40 ms·

> the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? "Other than the POTUS" seems to brazenly

> the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? "Other than the POTUS" seems to brazenly ignore the significance. For example, it would be absurd to ask, 'When Trump took office, what changed from Obama other than the POTUS'? When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. Obama had opposed the Iraq war from the start and promised to withdraw, which he did (though the withdrawal was also required by the agreement Bush made with Iraq). Obama also wanted out of Afghanistan and, after a policy review, set a timeline for it (a criticized decision that was later changed). > both sides are wrong This is true "political correctness" (a term that I think is almost always misused). The odds of both sides begin equivalent seem slim; it's not at all unlikely that of two parties, one would be significantly worse than the other. It's sort of like looking at two software programs and saying 'both have bugs'; sure, but that's meaningless - it's not at all surprising when one is much superior to the other. But people like to be even-handed, out of some misguided (IMHO) view of fairness or not wanting to offend. But the stakes are too high; you wouldn't say that if you were choosing between airplane autopilot programs. In this case, if you make the worse choice then it can result in catastrophic climate change, nuclear proliferation, war, mass oppression, the undermining of democracy and liberty, and more.

onething 8y ago
>...When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. What actually changed? We left Iraq at the timetable Bush proposed and I think Obama wanted to extend it past that but couldn't come to terms with the Iraq government. There was a troop surge in Afghanistan - the thing that was criticized when Bush did it. People have a right to their opinion and the right to protest, but it does appear the anti-war democrats weren't quite as active once the POTUS had a D by the name. I don't have space to go over the foreign military adventures done by Obama, here is an overview: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-wars-numbers/474531/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/ob... >...This is true "political correctness" Not really. The OP asked for politics that didn't work and got consistent support. I listed a few ones that came to mind. I also think these bad polices are also endorsed by conservatives. Rather than attack the idea that people could ever be wrong, why don't you address the policies I brought up and explain why either they are great polices or that democrats don't support them.
chrisco255 8y ago
I wish national politics were as simple and predictable as a computer program, but trying to paint an analogy there is quite troublesome, for the simple reason that there are hundreds, if not thousands of issues that government has to tangle with...and it often is the case that one party has a better approach to certain issues while the other party is better suited to deal with a completely different set of issues.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Joseph Stalin was probably better at dealing with some issues than Winston Churchill, but that doesn't make them comparable. It's a false equivalency.

onething 8y ago

>...When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. What actually changed? We left Iraq at the timetable Bush proposed and I think Obama wanted to extend it past that but couldn't come to terms with the Iraq government. There was a troop surge in Afghanistan - the thing that was criticized when Bush did it. People have a right to their opinion and the right to protest, but it does appear the anti-war democrats weren't quite as active once the POTUS had a D by the name. I don't have space to go over the foreign military adventures done by Obama, here is an overview: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-wars-numbers/474531/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/ob... >...This is true "political correctness" Not really. The OP asked for politics that didn't work and got consistent support. I listed a few ones that came to mind. I also think these bad polices are also endorsed by conservatives. Rather than attack the idea that people could ever be wrong, why don't you address the policies I brought up and explain why either they are great polices or that democrats don't support them.

chrisco255 8y ago

I wish national politics were as simple and predictable as a computer program, but trying to paint an analogy there is quite troublesome, for the simple reason that there are hundreds, if not thousands of issues that government has to tangle with...and it often is the case that one party has a better approach to certain issues while the other party is better suited to deal with a completely different set of issues.

forapurpose 8y ago
Joseph Stalin was probably better at dealing with some issues than Winston Churchill, but that doesn't make them comparable. It's a false equivalency.