It’s good that Obama isn’t on the Epstein list.
But a woman’s value isn’t based on how many people have seen her body.
For Republicans, it is.
We shouldn’t encourage them to think they’re right.
sure but that’s not the metric by which we measure goodness, considering. As in, memery aside, he should not be speaking as if he’s not a monster as well. 😂
Obama was a great president.
Nope. He was pretty much a failure. He also sold out on day one, and collected millions in “speaking fees” from Wall Street firms within days of leaving office. If Obama had been a great president, Trump wouldn’t have been the next president.
You underestimate the effectiveness of two things
-
Racism
-
Russian Psyops
But Hillary still won the popular vote.
We elected Obama, then suddenly became to racist to vote for other people in his party, most of whom weren’t even black? That’s some serious cope. At least if you dragged out sexism it would have been potentially relevant.
The idea is to win elections. I’ll care who wins the popular vote when that means winning the presidency.
Fun fact, more than one thing can influence an election at a time. Perhaps you even noticed multiple things in my list?
No shit. That’s the churn of the playing field where politicians compete. If they can’t overcome that shit to defeat a fucking reality show clown, then they are in the wrong line of work.
And anyways, this thread was about my response to you calling Obama a great president. The reasons I gave why he wasn’t had nothing to do with reelection. Maybe you’re pulling from a different thread because you have no answer to what I said?
But sure, let’s look at what happened to the Democratic project during and after his presidency. Obama was elected with a big majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. (With the caviot that Democratic cronyism resulted in the Democrats being plagued by health issues and deaths in office). Obama lost the House, lost the Senate, and lost over a thousand state level Democratic seats in his 8 years. Did the churn cause all of that?
I know Obama has cute dimples and an easy but confident demeanor, and half the Democratic voters have a para social relationship with him that rivals what MAGA has (had?) with Trump. But that’s not what makes a great president. History will remember him as mediocre at best, and I hope it doesn’t forget his role in manipulating the 2020 primary and ultimately giving us Trump twice.
Don’t forget an anti-Clinton smear campaign going back over twenty years. She was, despite being objectively qualified, a terrible choice for a candidate. Republicans had decades of opposition research on her and zero compunction about making even more shit up for political theater (see the attacks over a personal email server even though it turned out their own opsec was 100x more lax, several hearings over Benghazi despite previous ones failed to find anything, or hell, even Bill’s impeachment that started as them going over the Clinton’s finances hoping to find a hint of corruption, then latching onto the affair even though Newt Gingrich, the one pushing these dirty tricks, was in the middle of an affair himself while his wife was dying from cancer).
It was yet another time Democrats ignored political reality to push someone who was at the top of their internal party hierarchy, and Republicans were more than happy to take advantage of their naïveté.
-
Friendly reminder, that Obama assassinated an American citizen in drone strike.
Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki (Arabic: أنور العولقي, romanized: Anwar al-'Awlaqī; April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an **American-Yemeni **Islamic cleric and lecturer assassinated in Yemen in 2011 by a U.S. drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki was the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and assassinated by a U.S. government drone strike.[6][7] U.S. government officials alleged that al-Awlaki, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen, was a key organizer for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.
was a key organizer for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.
Seems like he deserved it
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, however if everyone is saying illegal immigrants deserve due process that same standard as to be applied to terrorists. If that same standard isn’t to everyone; people don’t have rights, they have privileges.
The difference between them justifies different treatment. One is a Group of immigrants that is within your jurisdiction and even your custody and only wants to work. The other is a Terrorist that wants to kill people and is at roughly the opposite point on the globe, far away from your jurisdiction and custody. They don’t need to be treated the same.
Also by not killing him they would have disregarded the right to live of his potential victims.
Don’t forget the official response being he “should have had a better father”
Trump would lose his fucking mind. Remember, Obama baggin’ on him is why he ran in the first place.
If you haven’t seen it, history in the making, and funny as hell to boot. Except for the consequences.
I completely believe that’s the point in time it all started to go wrong, and if Obama had simply avoided being a smug knob, we would never have had a Trump presidency.
The jokes weren’t even that good.
Get over it. Any late night show or comedian’s social media has much harsher (true) criticisms of Trump. Also, mildly poking fun was the point of the Correspondents’ Dinner, at least before Thin-Skinned Trump cancelled the tradition…
We have no idea if Obama is on the list because we don’t have the list. We pretty much know that Trump is on it, and someone like Bill Clinton is also very likely on there, but Bush Jr, Obama, and Biden could all also be on that list but we just don’t know. It’s a list of very powerful people, and anybody who has held the office of the presidency is a suspect as far as I’m concerned.
Jimmy Carter?
I choose to believe that Carter was a genuinely good person throughout his life
Rabbits hated him though.
Also not a felon. Or rapist. No impeachments either.
Should be a felon considering his war crimes.
Funded by the globalist bankers, bailed them out when the housing market fiasco happened, and gave a middle finger to the middle class/homeowners. Obama’s bailouts also allowed the banks to take that money and give their CEO’s, who caused the situation, huge bonuses.
He then went on and drone-bombed a fuck-ton of individuals including a lot of innocent children and women, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, laughing at the irony. Obama was no friend to the working class, a globalist-first president. Worse than Trump? Just two snakes with the same body.
Not that you’re not right about the rest, but maybe don’t use “the globalists” with so little specificity?
When you’re using THAT term vaguely, people can’t tell if you’re (rightly) blaming Obama’s kowtowing to multinational corporations and their toadies for a lot of the awful things he did and caused or employing Alex Jones’ favorite antisemitic dog whistle to blame a shadowy Jewish cabal…
Kinda an important distinction.
Globalist = a crony-capitalistic group of oligarchs who are trying to control commerce, the people, and the world. This is not aimed at Jewish people, but it does include Zionist. Hope that is clear.
Capitalist.
You can just say Capitalists. The “crony” part is redundant.
LOL, you are correct.
Fair enough. I’m not sure I agree with how orchestrated you think their actions are but yep, billionaires and other crony capitalists do in fact control the world and many of them are indeed Zionists without all of Jewdom having anything to do with it.
Thanks for clarifying 🙂
Thing about the second point, I don’t believe he truly cares about her at a deep level (not capable) so for him it’s more of a “look at how hot my wife is” type of gloat rather than any embarrassment.
Once again I ask you not to glorify war criminals.
Yes, but also humans stupid and must have good and bad, so if obama better, obama good.
Eat My Ass, Obama was the best President since Jimmy Carter.
No rebuttal for the war criminal thing, I see.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed is king…
Maybe that’s true, but even so that’s no excuse to glorify him. Obama was a step towards, not away from, fascism, and a decisive one at that.
I bet you were a genocide Joe voter.
Well I’m not American so voting for anyone would’ve been a pretty egregious case of election fraud, but why so?
So your opinion is irrelevant until you give your country of origin so we can all know the shithole you’ve created for yourself.
Go back to hexbear you fascist cuck.
How was he a step towards fascism?
Glorifying maybe is a strong word, but assuming war crimes as a constant of American history basically, we can appreciate the good things he did, specially in the context of bush before him and trump after him. Yes, it’s praising someone for not shitting his pants, but we are at that level unfortunately.
I mean, Obama did shit his pants, hard. He did do some good things, but he failed the test given to him by history same as Biden by not ending the War on Terror after the death of Bin Laden. America was going to have to reckon with the rot at the heart of its society sooner or later, but that rot was rapidly metastatizing fast through the War on Terror, and Obama had a golden opportunity to stop that but he didn’t. Compared to this one gigantic failure, all his successes (and most of his other failures) are footnotes. I view him the same as Biden: Someone who would’ve been a good or good-ish president in saner times, but who was woefully inadequate for the hour. The consequences of his failure weren’t as immediate as Biden’s so it’s harder to notice, but Obama shitting his pants is why we’re living through Trump 2 right now.
