I found a new way to save time in debating politics with anyone. Just get a soon as you can to their craziest, extreme opinion and then you don't have to waste time trying to argue more nuanced issues.

On the right it's easy because all I need to know is if you support Trump. If so, we are done. Wouldn't waste time arguing politics with you.

On the left it's a bit trickier, but I've found that the sooner that I can get them to their opinion that "Obama is a War Criminal" and I can stop wasting time arguing with them.

Not that I think Obama was perfect. He failed in a lot of ways, but I do believe he was trying his best with the current system.

I would go even further and say there is probably a technical reading of the Geneva Convention that might qualify Obama as a war criminal...maybe. But I am not having that argument with somebody online (especially not a non-black person).

Anyway, sharing a shortcut in life that folks might want to use.

BTW, any one here think Obama is a War Criminal?

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Now, like you said, he wasn’t perfect and fail short on some things and I have been critical of him but he was by far the best president of my lifetime.

I also recognize that he was simply the best president in an imperfect system while also trying to govern a large nation of “know it alls”, WOKE, and internet research smart populace. Basically he tried to govern a nation full of a bunch of idiots, racist, and bigots as best he could.

dedicated to drone strikes during the obama years.

they dont seem to be as interested in the trump years despite a dramatic escalation.

https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1009644242862395397?s=20

Bush dropped 70,000 bombs in 5 countries. Obama dropped 100,000 bombs in 7 countries. Trump ramped up campaign of death to unseen levels dropping 44,000 bombs in 1st year alone. 121 a day. US obliterates innocent lives every 12 minutes in our name.

I won't argue with you but for anyone interested here is a pretty comprehensive list of 90 terrible things Obama did during his presidency, I'm sure you can find a few war crimes in there.

https://twitter.com/eshaLegal/status/943234477156945920

Obviously you could probably make a long list of good things too but today we are focusing on the bad.

there's a legit conversation to be had about Obama's foreign policy and the kind of things people will excuse if it comes from a Democrat, but generally if your starting point is to paint him in the same light as say, Pol Pot, you're not trying to have a good faith debate, you just want to sound off.

Obama said something about woke culture a few months back and half the replies were "Like we should listen to a guy who drone strikes a wedding!", like if he does that sort of thing for fun.

But most people don't want nuanced conversation. They want to be memes with likes. They need to be right. At best they'll flood you with articles they haven't even read to prove it.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

but like others have said.

if you are trying to paint Obama as worse than W or Trump that’s a different convo

I used to brag about how tough Obama was on deporting when arguing with the build the wall groups.. but looking back, did we hold Obama accountable for deporting people or just shrug because he was our guy?

this part right here.

And it doesn't take any "technical reading" of he Geneva Conventions to understand Obama (or Bush, or Trump) as war criminals. It only takes an extra basic understanding of what the conventions say and a general understanding of what has happened during the War on Terror.

I don't think framing Obama as a war criminal is usually helpful, though, in most contexts or in most discussions. Especially when discussing current US presidential and/or internal politics. People in this country aren't usually very concerned with international or geopolitics. If I'm having a discussion with someone who says "Obama is a war criminal," my response is generally "yes, and... "


And finaly, the framing of "left" and "right" in this country and context is such bullshit.

but still have done all the terrible things he did LOL Nobody should paint him worse than any President especially W but it's not fair to paint him as perfect because he's your guy. Thats just doing what Trump followers do and letting dumb shit slide because he's your guy.

For me, he wasnt perfect President, but he def was a perfect leader. I don't agree with everything he did in office but as a leader he is the prototype.




----------

IG @erichrigonan

the system enough. He's the type to learn systems and play them very well, but he is not a disrupted. I think a lot of people bought into the idea he was a disruptor because he was a black man but ended up disappointed because he wasn't willing to step on too many toes.

My favorite presidents were the Roosevelts who were very willing to throw out the rule book for the common good if they thought it was in the best interest of the people.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

he did deport a lot of people, but late in the bush administration they changed the way deportations were logged. they used to just throw people on a bus and send them back and consider it catch and release. around 06 they started counting them officially as deportations so there's big spike from then on.

but it's always funny how Obama is tough on immigration and weak on immigration depending on the conversation.

