That said, I do focus more on my objections to policy than my agreement with policy because I view the citizen's proper role as critical and skeptical.

Not hateful... but critical and skeptical.

Boring Example:
OP: Cats Rule!
|
- Reply #1 - Yes They DO!
- Reply #2 - Yes They DO!
- Reply #3 - Yes They DO!
- Reply #4 - Yes They DO!
- Reply #5 - Yes They DO!
- Reply #6 - Yes They DO!
- Reply #7 - Yes They DO!
- Reply #8 - Yes They DO!
- Reply #9 - Yes They DO! K&R +1000!!!!

Fun Example:
OP: Cats Rule!
|
- Reply #1 - I hate Cats!
--- Reply #2 - I Disagree, They are Cute!
------ Reply #3 - They make me sneeze!
--------- Reply #4 - Why are you against animal rights?!?!?!?!
------------ Reply #5 - Oh God!?! Another Truther spouting NCA talking points!!!
--------------- Reply #6 - It's in the Constitooshun!!!! Change the law if you don't like it.
------------------ Reply #7 - What part of the Meowsha clause don't you understand?!?!?
--------------------- Reply #8 - Good luck when a drone drops a can of ninja-pirates with lazers, and shit on you.
------------------------ Reply #9 - Message auto-removed

I typically reply only when I have something to add to the conversation. I view lots of threads, but after our great Prez has been praised 50 times, or something/one has been bashed 100 times, I just nod and move on.

In other situations I find a thread dominated by a 2- or 3-way argument or series of attacks. I have no desire to stick any portion of my anatomy into those.

Maybe we could take up the general topic of social interactions on DU into the Lounge with a few beers.

You and I had a recent discussion, albeit a small one, where we disagreed on some things and agreed on others. I think some things people here see in nothing but black and white. There is so much nuance involved in what we see in politics.

Back to the topic at hand. I probably am in more threads that are negative to the administration than positive toward it. That is not something difficult for me to admit. I fully accept it and have no problem with it. I really don't see a need to stand up for the President of the US, a multimillionaire, with power to influence the life of myself and those I love, on a democratic message board. If this was a board where more conservatives posted, I would probably take a different approach. I think many act like his feelings are getting hurt when that is no where near the truth. The President is doing just fine.

Please don't get me wrong. I have an enormous amount of respect for the President. I don't think I voted for the lesser of two evils, I voted for Obama with great pride.

I expect him to vocally push policies that are on the progressive end of the spectrum. When he does I feel it is what he was elected for and I expect it. I don't go around praising politicians for something I expect. They will be rewarded with my work around election time and vote on election day.

When Obama goes in a direction I am not happy with I will voice my concerns. I have no problems with it and will do so freely. I also try to be fair in my criticism. Looking at the issues as a whole, seeing the nuance, and not just the simple black and white thinking many fall prey to.

Yes, I recall, and value, our recent exchange. I think, this:

When most of us criticize policies - like the right to execute any american, anytime, anywhere for any reason - it has absolutely nothing to do with liking Barack Obama. No president should get a pass on such crazy fascist bullshit. Viewed from another angle, your observations could be interpreted to reveal a disturbing trend of devotion and denial.

I see that from rightwing knuckledraggers and tear them a new asshole. For you? Full permanent ignore. Anyone willing to use that extreme hyperbole is not worthy of debate and carries no opinion that interests me.

Carry on with your hysteria.

I didn't sign up for this shit, totally unacceptable.

I come pretty close to this:"more comfortable finding flaw than seeking cheer."

My tendency would be to post on threads in which I disagree with the premise of the OP than when I agree. However I am not an Obama basher nor one who hammers on the Dems as a general rule.

I do, however, jump into the fray when I strongly disagree.

Complain about 'lock-stepping', the DLC, call uncritical supporters of Obama 'groupies' etc.

I also think many of them are, if not well meaning, very frustrated In their attempts to explain to explain their opposition to certain of President Obamas policies.

