Hindsight: Would You Elect Obama If You Knew His Current Response to BP Oil Leak?

This is a simple question i'm asking to gather the opinions of people and minds on ATS

If you could travel back to the time of Obama's running for office, with the current knowledge of everything he is and isn't doing in response to the gulf oil leak, would you still vote for him? This question is exclusively for those that did vote for Obama, though those that didn't are welcome to the discussion.

If you voted for him, feel free to say so, or not, it doesn't take anything from the discussion.. but given the current emotions running high over these issues i'd like to have people obstain from criticism over how someone voted

So, knowing what you know now about how Obama reacts to a large scale disaster, based on current events, are you satisfied that he as your leader is doing everything he can? I think as of now, one can only speculate what choices and decisions other 'then' presidential candidates would have made had they been voted in instead of Obama.. I'm open to speculation on what someone like Ron Paul or John McCain might do in reaction to solving this oil leak, but the reaction that Obama makes and kind of leadership skills and decisions he makes are now written in stone

So if you knew that the Oil leak was going to occur, and the response Obama has thus given, would you vote for him again ?

[edit on 7/5/2010 by indigothefish]

Its not like the American people were given much choice in the matter .

When you are given only two choices cut from the same cloth it really doesn't matter who gets in .

One of the main points i'm not satisfied with is the use of corexit dispersants

webcache.googleusercontent.com...:SwC2kULp6GEJ:motherjones.com/environment/2010/06/ep a-bp-toxic-oil-dispersant+Obama+asks+BP+to+stop+using+corexit&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Though the EPA has flagged BP's dispersant of choice as a concern, the Obama administration has publicly insisted that Corexit poses no problem. ...

During that May 24 conference call, which took place a month into the eco-disaster, Jackson acknowledged the need to dramatically reduce the amount of Corexit being applied. "Given our concerns over the environmental unknowns," she remarked, "we think it's prudent at this time to ramp-down overall use of dispersants." She noted that "we believe we can reduce the amount of dispersant applied by as much as half, and I think probably 75 percent, maybe more."

So here we have our leaders asking foreign coorperations to reduce the chemicals being put into our water and air, as well as destroying our gulf ecosystems, and the response being "no we're not going to"

Just wanted to add that into the discussion

Would you want a president that allows that?

[edit on 7/5/2010 by indigothefish]

I guess we could also consider what the McCain response would have been.
Republicans slamming oil companys...ya, I think ultimately Obama is the better choice...less dems are in the pockets of big oil.




add: Incidently, not sure what a proper response would be...I hear often how the government isn't doing enough...but there is no real discussion on what else could be done...should the people in charge put on scuba gear personally and swim down there with some band aids?

-shrugs-

So far, we have fined BP 20b, shovling tons of money at it already, and as far as what happens from here on out, we will see...I personally am at a loss for what needs to happen at the moment...

Obama did a moratorium on deep water drilling for 6 months and the republicans went up in arms...you know what...$#@^ em...

[edit on 5-7-2010 by SaturnFX]

Yes. You do not judge a president by one event.

And, considering we would be in a nuclear war right now had we elected the right-side shill, ill take the left-side one.

In hind site would you hire Bush and Cheny considering the lack of over
sight on BP?

[edit on 5-7-2010 by JBA2848]

Originally posted by JBA2848
In hind site would you hire Bush and Cheny considering the lack of over
sight on BP?

[edit on 5-7-2010 by JBA2848]

Or their involvement with Haliburton, for that matter(still floors me that no one wants to mention them in this whole debacle)

reply to post by SaturnFX

Obama is the better choice...less dems are in the pockets of big oil.

www.politico.com...


i don't know how sound it would be to argue that less democrats are in BP's pockets than republicans, but even if that were the case, Obama would take the cake for being the deepest tucked into BP's pocket, republican or democrat

i've always tried to argue, anyhow, that republican or democrat doesn't really mean anything, they are just two parties used to promote the same agenda in various methods

the problem here is Obama is in BP's pocket, so if you were to choose a democrat not in BP's pocket, as you say, it would not be Obama

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Or their involvement with Haliburton, for that matter(still floors me that no one wants to mention them in this whole debacle)

Dont throw in factual conspiracys when we are doing mindless partisan talking points...dont you understand...Obama is the devil whom made our oceans bleed..there is nothing else to know beyond that.

