6 ms·

Honestly what else is new? I voted for Obama on pledges he'd end the war in Iraq and close down the constitutional abomination that is Guantanamo. 8 years later

Honestly what else is new? I voted for Obama on pledges he'd end the war in Iraq and close down the constitutional abomination that is Guantanamo. 8 years later and here we are.

vacri 10y ago
The president can't do anything if Congress opposes him.
- Buge 10y ago
  When it comes to Trump, that could be a good thing.
  - threeseed 10y ago
    Republicans control the House and Senate. And Trump isn't going to veto conservative signature pieces like repealing ObamaCare.
    - Buge 10y ago
      Democrats controlled the house and senate Obama's first term.
      - vacri 10y ago
        The first half of the first term. Republicans have controlled the House for the past 6 years. Interesting, isn't it? Presidents aren't autocrats. The Republicans play obstructionist politics, the people get pissed off at a government that's not doing anything, and then blame the wrong party. The do-nothing government that the people have just voted against? It's the government they've just voted for...
        Buge 10y ago
        And in 2 years Democrats might control the house.
        flukus 10y ago
        When was the last time democrats won mid terms?
    - Jaruzel 10y ago
      Can someone explain why Americans hate ObamaCare? Here in the UK we have universal healthcare (the NHS) which all employed people pay for via a special tax (called National Insurance ,or NI) - isn't ObamaCare the same thing?
      - dagw 10y ago
        isn't ObamaCare the same thing? They are completely different. Obamacare has nothing do with universal healthcare in the UK sense, but is a complex system of mandates that dictates how private health insurance is bought and sold. Very simply there are three key parts: 1) everybody (who doesn't for qualify other government programs) now has to have private health insurance that covers certain things. If they don't get this from their employer, they're responsible for buying it themselves. 2) The government sets minimum standards as to what insurance companies have to cover and regulate what premiums they can charge for this coverage. They also forbid insurance companies from denying people coverage due to pre-existing condition. 3) To make sure that people can afford these mandatory insurance policies, they offer heavy subsidies to people who earn less than a certain limit.
      - tree_of_item 10y ago
        One big reason is that the popular term for the ACA contains the word "Obama".
      - epc 10y ago
        I support the goals of the ACA, but the law as written is a horrible hack which tries to implement a national health insurance system, without actually doing so or calling it that. It weaves together multiple semi-separate existing systems, adds in significant complexity and uses the threat of an income-tax penalty to try to get people to comply. The system only works well if it has broad subscription across healthy and unhealthy individuals, but as implemented many of the insurance pools are oversubscribed with unhealthy individuals, costing much more than the income to the plans can support. In their attempts to lock in parts of the law so that an incoming shift of government couldn't easily change or repeal it, the Democrats hardcoded idiocies like a fixed date for the launch of the healthcare.gov website and features it had to have while leaving funding and development of the site a bit up in the air. In a nominally functioning government, the ACA would have been a broad, general law laying out specific goals, requirements and mandates for compliance, delegating implementation and enforcement to a new or existing agency. But in the "regulations are bad, laws are good" environment in DC, processes and requirements which should have been regulations (which can be drawn up and vetted by a bureacracy under legislative supervision) ended up being in the actual law, which can only be changed by Congress and the President working together, which all but stopped after the 2010 midterm elections. Add in the the Federal government is limited (by design) in what it can mandate individual States can do and you have this mess called Obamacare. I don't support repealing it, I do support modifying it to make implementation more flexible, but that is almost certainly not going to happen under a Republican government.
    - yellowapple 10y ago
      Republican != favorable to Trump. That said, repealing ObamaCare is one of the things upon which Trump and most Republicans agree.
- forkwhilefork 10y ago
  Democrats fully controlled Congress during President Obama's first two years in office. During this time he could have easily closed Gitmo, or addressed any of his other campaign promises. Instead we got the ACA, which is currently in its death throes irrespective of Trump.
awqrre 10y ago
He was also supposed to repeal the "PATRIOT" Act...
edblarney 10y ago
" I voted for Obama on pledges he'd end the war in Iraq and close down the constitutional abomination that is Guantanamo. 8 years later and here we are." Obama earnestly tried to close Guantanimo. He's a lawyer, and should have known better. Guantanimo is a geostrategic issue - that only 'looks like' a Constitutional problem. The problem is there are some very, very bad people in Guantanimo - and putting them through the American justice system would not work. Obama figured this out. Paradox: 1) US Servicement are subject to a different legal system than Americans - harsher in many ways - but Dems wanted to put terrorist on US soil, subjecting them to regular courts - it would have been a farce. 2) US Soldiers are not the FBI. They don't do fingerprints. The kinds of evidence/investigation required to convict someone in US courts (meant for citizens) ... the defense attorneys could have easily kicked out the cases against the terrorists. 3) Many of these terrorists were caught on the battlefield. They could have been killed there - and none would have been the wiser. A young Canadian, was caught attacking US servicemen - and killed a medic. He was shot in combat, and was dying. US Special Forces arrived and medivaced and then applied super USA field medical technology to save this 'terrorist'. Then he was held at Guantanimo - in a really odd legal situation. He was just a kid, but many of these guys are really, really bad characters, caught on the battlefield. They don't belong in the US justice system. So they go to Guantanimo and stay in limbo. If you ask me - many of them deserve it. As for the 'regular combatants' - that's too bad - I wish where were some way to reintegrate them, I think it happened with some. Anyhow - the realities of the situation hit Obama - and the above issues are far to explain to Dems in a populist manner. Obama orders people to die in drones strikes. Not so 'peace and love eh'? He does it because he has to, and he knows it. Obama's 1st term was pretty good. 2cnd term, he didn't accomplish much, that said, he did not have the power.
- edblarney 10y ago
  To be more succinct: You can't feasibly try enemy combatants in a civilian court of law - and that creates a legal limbo situation. Obama was the most 'legally educated' President in 100 years and if he couldn't solve the problem, I'm not sure anyone will. It will take some time to figure that one out.
- antithesis 10y ago
vijayr 10y ago
Not trying to defend the president (or anyone else), but - how else can one get elected? If voters carefully consider facts before voting then it makes sense for candidates to stick to facts and tell the truth and tell what is possible etc. But it doesn't happen, does it?

