Obama Has Always Been a Sellout

[emindead]

Obama was a sellout when he backed off on closing Guantanamo.

Obama was a sellout when he backed off of his promise to keep lobbyists out of his administration.

Obama was a sellout when he protected the Bush administration from prosecution for torture.

Obama was a sellout when he authorized the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad.

Obama was a sellout when he rescinded on his promise to not prosecute marijuana users in states where it is legal, and pushed for a 5 year prison term for a California-legal medical marijuana dispensary operator.

Obama was a sellout when he prosecuted child-soldier Omar Khadr using evidence gained through torture.

Obama was a sellout when he granted 27 waivers to oil companies drilling in the weeks following the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Obama was a sellout when he fought for, and won, the right to deny habeas corpus to detainees.

He was a sellout when he blocked UN human rights investigations at Guantanamo.

He dropped charges against the CIA for destroying videotapes documenting torture of detainees.

He deported record number of undocumented immigrants.

He continued rendition of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured.

He continued indefinitely detaining alleged terrorists, WITHOUT TRIAL.

He extended the PATRIOT Act, with no reforms.

He dramatically increased government secrecy, denying more Freedom of Information Act requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008. So much for open government.

He cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while still campaigning on its behalf.

He defended Don't Ask Don't Tell from legal challenges.

He reaffirmed his opposition to same-sex marriage.

He granted waivers to 30 companies, including McDonalds, exempting them from health care reform.

He announced the single largest arms deal in history, of $60bil worth of arms, to Saudi Arabian dictatorship.

He gave permits to BP and other oil companies, exempting them from environmental protection laws.

He appointed Monsanto executive Michael Taylor to the FDA.

He appointed a former Monsanto lobbyist as Chief Agriculture Negotiator.

He appointed Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury.

He increased the use of combat drones in Pakistan.

Hepassed a massive Wall Street bailout at the expense of the taxpayers.

He played down the importance of the WikiLeaks documents.

He failed... to address... climate change issues. (three separate links here)

He pushed for mandatory DNA testing for those arrested for crimes, even if they have not been convicted.

He undercuts whistleblowers.

He promised $30bil in military aid to Israel over the next decade.

But NOW, he's a sellout, when he extends Bush's tax cuts? Oh [hell] no. Obama has been a sellout since day one.

Source of this post
I don't agree with every single reason posted here, but this pretty much sums it up.

EDIT: ALL THE LINKS HAVE BEEN FIXED.
EDIT 2: To access the New York Times links you have to subscribe.

[Sigz]

I love how there's like a hundred links in this post and every single one of them is broken.

[eric42434224]

Eminded was a sellout when he posted dead links in an obama rant thread.

[emindead]

I love how there's like a hundred links in this post and every single one of them is broken.

Shit, I didn't remove the " "

Edit: fixed.

[El Barto]

The amount of fail here is beyond comprehension.  It's not merely the broken links, but the broken links in conjunction with the fact that you went to such great lengths to make a point that was absolutely correct.  It's like solving Fermat's theorem, but misspelling Fermat, theorem and your name when you submit the proof.  Impressive, amigo. 

[bosk1]

  It's okay, emin.  We still love you. 

[XJDenton]

I think its impossible not to be a sellout within the broken american political system.

[emindead]

@Barto: The thing is that I posted it on another forum that shares some of the same codes that DTF uses. On that other forum it works perfectly fine.

[eric42434224]

I think its impossible not to be a sellout within the broken american political system.

I was going to say something like this.  Ist it part of the job description as the President?  Isnt it quite impossible to name a president that hasnt done exactly the same thing?

[emindead]

OK GUYS, THE LINKS WORK. DISCUSS! MERRY CHRISTMAS. OBAMA SUX!

[emindead]

I think its impossible not to be a sellout within the broken american political system.

I was going to say something like this.  Ist it part of the job description as the President?  Isnt it quite impossible to name a president that hasnt done exactly the same thing?

