Obama shouldn't 'evolve' on anything.

[Drunken Irishman]

Ever. If he didn't support it in 2008, he shouldn't support it now. If he does, he's a political opportunist who is vilified for pandering.

Of course, the same people who slam Obama for his 'evolving' on matters like marriage equality and smoking pot, would be the same people to complain why he still holds archaic, questionable views on this subject. Basically, because we've created an artificial window of opportunity for our politicians to back things we support, if that window closes, they shouldn't dare progress enough to come out and support something we support - it wouldn't be prudent. Right?

So, we spent 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 slamming Obama for his views on marriage equality and now we're spending 2012, 2013 and 2014 slamming Obama for his supposed political convenience. It's the same with pot. You weren't happy when he used some harsher than he should have rhetoric toward it and you're not happy now that he's essentially getting behind the idea of legalizing it. Of course, ya'll would've been unhappy had he not said anything anyway.

That makes sense.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Sure, he should've been more transparent on the issue back in 2008. But because he wasn't, he's basically fucked regardless what he does. He supports something you support, well too late! He stays quiet on something you support? He's an enabling asshole!

Alrighty then.

Personally? I would've liked Obama to speak out on marriage equality sooner than he did. I would've liked him to drop this charade on marijuana. But I'd much rather him be an ally on these two issues NOW than stand quietly in opposition because he didn't get out ahead of the issue in what we consider a timely manner.

I welcome the dialogue. There is no bigger advocate to a major issue than the President of the United States. He may be late to the party, but at least he showed up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. The evolution of views happens rapidly enough that it's hard to predict the future.

What was it, a month ago that he was raiding Washington State medical pot stores?

[Drunken Irishman]

4. He did? Was he wearing a mask?

[MyNameGoesHere]

30. Well he has minions. And not the cute little ones.

[Cha]

2. Yeah, he should stay stuck in a mind warp like ol

bush the decider.

But, since he's President Obama he keeps learning and evolving like I would wish for everyone but too many aren't capable of evolution. No, they like that whole devolution process.. down to the very last billionaire they're voting to support.. and the hell with their lives.

Or they're like you stated.. "not doing it fast enough or not enough for me right fucking now".. 'cause you know.

the President .. or should I say

Mahalo for your post, DI

[El_Johns]

3. I doubt evolution of his personal views has anything to do with his public stances.

Or any politician's, for that matter, except on the fringes.

Politicians express the views of their funders and sometimes their constituents.

I think it's interesting that as wages fall further into the toilet, pot may be legalized.

[tblue]

5. I'm all for evolving.

And it doesn't matter who does it. I'll applaud and appreciate anyone who changes (opinions) for the better.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Hear! Hear!

I second that motion!

[Blue_Adept]

113. Sadly

We have a contingent that isn't happy with evolving. They wanted forced-fast evolution. And a lot of them on all topics. Look at the pope for the best example. He's talking the talk and making a lot of changes, faster than most others have in decades, but it's not fast enough to satisfy many who could be called topic-extremists. And since he's not evolving on every subject as fast as they want, they tend to downplay or outright destroy the progress that is being made elsewhere.

There's no middle ground.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. Should/shouldn't. Why has the President evolved his stance on pot?

You're suggesting he has evolved. Your purpose for doing so seems to be lecturing other DUers. I'm interested in knowing what, if anything, he has said about why his mind has been changed. Did he see that his DoJ was being harmful to peaceful people? Did he see the hypocrisy of his previous statements about marijuana? What special insight has he recently gained, and why wasn't this insight available to him before now? If you can answer that, you have a right to lecture everyone about their posts on the matter. Until then, in the absence of any explanation, I imagine people will still speculate on that which hasn't been explained, and they'll draw their own conclusions.

[randome]

9. You're both wrong.

Obama hasn't evolved and nothing occurred to change his mind. This is politics. You don't pick public battles until the right moment arrives. Apparently he has done the political calculations needed and decided that now is time to announce a change.

Politicians do politics. The only other choice is to publicly bang your head against the wall.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. I realize it gets you off to tell me that I'm wrong

But it'd be real nice if you went ahead and explained what I said that was wrong. I'll just wait here patiently.

[randome]

20. I meant postulating that he received some sort of 'special insight'.

I doubt that occurred, that's all. This is politics. And Obama is taking a chance by wading into this issue when he doesn't need to. Democrats tend to be more brave than Republicans.

OTOH, perhaps I misread your post.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. I'm pretty certain myself that you're correct about this--no special insight

But I was asking the OP a conditional if/then question. If Obama has evolved, what were the details? We're short on those, which suggests just what you've said--it became politically expedient to make this statement now. And I don't especially hold that against the President, but neither will I listen to sermons like the one given in the OP. Thanks.

[joshcryer]

78. Polls.

Personally he probably was for legalization, privately and politically, he couldn't be.

He's a politician.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. When politician's views change whenever opinion polls change,

it tends to indicate that they're followers rather than leaders.

[Helen Highwater]

34. As if there were ever any other kind...

isn't it their job to follow their bosses (us)?

[Number23]

8. Is he actually thinking about legalizing pot? That would be interesting considering that most

people consider that about as important as flag burning.

[Fumesucker]

16. Those laws are used to disenfranchise a lot of blacks

I can understand why you would be dismissive of such concerns.

[Number23]

19. I'm sure you know that I am a black woman. Which makes your attempts to goad

all the more bigoted, stupid and typical. For you.

[Fumesucker]

22. You were the one who said disenfranchisement was as important as flag burning

I'm not in charge of your priorities.

[Number23]

23. I said legalizing MJ was considered about as important as flag burning to people

You don't fool anyone and never have.

[Fumesucker]

24. You said the same thing about MJ as my conservative white neighbors

They all hate the idea of legalization too and are quickly dismissive of any moves in that direction.

