7 ms·

> Obama was determined to extend and even expand many of Bush’s national security policies, including a crackdown on whistleblowers and the press. Ignoring the

by rdtsc 8y ago

> Obama was determined to extend and even expand many of Bush’s national security policies, including a crackdown on whistleblowers and the press. Ignoring the possible consequences to American democracy, the Obama administration began aggressively conducting surveillance of the digital communications of journalists and potential sources, leading to more leak prosecutions than all previous administrations combined. I am still thinking periodically about what happened there. Like the saying goes "I don't know what I expected..." but I certainly expected more from Obama. For some reason I thought privacy, freedom of speech and transparency would be priorities but they weren't. Granted, looking back I don't think he explicitly said those would be his top policies, it was just beliefs people, including me, imbued into his presidency. It was a very successful "Hope and Change" marketing campaign. He even fooled the Nobel Committee into getting a Nobel Peace Prize, so I guess I shouldn't feel too bad. Other good things happened of course like ACA, a push to regulate pollution but overall it was a disappointment vis-a-vis the expectations.

kop316 8y ago
You forgot about the "It's Just Metadata" argument: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-demolish-its-just-metadata-claim-nsa-spying-appeal https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-demolish-its-jus...
finnthehuman 8y ago
This kind of thing is why people say the dems and repubs are the same party with two coats of paint. Before 2008 there were a lot of issues the mainstream left were vocal about. 8 years of Obama and only a select few even got lip service. Now neither the democrats nor any vocal factions of the left seem to care about them.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  The UniParty. However... This is where I'll make a point. The GOP and Dems absolutely both hate Trump. That's the funny thing about bubble types and die-hard liberals is that it seems neither can see just how little the GOP wanted Trump. They just didn't have a riggable system like the DNC did. That like him or not, Trump is very much disrupting the many of the plans of those politicians that while pretending to be against each other have almost identical goals. That's not a defense of Trump, it's an understanding that if you hate the GOP, you should understand Trump is their enemy and it doesn't make sense to lump them together in your bias, at least not all the time. EDIT: LOL, apparently because some Republicans like Grham and Rand Paul support Trump he has the entire GOP establishment. Except Flake, McCain, Romney, Paul Ryan, Priebus, and this small list that is effectively still against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose... .... Look, I get that it makes you sad to hear that Trump isn't liked by the people you don't like, but if you think the GOP wanted or wants Trump now - you're foolish. They're STUCK with him now, that's a big difference. The GOP as a hole will halfheartedly "fight" for him, while wishing he was dead.
  - losvedir 8y ago
    That maybe used to be the case, but they've rallied behind him now. His approvability is 90% among people who identify as Republicans. You still see occasional "wildcard" moments peek through, though like his (IMO wonderful) decision to withdraw from Syria, which managed to draw condemnation from everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. But unfortunately, it seems it's all bluster as Trump is wont to do, and will likely not amount to much.
    - verall 8y ago
      I'm curious, why do you believe Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria is a good one? I support the eventual withdrawal from Syria, but packing up now will place a large burden on Kurdish minority groups in the region, who deserve better. It will not be the first time we supported the Kurds while they advanced US goals and then pulled out ASAP. It also seems the decision was motivated by conversations between Trump and Erdogan, which makes me think the Turkish will resume subjugating Kurds in the region when US exits. I think we should withdraw by replacing more and more guns-and-boots people with books-hammers-meds people. Leaving a power vacuum to be filled by Turkey or Russia seems to be the worst option, and imo a betrayal to our Kurdish allies who would not be treated fairly under Turkish or Russian control. Edit: I really mean this question in good faith. This is my present understanding of the situation, but I do not believe I have the whole picture. I really appreciate the time anyone could take to point out an inconsistency or misunderstanding.
      - ALittleLight 8y ago