I think that people are getting sick of that excuse.

Won't people respect a President if he at least dies trying? I certainly would.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I think its impossible not to be a sellout within the broken american political system.

There's so much truth here.

There are some things you just have to say: "fuck it. I can't possibly do what I wanted for these reasons, and so I have to make concessions"

He reaffirmed his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Also, you must have missed this quote here: "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control,"

You know, it's perfectly possible to oppose something personally but understand that equality is a bigger issue, and act on it federally. He's been far more supportive of the gay community than his predecessor was

[orcus116]

Won't people respect a President if he at least dies trying? I certainly would.

Depends on if you agree with him or not, probably. It's so easy to say you'd respect him if he did that but let's face it anyone who is so adamant against something you support is an asshole. I'm guessing you're referring to Ron Paul and his stubbornness. I can be begrudgingly respectful with that a little bit but the realty is his decisions reflect such a niche group of Americans that I'm not all that certain it reflects any sort of positive motion for this country.

[El Barto]

Won't people respect a President if he at least dies trying? I certainly would.

Respect doesn't equal votes.  Yes, I'd appreciate that in a president, but he'd get slaughtered by the guy who says "look at everything he's failed to accomplish!"  The only thing that matters is being able to convince a weak electorate that what you did do was great and what you didn't do would have been evil.  Actions and spin-doctors will kick the shit out of honorable intentions every time. 

[emindead]

Also, you must have missed this quote here: "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control,"

You know, it's perfectly possible to oppose something personally but understand that equality is a bigger issue, and act on it federally. He's been far more supportive of the gay community than his predecessor was

Oh, I understand this completely. Personally I'm against it as well. And I know that he's been "more supportive" than Bush, but it still is not enough.

Respect doesn't equal votes.  Yes, I'd appreciate that in a president, but he'd get slaughtered by the guy who says "look at everything he's failed to accomplish!"  The only thing that matters is being able to convince a weak electorate that what you did do was great and what you didn't do would have been evil.  Actions and spin-doctors will kick the shit out of honorable intentions every time. 

Of course we're talking about politicians here and everybody expects to pull the convincing argumentative card. And the problem, as we all know, it's if that political discourse will stand through time, and I've noticed that it has finally started to tumble. You may say it's wishful thinking, but if at least ONE politician stands through time advocating the honorable system he will eventually call the attention of others, maybe in new generations, or maybe in hindsight. But as long as just one does it, he will be the guy who made the difference, and that's all that matters.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Also, you must have missed this quote here: "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control,"

You know, it's perfectly possible to oppose something personally but understand that equality is a bigger issue, and act on it federally. He's been far more supportive of the gay community than his predecessor was

Oh, I understand this completely. Personally I'm against it as well. And I know that he's been "more supportive" than Bush, but it still is not enough.

What would be enough then? What's enough for you is not what's enough for me. It's extremely subjective

[Perpetual Change]

The beauty of this whole thing is the opposition will still just wind up being a more publicly bigoted version of him. 

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The beauty of this whole thing is the opposition will still just wind up being a more publicly bigoted version of him. 

I guess if that's beauty to you...

You could say the same sorts of things for almost any president. Pointing out all of them for Obama is pointless AFAIC

[El Barto]

The thing that's so extraordinary to me is that so many people on the right still consider him evil.  You read through the list and he has really been a dead ringer for Dumbass before him.  It's a pretty amazing example of how fucked up politics are when somebody that the right wing should be picturing when they collectively jerk off is despised with such vehemence because he's officially a democrat.  At this point, most people in his party recognize that Bush was a really rotten Republican.  Eventually, I suspect the Democrats will feel the same way about Obama.  What people seem to overlook is that those labels really don't apply anymore.  As I've said for a couple of years, there is no difference once they get into office.  It's just shocking to me that so many people still place so much stock in that affiliation. 