[Number23]

25. I'm sure there's a reason they felt you were sympathetic.

Show them this thread and your comments to me. That'll convince them further.

[Fumesucker]

31. Yeah, they get defensive too

Your first post I replied to could have come straight from Hannity, flag burning and pot are equally important to him.

[Number23]

35. Yeah, judging by how defensive and irrational you are in this thread

And leaping to make needlessly bigoted, ignorant comments because someone dared to ask if this was going to happen because most Americans don't consider legalization to be important, I have absolutely no idea why your white conservative, bigoted neighbors seem to flock to you. 'Tis a mystery, it is.

[Fumesucker]

91. You'd be surprised how many Americans have a loved one touched in a bad way by the drug war

I can think of quite a few fellow parents and grandparents I know who have children or grandchildren whose lives are being screwed up over the drug war one way or another and of the ones who don't they all have friends who do.

Bear in mind that a substantial plurality of young American men are arrested before they are twenty three and a lot of those arrests are over a drug charge. A lot of these young men have families that care for them, brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles and so on, it's easy to get a conversation started about this subject with almost anyone. They are all for law and order until it become their nephew or daughter caught up in the system. It's a subject a lot of people are persuadable on if you approach it the right way.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-49-black-men-38-white-men-arrested-by-age-23/

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Almost half of black males and nearly 40 percent of white males in the U.S. are arrested by the age of 23, according to a study in the journal Crime & Delinquency.

The study, released Monday, and which was led by Robert Brame, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina, analyzed national survey data collected from 1997 to 2008 that looked at the arrest histories of teenagers and young adults from truancy and underage drinking to more serious and violent offenses. The data excluded arrests for minor traffic violations.

According to a news release from the University of South Carolina, the survey data showed that by age 18, 30 percent of black males, 26 percent of Hispanic males and 22 percent of white males have been arrested.

By the age of 23, 49 percent of black males, 44 percent of Hispanic males and 38 percent of white males have been arrested.

[JI7]

99. it's racism, the thing is minorities face racism in many areas of their lives, you don't think

the person you responded to knows how unfair things are ? it's not just drugs.

it's things like just walking or driving home from school or work and being stopped by cops or some zimmerman type thug because .

[Fumesucker]

110. I think the person I responded to sees pot legalization as a libertarian issue

And hates libertarians so much that they cannot bring themselves to agree with anything someone they perceive as a libertarian might say, even if it means condemning a remarkably large proportion of their own community to prison.

Punching hippies is good clean all-American fun but the blowback on the black community from this particular hippie punching exercise is not worth the entertainment value of seeing hippies bloodied.

[Number23]

126. You read so much that isn't there. Your posts have been absolutely shameful and beyond idiotic

in this thread. I have not said one damn thing that you have accused me of. Your hysterical, irrational posts and behavior speak volumes about you but they certainly do explain your moniker.

And if you think for one second that I think that any of your "principled objections" have anything to do with the disenfranchisement of black people, hold on a second and I'll draw up the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge for you. Got a sale going right now.

[Number23]

127. And considering that has absolutely fuck all to do with ANYTHING that I've said

I'll just file this post in the appropriate cabinet:

?w=714

[Drunken Irishman]

26. I think he's very open to the idea now...

But yeah, it isn't a major issue. I'm sure he was asked his opinion on it and gave it. If he was asked if he supports the legalization, I would only assume his next step would be to say, "yes.".

[Number23]

28. "it isn't a major issue." Couldn't agree more. And the calibre of the folks so determined to MAKE

it into a major issue (at least on this board) explain why that it is more than anything you or I could ever actually say.

This will be interesting. Conservatives will bray and scream that this is a short step on the road to bestiality/meth legalization/insert vice here but I'm sure the president will give their concerns the attention they deserve.

[Scootaloo]

37. But it IS a major issue

Granted, perhaps not to a majority of voters. But a majority of voters also think that the world was created by a magical ghost-creature waving its hand. "A majority of people think..." is not an actual indicator of veracity.

Marijuana - or rather the criminalization of it - is a huge contributor to the prison population and the militarization of police. Both of which are enormous drags on community, security, and economy. Legalization wouldn't result in a utopia like High Times readers might postulate.. .but it will make things better overall.

On top of that, the drug itself certainly has a less harmful impact than say... alcohol, the example the president chose. Which is perfectly legal for anyone over a certain age to purchase, possess, pass around, and ingest in any quantity they feel the need for.

[Number23]

40. What you're saying is fine. But I'm just saying that in terms of what people are marching about

mailing their Congresspeople about etc., legalizing marijuana is not there. If you put up a list of the top ten issues that Americans feel is the hot button issue, I don't think that this will be on it.

As for the racial component, discrepancies in prison sentencing affect blacks in every single measure. We are more penalized for EVERYTHING. Even if mj was legalized, that may help in some places but that will probably mean blacks will go to jail for even more "harmless" crimes. I don't have a problem with legalizing MJ but it's no panacea for anything.

[Scootaloo]

73. I wasn't even going to touch the race issue

I know perfectly well that blacks get pulled over, arrested, and convicted at a higher rate, with harsher sentences. That's totally separate from marijuana, obviously. As you say, it will continue, even if the president lights one up at a state of the Union address or something.

And nope, it's not something people are marching about. Nor is it a hot button issue - those tend to be issues that are obvious and indisputable discrepencies inmeaningful rights. Marijuana is a recreation thing. As for the prisoner issue... well... An upsetting feature of American culture is a violent hatred of anyone who's ever been convicted of anything. The phrase "prisoner's rights" makes most americans want to spit on you, i've noticed.. .even here on Du, where prison rape "jokes" are still a kind of regular problem

[Fumesucker]

95. That's true until you start talking about their special snowflake

Practically everyone knows someone whose life has been screwed up to a greater or lesser extent by the drug war, they are much more sympathetic to someone they know or particularly they are related to.

