5 ms·

I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had. But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. Don't take

I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had. But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. Don't take a beautiful and cool facade for anything than that. Behind the scenes its raw power and they are all, everyone of them, in the game for the power.

dpark 10y ago
I'm not asserting that in any way Obama is perfect and have no problem with people criticizing his actions. I do take issue with comparing opposition of Obama based on his race with opposition of Trump based on his positions. It does not follow that because a black president did an acceptable job that any president would do an acceptable job. Nor is opposing a president for being black morally equivalent to opposing a president for the things he says he wants to do.
- digler999 10y ago
  Obama also lied about a lot and yet the world didn't end. Something about "transparent administration" ring a bell? "Closing Guantanamo" perhaps? Doesn't this set the precedent that you can't really believe anything a candidate says before he is elected? To be fair I don't single out Obama for lying. All candidates do it.which is why I don't worry about trump.
  - dpark 10y ago
    And again, I am in no way saying that Obama is above criticism. I'm saying that opposing him for being black is not at all the same as opposing Trump for his positions. I think it's also not wise to treat all broken campaign promises equally. There's a big difference in voting for someone expecting that they won't accomplish everything they promise and voting for someone hoping that they won't accomplish everything that they promise. The former is hope that your candidate will do what they say. The latter is hope that your candidate is an outright liar or incompetent. I find it so bizarre that supporters look at Trump and say, "oh, he's just making empty promises and he'll never do that." His empty promises are that he'll violate the constitution to enshrine religious discrimination into laws! It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises.
    - hiringmanager 10y ago
      Republicans were not opposed to Obama because of his race, though for the past 8 years that has been the excuse to avoid talking about the issues. And once again, Liberals are not talking about Trumps positions, but merely calling him racist and sexist. "It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises." Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary? You really think free speech rights should be taken away from people who make a movie critical of hillary? (That's what "Citizens United" was about - the supreme court defended free speech for a group that made a movie critical of hillary-- and since then we've been hearing how evil that ruling is.)
      - dpark 10y ago
        > Republicans were not opposed to Obama because of his race, though for the past 8 years that has been the excuse to avoid talking about the issues. Sure. The birther movement was about the issues. > And once again, Liberals are not talking about Trumps positions, but merely calling him racist and sexist. This is patently untrue. Trumps positions have been widely derided as unconstitutional and poorly thought out. The fact that his racism and sexism are talked about doesn't mean his positions haven't also been widely criticized. > Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary? What are you talking about? > You really think free speech rights should be taken away from people who make a movie critical of hillary? (That's what "Citizens United" was about - the supreme court defended free speech for a group that made a movie critical of hillary-- and since then we've been hearing how evil that ruling is.) Citizens United was about political ad spending by corporations. It's a mischaracterization to present the case as if it were about Hillary trying to shut down a critical film. It was the FEC trying to enforce the BCRA.
        etjossem 10y ago
        > Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary? > What are you talking about? I think they are trying to make a reference to a previously-unknown conservative blog which claimed they had an anonymous quote from a "State Department source" saying that HRC asked about approving a drone strike on Julian Assange. The claimed source has not gone to any professional news outlets. The blog has not published anything else of note, and by quick survey of other posts, its author has a clear agenda against HRC. I'll let you all draw your own conclusions.
  - tokipin 10y ago
    hey now, the blame for Guantanomo not being closed falls directly on congressional republicans, not on Obama's lack of trying. this is the case for most of his failed endeavors (nominating court justices ring a bell?). there's plenty of stuff he does deserve blame for. most notable i think is that although he effectively ended the Iraq war, he rescinded his decision to end the Afghanistan war in 2014. regardless, Obama and Trump are not in the same category in any respect, not even as politicians.
    - digler999 10y ago
      You reinforce my point. The blame for what goes on in Washington does not fall on the president! The older I get the more I think "commander in chief" is just a fancy title for "talking bobble head". We're not electing a leader. We're electing a media personality.
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        The President of the United States is not commander in chief of the country or even the government. He is commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States US Constitution, Art 2. Sec 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2
berntb 10y ago
>> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. The point with smart weapons like drones is that they kill people in a few meters radius. They don't take out a whole village, or more. If a country should be in war and/or hunt irregular terror organizations is debatable. It should be debated. But complaining about one of the most humane (relative the alternatives) ways of waging war seems just weird. The negative thing I have to say about Obama is that he didn't do more to stop the horror in Syria, with chemical weapons, millions driven from the country and hundreds of thousands dead. But I am not certain I have a better solution either.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I understand the point about smart weapons it does not change the fact that the US is doing targeted killing without trial or are still keep people in guantanamo and so many other things that we are fine with. Yet somehow the rhetorics of Trump trumps all that.
  - berntb 10y ago
    You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments. If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to put enemy combatants into a court before you can shoot at them. (Edit: To argue that it is wrong or illegal to declare war and hunt e.g. alQ is not relevant either. I made that distinction in the previous comment -- and didn't take a position.)
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      I don't agree with the interpretation of war. Lets just start there.
      - berntb 10y ago
        So, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not? Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law. Edit: Here is the US law about unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... It came after a decision from the US Supreme Court. (Another Supreme Court decision says the unlawful combatants are protected by the Geneva protocols.) Edit 2: I asked for references and got nothing in the answer below. Enough for me.
woodchuck64 10y ago
> I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had. > But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. Well, no; technology gave us drones, not rationality. The US has always killed what it identifies as enemy combatants without a trial, whether its through war, covert operations or drones. Obama at least doesn't match the death count of the Bush years.
lobf 10y ago
He inherited the middle east from GWB, I don't think we'd have the drone program we do if we hadn't invaded twice.

