Immigrants.  Doesn't seem like it applied to citizens until the NDAA.

Started under Bush for aliens, but it was enshrined into law under Obama - and was extended to enable the indefinite detention of citizens.

I think Obama is just such a Lincoln fanboy that he wanted to get rid of habeas corpus, too.

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/can-us-citizens-now-be-detained-indefinitely/

"The NDAA does not “require” that US citizens be treated in a like manner. Indeed Section 1021(e) of the Act appears to offer US citizens some protection stating:

    “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who captured or arrested in the United States.”

This might seem promising but, unfortunately, the existing the law does allow for the detention of a US national on US soil as an enemy combatant under the law of armed conflict."

Basically, like I said this all started with Bush (labeling non citizens as enemy combatants and taking away due process) and expanded upon under Obama.  Once you have power it is hard to give it up and you only want more power. 

Land of the free?  Whoever told you that is your enemy - Rage Against the Machine

Is the right of the federal government to launch drone strikes actually mentioned in policy? Was it previously forbidden by policy?

I know that the policy has recently changed to define "militant" as "young man who isn't proven to be a civilian", and that's pretty awful, but I'm pretty sure Bush claimed the right as well, he just didn't use it.

By that I meant American Citizens.  Obama was the first person to ever claim the right to be able to kill an American overseas via drone strike.

This is clearly illegal under US due process laws.  You can't just kill a US citizen without trial.  (or at least... couldn't before.)

I would've called them stupid back then, if i had known it was happening.

Reminds me of my friend who called the other day saying he was upset that Obama got re-elected, claiming it was all due to minorities and leechers, meanwhile this is the same guy who was collecting unemployment checked while working off the books.

I know he only changed his tune because he got caught and owes $10,000.

If you actually want to understand why people vote the way they do rather than look for something to justfy your bias ...

If you did a survey where you asked people around the country to state which side of 10 key issues they were on (gun control, abortion, etc) and then had them rank them by importance you would find interesting patterns that explained why people voted the way they did.

For example, with gun control I would expect in many republican states for opposition to gun control to be more popular with people who were opposed to gun control ranking it higher than gun controll supporters in those states; and I would expect the opposite pattern in many democrat states. The net result of this kind of patter is that being on one side of this issue gives you more of an impact with more voters than being on the opposite side of the issue. In many republican and democrat strong holds the parties probably take opposing views on the top few key issues in the state, and as a result one party becomes (almost) unelectable.

Lol, fair enough.

I am not disputing that each side has a totally different belief structure. That is the basis of our two party system after all. I am only implying that there is a very strong belief structure that overlaps with all the Pro Slavery states. Conservative is what we call it but I think its more than that. There just seems to be this ideal structure around "control". 

I recently came across an article on Cracked.com that proved insightful in this matter. Supposedly...there have been studies on people. One such study says you can tell a person's political leaning by their eyes. The study says start up a conversation with someone, making direct eye contact. Now look away but remain talking to them, staring at a fixed location off to the side.

A. If they follow your eye path to see what you are looking at, they are probably liberal in nature. They are always open to what is around them, and are willing to take perspective from another person. This can also be seen as being weak willed, easily swayed.

B. They will remain staring at you regardless of what your eyes do. In general, this person does not like to be told what to do. They have strong convictions. Even if there was a giant spider behind them and you are staring intently at it, they will not turn because it demands taking cue from another person. These people are very resistant to any outside information that does not exist in their direct view of vision.

I feel this portrays the two sides almost perfectly.

Another study, after a Conservative stated that "Most of those who voted for Obama are of low education", showed that of all the states that voted Obama, most of them have highest rate of College bound students, Almost exclusively the top ones were for Obama, and the bottom half for Romney. Take what you will from this. I don't think this necessarily means any side is smarter than the other, or knows more. I do think it means that at liberals are far more open to NEW information, and will concede to those who can back a formulated opinion.

The funniest thing about this election to me is how the Republican Party basically handed the Presidency over to Obama, with the Clowns they chose as would be competitors. Michele Bauchman? Are you KIDDING ME!? This woman was nuttier than a squirell, peddled very hateful anti gay propoganda all the while standing next to her flaming husband, generally just spued complete and utter nonsense. Herman Cain? Not as bad but could not shake the feeling the GOP chose him simply for the color of his skin. The man could barely formulate what his stance was, but the Party thought he could succeed if they put him against Obama, insinuating that Obama's popularity is based purely on the stigma between the cultures in the US. Santorum? Uhg, so much religion crammed down our throats, it would have never worked. We have separation between church and state for a reason. Romney was the smartest kid in the special needs class. He had the right mind to keep his mouth shut on any radical views he may have held, as not to attract attention. Yet, as more and more crazies from the Right wing appeared saying crap like "You can't get pregnant from a LEGITIMATE rape"..... The American people became appauled by the idea of anyone who even associates with these sorts of people being in office.