But I am still going to vote for Democrats - every time.

Or not...

A reminder. You are posting in the Barack Obama Group. We do critical thinking here on a daily basis. We like it it enriches our minds.

Your comment is better suited to GD. Thanks for you consideration.

I support Barack Obama.

Obama has been in an absolutely terrible position, and frankly I'm a bit surprised that he hasn't already been railroaded out of the presidency. As the first black president, the subject of so much intense (and often racist) venom, he's had a rough go of it. What I do think, is that he needs support, to ensure that his presidency is a success, and that he isn't pressured into decisions that could undo the progress that has been made. That support includes pressure to do the right thing.

For what pray tell? What crime did he commit?

I agree he does need support. From us! From all the people.

So what do you mean by this??? Pressured?

You misunderstand me entirely. I'm surprised because African-American elected officials have often been railroaded unfairly, with veritable witch hunts. I'm not saying it's due to anything he has done, at all. I support Barack Obama - and would happily vote for him in 2016 were that an option. But I want no misunderstanding, so I will leave it, and your discussion at that.

of thinking you are thinking "Critically" when you know that you are forming your opinion on incomplete and/or suspect information?

If not ... well ... don't ever speak of critical thinking, again, until you understand the flaw in your logic.

Or even Obama? We never have perfect information... never. The point is that we are all under the burden of forming opinions and acting upon them based on our own analyses. I think that when it comes to attacking another country, that bar should be set high, and founded on the right strategic doctrine. I think when it comes to critically appraising officials' policy choices, we need to use what information "they" allow us, and anything else we can scrimp together based on looking at history.

is it to believe that you, or I, or any member of the public has anywhere here the access to information OR the analysis resources as the POTUS?

And however high the bar is set ... the public STILL falls way short of competent analysis.

Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that they know less than sh!t about what they wish to claim to know about?

But your argument is highly illiberal, and reminds me of what some said about Bush vis-a-vis Iraq. I don't think Obama wants that kind of support that abdicates independent analysis. That is not his value system.

I talked to you several times. I explained that you were walking a thin line in the BOG.

I believe you are playing with us. That is unacceptable here.

I do not believe that I am misunderstanding you.

Now you may make your comments in GD.

It has nothing to do with any specific President ... but I do trust this particular President's judgment more than most other persons' because he has a pretty good track record for being correct in his judgment.

Too many around here act like the once fooled lover ... unwilling to trust the next ... because his/her first was unfaithful. Actually, I learned the incomplete/untrust worthy press lesson from the bush misadventure, but apparently I learned a different lesson ... I learned that we, the public, can't make a better judgment than those in control of/with access to the information. So because of that, our only course is to pick those we can trust because the access to information dynamic is not going to change. No matter how musch we wish/pretend that it can or will.

Go peddle it elsewhere.

This is a safe haven for not only critical thinkers, but friends of Obama. If that's not to your liking, then you may leave.

K & R

Elect more Democrats and again not perfect but we know the crap which comes with electing Republicans. I am still waiting for the trickle down from the Reagan years, actually I know it is not going to happen, knew it when I first heard it.

give women the vote, or end child labor, enact environmental reform, or one single other worthwhile, major policy change in the United States, ever, without massive public pressure.

THAT is the way "representative democracy" works.

Your deep faith in this particular President doesn't change that reality.

Sorry (well not really).

that public pressure brought to an end, the Vietnam war.

But none of the rest of the policy decisions are/were affected by information not accessible to the public (i.e., national security matters).

and protesters dragged the information out, created an outcry, and ended it.

Do you think that was an isolated incident?

Democracy, representative, direct, or otherwise, does NOT function by voters silently assenting to whatever their elected representatives decide. It never has, and it never will.

Anyone who is heeding that approach is just ceding the field to others. When does the oil lobby sit back and trust in the wisdom of government? When do defense contractors go silent and nod approvingly at whatever Congress decides?

The quieter WE are, the louder all of those other voices become. In the absence of speech and pressure and complaint from the public, you get corporatocracy, because monied interests are NEVER silent.

This is why LBJ told MLK to "make him" pass the Civil Rights Act.