You really have to put things in personal perspective to get through to people on this and a great many other subjects.

[fujiyama]

44. I disagree completely that "this isn't a major issue"

and I say this as someone that doesn't even smoke the stuff. This is simply about the right of adults to engage in a recreational behavior that harms no one. The prohibition of marijuana has also been used by law enforcement and the courts to ruin thousands of lives over the last half+ century, has strengthened violent cartels and gang warfare. And as Obama rightly pointed out, there have been startling racial disparities in how this was all enforced. And by stigmatizing marijuana and making it so taboo, any potential medicinal, curative, or palliative uses have been completely ignored.

But then again the fourth amendment isn't really all that important to either party so fuck it.

As long as the police state is funded and its agenda is furthered, then all is good. As I said in another thread, I'm happy the President is speaking common sense on this issue, even if it is convenient that this is after the Gallup poll came out. Besides, he's been candid about his own marijuana use - yet his administration is busting pot dispensaries in CA. Sorry, I'm not totally impressed. He needs to call for the rescheduling of the drug. This should not be a federal matter. It's a fucking plant and really harms no one.

[Drunken Irishman]

69. I meant in the eyes of the country...

I don't think most Americans care two shits about it. But I agree it's an important issue.

[progressoid]

38. Actually 58% now say is should be legalized.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

[Number23]

42. Thanks, and that's good to know. I don't doubt that those polled are mostly in favor

But what I'm saying is that on the list of BIIIIIG IIIIISSSUES that most Americans want Congress to solve, I don't think this is on it.

[progressoid]

47. I think once the people see the economic imact it has in CO and WA

it will become an important issue.

[Number23]

130. Do you have any articles handy on how it's helping the economies in those regions?

Is it helping by reducing the number of people going to jail and thus reducing a drain on resources? Or are people actually spurring the economy by growing it, like in Tobacco Country?

[progressoid]

134. Colorado One Year Later: Thousands Not Arrested for Marijuana, Millions of Dollars Saved

State officials project $67 million a year from taxes on marijuana sales. These consist of the existing 2.9 percent state sales tax (plus local taxes), an additional 10 percent state tax on retail marijuana sales, and a 15 percent excise tax on the "average market rate" of wholesale marijuana. In Denver, that means a $30 eighth of pot (1/8 oz.) will have about $8.59 in taxes tacked onto it, or about a 29 percent overall tax rate.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/colorado-begins-legal-marijuana-sales-collecting-marijuana-tax

New job creation is shattering previous projections.

"We're looking at upwards of 10,000 new jobs being created over the next few years," said Hodas.

http://www.10news.com/home/tablet-showcase/edible-marijuana-sales-shattering-sales-projections-in-colorado-01202014

Colorado One Year Later: Thousands Not Arrested for Marijuana, Millions of Dollars Saved

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-way/colorado-marijuana-legalization_b_4421617.html

[BlueCaliDem]

55. And I think you're correct.

Although many Americans believe it's a great big issue, legalizing pot is waaaay down on the ladder of what Americans believe the Gov't's priorities should be.

Even the poll that's been presented above shows that the majority of American people approving the legalization of pot has evolved only in the past years.

[joshcryer]

64. he didn't shift on gay marriage until the polls did either

[progressoid]

67. Yup. n/t

[joshcryer]

62. it's being primed as a 2016 issue

[joshcryer]

82. Politically it's probably low on the radar, but socially and economically, it is very high up.

People might have only recently jumped on the bandwagon for marijuana legalization, but the social and economic damage that the drug war has caused is very very bad for the country. It's costing taxpayers billions, it's causing economic stagnation probably in the tens of billions. Due to alcohol consumption it's probably killing thousands, etc, etc.

The social consequences of the drug war are innumerable.

To say that Obama only acts due to polls is I think wrong, I think that Obama chooses to act because of polls, but I think deep down and personally he's been for legalization. He just didn't have the right time to do it. 2 weeks after CO goes green? Yeah, OK, looks like a safe bet. Arrests didn't explode, the world didn't end, reefer madness didn't consume the state, etc, etc.

[CFLDem]

10. As long as he arrives at the right conclusion

who cares how he got there?

[Demo_Chris]

11. I would settle for a President that reflected OUR views as Democrats...

Just that. I don't care about his evolution, I want representation.

We're still at war. I know, now that Bush is no longer President we no longer care, but there it is. We are still at fucking WAR. And we have expanded it. We are now slaughtering people across the entire middle east with our Drones, killing innocent civilians, and here where we should be burning the place down you'd think Obama was bombarding these people with daisies. It's insane.

He's expanded the police state. Who in the fuck supports that? Seriously, WHO?

He's decided on his own that President's have the legal authority to murder US citizens at their discretion, no trial, no oversight, no congress, no judges, just death at the President's whim. In secret no less. Who in the hell supports that nonsense? Fucking Kings didn't have that kind of power.

And which Democrats support all this Free Trade crap he's trying to ram through. Even Obama doesn't like them, or so he once said, so why in the hell is he fighting for them now? He's fighting as hard for the TPP and he fought for insurance mandates. The only thing he NEVER fights for is Democratic principles. Those he could not care less about. He spent the entire last election running around the country with Lyin' Biden promising hands off Social Security, then he didn't even wait to be sworn in before once again begging the GOP to give him Chained CPI.

So like I said, fuck his evolution, I want representative government. Give me that and I'll be happy. Until then I will remain a bitter disenfranchised guy who isn't gonna do shit for this party in 2014.

[ProSense]

18. This is

"He's decided on his own that President's have the legal authority to murder US citizens at their discretion, no trial, no oversight, no congress, no judges, just death at the President's whim. In secret no less. Who in the hell supports that nonsense? Fucking Kings didn't have that kind of power."