I have seen what I call the 'two ships passing in the night arguments. Say a well reasoned explanation of why policies are fully supported, met with accusations of lock-stepping,being paid DLC staff, being An 'Obama groupie'. I have seen a poster with well reasoned argument on why a policy is not supported, called a troll or a disrupter.

I took a vacation from here when the anti- Obama vitriolic was to much for me to take, when the persons supporting him were driven into having their own group.

I see it starting again, so I read a little of both, 'sides' find those few who can present an issue in a pragmatic, reasonable light, stay focused on women's issues and hope it doesn't get so ugly again.

This time I'm not leaving---I don't think---but then I don't post all that much or get my only political information here. We lost some very good posters last time.

We should be able to do that, and I think we are able to do that, but sometime passionate rhetoric gets in the way of reasoning minds.

and Democratic presidents, and who NEVER have a single word to say in support of same.

I think it's pretty damned obvious what those people are about. IMHO their employment contracts forbid them from supporting liberals in any way. Their attacks are far too coordinated to be coincidence.

Don't blame Democratic voters for criticizing rightwing policy

Also, anyone operating under lesser-evilism will only see accomplishments as sugar on shit. You're still eating a big bowl of shit.

in this nation, system or life, are we NOT picking the lesser of evils?

Yes, the repeal of DADT, and much of the (President) Obama administration's accomplishments are still not enough to remove the lesser of two evils monickker. He still {insert point of opposition here}[/] or he didn't {insert interest point here}.

As a poster noted earlier, it seems that we have become binary in our thinking.

Personally as a socialist I have major qualms with huge swaths of Obama's policy. I do recognize that it's the only game in town, however. It's pretty obvious from the tea party's antics what a left primary assault would accomplish.

Here is list ranking of various candidates in my view, from best to worst:

Perfect President (many undefined qualities, even to me)
Great President
The Obama that I hoped for during the campaign
Good President
Obama
Decent President
The Obama that I feared after seeing his appointments following his first election
The best possible Republican President
Terrible President
Satan (Not the cool one who wrote Stairway to Heaven, the OTHER one)
Reagan
Bush

for some reason that made me smile ... And I needed that!

But I do take issue with some of his policies. Several of them, in fact. I've learned, though, that it's better to keep my opinions to myself rather than risk being over analyzed or shouted down by the Obama/Democrats Right Or Wrong folks.

I just find it a waste of time and upsetting. I'm more interested in social problems anyway like access to health care and ending homelessness. It doesn't mean that I'm not a Democrat and don't vote that way, because it's untrue. My voting record is for a straight Democratic ticket and the most bleeding heart liberal on the ballot, which is why guys like Dennis Kucinich have gotten my primary vote in the past instead of the more centrist candidates like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Of course they do get my vote in the general election. But I don't really discuss much because no one is going to change my mind, nor am I going to change theirs.

Posts are often mis-characterized, mistakenly or otherwise, as worshipping PO, or as Democratic robots, which I could accept if, rather than offering those opinions largely WITHOUT enough information to do so, those doing so (that is, those who are mis-characterizing posts in support of PO and/or the Democratic Party) would offer their judgements as HYPOTHESES and, thus seek, i.e. ASK FOR, additional information to test one's own judgements/opinions about others, because discovering empirical truth should be more important than our opinions about it. I am willing to do this and I do call on others to consider it too.

Not that people can't/shouldn't have opinions, but just that, whichever "side" one is on, let's please not proclaim (like the oppressor whom we oppose) that our opinions are gospel truth, especially NOT when one lacks authentic determinative information.

If I make a claim and fail to identify what I don't know about my claim, my claim is, to some degree, falsified.

The reciprocal of these discovery processes (in which one forms HYPOTHESES about others and seeks information and evaluates that information objectively as to whether it supports or does not support one's hypotheses about others and then admits what one knows and what one does not know about any given hypothesis) is to ALSO apply the entire hypotheses process to one's self in doing the same thing to others.

Simply put, the processes of discovery are at least a 2-way street, and likely even more than that, as long as everyone who desires to be a part of that dynamic recognizes and participates in it's RECIPROCAL nature. In order to claim X, one NEEDS to be open, not only to just propounding one's own position, but also to receiving critique of it, including what you don't know/understand and what others DON'T KNOW/understand. Too much about what happens around DU is due to what we don't know about one another and too many people appear to believe that they can state their opinions as gospel truth that everyone else should accept, without any consideration for what one is NOT revealing about one's self, that is, what those others who are supposed to just accept your "truth" don't know about you or about what you are saying, an obvious example of this, though there are many many many more besides, is our real names. Who IS the DU community? Whose voice am I reading?

We are pretending that not knowing one another does not matter, or we are pretending that it is okay for some of us to actually know one another personally and not others . . . at any rate, the things that we don't know, including not knowing one another personally, factor big into the, mistaken or otherwise, mis-characterizations of posts and positions, including the fact that not all of those who support PO and/or the Democratic Party are blind robots.

One thing that is often completely ignored in the zero-sum games at DU is the possibility that some people, and I include myself in this category, place ISSUES higher than other priorities and candidates/political-parties are functions of ISSUES, not issues as the function of, or determined by, candidates/parties. It is possible that at least a significantly strong minority of what is pro/anti-Obama and/or pro/anti-Democratic Party on DU comes from people for whom THAT category of criteria, candidate/political-party, IS the highest priority, NOT ISSUES. This means that for some DU-ers it is possible that DU activity is defined by their own pro/anti-Candidate (e.g. Ron/Rand Paul) and/or pro/anti-SomeOtherPoliticalParty. - AND - We are supposed to PRETEND that this is not happening on this board, but that "not happening" is a strong statistical improbability.

For some people for whom issues ARE, in fact, the highest priority, that's a SINGLE issue, for some that may be a couple or more issues, for others it's as close to all of the issues that are relevant to the lives of the people as one can get, count me in this last group. And yes I do resent the fact that people so commonly play fast and loose with the laws of rationalism, which they SAY they respect in offering obeisance to "science", and yet FAIL, intentionally or otherwise, to consider their own prejudices and stereotypes of others, based almost solely upon a SINGLE trait (pro/anti-Obama and/or pro/anti-Democratic Party or at least not pro/anti-OurClique'sCandidatePicks and/or not pro/anti-OurClique'sPoliticalParty) . . . . all almost without ever asking anyone a single direct personal question (my guess is because they are afraid of being asked questions themselves in that reciprocal process I mentioned earlier that leads to authentic discovery).

The thing about making issues the highest priority is that issues, in terms of the more or less democratic processes by means of which we address them collectively, triangulate one another and the thing about the necessity of triangulation/negotiation is that at some point, issues DO turn into candidates and, hence, one form or another of something that could be referred to as a political entity (currently bearing, more often than not, either the "Republican" or "Democrat" party label) because political parties are statistically where the biggest demographics are. Demographics are the means by which ISSUES are more or less well defined and addressed and I dislike being abused for the candidate/party inclination when, IN FACT, that IS what ISSUES, if they really matter, are about, in one way or another. The tasks relative to all of that have to do with whether we have the "cart/candidate->party ahead of the horse/issue(s)" or not.

Issues defining candidates defining party is true even for those making that negative candidate/party critique, mistakenly or otherwise, of others. Scratch an absolutist ideologue and find a relativist ever time. Maybe that's unavoidable. Compromise, negotiation, some degrees of those things that are commonly called "hypocrisy", all of that is necessary if we are to just live without killing one another. That doesn't mean that all of it, compromise/negotiation/hypocrisy, is all equally valid, but it does mean that we should always strive to identify the rational bases for who each of us is and what each of us is doing and if one is authentically engaged in doing so for one's self, it's okay to call upon others to do so too. And, yes, I personally reject anyone who claims the PRIVILEGE of being above those FREE and open collaborative discovery processes, because of the way that fascism has historically come wearing whatever costume/label currently suits the pure will to power over others.