Shesh...dont you even try to listen to Limbaugh


-gives a zombie groan-

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Obama is the better choice...less dems are in the pockets of big oil.

www.politico.com...


i don't know how sound it would be to argue that less democrats are in BP's pockets than republicans, but even if that were the case, Obama would take the cake for being the deepest tucked into BP's pocket, republican or democrat

i've always tried to argue, anyhow, that republican or democrat doesn't really mean anything, they are just two parties used to promote the same agenda in various methods

the problem here is Obama is in BP's pocket, so if you were to choose a democrat not in BP's pocket, as you say, it would not be Obama

Bush was in bp's pocket. Clinton before that. This isnt just an Obama thing, as much as peopple would like to make it that way.

The problem is that we allow these companies into government in any way. Beyond that is just deflecting blame.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


so based on your idea that not voting for Obama would increase the chances of nuclear war, you'd rather vote for Obama

how satisfied are you with his response to the oil leak?

I was pretty naive when Obama was running, I was 17 so didnt vote, but I actually thought he was going to bring the troops home, now the oil thing is just the nails in the coffin for any "hope" I had for Obama. I think McCain wouldnt be any different from Obama, the whole two party thingy is a joke IMO. For example, he reappointed Bernanke as fed reserve chairman, Bernanke was Bush's economic adviser, no "change" there. Obama is just Bush 2.0 The only change we could have gotten would have been from Ron Paul.

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

so based on your idea that not voting for Obama would increase the chances of nuclear war, you'd rather vote for Obama

how satisfied are you with his response to the oil leak?

No, as I said in my first line, I do not judge a president by one event. I choose to look at things from a full picture, instead of playing the silly little games that people seem to enjoy so much.

No president would have responded well to this. It is unprecedented.

Am I saitisfied with his response? No. Do I think that Cheney, or Bush, or Mccain, or any from the right would have done any better? Absolutely not.

But hey, props for trying to corner me into something here, I imagine it works on a lot of people

reply to post by captaintyinknots


i apologize if it seemed like i was trying to corner you in any way

it's not in my personality to do something like that, and the same goes for SaturnFX, whom also it must have seemed like i was retorting to their reponse to my OP

i actually didn't intend on defending any position in this, i actually just want to hear what most people as a whole tend to think of the president's response to the leak, and how that would have effect them had they known during his campaign for office

again, i didn't mean to come off that way, just the internet i suppose, all text and and it's up to the reader to suppose the emotion being potrayed, please don't take it the wrong way, i only meant to further inquire your response

thanks for the feed back

[edit on 7/5/2010 by indigothefish]

Originally posted by CREAM
I was pretty naive when Obama was running, I was 17 so didnt vote, but I actually thought he was going to bring the troops home,

Very nieve...all you had to do was listen to his speeches and you would have realized he never said that actually.

This is the iraq plan
Link of Feb 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010.


President Obama talks about his Iraq War withdrawal plan at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, on Friday.

1 of 2 Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 -- the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

"By any measure, this has already been a long war," Obama said. It is time to "bring our troops home with the honor they have earned." Watch Obama announce drawdown »

Obama's trip to Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base, was his first trip to a military base since being sworn in.

Administration officials, who briefed reporters on the plan, said the remaining troops would take on advisory roles in training and equipping Iraqi forces, supporting civilian operations in Iraq and conducting targeted counterterrorism missions, which would include some combat.