...absolute drivel. Still, the RW "kings" reference is impressive.

[Cha]

49. It would be a surprise if

it weren't.

[woo me with science]

61. Well said. nt

[polichick]

12. So, after all the insults you tossed at me, you "would've liked Obama to speak out...

on marriage equality sooner than he did." And you "would've liked him to drop this charade on marijuana."

But my pointing out that he waited (with both weed and gay marriage) until the risk had past is horrible, awful, bitter thinking??

"He may be late to the party, but at least he showed up."

More like, at least he's begun to TALK about showing up.

[Katashi_itto]

15. +1000

[Drunken Irishman]

27. What insults?

Calling you bitter because you can't give the President a sliver of credit and then dismissing facts to only continue belittling the President?

You didn't approach this with any tact. You blatantly misspoke about the whole country supporting marriage equality when Obama came out in support of it - and then again misspoke saying it was at 60% support when he did, only to later concede it was 50-50 without ever stepping back from your original, flawed point.

I can only assume the fact you can't ever give the President credit on anything (going to painstaking lengths to twist facts to even attack him) that you're bitter about something. Calling a spade a spade is not an attack. It's the truth.

[polichick]

29. "Calling a spade a spade is not an attack. It's the truth." That's what I do re the prez.

btw, I didn't say you "attacked" - I said you tossed insults, which you continue to do.

[Drunken Irishman]

36. It's interesting you can lob insults at Obama and yet get the least bit offended...

...when I suggest you're bitter. The fact you can't find one nice thing to really ever say about Obama, even when you're in agreement with him, is the definition of someone who's bitter.

[polichick]

43. Where are the quotes in which I "lob insults at Obama?"

To call voters "bitter" because they dare to criticize their leaders is both rude and ignorant.

[Drunken Irishman]

45. Prove me wrong...

If you're not bitter, why not even give him the faintest praise? It's funny - in my original post, I was more critical toward Obama than you've ever been positive toward him. In a post that had nothing to do with marriage equality, you had to get in a dig at the President for doing something that, I can only assume, you agree with. What's more, you actually said he only did it when the entire country supported it - and when you were called out for being so very wrong, you still stuck by your attack.

He's not a leader.

Those your words.

When you do nothing but attack someone, even when they're doing something right, you absolutely look bitter. That is exactly what you are.

[polichick]

46. Your rudeness and ignorance is clearly on display - proven all by yourself.

[Drunken Irishman]

48. Your lack of facts was apparent from the start.

It explains your total contempt for the President, though. Your whole view is warped by things that don't exist or never happened. It might help explain why you're so bitter. I mean, I guess if you really feel that 100% of the country was on board with marriage equality back in 2012, and Obama was the lone holdout, I could understand why you'd still hold that grudge?

[polichick]

50. I could say that your whole view is warped by an infantile fascination...

with the president but some time ago we were supposed to stop calling each other "cheerleaders" and such.

So, come up with direct quotes if you're going to complain about me lobbing insults at the prez.

[Drunken Irishman]

53. Like I said before...

I was more critical in my original post toward Obama than you've ever been positive toward him. That's very telling. You can continue to cry that I insulted you by saying you were bitter and you words will only continue to show what a bitter, hate-filled person you are toward the President. I find it funny that someone with a peace sign as their avatar can be filled with such hatred toward one man.

It's a sad commentary that even when he does something you agree with, you still have to go out of your way to jab him. That is absolutely the character trait of a bitter person. You can't find one good thing to say about Obama and that contempt certainly breeds bitterness.

[polichick]

56. Read more carefully - I agree when I agree and don't when I don't...

If you didn't take everything about the president so personally, you might not be so fixated on criticism.

[Drunken Irishman]

57. I'm not taking it personal. The only reason I got into this debate is because you misstated a fact.

And please, when was the last time you offered up praise for Obama?

[polichick]

63. Oh yes, I used a figure of speech and said "the whole country" - what a crime...

As you know, my point was that he waits until there's little risk before speaking out, which isn't leadership. Oh, such a horrible insult! I'm so mean!!

I've agreed with him plenty - quit crying and pay attention.

[Drunken Irishman]

68. Your point was flawed because you assumed a huge majority supported it...

When, at best, it was 50-50 - with nearly every poll showing a plurality in support. Not near the slam dunk you implied. It was a divisive issue even then. Certainly not as divisive - but still a risk. It's always a risk when the potential benefit is very small.

[polichick]

74. The potential benefit is huge - leadership is about real people and their lives...

not about what's politically beneficial.

[Drunken Irishman]

75. You're right about that. Which is why his decision was commendable...

Because politically, it could have hurt. Especially in a close election that was not near the runaway many of us had hoped for in 2010 or so. Break down the polls and you'll see a great deal of the support for gay marriage came from younger people - the least likely to vote. Opposition, as it currently is, came from the older people - the most likely to vote.

Moreover, support for marriage equality among BLACK voters was far less than among WHITE voters. Obama always had to rely on black support to help bolster his weak numbers among white voters. I remember at the time there was concern that it could alienate those voters, or at least put their support in doubt. It didn't transpire, thankfully, but it was a legit concern. In fact, maybe Obama coming out when he did helped navigate the issue more progressively among the black community than had he just stayed quiet.

I mean, what you're basically saying is that Obama either should have come out in support when YOU felt it was needed or not come out at all. The fact he changed his feelings is irrelevant and just as damning, I guess, than not coming out in support if it ever. As I originally said, because he didn't meet your window of opportunity, he was damned no matter what he did and I question if he had come out in 2008 or whatever, if you wouldn't say it was too late then too.

