Greenwald and Mayer absolutely skewer Obama for his policy against whisteblowers. Mayer's piece is longer (but far more detailed and thorough - read it!), so I'll quote Greenwald: EDIT: My favorite bit from Mayer's article: You've got to love the irony of the "patriotic" federal agents proudly defending their country's honor to the guy who just resigned in disgust at what he saw as gross breaches of the constitution, only to subsequently get arrested for defying the administration's maneuvering to maintain our police state. ****ing surreal.
I have already decided not to vote for him (I'm pretty sure I have said so here repeatedly). Obama is certainly different from Bush, but his policies are remarkably similar.
Will have to see what the alternative is. Elections aren't held in vacuum's and I highly doubt the GOP will put up a candidate that expresses more transparency and openness.
I agree his national security policies are remarkably similar but his domestic policies are not. If you are fine with having a president who continues the same national security policies, possibly making them worse, while also greatly rolling back health care and environmental protections then that is fine. I am not a single issue voter and will consider the whole of the candidate.
In some aspects this is true, and a good point. However, gross breaches of civil liberties trump most other legislative victories, IMO. Regardless, real change has to start with not settling for the "not-quite-so-lousy" candidate. I also live in Texas, so my vote regarding the president is totally ****ing worthless anyhow, i.e., I have the luxury of making this sort of statement guilt free.
I will vote for an independent candidate - any independent candidate - in the hope that they will get enough of the vote to get into the televised debates in the next election cycle. It's not like the popular vote will count for anything anyway - and this is Texas. The electoral votes are going to go to the Republican candidate, no matter how much of an utter fool he/she is.
That's certainly your right and you are likely correct that as a Texan your vote probably won't make much of a difference. Personally for me I would prefer not to think that way and not vote with the view that my vote won't matter.
My vote only matters inasmuch as the options on the ballot represent me. In that sense, not voting is just as symbolic a message as the alternative.
the greenwald article is nothing but opinions on one case where a government agent leaked government secrets and was prosecuted.
Somebody needs to stop these abuses. Obama should be held responsible and brought to justice of this.
only way he will change his tune is if it is brought to light in a wide enough forum to affect his re-election. And even then, can you trust him to do what he says in this regard? That goes for anyone running though. These are the kinds of things that make people think Ron Paul is a good option... and there just aren't enough people that passed on one kool-aid and drank another to make that happen yet.
Doesnt work like that. The Commission on Presidential Debates is actually run by the DNC and RNC as a joint effort. After the whole Ross Perot fiasco they changed the requirements for joining the debate. When Ralph Nader threatened to get on, they made the requirement 15% of the vote in polls which is almost impossible. (Perot wasn't polling that high until after the first debate) The whole thing is a scam so it wont happen again. They realized how powerful Perot got from his chance so it will never happen again.
Then we the people should demand that the Commission on Presidential Debates is run by someone else, and the requirements/process be altered. No way should the two existing powerhouse parties be in charge of saying whether another party gets in.