In regards to all of the above, I admit to a temperament predisposed to fight "argument from authority" especially when there appears to be a mistake about, intentional or otherwise, or lack of information concerning a position that I hold. Please accept my apologies, all, for any of my un-necessary bite. I hope you know that it really is more situational than it is personal (as I have described above), but please also know that I believe, if we are to stand half of a chance of being/doing any better, I must not stand down from my personal responsibilities for the best, most honest, truths as I know them. For me those truths place issues, what is happening to people in their lives first and critically assesses candidate/party, as best I can, in service to those lives.

Some of us really do have and hold onto the principles that the Democratic party pays lip service to but never seems to find the intestinal fortitude to stand up for. Some of us really do recognize that sacrificing human beings in the name of pragmatism is always wrong, period.

And some of us might operate from the premise that everyone here understands that the republican party is a lost cause and nothing at all is gained in the constant repetition of the mantra "republicans are bad, republicans are bad" as if there was a flood of people leaving this board to devote their lives to that party.

the name of pragmatism is always wrong" is a true statement and that means, therefore, that pretending that certain kinds of risks don't exist, risks for which it is possible to rationally identify some relatively valid and reliable degree of probability and which risks could cost anything from relatively "few" to thousands of people suffering and dying . . . ignoring those risks, for politically pragmatic reasons (just like 9/11) is wrong, especially when you've had a significant historical role in setting them in motion, with things like completely supporting unregulated USA assault weapons dealers all over the world, not to mention our government arms sales, and proactively debasing one of the only international tools we have, albeit fundamentally flawed though it is, the U.N., and exacerbating the financial troubles and, hence, instabilities and the vulnerabilities of ordinary people in those countries to various kinds of indigenous gangsters, by means of the IMF, and not committing to international justice in the World Court. ALL of that stuff had effects and now that it would be politically pragmatic to "take our ball and go home" it would also be wrong to abandon ALL we set in motion and pretend that identifiable n probabilities, involving known personages of expressed intents, causing deaths, resulting from that abandonment, of anything from a few to thousands of people US or foreign and pretend that doesn't matter either.

If it is bad to use drones, it is just as bad to let people die, because we're being ir-responsible about our whole part in what can happen with an appropriate degree of probability, if we don't use drones.

Think of a analogous scenario on a personal level: you, victims, and someone with the means, opportunity, ability, and expressed intent to kill the victims and YOU are the one who has had an essential role in how you all got into that situation and now must decide if an expressed intent to kill will result in the deaths of others. Is it okay to pretend that it won't? Is it okay to pass the buck to non-existent others?

I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong; I'm trying to tell you that things are not as simple as I would actually like them to be. The same principles, the same truths, have various dimensions and it's going to take all of us to have the courage to be honest and respectful of one another about all of those DIFFERENT dimensions of the same thing.

I am however, completely opposed to pretending that this declaration of our "right" to murder at will is anything but absolutely and irrevocably wrong. The President, any President, has within his/her purview to establish and conduct foreign policy and has the greatest control over the military.

This President has conducted himself in both of those areas abominably. He has done nothing, from curtailing the sale of arms to using his office to dissuade the atrocities of our more despicable "allies". He has continued the criminal policies of previous administrations going back more than a century.

It is absolutely true that these issues are not simple, but the complexities of international conduct do not justify his atrocious actions. This declaration is only the latest in an unbroken string of doing wrong for terrible reasons. He initiates or backs the worst policies in support of the worst people and factions and has willingly contributed to making bad situations worse.

That is not a comfortable situation for me. I do believe that PO doesn't do things without what he evaluates to be a good reason. I have some expectation that he is capable of honestly making that determination of what is or isn't a good reason as authentically as possible. I really don't know whether I would agree with him or not, so the answer as to why he does X in regard to the things that your mention is 50:50 for me, not good enough I know, but I cannot deny the fact that I don't have enough of the very precisely detailed and specific information about the relevant situations that would go into making a better determination of why his decisions in these matters are as they are. And I honestly am not comfortable with that 50:50.