Do you think Kennedy was any less a leader because of his extremely tepid response to Civil Rights? What about FDR and the banning lynching? Neither advanced the causes as great as they could have and Kennedy was pretty much forced into addressing Civil Rights because of the unrest in the South.

The fact you can't give the President even a sliver of credit for his coming out in support of it, even after all he's done for the gay community since becoming president, speaks of your intentions.

[polichick]

76. My intentions are about standing up for justice - not about propping up...

a president because you think he's cool.

Leadership is about leading - getting out front when it's not popular to be there. It's not about worrying about the next election. Truth is, when politicians show courage it helps them politically even if people don't agree on every issue. Why? Because voters want to elect LEADERS.

[Drunken Irishman]

77. Got it. You get to decide when it's acceptable and not acceptable to come out in support of it.

That's mighty presumptuous of you, I must say.

I think it's clear what your intentions are. Even if Obama had done it when support was only at 30%, you would've bagged on him because that's the pattern of your posts. You've gone to great lengths to try to not give Obama any credit on anything. I'm sure you don't believe he deserves any credit for the DADT repeal or the DOMA repeal or the hate crimes legislation he advocated for LONG before he came out in full support of marriage equality.

It's remarkable that you can't even find one ounce of positivity on Obama. I mean, the fact you will just pull numbers out of thin air to attack the President's leadership really showcases your absolute contempt and bitterness.

Keep on keepin' on, chick. Just realize bitterness is not a virtue.

[polichick]

85. All you've got is personal attacks.

[Drunken Irishman]

89. No...that's where you're wrong.

From the start, I've come at you with facts and substance - originally showing you how you were wrong (twice!) and you still continued to push a silly narrative. Then I went into detail WHY it was still a huge step for the movement and you continued to dismiss it as a stunt and continued to question his leadership. Through it all, the only claim you've made is that a plurality of Americans supporting it means it was too late for him to come out. No matter what he could have done at that point, you would have complained. Had Obama not come out in support of marriage equality, you would be demanding why he hasn't and attacking him for it - and when he did, you moved the goalposts because you decided it was too late.

Then you get offended when I suggest this is all tied to your bitterness. Well, you're not really providing any evidence it's not. I've offered up many explanations why it was still a good move and your only response has been to make up statistics, turn around and suggest, then state, he wasn't leading and twist the idea that he had nothing to lose, even though half the country opposed it. You also have shown no indication you give him credit on anything when it comes to the equal rights movement. I'm sure you don't believe he's had a hand in that, either.

I bet you don't think of FDR as any less a leader because he went back on his pledge to ban lynching so he could shore up conservative Democratic support in the South - or that you look at Kennedy any worse, and any less a hero because his response to the Civil Rights movement was muted through the early days of his presidency and it wasn't until riots broke out that he finally was thrust into the position history remembers.

I may call you a bitter person, but I don't think you're a stupid person. I've read your posts long enough to know you're intelligent. So, it does make me somewhat confused when you ignore the nuances of the political game. No president, hero or villain, has ever not compromised on something they believe in order to advance the progress. It's why, up until Obama, no president had ever come out in support of marriage equality - or presidential candidate. Now, no Democratic presidential nominee will ever oppose marriage equality. Ever.

Bill Clinton didn't do it. Neither did Jimmy Carter or LBJ or JFK. Yes, it's absurd to say they should have because it wasn't as prominent of an issue - but by your own definition, they were failures as leaders because they didn't. Why didn't they? Because it would have been political suicide for a sitting president, in the 1970s, to do so. Even prior to Carter becoming president, there were three court cases that upheld the idea that marriage was between a man and a woman. It wasn't THE issue of the day - but the gay movement was certainly gaining steam in the late 70s when Carter was president - and Carter was aware of it, as he did address gay rights and even came out in opposition to California's Briggs Initiative (so did Reagan). You talk about bold leadership - could you imagine Carter coming out in full support of marriage equality in the 1970s? But he didn't. In fact, Carter didn't openly come out in support of it until 2012 - the same year as Obama.

But that's politics. You shame Obama for doing something positive, turning it into an attack because he didn't do it quick enough, and fail to see the importance of his stance - regardless of the timing, it still meant a great deal to A LOT of people to have him come out in support of it. Just as having JFK FINALLY discussing civil rights in the 60s or Carter openly talking about gay rights in the 70s.

To dismiss it as nothing more than a publicity stunt and a showcase of his failures is just not right. You can be critical of his intent while also supportive of the action and realizing the significant of it. The irony is that the same people who dismissed it were the same people who spent most their time attacking him for not coming out in favor of it.

[Katashi_itto]

104. Agree, he's done it to me too

[polichick]

105. Thank-you. I've seen him do it to others too...

Usually I don't bother with him - that's probably best.

[Katashi_itto]

106. Most likely that would be best tactic, just a massive ego operating there and not much else

[polichick]

117. "massive ego operating there and not much else" - True dat!

[Drunken Irishman]

114. It might be the best to just put me on ignore...

Then when I reply to one of your overstated facts again - whether it's an outright lie or a made up poll number - you'll never know and we can go on our separate ways. Let's remember, this all started because you had to make up a number to attack the President over. You weren't content with just getting in a jab - you had to make shit up with it. That's the only reason I ever replied to your post and when I pointed out how WRONG you were, you made up another number to try to justify your position. Next time, don't be so loose with the facts when you're trying to be so quick attacking the President.

[polichick]

115. I don't put anyone on ignore - would hate to miss the laughs.

[Drunken Irishman]

116. Likewise.

I'm excited to see what other numbers you make up in the future to find another reason to complain about the President.

[morningfog]

70. Insults against the president come with the territory.

Of course what you see as insults ma be fair criticisms.

Regardless, both are permitted in society and on DU. Personal attacks on other DUers is not. So, a DUer could call the President bitter and that would be fine. A DUer could not necessarily then call the first poster bitter and still be within the rules.