        I think a basic problem with your analysis is that there will always be an emotionally compelling reason to commit troops to enterprises like this. We have to support our allies, the Kurds. Saddam Hussein and his sons are cruel dictators. Iranian theocrats are intent on destroying Israel. There are concentration camps in North Korea. Gaddafi is a dictator and sponsor of terrorists. Etcetera. These reasons aren't wrong, those things are true. The problem is that they lead down a path of interventionism which hasn't worked very well. For example, Iraq. Hussein really was a cruel dictator but by invading and destabilizing the region the conflict killed a million or more people, generated ISIS, and left the area tumultuous. I also want good things for the people of Syria. I don't think it's fair for them to be ruled by Asad. Where I disagree with people who advocate continued military intervention is that I don't think this is the right way to help them. I think the right way to help people is by exemplifying the virtues of our system of governance and economics. We should become a country that others want to emulate. We should spread good ideas, like the rule of law, human and civil rights, regulated but mostly free markets, etc. Other countries will desire our prosperity and change of their own accord to become more like us, not because we're pointing guns at them, but because they genuinely want to live the way we've shown is possible. I see this approach as unraveling the networks of evil in the world. Russia changing to be less of an oligarchy, permit more free press, better cooperation with the world, more Democratic will likely entail less support of Assad.
quasse 8y ago
It's disappointing coming from the man who campaigned on the promise "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."
- MrZongle2 8y ago
  It unfortunately reinforces the belief that "those who cannot do, teach".
- pstuart 8y ago
  Obama was one of our better Republican presidents....
  - tptacek 8y ago
    That's a pretty fatuous statement when you consider the goals of the GOP over the past 38 years. Did Obama work with the GOP to privatize entitlement programs? Did he pass a major tax cut? Did he appoint pro-life judges? Did he move towards transforming the Department of Education to state block grants?
    - areyousure 8y ago
      That's a strangely specific list of questions, but here is an attempt to address them: > Did Obama work with the GOP to privatize entitlement programs? No, but he often supported or considered cuts to Social Security and Medicare (including in the context of working with the GOP). For example, Obama's executive order 13531 established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform ("Simpson-Bowles"), which recommended cuts to Social Security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-c... > Did he pass a major tax cut? Yes, of course!? The largest component of the stimulus bill was tax relief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#/media/File:Investmentbubble.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Relief,_Unemployment_Insurance_Reauthorization,_and_Job_Creation_Act_of_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Relief,_Unemployment_Insur... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_o... https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html > Did he appoint pro-life judges? Obama nominated a judge who failed to be confirmed in part because of Democratic opposition to his (purported) "votes in the legislature to retain Confederate insignia in the state flag of Georgia, restrict abortion, and ban same-sex marriage". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Boggs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Boggs It's a little unclear what Sonya Sotomayor's position on abortion is. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.ht... > Did he move towards transforming the Department of Education to state block grants? No, but the Obama Administration supported funding for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund in the stimulus bill, a relatively significant block grant from the Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabil...
ngngngng 8y ago
During the Obama administration it became legal to assassinate US citizens without trial as long as they are presumed "terrorists" and aren't currently on US soil. It was a deeply flawed presidency that deserves much more critique than it has ever received. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...
- pm90 8y ago
  I have a suspicion that any American President would have had to do this. Its true that these things did happen under Obama, but I am hesitant to think that someone else could have done better.
- tptacek 8y ago
  The United States killed its own citizens in military operations long before Obama.
  - detcader 8y ago
