757
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Obama promised he'd close Guantanamo....

This seems about the same

Maybe start saying it outside of Muslim heavy areas and more than two days out and it won't look so much like pandering

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 1 day ago

Obama was prevented from closing Gitmo by congress. IIRC, a big part of the problem was how to handle the criminal cases; all of the prisoners ("detainees") in Gitmo have been tortured, the chain of evidence has multiple breaks in it, and it's highly debatable that they can be tried in any kind of court. Yet intelligence agencies remain convinced that the remaining prisoners are guilty of terrorism. Congress didn't want to move any of them to the US, because they didn't want purported terrorists being held on US soil because ???

The president isn't supposed to be able to act unilaterally, but we've allowed that Overton window to shift towards heavily authoritarian.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 day ago

He was prevented by language in bills he signed, and that was only after the Republicans took control in 2010. The failure to close Gitmo was just the same dithering and cautiousness that doomed or degraded many of his other optimistic goals. The whole reason Gitmo is bad is because it can be governed by unilateral executive decisions. It's one of those situations where he had real power to decide how things worked, but wanted everything to process through a slow bureaucracy rather than taking a more active role.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Who can blame the president for ruling over a hidden torture camp full of innocent people? It's out of their hands. That's just how USA works. \s

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

It’s out of their hands.

Uh, yeah, it literally was. Unless you're saying that you want the president to be able to do whatever they want, even when a majority of congress and courts say no.

This might give you some better idea of what happened.

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club -4 points 1 day ago

That might all be true but it only really illustrates my point - this too isn't deliverable. But lying can buy some votes

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

It's not lying under any conventional definition of lying though. Saying something is a lie usually indicates deceptive intent, along with a knowledge--or a reasonable belief--that something you're saying isn't accurate. If I believe that the earth is flat, and I say so, am I lying? Or am I just wrong?

Biden said that he would cancel student loans; he's done everything in his legal authority, and a few things that weren't, to try an cancel them out. Do you think that the fact that SCOTUS prevented him from doing so makes it a lie? Or was he unable to follow through due to factors that he couldn't directly control?

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

For fuck sake... HE TRIED

this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
757 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5380 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS