If he does well, they would have to face the fact that they're wrong.

A mega-vineyard of sour grapes. Besides if your fella doesn't win you get the opportunity to say shit like "Don't blame me, I voted for the Living Saint John Kerry" and decry your rivals every.single.step as being literally the worst thing since the gas chambers.

If your dude wins then you just have to spend eternity defending shit choices while getting to see them betray every campaign promise.

Appreciate the bitching healthcare at an amazing price Barry but please just fucking close gitmo already like you promised!

On 1/22/09, Obama signed an order to close Gitmo. The problem was that Congress refused to do the next step, which was to fund the shutdown and the transfer of detainees stateside. The vote was 90-6 against, which means there are an awful lot of Democrats to blame and not just the Republicans.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index. html

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/05/sena-m21.html

Some things are squarely on Obama's head (such as defending NDAA indefinite detainment in the courts), but the continuing saga of Gitmo is not.

Yeah that's my fault for not educating myself on that front. They didn't report much more than "Obama said he would close gitmo bet HE hasn't." should have known better than to not do my research before badmouthing the President there.

There's so much going on that I can't fault a person for losing track of details, or as tends to happen more often, "common knowledge" takes over and the details get completely washed out. Problem is, "common knowledge" is decided by people with an agenda, and unfortunately people on both the Left and Right have a common agenda these days (i.e., demonize Obama and the Democrats).

I didn't move to the US till the end of his first term but it seems I missed a whole fucking lot when he first got elected. From your CNN link:

"Number one, they're dangerous," Young said. "Secondly, once they become present in the United States, what is their legal status? What is their constitutional status? I worry about that, because I don't want them to have the same constitutional rights that you and I have. They're our enemy."

Other than "We aren't legally allowed to torture even the most dangerous prisoner on US soil" I don't really understand what this lunatic is saying.

Well sure some of them are innocent Yusefs who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but what about the rest? They could be terrorists, or worse: wizards and genies all flying around on their carpets laying waste to the American heartland. Sadly, that's pretty much what he's saying.

To be fair, you probably only feel that way because you're really dumb.

To be fair, Obama lets corporations call the shots all the time. Truth hurts.

To be fair, a previously uninsurable friend with a history of childhood cancer who still deals with the fallout from the treatments on a daily basis is no longer in danger of bankruptcy.

Obama's not what I hoped for by a longshot, and I didn't vote for him in the last election, but calling his presidency a failure is blindly partisan and asinine.

"Indiscriminately killing people with drones"? Even Pakistan says that the overwhelming majority of people killed by drones are either terrorists or militants:

http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/recorded-official-document.htm l

"The Pakistani government has made a series of statements on drone casualties: in March last year, officials at the Foreign Affairs ministry told UN expert Ben Emmerson, who was carrying out an investigation into drones, that at least 400 civilians – and possibly 600 – were among 2,200 drone casualties."

So yes, those 400-600 are a tragedy -- something like 1 in 4 people killed by drones. But let's bear in mind those are killings for the entirety of the drone program, as we have been trying to go after al Qaeda. Meanwhile, last year alone, al Qaeda is responsible for killing over 7800 civilians in Iraq according to the UN:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25568687

If you want to look at indiscriminate killings, look to what al Qaeda is doing, in marketplace bombings and the like. Then bear in mind that we are going after them with drones precisely because they are into deliberately killing civilians, the higher death toll the better. Compare 600 civilians over a decade to 7800 in a single year; maybe it's not such a grand strategy to give al Qaeda free rein. Doing so certainly wouldn't show any genuine concern for civilians.

When one Pakistani granny gets killed in a field, it's front page news. How many grannies get killed because al Qaeda sets off a bomb in a marketplace? I say that, if you're really genuinely concerned about protecting civilians, you also have to take into account that the guys we're going after are trying to kill as many civilians as they can, and we at least try to minimize civilian casualties.

As much as people hate on the ACA, the ACA we got does a lot of actual good for people, and it's a miracle we got anything at all. We had zero votes to spare in the Senate, and if four Democrats had voted the other way, the ACA wouldn't have cleared the House.

Thanks to the ACA, insurance companies can't jack up premiums for pre-existing conditions or for being a woman; they can't refuse treatment for pre-existing conditions; they have to cover preventive care; and they have to offer insurance to individuals at lower rates than have traditionally been available (which are subject to subsidies as well to make them even more affordable). These are all tremendous improvements.

Yes, insurance companies are still for-profit, but the ACA curbs that as well: 80%-85% of premiums paid have to go to paying medical bills; any profits come out of the remaining 15%-20%, after rent, utilities, salaries, equipment, and so on. If an insurance company wants to double its profits, it has to take in twice as many premiums and pay twice as many peoples' medical bills, and I don't see how that's a bad thing.

I know for a FACT that my man Barry and Co. worked as hard as they could in what little wiggle room they had and against near overwhelming industrial, political and shit-heeled public opposition. This maybe a gutted, cut down version, I don't really know, BUT I now have ZERO deductible for my entire family, better in-network coverage AND my premium has been cut in half. Without actually using my insurance I stand to save .5k a year alone and as you can imagine I used my old coverage a shit-ton.

