what are barack obama's flaws?

there are maybe three presidents better than obama and that's pushing it

No one here wants to grab a micro brew with Bam, for god's sake.

I'd totally grab a micro brew with him

i dunno he seems busy

i wouldn't wanna waste his time

Seems like a potentially awkward situation. "Sorry Barry, I have to turn down this highly imaginary invitation to grab some beers because I think you have more important things to do with your time." I think he'd be bummed.

never forget

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/07/30/us/31obama_600.jpg

that looks like a very un-fun and contrived liquid lunch, would definitely pass on an event like that.

plus the beer looks like shit beer

and Biden's drinking near beer!

I can take the shit beer all day long, just not the shit people!

good beer makes shit people more survivable

how many Mafia dons are better than Obama, J.D.?

Mafia dons don't get the poor subsidized health care or the Lily Ledbetter Act sighed. Man, you are so tedious about this -- it's like you can't imagine people can have complicated reactions to things other than Spielberg joints.

they do kill people they don't know, however

tho usually not children

I had a complicated reaction to at least one Spielberg joint.

It would get expensive to put a bullet in the head of every sick person in America, it's true

lol @ calzino piling on for no reason

I try to stay out of US politics, but he invaded my space on the radio the other morning. There are plenty of other reasons to pile on Obama, other than he seems a loathsome person tbf.

This a purpose built Obama's Faults thread as well.

idk, as faults go, "seeming loathsome to calzino" rates as pretty marginal.

well the accelerated use of drone strikes on civilians that he signed off on is pretty loathsome to anybody who isn't a brainwashed apologist.

for a start.

I think you might be confused about what the job is that he held for 8 years. But I’m not getting into this with you, my attitudes regarding the legitimacy of the state’s use of lethal violence and espionage are all over the place

Yeah, you'd think he'd at least ask them to change the name 'Drone Strikes on Civilians' to something a bit less conspicuous.

He personally changed the rules of engagement, which led to escalating civilian deaths during his presidency, there is no Bama-splaining or bullshit sophistry that gets him a free pass from that.

That's part of his legacy and he can wear to it to the fucking grave.

xps Are you saying that Obama signed off on drone strikes solely against civilians? As in, "Let's forget about killing soldiers or military leaders; let's just kill off some civilians as our military objective and see if that helps"? Or would you say the motive that lead to the action maybe a bit more complex than that?

This no doubt counts as apologetics in your view, but my point is not that killing civilians is trivial, but that your characterization of his action was not complete, and the omission was significant. It is easy, once you've arrived at a judgment, to distort facts to eliminate any which tend to run counter to your opinion. If you've ever been the target of such distortions of your actions or motives, you may perhaps recognize the unfairness of doing the same to others.

He personally changed the rules of engagement, which led to escalating civilian deaths during his presidency, there is no Bama-splaining or bullshit sophistry that gets him a free pass from that.

― calzino, 28. december 2017 22:33 (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That's part of his legacy and he can wear to it to the fucking grave.

― calzino, 28. december 2017 22:37 (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Except it's not really true, though, is it?

The Drone PPG is from 2013, after the escalation. Or are you talking about something else?

I already stated that he changed the rules of engagement that rendered the killing of civilians quite a trivial matter under his watch, thus me saying his laissez faire drone strikes are a major part of his legacy. You're all fucking crazy tbh!

But that's not true?

I'm not trying to be an apologist, I'm not trying to apologize for his actions. What you're saying isn't really his actions, though?

He personally changed the rules of engagement, which led to escalating civilian deaths during his presidency, there is no Bama-splaining or bullshit sophistry that gets him a free pass from that.

― calzino, Thursday, December 28, 2017 9:33 PM (thirty-four minutes ago)

this is fucking moronic. obama's predecessor launched a needless war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. he also started the drone war. you have to be a shameless republican apologist to argue that obama "escalated civilian deaths."

incidentally, the guy in office now killed more civilians in his first seven months than obama did in eight years:

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-already-killed-more-civilians-obama-us-fight-against-isis-653564

The drone war escalated under Obama, though, exactly because he de-escalated conventional warfare. I think civilian deaths escalated as well in 2009-2013, but I just can't find that personal change in rules of engagement that calzino is talking about.

Can we just get to the heart of the matter and admit that Obama’s greatest flaw is being buddies with Prince Harry and that’s why calzino is actually here tonight

^^^

the obama line that haunts me is from his 2013 speech about drones, a characteristically thoughtful and adult turning-over of a problem, a speech that respects you the citizen-listener as someone capable of coming to nuanced conclusions about complex situations, opener than probably any postwar president (save maybe eisenhower on his way out the door-- actually having similarly helped to construct a horrifying new system as an alternative to conventional warfare) about the potential corrosive effect of pentagon/cia infrastructure on american democracy, a good lecture by a conservative but smart and honest professor. and then this announcement buried in the middle of it as the single relevant piece of oh-right-i-am-also-the-emperor policy:

And that’s why, over the last four years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists –- insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

such a relief that Policy Guidance was codified for our current President. so glad we decided to stick with the "but what if the imperial executive with apparent legal authority to dispatch death robots anywhere in the world were always really thoughtful" plan. assume this program now just runs itself, when jared's not using it to call in strikes on cod griefers.

there really aren't a lot of more likable presidents, or even "better" ones if yr criteria is "sociopathy". there are a lot of more successful ones unfortunately (and occasionally fortunately). i guess the shit i'd talk about him is that he wasn't up to his moment after all. in retrospect, who was?

(and I wouldn’t really argue with that reasoning tbf)

http://i.imgur.com/MvIplcX.jpg

Obama’s “moment” was about him as an avatar. He hardly had a chance to live up to that.

How many has been more succesful than him, though? In all honesty it's not more than ten, is it?

Also, I fliipped through that book of Drone Memos, and that rules of engagement change really isn't there.

it was also about becoming president at a moment that only seems more of a hinge with time. he really could have put different people in charge of the recovery, for instance. xp

He's more than an avatar for black voters.

Presidential rankings are fucked because Getting Things Done regardless of the damage these things do to the country is the lode star.

...but by those standards in the last, oh, sixty years Barack Hussein Obama ranks with LBJ and Reagan.

a legacy complicated by only having a few months of an ideologically congenial Congress whereas LBJ and Reagan had years.

How many has been more succesful than him, though? In all honesty it's not more than ten, is it?

feel like the number is v different in different scenarios for the next decade.

Those three are the best in sixty years, and LBJ couldn't run for reelection in 68. The floor is really low :)

yeah 10 is a lot tbh! he is clearly a major president.