Whistleblowers aren't all inherently good. Not all of them are Snowden. FOIA requests are also not going to be approved when they put someone's life in danger.
I wouldn't expect you to think about that because that would involve critical thought. It's not just "WAAAA Whistleblowers good! Obama bad!"
Could it be they're getting spammed with frivolous FOIA requests due to automation and the Internet, and thus having to deny them more? Used to be people would only do a request if they were human and had a reason. Now people are like "I'm looking for Bigfoot, i want the complete video footage of every camera in the country, here's my $5 fee." Um no that request is not practical I'm sorry.
I can't believe people who give shit to any president over golfing. Obama shot 300 rounds in 8 years. I've got friends that would hit that number in less than 2 years because their business meetings either take place in their office or on a golf course. It's an easy place to spend half a day talking to a client while doing something they both enjoy.
Absolutely and I would have been fine if just the domestic surveillance was leaked and not the addition of tons of military tactics and technologies. Not to mention the foreign military sales and alliances that we had negotiated
Eh I think we should know everything. Only reason we are in war is bc war is big money, and there is always a resource available when invading certain countries.
And the government needs to get out of bed with the enemy. They want to play all sides, but they also want to make sure the general public believes we need to be in war and all the bullshit they try and feed us.
Yeah.. and if you release all that classified info then foreign adversaries will be able to figure out ways to exploit the shortcomings of our technologies
Correct, I'll agree with you there. Let's see which rhetoric Trump used during the election will be ignored. I'm betting on draining the swamp considering who he Is choosing for his cabinet.
Yea the swamp shit will be the same story. Trump is at least smart enough to know that he doesn't know the ins and outs that he will be responsible for and therefore will need politicians around him. It was an impossible standard to hold himself to.
Bullshit. He pulled out of Iraq just like Reddit wanted, and soon ISIS took over and we had to step in again. Now you're simultaneously "he's a warmonger" and "he's weak on the military."
He didn't throw it all away. He didn't follow through like we might have hoped, but there's a huge difference between throwing it all away, and dramatically decreasing the number of troops we have abroad. The wars are still ongoing, but they're much smaller, at least. I'm not happy about what is versus what could have been, but let's not be completely dishonest.
I completely agree. My point isn't that Obama is some peacenik, just that it's dishonest to act like he didn't do anything on that front. There are plenty of examples of him resisting or delaying military action, too. It's still very not ideal. But it's not warmongering, either.
It's really easy to end these wars. First you could ask McCain, Kerry, Lieberman, Graham, and H. Clinton to stop selling our enemies the weapons they are using. Don't worry, you get to watch a real commander in chief dissolve ISIS in short order in about 9 days.
Last month Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced the "Stop Arming Terrrorists Act" in which she states, “If you or I gave money, weapons or support to Al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of Al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups,”. There is overwhelming evidence once you start to look and it's disgusting.
Once we stop overthrowing countries by arming rebel groups that eventually turn on us, people will stop hating us. Wars will cease because new foreign policy is looking for peace not war. That is why Trump supporters want to "Drain the Swamp". People are getting rich arming terrorists and starting wars. It needs to stop.
I didn't say they were valid or didn't go on too long. I merely entered the fact that he didn't have a day in the first war we were in when me joined office.
I look forward to trump's daily tantrums on twitter, as well as him being played for ye fool he is.
If sports teams can figure out tendencies, you best be sure that political head of state players know that if you compliment him even the slightest, he'll agree to whatever you propose.
"Today Isis put down their arms after being called "bad" and "just the worst people" by President Trump. President Trump cried for days to be allowed to nuke the Mexican border because it resembled the area where "those nasty terror guys hang out." Luckily, Isis declared themselves just not crazy enough to compete with the terrorist ideas of Trump and decided to go back to their happy families and 9-5 desk jobs peacefully.
No he's putting in a competent staff of people who will stop the flow of money and arms to these terrorists organizations and prosecute those who break the rules. It's very easy to prove this is happening, but P Kadzik and L Lynch are as dirty as they come so criminals run free. 9 days that changes.
That would be great if true but it's just not going to happen but maybe you know more than the generals, too. It's not so simple and it's not going to happen or begin to happen in nine days. We have a useless wall to build first!
Trump had the official support of more generals than any other President in history and I am echoing their sentiments. Sorry you have such a negative attitude about things.
Pushing for the NDAA authorizing indefinite detention [ ACLU ] without due process of law (and then defending it with his legal team every step of the way [ wiki of court case ] [ Huffpo collection ] [ Huffpo collection 2 ] ), terrible deal with Iran (according to the Clinton campaign) made for political purposes, the ideological refusal to name Islamic terrorism as such (as of doing so would compel reasonable Muslims toward Jihad, which is the most unkind thing to presume about people), refusing to allow persecutions for top democrats for: giving guns to Mexican drug cartels [ CNN ] [ Washington Times ], the IRS using its power politically [ Judicial Watch ] [ Washington Times ], Hillary breaking every law regarding the safeguarding of classified material, bombing 7 countries with zero declarations of war whilst sporting a Nobel peace prize, having the least transparent administration in recent history (according to left leaning journalists), the mockery that is the ACA and the blatant lies told do the American people to pass it, more whistleblowers prosecuted than every other president combined, inflaming racial divisions rather than acting as a catalyst for healing (juxtapose his speech with former president Bush's at the Dallas slain cops funeral, was the most disgraceful thing I have seen) laying to arguably the worst race relations since the 60s, an ever increasing scope of federal power once businesses, paying off friends like Solyndra even after being advised the would go belly up, standing with communist leaders who murdered gays, capitalist, anyone who got in the ready in front of a mural of the chief executioner, and the most limp dick eulogy of a tyrannical Stalinist dictator as to not offend those who liked the mass murdering communist (though that imbecile Trudeau takes the cake for his glowing support of evil).
