Locked Wrote:The problem is most of Congress is Republican. Consider the fiasco of Obama lowering taxes for example. The Republicans hate taxes, yet they still denied him of extending his tax cut. It's ironic. The Republicans don't want Obama to end up doing anything that makes him look good and it's unfortunately working.

Mauve_Cubedweller Wrote:TL;DR The President's opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don't seem to realize they've been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.
He signed it because if he didn't, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I'll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President's wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.
You'll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn't coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President's stated mandate - they are effectively a giant 'pineapple you' to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President's support with his own base. Observe:
Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.
Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political pomegranatestorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.
Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)
Here's where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party's base and the opposition's. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to 'Keep America safe' and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent's liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that's what they care about most. You've designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don't even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.
Pass the 'parent' legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military's operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent's base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won't matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.
Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It's a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.
This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don't know or don't care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this 'corporate shill', congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don't seem to see that. You don't have to like your country's two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it's being used like this.
EDIT: typos
EDIT2: There are some other great observations made by other posters downthread. This makes me happy. Of particular interest is the discussion about potential SCOTUS challenges to parts of the bill - specifically parts of the bill that Obama highlighted in his signing statement. Court challenges are a messy, but effective way of limiting the power of any branch of government, and in this case, such a challenge should be demanded.
EDIT3: Off to make Baklava before my wife becomes disappointed in me I'll try to be on again later to answer any questions or comments that I feel are worth my time responding to. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for such a stimulating discussion! I don't care who you vote for (although I have my preferences), but please, take this passion and use it to get involved in your nation's politics. The single most important obligation that any person has to their society is to be educated about its mechanisms and to be active in them. Don't let your anger dissuade you from becoming involved. Political change is incremental and measured in electoral cycles. Be passionate, but PLEASE be patient.
FINAL EDIT: Well, the comments have turned into insults and whining as I more or less expected them to. To all of you who assert (without knowledge) that I'm an 'apologist', a shill, or in the pocket of 'the establishment', I'll let you in on a couple of secrets. I'm not an American. I don't live in America. I don't care who you elect to lead you - although I have my own preferences. I agree that your political system is in need of an overhaul. I think a third party or even a fourth would be awesome. I think it's hilarious the way some of you condemn support for Obama whilst placing your own candidate of choice on a pedestal, as though he or she is any different. I'm not making normative claims here; I'm not telling you how things ought to be. I'm simply explaining what I see. If you don't agree, fine, I'm glad you have an opinion on the matter. Dissenting views are great. What is not great however is the way in which some of you try to intimidate others for holding different views - or use your downvotes to censor views that you don't wish others to see. Some of you rage about Orwellian doublespeak or doublethink or how 'those in power' want to impose a police state where free speech and civil liberties are censored. I don't know why you bother condemning it, since you're essentially doing the same thing yourselves.
Have a happy New Years everyone. Go out and register, then go out and vote.

Locked Wrote:I'm just going to bring this up here with the NDAA.

Source of comment, if interested
Pretty long winded but it makes some good points.

Locked Wrote:The problem is most of Congress is Republican. Consider the fiasco of Obama lowering taxes for example. The Republicans hate taxes, yet they still denied him of extending his tax cut. It's ironic. The Republicans don't want Obama to end up doing anything that makes him look good and it's unfortunately working.

Onion Knight Wrote:How big is Iowa btw? Going by the percentages, 120-130k total votes doesn't sound like a lot for an Iowan Republican population of eligible voters that's almost certainly larger.

Quote:EDIT3: Off to make Baklava before my wife becomes disappointed in me

Rick Wrote:The best thing to come out of this caucus is Bachmann has now quit. Good, crazy b'itch.

WillDaSnail Wrote:Ikr? I woke up, read that she was bailing out of the race, and it completely made my day.

Now to wait whether Perry will join her in jumping from his own sinking ship.

shouri Wrote:ITT: Baklava's dad wrote the article and has to go "make" him~ .... this article is from the past?!

lawls.

Seriousness:
Disappointment in people as usual.

Kalovale Wrote:And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State. ... Here we come South Carolina!!!