I admit that I have a problem with the "military model" that this situation appears to manifest in the Presidency. I cannot imagine myself capable of doing certain things unless I have personally reasoned out for myself why I would or would not do them. I couldn't just do them on someone else's say so. That said, it's pretty clear from human history and the study of human behavior and mental processes, psychology, that under the appropriate conditions, almost anyone will do almost anything. For some people that threshold is a lot lower than it is for other people. I have not personally been tested in that regard beyond the more or less normal crises of interpersonal relationships.

I'm also troubled that my conventional understanding of how the ethics of warriors work doesn't apply now. If I say that something is so worth human life or death that I FREELY offer my own life in that struggle, put my own blood on the line in order to engage the enemies of that valued whatever, that is an ethical basis to engage in combat against others who have FREELY chosen to do so. The quality of freedom that I mention here is a criteria that is almost never honestly met and I understand from those who have been there that what I have just described is more relevant to non-combat environments, because in combat itself nothing is about anything except not dying and, hence, killing as many threats as possible. Even though it is quite clear how often that has gone completely wrong in regards to what is and what is not an actual threat, there's still a hypothetical basis in "my blood for their blood", if freely chosen by all combatants, that is a foundation for those kinds of ethical decisions, by people who actually do those sorts of things. The rest of us, not so much. And even if I do disagree with that moral choice made by someone esle, if I claim the right to freely make my own moral choices, I have to yield that same right to freely make their own moral decisions to others, even if those choices are different from mine. The criteria are freedom and honesty, if both of those are met, and the moral decision is different from mine, I cannot violate their right to that choice and still claim my own right to my own choices in the matter.

None of that applies to drones. That's not freely chosen blood for blood in a struggle for a certain value(s). The value aspect is still somewhat intact in the probabilities of risk to innocent others, foreign or domestic, who are not offered a choice in the matter of that risk, but that's only somewhat intact in the fact that it's all about probabilities, NOT givens, even though it is possible that in some instances those probabilities can be relatively high depending upon the determining factors. Also the blood for blood factor is different between the two sides of the threat. Drone pilots are not in danger, they don't offer their lives, in the struggle for the values that they represent, but their targets, though they may not be offering their own lives directly in that struggle, are at much more of a disadvantage in the danger that they face.

Drones have been inevitable for decades and now it is becoming reality. They are one of the many reasons it is so foolish, criminal really, that we are bankrupting ourselves paying billions in corporate welfare to military contractors to develop and build all these cool toys. We are being robbed of billions to develop and more billions to build weapons platforms that are already obsolete. Air power is the first, and ground combat will probably be the last parts of the military machine to be replaced by these devices and those that are coming, but come they will. On the somewhat less dark side, this is a good thing because they mean that we will not be dying in the pursuit of military adventurism.

I agree that it is not possible to divine the President's reason for making an individual decision, but where we part company is that it certainly is possible to observe a pattern over many decisions and reach a conclusion from that pattern. This President, not unlike his predecessors, has been steadfast and firm in his decisions to protect the status quo to the detriment of the American people. Perhaps he believes it is for the best, but he ran on and continues to state that change is necessary to accomplish relief and prosperity while his actions are completely contrary to initiating any change at all.

I don't feel negatively towards the president, they just don't drive me to respond as much?

No ulterior motives here.

It is because some of us feel that it is, in fact, the criticism of the OTHER party that is less likely to have an effect. Let me explain more fully.

This is a site for Democrats and being a site for Democrats means that the people reading threads are Democrats. Talking about how stupid Republicans are or how bad they are is certainly one form of entertainment or tension release, but it is quite obviously ineffective because A) We all agree already that Republicans and there are ideas are rotten and B) When it comes to a vote, we cannot exert any influence on their party and C) We are ALREADY going to be voting against them.

Which brings me to the issue of what we DO have influence over. Namely, the Democratic Party. We are their constituents, their supporters. To the extent that we have any power and influence at all to change minds and directions, that power lies with OUR party and not theirs.

Does this help?

I'm a Democrat. Have been since 1965. But, that doesn't mean I owe fealty to the party or am obliged to support everything that Democratic politicians do.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795