>he did deport a lot of people, but late in the bush
>administration they changed the way deportations were logged.
>they used to just throw people on a bus and send them back and
>consider it catch and release. around 06 they started counting
>them officially as deportations so there's big spike from then
>on.
>
>but it's always funny how Obama is tough on immigration and
>weak on immigration depending on the conversation.

^^^^ especially that last point.

just pointing out how we, or at least I, had no issue using the “tough on immigration” defense when any other time it’s used to show how terrible we treat immigrants.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy used when discussing politics.

>just pointing out how we, or at least I, had no issue using
>the “tough on immigration” defense when any other time
>it’s used to show how terrible we treat immigrants.
>
>Just pointing out the hypocrisy used when discussing politics.
>

Was a dude I was freelancing for trying to convince me that Obama was gonna be bad for the country. Thing I remember most was that Obama was in office for ~3 months. What kinda "war crimes" did he have time to do in those three months that weren't already authorized by the Bush administration? I doubt *any* president is sitting in the war room moving the pieces around on the board talking about "alright, this is what we gonna do..."

Never made sense.

...that being said, there's plenty to complain about ..The NSA, Drone Strikes, Lack of Protection for Whistleblowers, Keeping Cannabis illegal, lining his cabinet with Bankers, etc

.

Also, who the fuck even wants to talk about Obama in the year 2020. Let him (and his wife) get on with their six figure a lecture circuit.

.

______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

in many ways when it came to Foreign Policy.

Obama's instincts on foreign policy were remarkable and intuitive - and although his administration made its errors and was laden with Establishment figures - he deserves more credit for resisting the Foreign Policy Establishment and at least starting to pave the way towards a new methodology of foreign engagement.

Consider this:

*Obama distanced us from our unsavory alliance w/ Saudi Arabia in search of a more neutral posture in the region
*Brokered one of the most historic diplomatic achievements in U.S. history - the JCPOA (Iran Deal)
*Broke new ground in putting a real check on Netanyahu's extremism in Israel
*Regarded his administration's interventionism in Libya (pushed by Clinton when she was Sec. of State) to be the biggest mistake of his presidency
*Resisted the bi-partisan war cry for offensive action in Syria
*Normalized/de-escalated relations with Russia
*Correctly focused more on China's gross human rights violations and growing threat

This excerpt from the Atlantic typifies Obama's leadership in foreign policy - and his conflict with the Clintonian foreign policy Establishment:

"Syria, for Obama, represented a slope potentially as slippery as Iraq. In his first term, he came to believe that only a handful of threats in the Middle East conceivably warranted direct U.S. military intervention.

Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to one of his senior advisers.
The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid shit” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro–stupid shit?’ ”

The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit. (Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton spokesman announced that the two would “hug it out” on Martha’s Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.)"

So yes - Obama (like all presidents) presided over an American empire that has been shamefully complicit in international war crimes and human rights violations - but to call out Obama - and give others a pass (namely Trump & Bush) signals egregious prejudice.

That said - I also think it's shameful when analysts refuse to criticize Obama - but will grill (only) Republicans on matters of foreign policy - when both parties are responsible for the bi-partisan consensus for war.
-->

And taking steps to normalize relations with Cuba was also big, though he should have done more. Should have ended the embargo and fully normalized relations.

But the last part about presiding over the American Empire is what hits hardest. That's what people don't wanna grapple with.

>And taking steps to normalize relations with Cuba was also
>big, though he should have done more. Should have ended the
>embargo and fully normalized relations.

For sure on Cuba. Obama is a gifted diplomat and planted some bold progressive seeds around the world - but I agree that he should've pushed to do more. It's true: he was working with a broken Congress; trying to balance an immensely wide spectrum of interests. But he was elected on a progressive platform - and his lasting achievements were fueled by an activist energy starving for progress. What other president (in our lifetime) would commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning?

Imagine Joe Biden commuting the sentence of Julian Assange? lol

Obama laid some foundational roots down where progressive foreign policy could grow -- but a Clinton-Bush foreign policy would reverse those gains. This is why the Sanders-Warren policies were the true heirs of Obama's progressive roots (even if those roots were underwhelming at times).