Youre right in that war crimes are a constant in american history, but America desperately needed Obama to be the peace president he’d said he’d be.
He did do some good things, but he failed the test given to him by history same as Biden by not ending the War on Terror after the death of Bin Laden.
In what way did you want him to ‘end’ the ‘War on Terror’, itself an immensely nebulous term for a broad range of foreign policy issues regarding non-state actors?
Perhaps nonintervention against ISIS? Or giving Afghanistan over to the Taliban ten years ahead of time? What form of ‘ending’ the War on Terror are we looking at? What ‘golden opportunity’ did he have?
Obama was an insufficient solution to America’s post-Bush problems. But the urge to counter the hagiography of some liberals about Obama with a broad-spectrum condemnation of the Obama’s administration’s policies is not really a reasonable response.
Ok, so let me appreciate him for shitting his pants less than the guys before and after him. Yes, he didn’t stop it, arguably accelerated a bit, but the other guys where pedal to the metal while punching you in the face. Obamacare was bad, but it was better than injecting bleach. Droning weddings was bad, but better than ethnic cleansing. Not prosecuting Cheney was bad, but better than selling pardons for 2M a pop. You get the idea.
The only credible war criminal accusation towards Obama that comes to mind is the practice of ‘double-tapping’ which, at the very least, is something that Obama deserves a trial in the Hague for, even if I wouldn’t necessarily bet on the outcome even with an impartial court.
Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.
Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.
Okay let’s see:
-
Everything about the drone strikes other than double-tapping. See: all those weddings he bombed.
-
Supporting Saudi Arabia’s war crime-riddled intervention in Yemen.
-
Everything to do with Guantanamo bay.
-
Everything to do with Israel.
Everything about the drone strikes other than double-tapping. See: all those weddings he bombed.
Acceptance of collateral damage is a well-established principle in international law. While bombing weddings has a clear argument with regards to the immorality of it, it would be difficult to argue that it’s a war crime to target enemy combatants simply because they’re in a civilian context. As the civilian casualty ratio of the drone strikes, as assessed by outside and critical sources, was around 15%-20%, which fits pre-drone strike numbers, it would be extremely difficult to make any serious argument that the drone strikes were exceptionally careless about collateral damage relative to the military gain by current standards and thus constitute a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
Supporting Saudi Arabia’s war crime-riddled intervention in Yemen.
Selling weapons is not a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
Everything to do with Guantanamo bay.
You mean… trying to close it, restoring the standards to that of an ordinary prison instead of a torture camp, and releasing the vast majority of the prisoners when Congress refused to let him close it?
Everything to do with Israel.
If you think the president, and for that matter one of the least pro-Israel presidents since I’ve been alive could have easily “just done more” to prevent Israeli war crimes, you’re out of your gourd.
Again, I reiterate: “Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’.”
Acceptance of collateral damage is a well-established principle in international law.
If there’s a military purpose proportional to the damage inflicted. Bombing a wedding because a few attendants are enemy combatants is not that.
it would be extremely difficult to make any serious argument that the drone strikes were exceptionally careless about collateral damage relative to the military gain by current standards and thus constitute a war crime.
That would simply mean only some were war crimes compared to a majority that were legal. Even if you’re hitting one wedding for every nine enemy training camps, that one wedding is still a war crime. Also, I’d like to point out that the CIA is literally on record claiming international law is inapplicable to their drone strikes (back when they were still done by the CIA). Those are not the words of people not committing war crimes.
The CIA’s general counsel, Stephen Preston, in a speech entitled “CIA and the Rule of Law” at Harvard Law School on 10 April 2012, claimed the agency was not bound by the laws of war
Selling weapons is not a war crime.
Which is not the only thing America was doing under Obama.