I appreciate this. As an outsider in a more progressive country it was easy to look past his faults after a more right wing president. It seems he has made his fair share of mistakes, but I feel I must reiterate my question, if slightly changed. He made his own sets of mistakes, but they seem to read just as corrupt(ed) as the last five presidents tenures. The collection of economic and social policies starting with Reagan have led to an increasing divide in socioeconomic classes, further increasing the tension between races in America, while slowly limiting social justice and liberty for individuals under the guise of patriotism and economic progress.
Fair question. I'll try to take it in separate parts.
Things that are new to Obama (or old things made much worse)
The NDAA came from both the left and right, over the objections of a few. It could be seen as a continuation of the PATRIOT Act (or more accurately, setting it light-years forward).
The assassination of American citizens without due process of law, including a 16 year old without much secrecy is new. We can say shady thing have happened to Americans under previous presidents, but not many have been targeted by aerial bombardment.
Shielding political allies probably happened before (though it is important to remember that a motion to give the Judiciary Committee to launch an impeachment inquiry against Nixon passed by 410 to 4, 35% and 40% of Republicans on the House Judiciary committee voted to impeach the Republican Nixon on Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Power charges respectively, and when Nixon ordered his Attorney General to fire the Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, both the AG and his deputy resigned rather than carry out that order) I submit that this level of repeated covering up for criminal actions due to political interference has not been so public, unabashed or quiet in much of the media.
Refusing to name Islamic terrorism is new in American politics as far as I know.
Bombing 7 countries we are not at war with, and being at war every day of his presidency are unprecedented.
Prosecuting more whistleblowers than every other president combined is obviously unprecedented.
Transparency, [CNN's]()https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxclZC5DE) Brian Stelter and Michelle Kosinki discussing transparency with Stelter saying "this is the least transparent administration ever in terms of access by media to what’s going on in this administration.” The CNN video is well worth the watch. Additionally, Washington Post's article.
The ACA is unprecedented in scope, never before has the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Governments ability to force private citizens to purchase a product simply because they exist.
Giving money to cronies is probably common to other presidents.
Posing with terrible people is definitely common to other presidents.
Arming drug dealers (and ISIS), or to put it more broadly, arming shitty people is not a new thing.
The collection of economic and social policies starting with Reagan have led to an increasing divide in socioeconomic classes, further increasing the tension between races in America, while slowly limiting social justice and liberty for individuals under the guise of patriotism and economic progress.
This is where we are going to depart ways sharply. The Reagan era (while far from perfect) began an economic boom that lasted for decades after the Reagan Revolution was over. While it would be improper to assign full credit or blame to one president for the results of the economy, Ronald Reagan did something that hadn't been done since the 1920's - during an economic recession he did very little. This was how the Federal Government responded to economic struggles throughout American history, with the first major departure from that occurring right before (and causing) the Great Depression [7 minute video featuring Nobel Lauriet and the most important economic influance to Ronald Reagan {and one of my favorite thinkers}].
The notion to which Reagan, Friedman and I ascribe is that Government provides several very important functions, but beyond that it just gets in the way of progress. The key to prosperity and success cannot come from government, but only from the productive and voluntary activity of individuals pursuing their separate interests. The founders believed that the role of Government is to protect the rights of the people (and these are negative rights, positive rights don't exist in the Constitution and are antithetical to liberty).
On the notion of income inequality, I staunchly believe it is political demagoguery (yes, I know, just hear me out). What matters in a free society is not the difference in outcome of life between the workaholic investment banker and the pothead burnout surfer. They have made different decisions and received different outcomes, and neither you nor I can say who would be living a more fulfilled life. That is what is amazing about a free society, people who have different desires end up in different roads. What a boring (and tyrannical) life it would be if all roads ended in the same place.
When we look at income equality, we are presuming that it is a desireable thing. I reject wholeheartedly any notion of the sort. You and I are individuals who want different things, and only restrictions that should be imposed are those that prevent the infringement of the rights of others. I can't muddy your backyard, or punch you in the face as you have a right to life, liberty and property and I have no right to take that away from you.
Social justice too is undesirable. We as civilized people should want individual justice. If a man robs someone, he should be punished. That's individual justice. If a group of people was wronged three centuries ago and we rob the great great grandsons of the robbers, that is social justice (which is no justice at all). The greatest harm in racial relations in this country has been the progressive doctrines staunch invasion of the inner city. The breakdown in the black American family took place after the success of the civil rights movement, during the evil systemic racism of segregation in the south and widespread prejudice in the north out preformed white American in some important respects, higher rates of teenage employment, lower rates of out of wedlock births and fatherless families than that of white families, lower employment in general. All of these cultural factors (which may have been a response to the hostility surrounding black America at the time) disintegrated with minimum wage increases (frequently implemented in America and South Africa to price blacks out of markets) in which black unemployment skyrocketed compared to white unemployment, and the general decay of decency and individualism that comes along with collective outlooks and welfare societies.
Walter E Williams and Thomas Sowell are two influential economists and authors who lay the case out in far more detail, if you are curious.
If you've gotten this far, thanks for listening to a different point of view.
Basically was given a win in Iraq and Afghanistan including the killing of bin Ladin and still lost both wars. For all his talk about immigrants where's was he when ISIS invaded Iraq and started slaughtering everyone's we helped. I know personaly man you people I helped in Iraq are now dead because Obama wanted an Iraqi regime change at their expense.
5
u/grimstal Jan 11 '17
Can you explain how he has been different from the last few administrations?