As far as Afhganistan...he promised to refocus back on it...aka, send in more troops, try and get some sort of exit strategy, etc...

Sorry if you thought Obama was going to yank people out of iraq the second he stepped in office...that was never the plan and his plethora of speeches was very clear on that. You should perhaps stop listening to people stuffing words into his mouth and instead, just listen to what he says directly...

Ron Paul....would have all but eliminated the EPA and most federal government roles overall...he is wanting near anarchy...your right...it would have been a very different response...but not in a good way. Sorry, but you cant complain the government isn't big enough to deal with something immedately, then say if you elected the guy whom wanted to all but abolish the government, things would have been better.

I ask myself this all the time, and not just in regard to the Gulf disaster. Heck, I ask myself about the two naive votes I cast for Bush-Cheney. I've done a great deal of awakening since the time I first cast my vote for Bush. I've come to the conclusion there's not much difference my vote would have made anyway because our country is really owned and run by powerful corporations and bankers. We the people got murdered a long time ago when it was decided that corporations were the equivalent of people when it came time to confer our rights to them, but above the people in that they were given protections we as individuals are denied.

Obama made a lot of promises I think he truly meant to fulfill. Then he got in and couldn't carry out any of them. I remember Bush and Cheney saying on their way out that that would be the case. I think once a person gets into the Oval Office they get their own form of awakening. They have to comply or end up JFK'd. That's my opinion, subject to revision as I continue my education of how this mess really works.

I think what's left to me as a citizen is perhaps my influence on local events and issues. Honestly, though, I see that eroding at a fast pace, too. Doors have been slamming left and right on us in local politics. Honest decent people who tried to make some headway have come forth to explain in lurid detail why they were practically forced out by dirty dealings down at the state capital.

reply to post by indigothefish


I think a better question to ask is what exactly did you want Obama to do differently?

I honestly haven't heard any valid responses to this question.

The only thing I have heard is that we are not accepting help from other countries That isn't an "Obama" thing...that is an "American" thing.

So please...give me details on what you would of liked to see him do different.

/me shuffles feet, kicks dusty earth

Well, I guess so. I don't like it one bit, but I like McCain/Palin even worse, and no way I could vote for the witchunter general (what we call Bob Barr)


..........so.....he is still the less of the evils, but it's all the Cerberus, 3 heads on the same dastardly beast taking us all to hades.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


i was wondering if you were satisfied with his reponse, and if you'd vote for him again knowing that much

to answer your question might send this thread off topic, as there are numerous points i could outline in regard to my personal opinion on his decision making during this leak, but i were to say something to satisfy you it would have to be that when he asked BP to use a less toxic dispersant and BP just said "no" i would like a president that doesn't just stop there

Hundreds of bags of oil-stained beach sand sit waiting to be spread into a disposal cell in Baldwin County on Friday, July 2, 2010.

blog.al.com...

He noted that the bagged waste was going in with the regular household waste. Workers also prepared a site for bulk loads of contaminated sand, Ransom said.

He said that bulk sand would be kept separate, "stockpiled on top of a lined cell."

"We are hoping we can remediate it later," Ransom said.

I think waste managment needs to be looked into more in depth. They seem to have made a deal with BP to get rid of the oil cleanup debri and are doing nothing more than putting it in our landfills. Now if BP was doing that themselfs digging a hole and dumping waste in it we would be throwing a fit. Waste Managment got the deal due to there bio cleanup expertise not becuase they already had a hole to put it in.

I think we are running into a Studebaker type event with large corporations. They say they have expertise in getting oil and expertise in cleaning up oil when they have none whats so ever or are so limited in the amount they can do that the job is to big for them, but they still sell you there expertise at a higher cost and the government makes you buy from them due to there fictious expertise. BP and now Waste Managment both fit that bill.

epa.gov...
Page 5 of this pdf says oil should be collected from waste for reprocessing befor going in the landfill.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by JBA2848]