This support involves aerial refueling, which allows coalition aircraft to spend more time over Yemen, and allowing some coalition members to home base aircraft instead of transferring them to Saudi Arabia
In October 2016, Reuters obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act showing officials had warned that the United States could be implicated in war crimes for its support of Saudi Arabia’s intervention.
According to a March 2016 Human Rights Watch assessment, the U.S. involvement in certain military actions, including as target selection and aerial refueling during Saudi air raids “may make US forces jointly responsible for laws-of-war violations by coalition forces”.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saudi_Arabian–led_operations_in_Yemen
Sounds real war crime-y to me.
You mean… trying to close it, restoring the standards to that of an ordinary prison instead of a torture camp, and releasing the vast majority of the prisoners when Congress refused to let him close it?
Obama did a lot to improve the conditions at Guantanamo bay, but still:
The report stated the United States violated international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the Bush Administration could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#International_law
This is one thing Obama didn’t change to my knowledge. See also:
In March 2009, the administration announced that it would no longer refer to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants, but it also asserted that the president had the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
This one is on the light end to be fair, but still a war crime.
If you think the president, and for that matter one of the least pro-Israel presidents since I’ve been alive could have easily “just done more” to prevent Israeli war crimes, you’re out of your gourd.
I mean, Reagan did it, literally with a phone call. US presidents can “just do more” to prevent Israeli war crimes that they fund, arm and protect. Also least pro-Israel in what way? The only instance of him going against Israel that I know of is JCPOA, which does nothing to absolve him of Israel’s war crimes in Palestine.
If there’s a military purpose proportional to the damage inflicted. Bombing a wedding because a few attendants are enemy combatants is not that.
Killing enemy combatants isn’t a military purpose?
When drone strikes of weddings are discussed, individuals are targeted while the wedding is ongoing, the wedding itself isn’t being fucking carpet bombed.
That would simply mean only some were war crimes compared to a majority that were legal. Even if you’re hitting one wedding for every nine enemy training camps, that one wedding is still a war crime.
Again, the wedding is only a war crime if the creation of civilian damage is excessive in comparison to the intended military damage inflicted. Considering that the civilian casualty ratio of drone strikes was not significantly different from prior non-drone military action, it would be a very fucking tough sell.
Also, I’d like to point out that the CIA is literally on record claiming international law is inapplicable to their drone strikes (back when they were still done by the CIA). Those are not the words of people not committing war crimes.
The CIA is absolutely committing war crimes - that’s not the same as saying Obama is a war criminal. The CIA, in fact, has repeatedly and blatantly violated direct orders from the executive, to the point there was a whole hearing over it during the Obama administration.
Sounds real war crime-y to me.
I would have objected, but I read the cited source in the wiki article
For instance, one of the emails made a specific reference to a 2013 ruling from the war crimes trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor that significantly widened the international legal definition of aiding and abetting such crimes.
The ruling found that “practical assistance, encouragement or moral support” is sufficient to determine liability for war crimes. Prosecutors do not have to prove a defendant participated in a specific crime, the U.N.-backed court found.
That makes the accusation of war crimes more credible over supplying the Saudis against Yemen. I concede that there is a valid argument there, though I would contend that the discussion involved is still primarily cautious and over there being an argument for liability, rather than a clear-cut case that assistance to a war-crime committing belligerent, even with exhortation to show greater restraint and precision, was absolutely without question a war crime.
… and also that that ruling is startlingly broad.
This is one thing Obama didn’t change to my knowledge.
The citation is over the Bush Administration, and explicitly says as much. The Obama administration performed an extensive review of prisoners and changes of policy, resulting in some being tried, many being released, and those retained retained under internationally agreed-upon standards for military detention under the laws of war.
This one is on the light end to be fair, but still a war crime.
The DOJ claiming the president has the power to do something he hasn’t and did not do (as Obama added no detainees to Gitmo) is a war crime?
I mean, Reagan did it, literally with a phone call.
If I hear this shit take on Lemmy one more time, I’m going to fucking explode. In other words, please attend my funeral to be held within the next week (closed casket).