What I can't fathom is why people here take criticisms of the President personally. It makes no sense at all.

[Drunken Irishman]

72. Why do people have such a hard time praising the President?

That makes no sense at all.

[morningfog]

98. Praise is a strange word to focus on.

I don't think the president needs or deserves "praise." He can get along fine without any "praise." Maybe it's the religious upbringing in me that makes "praise" quite awkward.

I certainly agree with much that he has done. I support positions and actions he's taken. I think he has made some good progress in some areas, even if not how I wanted it to go or on the time frame I had hope for.

Having said that, there are several issues I completely disagree with him on and I think the criticisms are valid and necessary. What I don't get it those posters who only "praise" him AND then take criticisms of his policies personally.

[Drunken Irishman]

112. Not at all...

When a President does something positive, I would expect a liberal Democratic forum to mention it - and support it. But for a lot of posters, it's never good enough and instead, they focus on the negative - what they hate about him.

So, there really is a disconnect with your post. You're fine with people doing nothing but criticizing - but you don't seem to get why posters would praise him? It's not hard - to many, he is their president. To many blacks, he is their hope. To many Americans, they still have faith in him.

Your post pretty much sums up what exactly is wrong with the left. They see no reason to ever praise Obama but see no problem with being critical at every point. To his supporters, people who still believe he's doing a good job and like him, they get that everywhere - from the right, middle and left. Always. They turn on the TV and see him being slammed as a socialist and they come to DU to see him being slammed as a fascist. They're called cheerleaders and cultists for offering praise and told by people like you that what they're doing is something you 'don't get it'. What's not to get? We're Democrats who want to defend and celebrate the accomplishments of a Democratic president.

But I guess that's the reality here. It's perfectly okay to bash Obama at every turn - never saying anything nice. But when you praise him, it's just kinda weird. Right? Of course, those same posters who find it weird have no problem turning around and praising other figures - historic or modern. They just can't ever find enough to praise the President. Ever.

[morningfog]

118. DU has the BOG if you want a criticism free zone.

You'll find like minded posters who wish only to praise.

In broader DU, it should not be a surprise that their are many who are not impressed with Obama. It isn't hate, it isn't racism, it isn't a desire to inflict harm to him or his political ambitions. It is because they disagree with his politics and his policies. He is no liberal, he is not a lefty. He will meet be good enough to those who are liberals and lefties. You shouldn't take it personally that there are Democrats that will ALWAYS push for more and for better. You should value that.

And so what if they don't "praise" him when they agree. Really. What difference does it make? None. Even when I agree with someone's position, I want to push harder and make it better.

[Drunken Irishman]

119. I don't want a criticism free zone...

But I don't want constant hate, either. Why can't DUers do both? Is Obama THAT bad that they can't find anything to be happy over?

And no, I don't value people whose sole intent is just to trash the President - whether they're on the left or the right. Some of the comments on DU about Obama are just as bad, and vile, as the comments on FreeRepublic. It's not about having no criticism - it's about disliking the CONSTANT criticism. There is a difference. You know this.

[morningfog]

120. I don't see constant hate here.

I don't see attacks on the President as a person. I see criticisms, often strong criticisms, of policies. The criticisms are usually valid and fair.

And, DU has both. There are strong advocates for the President who praise every single thing he does. Some posters are so devoted, it causes one to question their sincerity.

You are labeling criticism as hate, you'd have to show me hateful posts that are allowed to stand for me to gauge whether they are hate.

[Drunken Irishman]

121. When you constantly criticize the President, it's hate...

It doesn't have to be vile to be hate. When your sole focus is to attack the President on everything, even when he does good, you're hating. It's what the right does - NEVER giving him credit. Some leftists do the exact same thing. If you don't see it, it's because you're blind to it and want to pretend it doesn't exist.

Criticism is fine. Constant criticism is hate. When all you do is post nothing but negative shit on the President, you absolutely are hating. It's not done because you just happen to disagree with him - it's done because you do not like him. It's why the right does it and why so many on the left are good at it.

[morningfog]

122. That is not the definition of hate.

Not even here. I understand the disconnect now.

The criticisms are valid. Whether they come from a dozen different people or are channeled in through a few DUers, it is worth discussing. And, it does not make it hate. Not by a long shot. If an independently standing post is not hate (which I have yet to see to a link of DU hate for the President that still stands); a series of non-hate posts are not hate either. As long as there is a position that is better, more liberal, more equal that hasn't been presented or considered, there is value in having it added to the discussion.

[Drunken Irishman]

123. Yeah it is.

hate
hāt/Submit
verb
1.
feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).

When you post nothing but negative things about someone, I can only assume you hate the person.

[morningfog]

124. That is still not the definition of any DUers I've seen.

You are imputing as well as assuming. You are imputing dislike for policy positions and political decisions onto the person.

As most, you could say, you assume some posters hate Obama's politics. But even that would be dishonest. I haven't seen intense or passionate dislike for policies, much less someone.

[Dragonfli]

131. Praise be to Obama! (feel better now?)

in the name of the Party
and of the Donors
and of the Holy Third Way!
Amen.

Actually I really do have a hard time praising The President or any person, Idol worship that requires praising any man just feels too awkward and sacrilegious to me.


Perhaps I am simply not religious enough to have an easy time praising Obama, sorry if that doesn't make sense to you or offends you in some way.

[joshcryer]

79. "talking about showing up"? Huh?

What other president in history has talked about this issue positively like Obama has done?

It seems like you want to find a reason to be critical but it's bordering on the bizarre.

I don't think it's controversial that he waited until the polls had swung. He did that with gay marriage. It sucks, but you could've predicted that (I did so).

[polichick]

86. Why wait until the polls turn? Leaders LEAD. People are still going to jail for...

this idiotic drug war.