[Chino]

Respect doesn't equal votes.  Yes, I'd appreciate that in a president, but he'd get slaughtered by the guy who says "look at everything he's failed to accomplish!"  The only thing that matters is being able to convince a weak electorate that what you did do was great and what you didn't do would have been evil.  Actions and spin-doctors will kick the shit out of honorable intentions every time. 

Extremely well said.

[orcus116]

It's just shocking to me that so many people still place so much stock in that affiliation. 

That's just the way it is. It completely baffles me whenever an major issue comes up in the House or Senate and the results are so expected (Republicans against this and the Democrats against that) that it's almost as if people are voting with their party instead of with their actual true beliefs. It's almost like you have to wait until you have the perfect House/Senate alignment to try to pass something that way.

[emindead]

Also, you must have missed this quote here: "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control,"

You know, it's perfectly possible to oppose something personally but understand that equality is a bigger issue, and act on it federally. He's been far more supportive of the gay community than his predecessor was

Oh, I understand this completely. Personally I'm against it as well. And I know that he's been "more supportive" than Bush, but it still is not enough.

What would be enough then? What's enough for you is not what's enough for me. It's extremely subjective

Enough will be the day when unions between homosexuals is allowed. It will still be frowned upon religious organizations and so be it. The benefits should be taken away from either straight or gay partners. It's a hypocritical stance.

[Perpetual Change]

Also, didn't know Em watched Keith Obermann:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW3a704cZlc&feature=player_embedded

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Also, you must have missed this quote here: "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control,"

You know, it's perfectly possible to oppose something personally but understand that equality is a bigger issue, and act on it federally. He's been far more supportive of the gay community than his predecessor was

Oh, I understand this completely. Personally I'm against it as well. And I know that he's been "more supportive" than Bush, but it still is not enough.

What would be enough then? What's enough for you is not what's enough for me. It's extremely subjective

Enough will be the day when unions between homosexuals is allowed. It will still be frowned upon religious organizations and so be it. The benefits should be taken away from either straight or gay partners. It's a hypocritical stance.

Well, personally I don't think it should be a federal decision, but no more do I think it should be left to the states. Taking no action is, for right now, the best thing to do.

[emindead]

Also, you must have missed this quote here: "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control,"

You know, it's perfectly possible to oppose something personally but understand that equality is a bigger issue, and act on it federally. He's been far more supportive of the gay community than his predecessor was

Oh, I understand this completely. Personally I'm against it as well. And I know that he's been "more supportive" than Bush, but it still is not enough.

What would be enough then? What's enough for you is not what's enough for me. It's extremely subjective

Enough will be the day when unions between homosexuals is allowed. It will still be frowned upon religious organizations and so be it. The benefits should be taken away from either straight or gay partners. It's a hypocritical stance.

Well, personally I don't think it should be a federal decision, but no more do I think it should be left to the states. Taking no action is, for right now, the best thing to do.

For right now? If not now, when?

Also, didn't know Em watched Keith Obermann:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW3a704cZlc&feature=player_embedded

Mother of God!

[zerogravityfat]

I think its impossible not to be a sellout within the broken american political system.

I was going to say something like this.  Ist it part of the job description as the President?  Isnt it quite impossible to name a president that hasnt done exactly the same thing?

I think that people are getting sick of that excuse.

Won't people respect a President if he at least dies trying? I certainly would.

how can he pass anything when the opposition blocks everything? president doesn't have power on what is pushed through, and he will look like shit if he stands on his ground and lets reps block, compromise is the only way in a divided senate, house.

[El Barto]

For two years he had a senate that fawned over him, and he still carried on the policies of his predecessor.

[XJDenton]

How much did they really fawn over him? 50% of his party probably operate out of the same 100m^2 of ideological realestate as the republicans.

[El Barto]

How much did they really fawn over him? 50% of his party probably operate out of the same 100m^2 of ideological realestate as the republicans.

Nah, the parties were as polarized as ever in Congress.  That's why anything they vote for goes almost exactly down party lines.  He had a damned loyal congress at his disposal.