US presidents can “just do more” to prevent Israeli war crimes that they fund, arm and protect.
Would you like to remind me what the powers of the US president are, again?
Also least pro-Israel in what way? The only instance of him going against Israel that I know of is JCPOA, which does nothing to absolve him of Israel’s war crimes in Palestine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_States_relations#Obama_administration_(2009–2017)
-
He gets tons of flak for his heavy use of drone attacks - which is completely valid - but people usually ignore that:
- a) The reason we know those numbers is because Obama’s administration put strict reporting policies on drone usage in place that included strikes that weren’t even tracked under previous stats. A lot of those drone strikes were egregious, yes, but also are only public knowledge because he designed a system to be held accountable.
- b) Trump removed those reporting policies during his first term, then proceeded to order more drone strikes than Obama. Not saying that Obama’s good because Trump is worse, but the reported numbers are back to being fucking lies and those lies make Obama look worse.
- c) Drone warfare technology started coming into its own around when Obama was elected, and he was stuck with multiple unpopular wars and an openly hostile Republican opposition who would blame any American casualties on him, so of course he used drones more than previous presidents.
That’s not exactly a high bar, and arguably not even true.
I’d certainly argue that Obama caused immeasurable damage to America through the promises he reneged on and the things he didn’t do. He’d have been a fine president in saner times, but as America’s last shot at stopping fascism at the ballot box he was wholly inadequate.
true, but that is a painfully low bar to clear.
True. And it’s fucking embarrassing.
Your ass would do way worse than either.
Removed by mod
at minimum, they defend and support it.
Sounds good. This guy available?
Yeah, but we have seen your mother naked.
hmmm I mean not to defend Obama, because I don’t like him and think he’s a war criminal.
however this statement doesn’t add up, because you can’t pick your mother but you can pick your wife
also who cares in the grand scheme of things lol. imo this culture of woman shaming is crazyyy out of date
Big Gay Abbii from the Big Gay Meme dumps? Someone like you should know better than to shame women like this.
I’m not, I’m fine with women (consentually) sharing lewds, I’m just saying, we have seen his mother naked.
I mean … Okay but why mention it in this context? The post is trying to use it as a negative. So just correcting that he has a woman he is related to who has been seen naked comes off as still trying to say it’s something that one should be ashamed of.
It just feels like the wrong thing about this post to bring attention to without clarifying why one doing so.
a lil early for anyone to be gloating about not being on a list that doesn’t not exist any more on Tuesdays.
Stop idealizing Obama. We don’t have the full list and he’s been no different in terms of foreign policy and bombing brown people.
I hate obama but there is now way that obama and trump have similar foreign policies other than funding israel
I don’t think this is idealizing him, and I certainly don’t, but compared to Trump he’s still miles ahead, when you make a “generic” assessment. And the post is still making (most likely) an accurate statement. Obama doesn’t strike me as being a womanizer or a pedophile.
wheres the tea party equivalent reaction from (racists) american politics from trumps election?
oh wait that was the reaction. America couldn’t handle a brown person who was even half white running the country and lost their fucking minds. Now we get another loser celebrity con-man. Wonderful. That January insurrection was just a random flux though, right?!
Smashing the Like button on Occupy Democrats facebook posts is what boomers think meaningful political activism is
not voting and spending their lives rage memeing online is what tankies think is meaningful political activism
Voting is not political activism. Its actually the least important form of political participation. Yet, America still can’t get 40% of its populace to engage with even that. Try forming a union, creating propaganda, hosting educational seminars on politics and political history, or feeding and housing those who can’t afford to do so themselves (Through a group/org not as an individual obviously). These things are political activism. We complain a lot on the internet because it is very frsutrating to live in a world where the vast majority of people think the most important thing they can do is vote for one loser who hates you or the other loser who doesn’t give a shit about you.
Thank you for speaking some fucking truth even is most people will just downvoted this cause it makes them realize how little they actually do.