>But the last part about presiding over the American Empire is
>what hits hardest. That's what people don't wanna grapple
>with.

Cold world.



-->

>And taking steps to normalize relations with Cuba was also
>big, though he should have done more. Should have ended the
>embargo and fully normalized relations.
>
>But the last part about presiding over the American Empire is
>what hits hardest. That's what people don't wanna grapple
>with.

>in many ways when it came to Foreign Policy.
>
>Obama's instincts on foreign policy were remarkable and
>intuitive - and although his administration made its errors
>and was laden with Establishment figures - he deserves more
>credit for resisting the Foreign Policy Establishment and at
>least starting to pave the way towards a new methodology of
>foreign engagement.
>
>Consider this:
>
>*Obama distanced us from our unsavory alliance w/ Saudi Arabia
>in search of a more neutral posture in the region
>*Brokered one of the most historic diplomatic achievements in
>U.S. history - the JCPOA (Iran Deal)
>*Broke new ground in putting a real check on Netanyahu's
>extremism in Israel
>*Regarded his administration's interventionism in Libya
>(pushed by Clinton when she was Sec. of State) to be the
>biggest mistake of his presidency
>*Resisted the bi-partisan war cry for offensive action in
>Syria
>*Normalized/de-escalated relations with Russia
>*Correctly focused more on China's gross human rights
>violations and growing threat
>
>This excerpt from the Atlantic typifies Obama's leadership in
>foreign policy - and his conflict with the Clintonian foreign
>policy Establishment:
>
>"Syria, for Obama, represented a slope potentially as slippery
>as Iraq. In his first term, he came to believe that only a
>handful of threats in the Middle East conceivably warranted
>direct U.S. military intervention.
>
>Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state,
>argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s
>violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that
>“the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of
>the people who were the originators of the protests against
>Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now
>filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and
>also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations
>need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’
>is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit
>angry,” according to one of his senior advisers.
>The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid
>shit” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes
>recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White
>House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is
>pro–stupid shit?’ ”
>
>The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught
>Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for
>its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit. (Clinton
>quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton
>spokesman announced that the two would “hug it out” on
>Martha’s Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.)"
>
>So yes - Obama (like all presidents) presided over an American
>empire that has been shamefully complicit in international war
>crimes and human rights violations - but to call out Obama -
>and give others a pass (namely Trump & Bush) signals egregious
>prejudice.
>
>That said - I also think it's shameful when analysts refuse to
>criticize Obama - but will grill (only) Republicans on matters
>of foreign policy - when both parties are responsible for the
>bi-partisan consensus for war.
>-->

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

>The Obama Doctrine deviated from the standard
>in many ways when it came to Foreign Policy.

>So yes - Obama (like all presidents) presided over an American
>empire that has been shamefully complicit in international war
>crimes and human rights violations - but to call out Obama -
>and give others a pass (namely Trump & Bush) signals egregious
>prejudice.
>
>That said - I also think it's shameful when analysts refuse to
>criticize Obama - but will grill (only) Republicans on matters
>of foreign policy - when both parties are responsible for the
>bi-partisan consensus for war.

I addressed that by noting that every President has presided over war crimes and human rights violations in this reckless Empire era of American foreign policy. Obama deserves criticism for his drone policy.

In fact, Obama's drone policies set the precedent for Trump to use & abuse those policies, and expand upon them. Trump's use of drone strikes has far exceeded Obama's - and Trump revoked the Obama rule on reporting drone strikes. Obama's admin. set the table for this Executive abuse - but my point also is this: You can't call Obama a "war criminal" while saying nothing about the far more egregious and criminal administrations of Bush & Trump.

So yes - Obama deserves criticism - but proportionate criticism.

-->

crowd are way more tolerable than the "you know what... I miss George W." crowd.

Having a convo with the Obama is a war criminal crowd is just as comfortably predictable as you say the right wing crowd is to you, cause I can't with those guys lol.

I know Trump is a shot show but ummm, we really giving W a pass because of his “awe shucks” face?