[joshcryer]

87. And they will for many years yet.

President's aren't dictators.

And Obama is an uber pragmatist. I wished he came out for legalization in 2012, it could have been descheduled by now, but I know he didn't want to create a wedge issue and cause a rift with anyone. Always playing it safe.

But I knew he would and I'm glad he has done so while still in office, hopefully he gets some stuff rolling. We'll see.

[polichick]

88. "uber pragmatist" is one way to put it.

[joshcryer]

93. It's the "nice way" to put it.

I could of course come off as bitter, but I know that Obama had to shed any potential image of being considered an "angry black man" so I don't fault him.

I fault US racism as a whole.

Obama has to be a pragmatist, for the Party and for his administration, and for the future President's that run. And soiling of the Democratic Party Brand falls on him, and it is shameful that he can't be himself, in the end.

All because the US is a highly racist state.

[polichick]

100. The nice way? Maybe, but I'm not convinced it's about color...

And I've had enough of the "bitter" label from another poster here who resorts to personal attacks when people criticize his beloved president.

Obama has thrown in with the Wall Street thugs by choice - unless you believe that he's not actually in charge (and I could see that). He surrounds himself with corporate tools instead of public servants - that's not about color.

Sometimes being a pragmatist just means "covering one's ass" - also not about color.

But don't worry about this president "soiling the Democratic Party Brand" - that's been soiled for a long time - at least since the DLC arrived on the scene.

About Obama being himself: Who is he anyway? The campaign guy I met and worked my butt off for - or the guy pushing for TPP fast track and putting SS on the table??


Edit: typo

[joshcryer]

101. Of course not.

To you Obama is likely someone who is a third way right winger.

To me he's a politician who can win some or lose some and he makes those decisions on a pragmatic basis.

A black person surrounding themselves with corporate tools? No shit. He said, before he was elected, he would have a bipartisan cabinet. To me? I thought that was bullshit. But he made that clear. In the end he had the most bipartisan cabinet in US Presidential history. Do I like that? Fuck no, fuck that shit. But that's what he campaigned on! He literally campaigned on that crap.

Obama the campaigner said whatever he needed to say to get elected. He's been the most consistent President in my entire lifetime. There's no other President who has lived up to their positions. The only pathetic part is that Obama's positions were mediocre at best. Fortunately, he has opened the floodgates for a Hillary presidency which will be 10x more progressive than his own. And you can bookmark this post, I promise you, Hillary will make Obama look like a right winger in comparison. And it wouldn't have happened without Obama's "pragmatism."

[polichick]

103. "Bipartisan" is one thing - a cabinet of corporate tools is another...

That, he did not run on. I was there in the same room with him - nobody working with us believed him to be a corporate sell-out.

Yes, HRC is probably next up - though she'll be crowned without my vote - and my bet is it'll be same ol' shit - just like corporate "Dems" have behaved since Clinton I (except she'd probably okay a war with Iran).

[joshcryer]

107. BS, he campaigned on a bipartisan cabinet.

HRC will be far more liberal and progressive than Obama. If only thanks to his uber-bipartisanship.

[polichick]

108. Read more carefully - re bipartisan cabinet.

[joshcryer]

109. Wait two years.

I will be proven correct.

[polichick]

111. I meant that yes, he said the cabinet would be bipartisan, but no...

he didn't let on that it would be a bunch of corporate shills.

Why would HRC be progressive - except in her campaign rhetoric? Both Clintons are corporate/1% all the way.

[joshcryer]

125. he said he'd put republicans on it!

was the first to ever do so to that degree, almost half his cabinet! it was unprecedented, and he was native to think it could work

as far as HRC, watch and see

[TheKentuckian]

13. It might be cool to evolve ahead of the general public and lead sometimes.

But you are quite correct that coming late to the party beats the hell out of obstinate heel digging, ceaselessly trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

[Schema Thing]

17. The general public, while polling "yeah sure, it shouldn't be a lock-up offense :shrug:"...

is hardly taking to the streets demanding change. They aren't confronting even their local politicians, no less Washington pols about the matter.

[Number23]

21. Exactly. But some on DU consider this the quintessentially most important issue ever

Even going to the point of accusing black posters who point out exactly what you just did of not caring that these laws target blacks more than anyone else.

And folks wonder why you can use almost one hand to count the number of minority posters on this board.

[Schema Thing]

128. Interesting. I hadn't thought about if from that angle.

I'll admit it's a tremendously important issue, just because it reflects codified immorality (imo) and hypocrisy (objectively) in the American system and psyche.

But I try to see the big picture, and at worst, Obama has merely exhibited the same sort of convenient hypocrisy that pretty much everyone I know exhibits.

[Politicub]

32. If his evolution on pot has begun

It's a good thing.

My eyes almost fell out when I read the excerpts from the New Yorker profile. A president is saying pot is no worse than alcohol, and in some instances, more safe. I also like how he called out unfair sentencing.

[Cha]

51. Hey you, Politicub..

I know, huh! It's great news.. but of course.. for some it's time for UBER WHINE!

[JaneyVee]

33. Yeah, who needs a President that listens to the people anyway!

[progressoid]

41. So that would be an admission that we were right?

[AlbertCat]

54. Being as rigid as Teabaggers....

...... is not my idea of good governing.

[frwrfpos]

58. Obama didnt evolve

weed is still illegal at the federal level and Obama's DOJ is still prosecuting and arresting for crimes related to weed. In addition, marriage equality is still not federally protected and is still being argues at the state level. Obama has paid lip service to both and his words ring hollow and empty as a tin can.

[polichick]

65. *Gasp* So many insults! You must hate our prez!!!

Welcome to DU!

[frwrfpos]

66. thank you

[Cha]

71. No, the only empty tin cans are the ones

that act like they know shit about what the President is thinking..