    Well, Obama OLC's legal memo advocated it explicitly, though. From Wikipedia: 'Barron's memo was described by The New York Times Editorial Board as "a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result."[7] A lawyer for the ACLU described the memo as "disturbing" and "ultimately an argument that the president can order targeted killings of Americans without ever having to account to anyone outside the executive branch."[8]' One could say it "became executive doctrine" then.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      What "doctrine" is this? Since World War 1, when the military has deemed it necessary to kill combatants who happen to be American citizens abroad, it has done so.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>For some reason I thought privacy, freedom of speech and transparency would be priorities but they weren't. He's a constitutional law professor! He loves his blackberry! Those girls that campaigned and danced around for Obama were hot. Yay his skin color doesn't matter - except it totally matters! He'll stop the wars! He's so cool he tweets out things! Because you were sold on an extremely effective misinformation campaign specifically targeted at you. It's not that you should feel bad - but I'd hope you'd be able to see it if it happened again (and it is happening again, it's just opposite now). ... I'm sorry, perhaps I'm bitter because I saw exactly what this was in 2007, then had to put up with 8 years of watching the media entirely cover for him. It was annoying. What's worse is that even now people still fall for the "I had a scandal free presidency" absolute lie.
- vkou 8y ago
  History is written by the victors, and his scandalous policies did not lose in the court of law. As it turns out, all the shitty shit he did was perfectly legal[1] (And also supported by most of the country.) The current crop of scandals is, ah, personal failings and run of the mill conflicts of interest. Obama's cabinet picks were a bit better then the current crop, in that respect. Well, except for Hillary's email server. Which he has masterfully distanced himself politically from. Trump has not done the same for his problematic subordinates. [1] Which says a lot about how restrictive on government power the constitution actually is.
  - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
    >Well, except for Hillary's email server. Or the fact that she was the Secretary of State while her husband's charity was accepting millions of dollars in donations from leaders of foreign countries (the very same people who the American people were relying on her to oppose whenever their interests conflicted with those of the American people).
- jancsika 8y ago
  > I'm sorry, perhaps I'm bitter because I saw exactly what this was in 2007 And what exactly did you see back in 2007? Because it sounds to me like you are merely describing politics since the advent of television at the national level in the current U.S. two-party system. Do you really mean to say you saw the same type of fake news campaign spread across social media in 2007 as is described in recent NYT pieces wrt the 2016 election (e.g., troll accounts so widespread that a Facebook lobbyist recognized one as one of his mom's Facebook friends)? If so can we see an archive.org link of what you wrote back then?
lord_basics 8y ago
Obama was CIA from birth or was at least born to a family of assets: - his parents met in a Russian language class in Hawaii - father graduated from Harvard - father worked for oil companies and government in Kenya - mother moved to Jakarta and Pakistan working for NGOs, funded by development banks - paternal grandfather worked for British colonial forces in Europe, India, and Africa - maternal grandmother worked for bank that dealt with emerging markets in Pacific If you know people that work for the company... or with the company... these are pretty typical covers and paths. No one declares themselves an officer, they're just working on an ag tech startup in the desert! Or Mormon... there are so many Mormons. They generally have no vices, travel for missionaries, BYU has amazing language courses, and they believe in the mission. Think about how many people during the Cold War moved to a remote island to take intensive Russian language classes.
- jancsika 8y ago
  > Think about how many people during the Cold War moved to a remote island to take intensive Russian language classes. Given the way you've presented your argument, you can't lose: 1. If the number is extremely low, it supports your claim in your last sentence that moving to Hawaii during the Cold War to take Russian language classes is conspicious behavior that reveals his parents as CIA. 2. If the number is extremely large, it supports your initial claim that moving to Hawaii and taking Russian language classes "are pretty typical covers and paths." It appears you have yourself a contradiction there.
tivert 8y ago
> Granted, looking back I don't think he explicitly said those would be his top policies, it was just beliefs people, including me, imbued into his presidency. It was a very successful "Hope and Change" marketing campaign. Exactly. He was a chimera: the ambiguity in his slogans let each person see in him what they wanted to see, and his brief political record gave few specifics to challenge those desires. The real work of politics is to decide on the details of policy in the midst of real disagreement, and ideally politicians would be very clear about their thoughts on those details to help the public to properly have its say.
sebbecai 8y ago
Obama was also the "tech" president. I wonder to what extent this increased surveillance is a result of the scalability advantages software brings. More than all previous presidents combined is pretty significant. Did he spend that much more?