Its America bro.

The weak ass idol worshipping of obama is embarrassing. He dont even fuck with black folks like that.


"Hes not perfect. He had a complicated legacy" Sure, and part of that legacy is mass murder fam and thats ok.

If you start with that, I know where you are coming from and how to talk to you about Politics.

What kills me is being on that Howard Zinn, and then want to talk about Bernie Sanders, or to not pick on Bernie folks, or any other politician will somehow be different in this current framework. Howard Zinn and Louis Farrakhan, aren't endorsing anyone for President.

If someone thinks the whole system is corrupt and needs to be ripped up and rebuilt from the roundup, I get you. That's a position I can respect. To think that there is some politician in this election cycle who was somehow was not going to be a war criminal, I find ridiculous. Obama campaigned on closing down Gauntamo, and he didn't do it. Sanders would have been ordering drone strikes if he ever got into office. You won't see these things change until their is major systematic change.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

.

Which one?

I love Obama but y’all put ya mind if you think Obama didn’t continue to drop hella bombs on civilians.

One can acknowledge his shortcomings and still rock with him.

and the people who bring up the fact that Obama continued the same problematic policies as his predecessors is more pointing out hypocrisy and American exceptionalism, not saying Obama = Bush, Obama = Trump, or any of that nonsense.

If you watch the hitman movie Killing Me Softly again, directed by a foreign national, you can kind of see a little more clearly what Obama was meant to be selling the American people at that time.

>If you watch the hitman movie Killing Me Softly again,
>directed by a foreign national, you can kind of see a little
>more clearly what Obama was meant to be selling the American
>people at that time.

I had almost completely forgotten and was watching wondering what was going to happen.

I got curious why it disappeared from the convo and saw that the reviews of the movie weren't all that great at the time.

It so clear that this scene hits so much differently during the Trump Years than the Obama Years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UzPdUzygvE

I don't think people were trying to hear the commentary on the Presidency during the time because people just really liked Obama personally. Watch the movie now though.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>I had almost completely forgotten and was watching wondering
>what was going to happen.
>
>I got curious why it disappeared from the convo and saw that
>the reviews of the movie weren't all that great at the time.
>
>It so clear that this scene hits so much differently during
>the Trump Years than the Obama Years:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UzPdUzygvE
>
>I don't think people were trying to hear the commentary on the
>Presidency during the time because people just really liked
>Obama personally. Watch the movie now though.
>

I took away pretty much the same feelings from re-watching.

The tone seemed so odd at the time. I was still 'up' on Obama's presidency to the point the usage of his clips seemed overly cynical and didactic.

It definitely got panned in some places but some of the reviews I read after watching last weekend really delve into the connections between the mobsters and banks during the 2008 crash. The director clearly was connecting the gambling underworld with Wall Street sharks.

https://www.sbs.com.au/movies/review/killing-them-softly-review-crafty-heist-thriller-takes-its-cues-wall-street

theres a cost to maintaining status quo and "order".

the US has been at war 229 years out of 244 years of existence.

the thing is...fucking NO ONE, present company included wants to know how the sausage is made.

Even you admit that he violates Geneva...sooo what's your counter-argument?

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

(added link above for “receipts” for the paragraph below)

My understanding was they had insane rules of engagement with the drones like circling around for secondary strikes when people rushed in to help (under the preposterous theory that anyone who aided someone hit by a drone strike was essentially an accomplice of the target).

I mean, once you start digging into the idea of aerial bombardment of countries your country isn’t even at war with, in light of wacky things like international law, when said people getting blown up are unarmed and doing shit like sleeping or driving in a caravan, you start getting a fairly decent war criminal argument going. Throw in killing US citizens overseas sans trial and killing hundreds of civilians in said drone wars and the argument just gets stronger.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

"Obama woefully failed to reign in banks that fleeced his core supporters, black people, of trillions of dollars in housing wealth."

or

"Obama lacked the fortitude to confront police brutality, especially during his first year."

Are you saying he wasn't malicious in his carrying out of individualized assassination program, so why should we argue over if he was a war criminal? or are you saying that the people who he assassinated deserved to die?


America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.