Too bad he can't wave his magic wand and zip it's done. He knows things take time.. like DADT, DOMA and the advancement and acceptance of Gay Marriage.

DADT- "In the Dustbin of History After 17 Years"

http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/federal-laws/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-act-of-2010?gclid=CJLd-Lb0i7wCFTCCQgodx0EABg

". By striking down Section 3 of DOMA, the Supreme Court has affirmed that all loving and committed couples who marry deserve equal legal respect and treatment. It marks an enormous victory for equal justice under the law and ends DOMA’s two-tiered system for marriage, which for over 16 years has forced the government to pick and choose among marriages and create a "gay exception" that only caused pain, uncertainty, and financial harm."



http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/doma

17 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 33 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857

[joshcryer]

81. Indeed, seems we had the same thought.

De-scheduling marijuana would take years. There would have to be studies done. WA and CO would be the proving ground for those studies. I think DADT is the perfect example because they did have to do studies and retraining and address the effects if it happened.

A lot of police officers are trained to go after marijuana, it will take months of retraining. Officers who normally would use marijuana smell to search a persons' car will not be able to do that anymore. That is in itself a huge thing to be dealt with.

I suspect this will be an issue that winds up being a wedge in 2016. But Obama will have got the ball rolling.

[Cha]

83. Thank you for your perspective, joshcryer. I'm actually

so happy he has the ball rolling on this from .. The White House.



This and NOT putting people in jail for a silly reason anymore.

[joshcryer]

84. +1, hemp and medicine will finally be researched.

I for one am hoping for a soy replacement with hempseed. Soy is really bad hormonally (for guys especially).

[joshcryer]

80. Obama's not a dictator. The DoJ is not his to control.

He'll probably make efforts to deschedule it but that has to go through the proper channels. Could take years. Hillary will be able to come out and say "I want to legalize marijuana" and after she's elected it'll already be in place to be legalized.

[Cha]

90. ..

I can understand him not encouraging it for his daughters.. do as I suggest.. not as I did back in the day.

Still this is huge coming from the White House and opening the Door! Alcohol industry not happy. Coors is beside themselves, no doubt.

[joshcryer]

92. Yup, Phillips / cigarette industry is estatic, though.

But guess what? Marijuana will probably be consumed in edibles / drink (green dragon sodas).

So neither the beer or cigarette industries will benefit.

It's going to be amazing. I keep trying to get a friend of mine in CO to join me in a THC soda drink. I hope to go online in late 2014 early 2015.

[Cha]

94. Good ol Colorado.. born and raised there. :)

Good Luck in your entrepreneurial "better than coke" venture! Soda Pot as it were..

[joshcryer]

97. CO rocks.

Spent most of my life there though born in NC.

(PS, I actively campaigned and canvased for MJ legalization there, we won that so hard it wasn't even funny. Total obliteration of the anti-MJ pro-drug war fanatics.)

[Romulox]

129. Is this a joke? The DOJ is headed by AG Holder, who serves at the President's pleasure.

The United States Attorney General (AG) is the head of the United States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government. The attorney general serves as a member of the president's cabinet, and is the only cabinet department head who is not given the title secretary.

The attorney general is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time; the attorney general is also subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General

[joshcryer]

132. You still have to act within the constitution.

If the President were a dictator he could tell Holder to do whatever and Holder could follow suit and then pow, problem solved. Except we have this whole constitution thing to deal with.

The DoJ memo to "allow" CO and WA to have legal marijuana is extremely wishy-washy and the DoJ reserves the right to crack down as it wishes. It does not in fact state that marijuana is legal in those states. The primary reason for this is that there are still international treaties making marijuana illegal. The Supremacy Clause makes that a very very dangerous thing to fuck with, it could even cause a constitutional crisis.

De-scheduling will be a long and arduous process and Hillary, if she chooses to run and wins, will likely be the one doing it. But Obama can get the ball rolling.

[davidthegnome]

59. Yes. At least he showed up.

There are many things over which I am disappointed with the Obama administration - this was once of them, and no longer is. It's nice when he does something I can praise him for and approve of. Which I do whole-heartedly in congratulating him on his finally starting to warm to the idea of legalizing marijuana - that's great. I say without hesitation and without sarcasm that this is a good thing and that I'm happy that the President has come around. Is it political? Honestly, I don't care whether it is or not, it's the end result that matters.

That said - there are very valid reasons to criticize the President in regards to other issues and I will not refrain from doing so when I feel it is warranted (no pun intended).

I generally believe that the President is, overall, a good man, but I do think that he is often swayed by people who are not good people.

Thank you, Mr. President, it is time to legalize marijuana for everyone.

[Luminous Animal]

60. I applaud his evolution. 100%. Just like I applaud Glenn Greenwald's political

apathy to political advocate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

96. This screed demonstrates nothing so much as your determined ignorance and suicidal partisanship.

The bizarrely selective narrative propelled by binary absolutism ends up in a circular argument with the President at the center of an oxymoronic position.

"Sure, he should've been more transparent on the issue back in 2008. But because he wasn't, he's basically fucked regardless what he does"

Did you read what you wrote? Is your username a literal characterization?

[MADem]

102. Anyone who isn't politically naive knows how Obama feels about weed.

Read his books, it's not too hard to dig between the lines.



Unfortunately, a lot of people like to nitpick little shit, and if he made too big a deal out of this early on, it could have caused him difficulty. Now that he's been reelected he has some room to wiggle on this issue. He's not late to the party, he just knew if he showed up any earlier that there might have been a messy brawl.

[Shoulders of Giants]

133. Obama's public stances will reflect public opinion.

That's not an attack on the President Obama, because ALL mainstream politicians do the same. We will probably never know the personal view any politician really holds on any issue. That is a shame, but that is how the system is. That's why I would never enter politics.