by rdtsc 8y ago

kop316 8y ago

You forgot about the "It's Just Metadata" argument: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-demolish-its-just-metadata-claim-nsa-spying-appeal https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-aclu-demolish-its-jus...

finnthehuman 8y ago

This kind of thing is why people say the dems and repubs are the same party with two coats of paint. Before 2008 there were a lot of issues the mainstream left were vocal about. 8 years of Obama and only a select few even got lip service. Now neither the democrats nor any vocal factions of the left seem to care about them.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
The UniParty. However... This is where I'll make a point. The GOP and Dems absolutely both hate Trump. That's the funny thing about bubble types and die-hard liberals is that it seems neither can see just how little the GOP wanted Trump. They just didn't have a riggable system like the DNC did. That like him or not, Trump is very much disrupting the many of the plans of those politicians that while pretending to be against each other have almost identical goals. That's not a defense of Trump, it's an understanding that if you hate the GOP, you should understand Trump is their enemy and it doesn't make sense to lump them together in your bias, at least not all the time. EDIT: LOL, apparently because some Republicans like Grham and Rand Paul support Trump he has the entire GOP establishment. Except Flake, McCain, Romney, Paul Ryan, Priebus, and this small list that is effectively still against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose... .... Look, I get that it makes you sad to hear that Trump isn't liked by the people you don't like, but if you think the GOP wanted or wants Trump now - you're foolish. They're STUCK with him now, that's a big difference. The GOP as a hole will halfheartedly "fight" for him, while wishing he was dead.
- losvedir 8y ago
  That maybe used to be the case, but they've rallied behind him now. His approvability is 90% among people who identify as Republicans. You still see occasional "wildcard" moments peek through, though like his (IMO wonderful) decision to withdraw from Syria, which managed to draw condemnation from everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. But unfortunately, it seems it's all bluster as Trump is wont to do, and will likely not amount to much.
  - verall 8y ago
    I'm curious, why do you believe Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria is a good one? I support the eventual withdrawal from Syria, but packing up now will place a large burden on Kurdish minority groups in the region, who deserve better. It will not be the first time we supported the Kurds while they advanced US goals and then pulled out ASAP. It also seems the decision was motivated by conversations between Trump and Erdogan, which makes me think the Turkish will resume subjugating Kurds in the region when US exits. I think we should withdraw by replacing more and more guns-and-boots people with books-hammers-meds people. Leaving a power vacuum to be filled by Turkey or Russia seems to be the worst option, and imo a betrayal to our Kurdish allies who would not be treated fairly under Turkish or Russian control. Edit: I really mean this question in good faith. This is my present understanding of the situation, but I do not believe I have the whole picture. I really appreciate the time anyone could take to point out an inconsistency or misunderstanding.
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      I think a basic problem with your analysis is that there will always be an emotionally compelling reason to commit troops to enterprises like this. We have to support our allies, the Kurds. Saddam Hussein and his sons are cruel dictators. Iranian theocrats are intent on destroying Israel. There are concentration camps in North Korea. Gaddafi is a dictator and sponsor of terrorists. Etcetera. These reasons aren't wrong, those things are true. The problem is that they lead down a path of interventionism which hasn't worked very well. For example, Iraq. Hussein really was a cruel dictator but by invading and destabilizing the region the conflict killed a million or more people, generated ISIS, and left the area tumultuous. I also want good things for the people of Syria. I don't think it's fair for them to be ruled by Asad. Where I disagree with people who advocate continued military intervention is that I don't think this is the right way to help them. I think the right way to help people is by exemplifying the virtues of our system of governance and economics. We should become a country that others want to emulate. We should spread good ideas, like the rule of law, human and civil rights, regulated but mostly free markets, etc. Other countries will desire our prosperity and change of their own accord to become more like us, not because we're pointing guns at them, but because they genuinely want to live the way we've shown is possible. I see this approach as unraveling the networks of evil in the world. Russia changing to be less of an oligarchy, permit more free press, better cooperation with the world, more Democratic will likely entail less support of Assad.

quasse 8y ago

It's disappointing coming from the man who campaigned on the promise "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

MrZongle2 8y ago
It unfortunately reinforces the belief that "those who cannot do, teach".
pstuart 8y ago
Obama was one of our better Republican presidents....
- tptacek 8y ago
  That's a pretty fatuous statement when you consider the goals of the GOP over the past 38 years. Did Obama work with the GOP to privatize entitlement programs? Did he pass a major tax cut? Did he appoint pro-life judges? Did he move towards transforming the Department of Education to state block grants?
  - areyousure 8y ago
    That's a strangely specific list of questions, but here is an attempt to address them: > Did Obama work with the GOP to privatize entitlement programs? No, but he often supported or considered cuts to Social Security and Medicare (including in the context of working with the GOP). For example, Obama's executive order 13531 established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform ("Simpson-Bowles"), which recommended cuts to Social Security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-c... > Did he pass a major tax cut? Yes, of course!? The largest component of the stimulus bill was tax relief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#/media/File:Investmentbubble.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Relief,_Unemployment_Insurance_Reauthorization,_and_Job_Creation_Act_of_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Relief,_Unemployment_Insur... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_o... https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html > Did he appoint pro-life judges? Obama nominated a judge who failed to be confirmed in part because of Democratic opposition to his (purported) "votes in the legislature to retain Confederate insignia in the state flag of Georgia, restrict abortion, and ban same-sex marriage". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Boggs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Boggs It's a little unclear what Sonya Sotomayor's position on abortion is. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.ht... > Did he move towards transforming the Department of Education to state block grants? No, but the Obama Administration supported funding for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund in the stimulus bill, a relatively significant block grant from the Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabil...

ngngngng 8y ago

During the Obama administration it became legal to assassinate US citizens without trial as long as they are presumed "terrorists" and aren't currently on US soil. It was a deeply flawed presidency that deserves much more critique than it has ever received. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...