Hopefully my out-of-pocket will be under k for the whole family, rather than the k for just myself past 3 years, even with a new baby on the way. I know others have it FAR worse.

From the heart Barry, only been here 3 years so I can't vote but if I could I'd vote you president for a third term.

k a year I meant to say, sorry. Not trying to brag/get pity, just frame of reference. Others have it far worse.

I think saying "at least we're better than Al Quaeda" is setting the bar a little low, Bort.

So you've got a more effective way of dealing with al Qaeda that drops the civilian casualty rate even further? Because if you've got one, I know I'd love to hear about it, and I bet Washington would too.

And by the way, casualty rates on the order of 1/100 of what al Qaeda dishes out are a pretty damn big difference between us and them. It's not just a marginal difference, but of course you knew that.

The previous admin. invading Iraq was major mistake #1. #2 was allying with Pakistan. Bush kept trumpeting how he was trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons while buddying up to the country that gave us AQ Khan, the Pakistani who sold nuclear know-how, materials, etc. to North Korea and whoever had a checkbook handy.

Then SURPRISE! It turns out Pakistan was supporting Al Qaeda and turning a blind eye to that Bin Laden guy living in their country.

And gee whiz, now Pakistan is worried that we'll pull out of Afghanistan? I wonder why? Maybe they're afraid a bunch of nuts with AK-47s and a penchant for mascara will boot the current rulers out of office if not just shoot them for even talking to the West?

Love or hate Al Gore, the U.S. could've asked for just about anything after 9/11 from the world community and would've gotten it without firing a shot. Instead, we became even more of an imperialist war machine and wrecked the economy for everyone who wasn't rich to boot. Go USA!

Ah, the old "well I bet YOU couldn't do any better" response to criticism.

Honestly, at this point, I really feel like doing nothing proactive would be preferable to this. Not only is this completely antithetical to the ideals of the liberal democracy that the US styles itself as, but I don't think antagonizing the rest of the world by blatantly violating their sovereignty and extrajudicially executing people is a viable long-term solution to dealing with the problem of anti-American extremism. How much hate does this breed?

The piece you're leaving out is whether drones are effective at curbing al Qaeda, and they seem to be.

http://www.ugr.es/~jjordan/AlQaedaDronesPakistan.pdf

You're right that drones aren't a complete solution to the problem by any means, but they appear to be achieving their goal in the short term. And I'm serious, if you have a comparably effective solution that kills even fewer civilians, you've got something the world is looking for.

I'm just baffled that you continue to try and fight on this hill. I have no intention of arguing this stupid point with you, Bort, but I feel a strong compulsion to express my total bafflement and not insubstantial anger that you feel your country killing human beings without any due process whatsoever is fine because of some vague threat of possible killing they might do one day.

Okay, not to argue this stupid point either, but to perhaps dispel some bafflement. I'm not big on my country killing people without due process, but I'm not big on al Qaeda engaging in mass murder either. If I have to pick one or the other, I think the latter is worse than the former. And no, there's no real question what al Qaeda is about; if you belong to al Qaeda, you are working towards the deliberate murder of innocent people.

Aren't you also working towards the deliberate, or at least tolerated, murder of civilians by endorsing drone strikes? Sure you could say it's a small number, necessary collateral and so on but does that REALLY sit right with you? How many innocent kids is acceptable?

If Osama held a baby in front of his face would you be ok with attempting to shoot him in the head? Well, WOULD YOU?

Whatever action (or lack thereof) I endorse, I am encouraging or at least tolerating some number of civilian deaths. I believe the least number of civilian deaths, by far, occurs if we make it difficult for al Qaeda to train and organize. Again, take a look at the 7800 civilian deaths in Iraq just last year, and then the 600 civilian deaths in Pakistan over the entire run of the drone program -- pursuing al Qaeda seems to result in the fewest civilian deaths. (Not exactly apples to apples, but a true apples to apples comparison simply isn't possible since we can't see the outcomes of roads not taken, so apples and oranges are sometimes the best we can do.)

This is ethics class all over again, where you have to decide whether to switch the tracks or not. I've never liked the standard of "whatever keeps the blood off my hands"; while I would be too squeamish to shoot at bin Laden (baby or no baby), I have the blessed luxury of not having to actually pull the trigger, switch the tracks, or authorize a strike.

A note on numbers: I'm using the most impartial numbers I can find (the 7800 figure comes from the UN) or, failing that, the most pessimistic yet plausible numbers available (the 400-600 casualties (let's call it 600) comes from Pakistan rather than the US figure of "uh, none"). I'm also not trying to pare that 600 down to make it more palatable, for example, the early Bush days of the drone program where the killing was arguably indiscriminate -- one strike in 2006 killed 80 civilians in a madrassa, 69 of them children, and I'm not dismissing that as "the Bush years when things were done differently". There's a line between "reluctant supporter of drones" and "drone apologist", and I like to think I haven't crossed that line.