Obama, by the way, has made similar exhortations to the people to hold his feet to the fire. When the actual fire meets the actual feet, he may feel differently, but as a statesman he understands the concept as well.

Political impetus for change does not begin and end with representatives' own initiatives. They don't even write legislation for the most part. It comes to them from interest groups. So if groups are not representing your needs and your vision, you can be damn sure it's going to represent someone else's.

Defense has plenty of secrecy. The fact that it does simply means democracy has a harder time penetrating, because only the most well-connected voices are heard. This is why we outspend the next 10 countries combined in "defense," while our leaders wail that we have no money for healthcare or roads or social safety nets.

Silent democracy is dead democracy.

We have freedom of speech and there is plenty of chance to influence legislators. For the recess there have been immigration rallies in their home states, for instance.

But then in the end they get to vote. Whoever is President will ultimately do as they see fit.

They also enacted NAFTA, went to war with Iraq and passed the Patriot Act, etc. You can't have it both ways. You'd have to admit sometimes the pressure is conservative. What you consider worthwhile, there are big opposing forces for those too.

I believe that you know that.

This is a group not a forum. It is for supporters of This President.

There are a ton of threads in GD about Syria. You are welcome to post your negative thoughts there, not here.

But if I had to guess ... I think it will/would have far less negative effect on Democrats than the positive effect of Democrats focusing on job creation and shoring up the social safety net, along with messaging of how the gop has failed.

Editted to add: But bombing Syria will have no effect on the civil libertarians and the REAL Democrats because neither of them support(ed) President Obama , in the first place.

The edit is perfect.

But you already knew that..............

i think that is the crux of the issue. Trust and credibility. Very few of us are experts on ANY of the subjects we discuss here, all of what we know and believe is based to some extent on trust in something, whether it is journalists, politicians, parents, professors, etc.

I actually trust Obama more than i trust most politicians, more than most Democrats probably. Why is that? I'd have to think about that.

But I trust him WAY less than you do. You seem to think we should all trust him as much as you do. Why? Do you ever think about the reasons you trust him that much, or the reasons other people don't? That's where the authoritarianism comes in, the idea that we all "should" trust him at what to me is an extraordinary level.

I know exactly why I trust President Obama so much ... Because the vast majority of what he promised , he has delivered on and none of what he has stood on, he has reversed on; though he has not succeeded in everything he has attempted (and we know why) ... despite the "He lied" posts.

My position has nothing to do with authoritarianism; but everything to do with results consistent with his words, given the present environment.

Now I may be of the opinion that the mistrust of all politicians of any stripe is going over the top - how can there be any government if we take that view? We can't do it all ourselves or we'd be voting in plebiscites every day. And then getting into litigation over those results.

So there's a point where you just have to trust them. I don't see why that's so "authoritarian" in itself. Besides, the people who call us that ultimately are the authoritarians - disagreeing with them is so wrong in their view that they must believe themsevles to be authorities.

outted the sentiment ... we are finding more and more DUers that are quietly promoting no government ... not realizing that the libertarian line they are being fed doesn't mean no government, but rather no government for the people, just for corporations.

PEACE!

I voted for President Obama because I would much rather have him making these difficult decisions than Romney. I believe him to be a person of thought, peace and good judgement. I am confident he will make sound decisions.

Every time there's a popular thread about the President and Bravo to Fresh West for creating this post, the anti's feel like they got to come in and ruin it for us. That guy David I feel crossed the line but dialed it back when we started jumping on him. Really wish the anti's would read the groups rules before posting their attacks on the President here.

General Discussion is the place for their BS personal attacks.

1. the government should not even have any classified information, which would mean every other country on earth should have access to all of the information we have while keeping their own secrets

2. if we survive as a nation in spite of that, we should do nothing about atrocities elsewhere because at one point some time in the past we might have done something not so good. Thus anyone suffering should not expect any help.

3. some people have an ego so big they really do think they know best and yet it's authoritarian to trust anyone other than they, which is a bad thing, unless they are the authority.

greenwald and snowden like to think they're in charge.

"1. the government should not even have any classified information, which would mean every other country on earth should have access to all of the information we have while keeping their own secrets."