dpark 10y ago

I'm not asserting that in any way Obama is perfect and have no problem with people criticizing his actions. I do take issue with comparing opposition of Obama based on his race with opposition of Trump based on his positions. It does not follow that because a black president did an acceptable job that any president would do an acceptable job. Nor is opposing a president for being black morally equivalent to opposing a president for the things he says he wants to do.

digler999 10y ago
Obama also lied about a lot and yet the world didn't end. Something about "transparent administration" ring a bell? "Closing Guantanamo" perhaps? Doesn't this set the precedent that you can't really believe anything a candidate says before he is elected? To be fair I don't single out Obama for lying. All candidates do it.which is why I don't worry about trump.
- dpark 10y ago
  And again, I am in no way saying that Obama is above criticism. I'm saying that opposing him for being black is not at all the same as opposing Trump for his positions. I think it's also not wise to treat all broken campaign promises equally. There's a big difference in voting for someone expecting that they won't accomplish everything they promise and voting for someone hoping that they won't accomplish everything that they promise. The former is hope that your candidate will do what they say. The latter is hope that your candidate is an outright liar or incompetent. I find it so bizarre that supporters look at Trump and say, "oh, he's just making empty promises and he'll never do that." His empty promises are that he'll violate the constitution to enshrine religious discrimination into laws! It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises.
  - hiringmanager 10y ago
    Republicans were not opposed to Obama because of his race, though for the past 8 years that has been the excuse to avoid talking about the issues. And once again, Liberals are not talking about Trumps positions, but merely calling him racist and sexist. "It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises." Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary? You really think free speech rights should be taken away from people who make a movie critical of hillary? (That's what "Citizens United" was about - the supreme court defended free speech for a group that made a movie critical of hillary-- and since then we've been hearing how evil that ruling is.)
    - dpark 10y ago
      > Republicans were not opposed to Obama because of his race, though for the past 8 years that has been the excuse to avoid talking about the issues. Sure. The birther movement was about the issues. > And once again, Liberals are not talking about Trumps positions, but merely calling him racist and sexist. This is patently untrue. Trumps positions have been widely derided as unconstitutional and poorly thought out. The fact that his racism and sexism are talked about doesn't mean his positions haven't also been widely criticized. > Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary? What are you talking about? > You really think free speech rights should be taken away from people who make a movie critical of hillary? (That's what "Citizens United" was about - the supreme court defended free speech for a group that made a movie critical of hillary-- and since then we've been hearing how evil that ruling is.) Citizens United was about political ad spending by corporations. It's a mischaracterization to present the case as if it were about Hillary trying to shut down a critical film. It was the FEC trying to enforce the BCRA.
      - etjossem 10y ago
        > Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary? > What are you talking about? I think they are trying to make a reference to a previously-unknown conservative blog which claimed they had an anonymous quote from a "State Department source" saying that HRC asked about approving a drone strike on Julian Assange. The claimed source has not gone to any professional news outlets. The blog has not published anything else of note, and by quick survey of other posts, its author has a clear agenda against HRC. I'll let you all draw your own conclusions.
- tokipin 10y ago
  hey now, the blame for Guantanomo not being closed falls directly on congressional republicans, not on Obama's lack of trying. this is the case for most of his failed endeavors (nominating court justices ring a bell?). there's plenty of stuff he does deserve blame for. most notable i think is that although he effectively ended the Iraq war, he rescinded his decision to end the Afghanistan war in 2014. regardless, Obama and Trump are not in the same category in any respect, not even as politicians.
  - digler999 10y ago
    You reinforce my point. The blame for what goes on in Washington does not fall on the president! The older I get the more I think "commander in chief" is just a fancy title for "talking bobble head". We're not electing a leader. We're electing a media personality.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      The President of the United States is not commander in chief of the country or even the government. He is commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States US Constitution, Art 2. Sec 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2

berntb 10y ago

>> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. The point with smart weapons like drones is that they kill people in a few meters radius. They don't take out a whole village, or more. If a country should be in war and/or hunt irregular terror organizations is debatable. It should be debated. But complaining about one of the most humane (relative the alternatives) ways of waging war seems just weird. The negative thing I have to say about Obama is that he didn't do more to stop the horror in Syria, with chemical weapons, millions driven from the country and hundreds of thousands dead. But I am not certain I have a better solution either.

ThomPete 10y ago
I understand the point about smart weapons it does not change the fact that the US is doing targeted killing without trial or are still keep people in guantanamo and so many other things that we are fine with. Yet somehow the rhetorics of Trump trumps all that.
- berntb 10y ago
  You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments. If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to put enemy combatants into a court before you can shoot at them. (Edit: To argue that it is wrong or illegal to declare war and hunt e.g. alQ is not relevant either. I made that distinction in the previous comment -- and didn't take a position.)
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    I don't agree with the interpretation of war. Lets just start there.
    - berntb 10y ago
      So, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not? Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law. Edit: Here is the US law about unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... It came after a decision from the US Supreme Court. (Another Supreme Court decision says the unlawful combatants are protected by the Geneva protocols.) Edit 2: I asked for references and got nothing in the answer below. Enough for me.

woodchuck64 10y ago

> I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had. > But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. Well, no; technology gave us drones, not rationality. The US has always killed what it identifies as enemy combatants without a trial, whether its through war, covert operations or drones. Obama at least doesn't match the death count of the Bush years.

lobf 10y ago

He inherited the middle east from GWB, I don't think we'd have the drone program we do if we hadn't invaded twice.