pm90 8y ago
I have a suspicion that any American President would have had to do this. Its true that these things did happen under Obama, but I am hesitant to think that someone else could have done better.
tptacek 8y ago
The United States killed its own citizens in military operations long before Obama.
- detcader 8y ago
  Well, Obama OLC's legal memo advocated it explicitly, though. From Wikipedia: 'Barron's memo was described by The New York Times Editorial Board as "a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result."[7] A lawyer for the ACLU described the memo as "disturbing" and "ultimately an argument that the president can order targeted killings of Americans without ever having to account to anyone outside the executive branch."[8]' One could say it "became executive doctrine" then.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    What "doctrine" is this? Since World War 1, when the military has deemed it necessary to kill combatants who happen to be American citizens abroad, it has done so.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

>For some reason I thought privacy, freedom of speech and transparency would be priorities but they weren't. He's a constitutional law professor! He loves his blackberry! Those girls that campaigned and danced around for Obama were hot. Yay his skin color doesn't matter - except it totally matters! He'll stop the wars! He's so cool he tweets out things! Because you were sold on an extremely effective misinformation campaign specifically targeted at you. It's not that you should feel bad - but I'd hope you'd be able to see it if it happened again (and it is happening again, it's just opposite now). ... I'm sorry, perhaps I'm bitter because I saw exactly what this was in 2007, then had to put up with 8 years of watching the media entirely cover for him. It was annoying. What's worse is that even now people still fall for the "I had a scandal free presidency" absolute lie.

vkou 8y ago
History is written by the victors, and his scandalous policies did not lose in the court of law. As it turns out, all the shitty shit he did was perfectly legal[1] (And also supported by most of the country.) The current crop of scandals is, ah, personal failings and run of the mill conflicts of interest. Obama's cabinet picks were a bit better then the current crop, in that respect. Well, except for Hillary's email server. Which he has masterfully distanced himself politically from. Trump has not done the same for his problematic subordinates. [1] Which says a lot about how restrictive on government power the constitution actually is.
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
  >Well, except for Hillary's email server. Or the fact that she was the Secretary of State while her husband's charity was accepting millions of dollars in donations from leaders of foreign countries (the very same people who the American people were relying on her to oppose whenever their interests conflicted with those of the American people).
jancsika 8y ago
> I'm sorry, perhaps I'm bitter because I saw exactly what this was in 2007 And what exactly did you see back in 2007? Because it sounds to me like you are merely describing politics since the advent of television at the national level in the current U.S. two-party system. Do you really mean to say you saw the same type of fake news campaign spread across social media in 2007 as is described in recent NYT pieces wrt the 2016 election (e.g., troll accounts so widespread that a Facebook lobbyist recognized one as one of his mom's Facebook friends)? If so can we see an archive.org link of what you wrote back then?

lord_basics 8y ago

Obama was CIA from birth or was at least born to a family of assets: - his parents met in a Russian language class in Hawaii - father graduated from Harvard - father worked for oil companies and government in Kenya - mother moved to Jakarta and Pakistan working for NGOs, funded by development banks - paternal grandfather worked for British colonial forces in Europe, India, and Africa - maternal grandmother worked for bank that dealt with emerging markets in Pacific If you know people that work for the company... or with the company... these are pretty typical covers and paths. No one declares themselves an officer, they're just working on an ag tech startup in the desert! Or Mormon... there are so many Mormons. They generally have no vices, travel for missionaries, BYU has amazing language courses, and they believe in the mission. Think about how many people during the Cold War moved to a remote island to take intensive Russian language classes.

jancsika 8y ago
> Think about how many people during the Cold War moved to a remote island to take intensive Russian language classes. Given the way you've presented your argument, you can't lose: 1. If the number is extremely low, it supports your claim in your last sentence that moving to Hawaii during the Cold War to take Russian language classes is conspicious behavior that reveals his parents as CIA. 2. If the number is extremely large, it supports your initial claim that moving to Hawaii and taking Russian language classes "are pretty typical covers and paths." It appears you have yourself a contradiction there.

tivert 8y ago

> Granted, looking back I don't think he explicitly said those would be his top policies, it was just beliefs people, including me, imbued into his presidency. It was a very successful "Hope and Change" marketing campaign. Exactly. He was a chimera: the ambiguity in his slogans let each person see in him what they wanted to see, and his brief political record gave few specifics to challenge those desires. The real work of politics is to decide on the details of policy in the midst of real disagreement, and ideally politicians would be very clear about their thoughts on those details to help the public to properly have its say.

sebbecai 8y ago

Obama was also the "tech" president. I wonder to what extent this increased surveillance is a result of the scalability advantages software brings. More than all previous presidents combined is pretty significant. Did he spend that much more?