Honestly what else is new? I voted for Obama on pledges he'd end the war in Iraq and close down the constitutional abomination that is Guantanamo. 8 years later and here we are.

vacri 10y ago

The president can't do anything if Congress opposes him.

Buge 10y ago
When it comes to Trump, that could be a good thing.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Republicans control the House and Senate. And Trump isn't going to veto conservative signature pieces like repealing ObamaCare.
  - Buge 10y ago
    Democrats controlled the house and senate Obama's first term.
    - vacri 10y ago
      The first half of the first term. Republicans have controlled the House for the past 6 years. Interesting, isn't it? Presidents aren't autocrats. The Republicans play obstructionist politics, the people get pissed off at a government that's not doing anything, and then blame the wrong party. The do-nothing government that the people have just voted against? It's the government they've just voted for...
      - Buge 10y ago
        And in 2 years Democrats might control the house.
        flukus 10y ago
        When was the last time democrats won mid terms?
  - Jaruzel 10y ago
    Can someone explain why Americans hate ObamaCare? Here in the UK we have universal healthcare (the NHS) which all employed people pay for via a special tax (called National Insurance ,or NI) - isn't ObamaCare the same thing?
    - dagw 10y ago
      isn't ObamaCare the same thing? They are completely different. Obamacare has nothing do with universal healthcare in the UK sense, but is a complex system of mandates that dictates how private health insurance is bought and sold. Very simply there are three key parts: 1) everybody (who doesn't for qualify other government programs) now has to have private health insurance that covers certain things. If they don't get this from their employer, they're responsible for buying it themselves. 2) The government sets minimum standards as to what insurance companies have to cover and regulate what premiums they can charge for this coverage. They also forbid insurance companies from denying people coverage due to pre-existing condition. 3) To make sure that people can afford these mandatory insurance policies, they offer heavy subsidies to people who earn less than a certain limit.
    - tree_of_item 10y ago
      One big reason is that the popular term for the ACA contains the word "Obama".
    - epc 10y ago
      I support the goals of the ACA, but the law as written is a horrible hack which tries to implement a national health insurance system, without actually doing so or calling it that. It weaves together multiple semi-separate existing systems, adds in significant complexity and uses the threat of an income-tax penalty to try to get people to comply. The system only works well if it has broad subscription across healthy and unhealthy individuals, but as implemented many of the insurance pools are oversubscribed with unhealthy individuals, costing much more than the income to the plans can support. In their attempts to lock in parts of the law so that an incoming shift of government couldn't easily change or repeal it, the Democrats hardcoded idiocies like a fixed date for the launch of the healthcare.gov website and features it had to have while leaving funding and development of the site a bit up in the air. In a nominally functioning government, the ACA would have been a broad, general law laying out specific goals, requirements and mandates for compliance, delegating implementation and enforcement to a new or existing agency. But in the "regulations are bad, laws are good" environment in DC, processes and requirements which should have been regulations (which can be drawn up and vetted by a bureacracy under legislative supervision) ended up being in the actual law, which can only be changed by Congress and the President working together, which all but stopped after the 2010 midterm elections. Add in the the Federal government is limited (by design) in what it can mandate individual States can do and you have this mess called Obamacare. I don't support repealing it, I do support modifying it to make implementation more flexible, but that is almost certainly not going to happen under a Republican government.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    Republican != favorable to Trump. That said, repealing ObamaCare is one of the things upon which Trump and most Republicans agree.
forkwhilefork 10y ago
Democrats fully controlled Congress during President Obama's first two years in office. During this time he could have easily closed Gitmo, or addressed any of his other campaign promises. Instead we got the ACA, which is currently in its death throes irrespective of Trump.

awqrre 10y ago

He was also supposed to repeal the "PATRIOT" Act...

edblarney 10y ago

" I voted for Obama on pledges he'd end the war in Iraq and close down the constitutional abomination that is Guantanamo. 8 years later and here we are." Obama earnestly tried to close Guantanimo. He's a lawyer, and should have known better. Guantanimo is a geostrategic issue - that only 'looks like' a Constitutional problem. The problem is there are some very, very bad people in Guantanimo - and putting them through the American justice system would not work. Obama figured this out. Paradox: 1) US Servicement are subject to a different legal system than Americans - harsher in many ways - but Dems wanted to put terrorist on US soil, subjecting them to regular courts - it would have been a farce. 2) US Soldiers are not the FBI. They don't do fingerprints. The kinds of evidence/investigation required to convict someone in US courts (meant for citizens) ... the defense attorneys could have easily kicked out the cases against the terrorists. 3) Many of these terrorists were caught on the battlefield. They could have been killed there - and none would have been the wiser. A young Canadian, was caught attacking US servicemen - and killed a medic. He was shot in combat, and was dying. US Special Forces arrived and medivaced and then applied super USA field medical technology to save this 'terrorist'. Then he was held at Guantanimo - in a really odd legal situation. He was just a kid, but many of these guys are really, really bad characters, caught on the battlefield. They don't belong in the US justice system. So they go to Guantanimo and stay in limbo. If you ask me - many of them deserve it. As for the 'regular combatants' - that's too bad - I wish where were some way to reintegrate them, I think it happened with some. Anyhow - the realities of the situation hit Obama - and the above issues are far to explain to Dems in a populist manner. Obama orders people to die in drones strikes. Not so 'peace and love eh'? He does it because he has to, and he knows it. Obama's 1st term was pretty good. 2cnd term, he didn't accomplish much, that said, he did not have the power.

edblarney 10y ago
To be more succinct: You can't feasibly try enemy combatants in a civilian court of law - and that creates a legal limbo situation. Obama was the most 'legally educated' President in 100 years and if he couldn't solve the problem, I'm not sure anyone will. It will take some time to figure that one out.
antithesis 10y ago

vijayr 10y ago

Not trying to defend the president (or anyone else), but - how else can one get elected? If voters carefully consider facts before voting then it makes sense for candidates to stick to facts and tell the truth and tell what is possible etc. But it doesn't happen, does it?